Quote of the day—Ramesh Ponnuru

Public support for a ban on the civilian ownership of handguns has been falling for decades. In 1959, 60 percent of the public favored the idea and 36 percent opposed it. By 1975, support had fallen to 41 percent and opposition risen to 55. Now there’s a 76–23 percent supermajority against the idea.

Ramesh Ponnuru
Senior Editor of National Review
November 6, 2017
Why Gun Control Loses
[Which is why the anti-gun organizations don’t mention handgun bans anymore and in 1988 deliberately pivoted to “assault weapons” which they knew were confused in the public mind with fully automatic weapons. They are now nearly stalled on their “assault weapons” push and are pivoting to “universal” background checks and “Extreme Risk Protection Orders”.

We need to keep encouraging our culture by coming out of the closet and taking new shooters to the range. We are winning battles but the war will never be completely over.—Joe]

Quote of the day—C.S. Lewis

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.

C.S. Lewis
1948
God in the Dock
[See also this more recent and on topic interpretation.

This is the essence of most of those who demands we give up our guns. Don’t ever forget they think of us as infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals and they demand to control us. For our own good.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Ridley Nelson

Without drastic reduction in the number of guns – by say 80 percent – alongside very tight gun type and use restrictions, we will continue to live in a country where deer get far better protection than humans.

Ridley Nelson
December 12, 2017
Armed as For a War Zone
[Really! Some might be tempted to demonstrate the fallacy of Nelson’s assertion with a side by side comparison of the differences.

And don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]

Quote of the day—BLoving

I’m reminded of a discussion I once read from a fiction writer regarding the concept of Evil when portraying an antagonist in a story: historically, very few verifiable evil people have considered themselves to be evil. In their minds, they are simply Right; and anyone who disagrees with them is Wrong. This is why we have never seen any actual group identifying themselves as The League of Villainy or the Brotherhood of Evil or some other such nonsense. No – really evil people are the ones who cloak their intentions behind a veil of righteousness and seek to use the law, legal force, or legal authority to force others to do things or live their lives as the Evil Ones see fit.
We must all remember that Law is never about asking nicely, Law is about force – passing a Law means legally depriving individuals of their right to make a choice. And that, at its heart, is what the
Gun Bigots want: to use the force of Law to deprive others of the right to live their lives differently. There is no “Gun Control”, only “Gun Owner Control”. What the leaders of the Gun Bigots want does not fit the definition of insanity, but it does cross the line over the definition of Evil.

BLoving
December 10, 2017
Comment to Question of the Day: Are Gun Control Advocates Insane?
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—John Feinblatt @JohnFeinblatt

As a package, “Fix NICS” would keep guns from domestic abusers — while “Concealed Carry Reciprocity” would force states to allow people to carry concealed guns in public even if they are domestic abusers, have other dangerous histories, or lack even the most basic safety training to carry concealed guns in public.

John Feinblatt @JohnFeinblatt
President of Everytown for Gun Safety
December 8, 2017
NRA hijacks first bipartisan gun bill in years. Now it’s too dangerous to pass.
[There is a reason no one ever says anti-gun people are smart.

Here we have one of these mental midgets apparently unable to avoid asserting two incompatible conclusions in the same sentence. If Fix NICS keeps guns from domestic abusers, because they are prohibited from firearms possession, then how can CCR force states to allow something Fix NICS prevented?

This sort of thing happens so frequently we have a name for it. It’s called Peterson Syndrome. Logical thought is beyond their capability.

I wish we could just laugh these idiots out of the political arena but unfortunately there are too many people with these type of mental issues.—Joe]

Quote of the day—NRA

Despite scare tactics by the bill’s opponents, concealed-carry licensees as a group have proven to be more law-abiding than the general population and even the police. We are on the eve of passing the most expansive piece of self-defense legislation in the history of Congress.

NRA
December 6, 2017
House approves concealed-carry reciprocity, gun bill faces challenge in Senate
[The first sentence is factual and verifiable. See, for example, Comparing conviction rates between police and concealed carry permit holders.

The second sentence is somewhat subjective but I am in agreement with it.—Joe]

Protection from infringement

There have been people expressing concern H.R. 38, which intents to provide a means by which nonresidents of a State whose residents may carry concealed firearms may also do so in the State, will be ignored by some state and local political jurisdictions. While it is true criminals tend to continue doing criminal things the bill provides some relief for the victims of these particular criminals:

(2) When a person asserts this section as a defense in a criminal proceeding, the prosecution shall bear the burden of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the conduct of the person did not satisfy the conditions set forth in subsections (a) and (b).

