Who is delusional?

I find this attitude “interesting”:

Gun reformers feel history is on their side despite bleak outlook in Congress

In the face of such tragedy, anti–gun violence activists have doubled down on their commitment to push for more reform, regardless of who controls Congress after November.

Murphy echoed that commitment, even as he conceded that Congress was unlikely to pass another gun control bill this year. Praising the anti–gun violence community as “one of the great social change movements in the history of this nation,” Murphy said he and his allies were just getting started.

“All of those great social change movements that you read about in the history books, they failed a whole bunch of times before they ever changed the world,” Murphy said. “My hope is based upon the history books, which tell you – when your cause is right and you choose not to give up, in this country, in a democracy – you eventually prevail.”

There is zero mention of the Second Amendment and recent SCOTUS decisions in the article. Is this something they really believe and are delusional? Or are they just trying to “rally the troops” in a time of great depression? Either reason would explain the omission of the 2nd Amendment.

Of course I could be delusional. This was totally unexpected: Bump stock ban remains as Supreme Court turned away challenge from gun rights advocates. I hope the ATF creation of new law without congressional action will be addressed in an unrelated case, but directly applicable to, the bump stock issue. The end result could be the same overruling of the bump stock ban but much cleaner, broad ranging, and perhaps decreased perception of SCOTUS being owned by gun owners or some such thing.


9 thoughts on “Who is delusional?

  1. I could be delusional as well.
    In the light of Bruen and especially West Virginia v. EPA’s reining in the bureaucraps, I had high hopes that SCOTUS would have at least GVR’d the case, but finding not even 4 Justices that wanted to hear it is disturbing.

    Of course, the things are/were a definite niche market ‘novelty’ but letting an agency pretzel logic their way into this crap-for-brains regulation may well have unintended and adverse consequences when ATF gets told to figure out a way to define the eee-vil semi-auto of the day ‘readily restorable’ (per U.S. statute) and thus also be machineguns.

  2. For some reason, I always thought of FPC, SAF, et. al as being the gun reformers – removing illegal restrictions from the free and legal use of constitutionally protected firearms. Were Stalinists or the Red Army considered to be “reformers”?

    Regarding the bump stock ban, I suspect the SCOTUS wants to see a less controversial case to achieve the same goal of reining in the ATF. Striking down pistol brace regulations will have the same effect and will backfill the ability to strike down the bump stock ban. They just didn’t want to tackle that issue directly.

    • Agreed because the pistol brace issue affects millions of people and turns them into felons overnight without their knowledge. Unlike the bump stock issue where people went and bought them knowing what they were buying.

      There are a lot of people walking around right now with brace-equipped pistols they bought legally in full compliance with the law calling them legal pistols. Now the BATFE comes along and says “No, those are quasi-SBRs and must be treated as such under the NFA.”. If people don’t know that they are walking felons.

      It is even worse because NFA items are banned in several states but brace-equipped pistols are not. Now you are into a taking issue because if a brace-equipped pistol is treated as an NFA item, even with free registration, it becomes immediately illegal in such places. Now you are left in possession of an item you can’t legal have under State law and must dispose of it. Remember, State law can be stricter than Federal law but not more lenient. The BATFE cannot tell those states to exempt these items from their local laws.

      Hence why I think SCOTUS will take up any brace regulation. Because that one has much more in the way of Constitutional issues to address. Both in the “rule making as law” problem and actual Constitutional issues around the 5th Amendment and ex post facto behavior in places that ban NFA outright.

  3. Good comments all!
    “Gun reformers feel history is on their side despite bleak outlook in Congress”
    How else would a brainwashed communist look at their assignment?
    They will be acting like their winning all the way up to and including the embalming stage of gun-control.
    Delusion is their reality.

  4. On the other hand, the SC just vacated and remanded a MA decision about prohibited people. Court was told to reconsider in light of Bruen. Case was a guy denied a pistol permit because of a felony conviction. Conviction was for possession of an unlicensed gun. This could go either the non-violent felony direction or better that the original gun licensing law under which he was convicted was unconstitutional.

  5. Being “on the right side of history” is a core belief of “Progressives” so I’m not surprised that gun banners and their media cheerleaders recite this as an article of faith. Marxists love “History” except for all of those Robert Conquest books

  6. Delusion is strong on thise one. They are definitely try to snowball the issue while it’s still possible, gladly many people understand and see through their tricks!

  7. They feel that history is on their side because they are Marxists, this is a part of the Marxist agenda in the US, and it is a core belief of Marxism that the march of history is inevitable and will end in victory for Marxism. Just that simple.

  8. We don’t have guns which need to be reformed, we have a race which needs to be reformed.

Comments are closed.