(3) When a person successfully asserts this section as a defense in a criminal proceeding, the court shall 10 award the prevailing defendant a reasonable attorney’s fee.

(d)(1) A person who is deprived of any right, privilege, or immunity secured by this section, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any State or any political subdivision thereof, may bring an action in any appropriate court against any other person, including a State or political subdivision thereof, who causes the person to be subject to the deprivation, for damages or other appropriate relief.

(2) The court shall award a plaintiff prevailing in an action brought under paragraph (1) damages and such other relief as the court deems appropriate, including a reasonable attorney’s fee.

This is a good first step and would seen to me it hints that pro-rights federal administrations can, and perhaps will, utilize existing law:

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, … shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

It wouldn’t take very many government criminals being arrested, let alone successfully prosecuted, before the criminal class of these political jurisdictions would get the message and decide they had more important business to attend to than prey upon innocent people exercising their specific enumerated rights.

While H.R. 38 isn’t the end result we want, it’s a significant step in the correct direction.

I was afraid of this

As the vote on the concealed carry reciprocity act was going to a vote I started worrying about another mass shooter coming out of the woodwork. A loser trying to make an impact on the world could see the scuttling of the gun rights bill as part of their “accomplishments”. Or perhaps their warped mind would view the bill passage as reducing their opportunity for making a name for themselves. And now we have another school shooting.

Initial reports only mention two shot and that the loser is dead. At this point the loser appears to have been successful in demonstrating their incompetence at being evil.

My sympathy and most sincere condolences to those injured and adversely affected by this loser.

Update (12/7/2017 9:47 AM): At least three are dead.

Quote of the day—Alan Gottlieb

We’re one step closer to fully restoring the Second Amendment as it was originally intended. Now, if the Senate can follow the House lead and pass this measure, law abiding American gun owners will no longer have to fear wrongful arrest and even imprisonment for having a firearm for personal protection as they travel from state to state.

Alan Gottlieb
CCRKBA Chairman
December 6, 2017
CCRKBA HAILS CONCEALED CARRY RECIPROCITY VICTORY
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

A look into the mind of the other side

Reading this article is like stepping into an alternate reality:

While the Fort Worth Police Department was making a show of getting guns off the streets, it also was quietly supplying the public with guns.

Over the previous 10 years, the department has sold more than 1,100 of its used weapons to licensed gun dealers, which turn around and sell them to the public, according to department records. It isn’t alone.

An investigation by Texas Standard and Reveal from The Center for Investigative Reporting has found that 21 of Texas’ 50 largest law enforcement agencies sell their used weapons to the public, effectively creating a pipeline of guns flowing right back into communities.

Jay Wachtel, a former ATF agent and lecturer at California State University, Fullerton, says departments that sell weapons are playing with fire.

“It’s bullshit. You know instinctively when you put guns out there that they are going to get misused,” Wachtel said. “Nobody that’s gone through a police academy would not consider that possibility.”

Jay Wachtel, the former ATF agent, says he doesn’t know how much of an impact these sales would make on gun crime. “Every schmuck who wants a gun, a lethal gun, can probably get one already,” he said, adding that the real issue is deeper than any statistic.

“It’s a moral issues,” he said. “If (police) are OK with a few crimes and few people being killed because they’re making all this money, then they’re OK with it.”

They want the police to destroy their old guns when they replace them. It’s as if they believe there are a fixed number of guns in their reality. And the “logic” of Wachtel in those last two paragraphs is jaw dropping. He admits “every schmuck” who wants a gun can probably get one but in the next sentence claims crimes are committed and people killed because the police are making money. And, as is frequently true, the logic twists are like fractals, they extend as deep as you can dig into it. Look at this sentence:

Every schmuck who wants a gun, a lethal gun, can probably get one…

He appears to distinguish police guns from guns in general as “a lethal gun”. Have these guns been endowed with special powers because they have been touched by the hands of police officers? Or that the police have approved these particular models for use in their departments it means they are more dangerous in the hands of the general public?

One has to wonder what color the sky is in their universe.

These people are nuts. You cannot talk sense into them. You cannot and should not try to accommodate them in any way. It only encourages them. I spent many years (my counselor told me, “Mere mortals would have left years ago.”) trying to live in peace with someone whos brain was apparently wired such that their reality only partially intersected with mine. The way to deal with them is to set firm limits on the behavior you will tolerate, tell them the consequences if they violate those limits, and then do what you said you would do if they step over the line. The result will be unpleasant. But the result will be far better than if you attempt to accommodate them.

This is how media bias works

From John Lott, Jr. we have:

The AP provides another example of how media pushes an anti-gun agenda

It is usually pretty hard to definitively identify media bias. Often pressed for time, reporters are just unaware of opposing opinions or facts. And there is no way for readers to tell what information has been left out. But an Associated Press article, which appeared in hundreds of papers from the Los Angeles Times to the Houston Chronicle, provided a unique peek at how the media selectively picks anti-gun information in order to push for gun control.

The Associated Press article edited-down a 441-word version of a longer, 1,000-word article that appeared in the Indianapolis Star and a quote from the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette. While the original articles in the Star and Journal Gazette were balanced, the AP cut down the piece by systematically excluding one side of the argument — any information that concealed handgun permit holders are law-abiding and don’t pose a risk to others.

If someone appears to be reporting facts and is anti-gun you can almost be certain that if you dig to the original source you will find someone along the way was selecting their facts to match their conclusions.

Deception is an essential component to further their agenda.

Dancing in the blood

Gun control group sends lawmakers fliers with images from Vegas shooting:

A gun control group sent fliers to the White House and members of Congress with graphic images from the mass shooting earlier this year in Las Vegas.

The fliers — sent by the Massachusetts-based gun control group Stop Handgun Violence — invite recipients to “wipe the blood off your hands and end mass shootings.”

The recipients then have two options:

The first option reads: “I will vote in favor of background checks for all gun sales and renew the federal ban on military style assault weapons.”

The second reads: “I will continue to put gun lobby blood money above American lives.”

“When you RSVP, imagine these are your kids,” the bottom of the invitation says, above a graphic photo of the Las Vegas shooting.

Stop Handgun Violence says on its website its mission is to “prevent firearm violence through public awareness, education, policy advocacy and law enforcement strategies — without banning guns.”

“Without banning guns”? In the flier they sent out, quoted above, they specifically call for the banning of guns.

They lie. They ignore the science on the effect of mass shootings on legislation. They dance in the blood of innocent victims. It’s what they do.

Quote of the day—PuttsForSix

I’m all for repealing 2a and banning and confiscating all firearms. Give a 90 day grace period and then make all gun possession by civilians a felony.

PuttsForSix
November 12, 2017
Comment to Hand over your weapons
[Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.

The logistics of this would be “quite interesting” even if the collection points didn’t collect incoming fire. That is a lot of material to dispose of. How do they dispose of the guns without the guns being “reclaimed” in transit? If destroyed onsite how do they keep the site supplied with power and/or fuel for their torches? There would have to be records kept so that individuals couldn’t claim the gun they bought a few months earlier (for which the ATF has the 4473) had already been turned in. What if those records were corrupted or destroyed?

As you start working through the security details of such an operation you end up thinking you could write a novel about it.—Joe]

When will this boil over?

Alien, in the comments to today’s QOTD asks :

I’m curious … at what point do you think this boils over into real activity which must be accommodated?

For all practical purposes we know the answer to this.

In September 1994 with a Democrat controlled congress, senate, and presidency they passed the “Assault Weapon Ban”. Even though they knew it would do little or nothing for public safety it was important for reasons they “dare not enunciate”. There was much rejoicing and they almost immediately boldly announced the next step and began to push their bill (actual bill is here for safekeeping) which had actually been written months earlier.

It included “arsenal” licensing, licensing of all handgun buyers, registration of all handguns, oppressive taxes on handguns and ammunition, maximum magazine capacity of six rounds, and more.

David Kopel explained the handgun licensing scheme:

Every handgun buyer would be required to obtain a state handgun license. The license would be good for no more than two years. No-one could obtain a license without passing a state-controlled “safety” course. The fees for the license and the safety course would have no limits. The fees could be set far in excess of the state cost of providing the license and the course; instead, the fees could a source of general revenue.

Nothing would prevent licensing authorities from taking months or years to issue a license. And nothing would prevent the authorities from making the “safety” test so rigorous that almost no-one except an expert shooter could pass.

That an applicant had been shooting handguns for 50 years, or was an NRA certified safety instructor, or a proficient competitive target shooter would not exempt him from the requirement to pay for the government “safety” class.

Every handgun transfer (including one’s adult son an old revolver) would be subject to these restrictions. In addition, every handgun transferred would have to be registered by make and serial number.

Of course the point of the registration was for the confiscation which was to follow (see Pete Shields, chair of Handgun Control International—now The Brady Campaign, in 1976).

An “arsenal” was 20 “guns” or 1000 rounds of ammunition. But a “gun” was defined as any part of the gun, such as a magazine, spare springs, and screws. So your handgun with three magazines, two spare recoil springs, two spare magazine springs, and the original set of grip panels would count as 10 “guns”. Your two bricks of .22 ammo, alone, would require an “arsenal” license. An arsenal license would require:

a person would need to be fingerprinted, obtain permission of local zoning authorities, and pay a $300 tax every three years. Her home would be subjected to unannounced, warrantless inspection by the government up to three times a year. “Arsenal” owners would also have to obtain a $100,000 dollar insurance policy.

So, the answer to the question is, it “boils over into real activity” the instant they have the political power.

Quote of the day—Alex Pareene

We will probably not nationalize or expropriate our arms manufacturers any time soon, though we obviously should. We can at least make it possible to sue them into dust. But if you want a gun ban in the United States, here’s a thought: Even if you accept the (obviously, stupidly, grandly wrong) conservative interpretation of the Second Amendment, there’s still no actual right to sell guns. So why not ban that?

Alex Pareene
November 20, 2017
BAN GUNS
[Apart from not reading and/or understanding the complete decision he references he has crap for brains if he thinks his suggestion even begins to make sense. Using the same logic, you may have the right to vote but not holding elections makes that right meaningless. Which, of course, is what he wants. But I find it difficult to believe the courts would tolerate such an idea and if they did I find it difficult to believe there would be enough law enforcement willing to enforce such decisions and/or prevent a dramatic and sudden shortage of judges and politicians.—Joe]

Criminal constituents

From Philadelphia, via Paul Koning, who says, “Yes, they do want you dead”. Controversial bill would force business owners to take down bulletproof glass:

A bill moving through city council reads:  “No establishment shall erect or maintain a physical barrier.”

Philadelphia is extremely anti-gun. Hence, one could easily defend the hypothesis that the city council considers the criminal class their primary constituents. Don’t laugh! In the Soviet Union criminals were considered allies in building communism.  And it wouldn’t be the first time in the U.S. politicians deliberately sided with criminals.

Sebastian has some thoughts on the topic as well.

Quote of the day—Marjorie Decker

It is a privilege that we allow individuals to hold onto something that causes harm and death. It is a privilege to have a car license, it is a privilege to have a gun license.

Marjorie Decker
Massachusetts state representative (Democrat)
November 16, 2017
‘Privilege’ comment riles gun rights supporters
[So holding onto a kitchen knife or baseball bat is a privilege? How about a pitchfork or a torch? Or how about a bucket of hot tar, a bag of feathers, and a fence rail? Does the state of Massachusetts issues licenses for these?

Also of interest, “Are there hunting licenses and bag limits for politicians who have crap for brains and vote for laws infringing upon the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms?” I’m asking for friends who live in Massachusetts.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jeff Snyder

The battle for gun rights is one fought predominantly by the common man. The beliefs of both our liberal and conservative elites are in fact abetting the criminal rampage through our society.

Jeff Snyder
2001
Nation of Cowards page 20
[This essay was originally published in 1993 by The Public Interest.

As Chris Cox said

They don’t fear me. They fear you.

Chris Cox
NRA-ILA Executive Director

The NRA represents the common man and woman.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Steve Gilbert

The schizophrenia of the gun controller is bizarre.

The writer makes an excellent point about if the gun control people were concerned about saving lives they would be for more aggressive police methods. Yet the same liberals that advocate for draconian gun control are often the same liberals at Black Lives Matter rallies chanting “F**k the police”.

Similarly, if they were truly concerned about saving lives they would be advocating for more people to have concealed carry permits, since statistically people legally carrying handguns are much safer than the unarmed victims. Yet the gun controllers fight concealed carry laws too.

So since it is obvious that they are not about saving lives, one has to ask
“What do they really want?”.

Steve Gilbert
November 7, 2017
Comment to Why Gun Control Loses
[I have frequently asked, “What is the real reason?” The reason I “ask” this rhetorical question because I think it is more effective for people to have their brain working on the question than to assert the answer. I suspect this is particularly true in the case of people who are undecided or not firmly committed to either side of the debate.

Here is a sample of my asking this question:

There is a Steven Gilbert who has commented on this blog before (and here). I wonder if it is the same person who commented on the National Review article above and was inspired by my continued harping on this rhetorical question.—Joe]