If “gun control” extremists actually want to ban “weapons of war”… why are they not calling for actual weapons of war to be banned with their zombie “assault weapon ban”?
And if all they want to do with this rotting, shambling piece of legislation is only ban “weapons of war” – as they’ve been trying to proclaim for nearly a month now – then why is all that other stuff included in the blast radius?
Perhaps they have no idea what they are talking about. And perhaps they are being… less than honest.
To answer the question, it is because lies and ignorance are the best they can muster.
Gunowners cannot afford to give up anything at all — to do otherwise would be to condemn themselves and their whole families to immediate and dire peril. Both sides know it, and government bullies dare not deal a small injury to their constituents…some hold out for the opportunity to strike big, others try to encroach by degrees.
Oleg Volk March 15, 2018 The impossibility of surrender [Or, as Rolf pointed out to me, “If these fancy politicians treat the people this poorly when you’re armed to the teeth, just imagine what they’ll be willing to do once they’ve taken away all your gun.”—Joe]
My boss at work just finished up some management training and shared the following video with our team.
If you tilt your head just a bit you can map the lessons of this video into the the form of our U.S. Constitutional government as it was originally intended.
It also helps you realize why an authoritarian system of government will always underperform a liberty based form. It’s about decisions being made where the information is. And furthermore, you only have to squint just a little bit to see why, individual gun ownership must remain an individual choice.
#NEVERAGAIN is not yours to use to distort reality. It certainly isn’t yours to use to reaccomplish the Nazis’ evil; disarming the undesirables all over again.
Be honest: The hashtag slogan you really want, that truly represents your goals is
It isn’t going to work this time around, Latter Day National Socialists. Because we do understand “Never Again,” and you aren’t dealing with 6,000,000 disarmed men, women, and disposable children. There are tens of millions of us who have a sneaking suspicion of your intent should you ever manage to render people helpless, and we declined to be… rendered.
“We knew. We told ourselves we didn’t. But we knew.”
The falsehood that is most frustrating, however, is that Democrats have no ideas to counter this violence. That couldn’t be further from the truth.
The first is getting military-style assault weapons such as the AR-15 off the streets.
These weapons fire much faster than typical hunting rifles. They fire rounds that are also deadlier than those fired from a hunting rifle. A Parkland radiologist noted that an AR-15 round may leave an exit wound “the size of an orange.” These weapons are designed to kill people, not animals.
There are other lies and deceptions in the article but this serves as a good example.
If you follow her “deadlier” link you find it doesn’t compare the ammo typically used in AR-15s to ammunition used in hunting deer, elk, moose, etc. She is giving the impression that she has supporting evidence for her lie but no such evidence exists and is absurd that such evidence can exist. If it were true then most hunters would never purchase the more expensive ammo used to bring down a 1000 pound moose. And if hunting ammo can kill a 1000 pound moose then you have to realize it can easily take down a 150 pound human.
And this analysis doesn’t even take into account the unspoken premise that killing people is something to be prevent. Murdering people is illegal and rightly so. Killing a violent criminal in the act of causing permanent injury or death to an innocent person is not only justified it is frequently praiseworthy. So, if someone insists on accepting Feinstein’s false claim, tell them, “Then that is justification for private citizens to own these types of firearms. We need the best tools available to defend ourselves from criminal attacks. Why would anyone demand we have inferior tools to defend our lives and the lives of our children?”
The Supreme Court ruled in D.C. v. Heller (2008) that the Second Amendment protects the arms that are typically possessed for lawful purposes by law-abiding citizens. That includes the AR-15. Yet because negligent government actors failed to prevent a massacre, the cry goes out to ban this rifle.
The expired 1994 Clinton ban on “assault weapons”—a propaganda term for modern sporting rifles—had zero effect on crime. A Department of Justice study verified that. Yet a similar ban is now advocated because government failed to act and prevent the murders.
Don’t trust anyone that wants you disarmed. If you have no intent to harm innocent people then only reason they could have to disarm you is because they wish to do something to you that you wouldn’t allow if you were armed.
AR-15s should be illegal, but that is just a start. Any gun made to kill only humans at a rapid rate should be illegal. What is needed to kill a deer should be the max. Single shot, 6 round magazines. Begin confiscating everything else in a buy back program and make us like Australia.
An AR-15 is just a civilian dick extender that people that never had the balls to enlist and Veterans with combat weapon separation anxiety use to make themselves feel big and bad during their weekly gun nut circle jerk in Bubba’s garage.
⚜️Lynn⚜️ @lindeeloo_who Tweeted on March 6, 2018 (and later deleted) [It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!
Would this be based on personal experience or is this just another one of those delusional rants we get from anti-gun people?—Joe]
On Wednesday night, Rubio said at a town-hall event hosted by CNN that it is impossible to create effective gun regulations because there are too many “loopholes,” and that a “plastic grip” can make the difference between a gun that is legal and one that is illegal. But if we can see the different impacts of high- and low-velocity rounds clinically, then the government can also draw such distinctions.
As a radiologist, I have now seen high-velocity AR-15 gunshot wounds firsthand, an experience that most radiologists in our country will never have. I pray that these are the last such wounds I have to see, and that AR-15-style weapons and high-capacity magazines are banned for use by civilians in the United States, once and for all.
I’m almost pleased the anti-gunners have come up with a new idea. After being involved in this issue for almost 25 years I have never heard this one before and it has become almost boring to slap down the proposals put forth. But, there is a reason this idea has never been openly proposed before.
This idea should work “well”. Almost all centerfire rifles produce velocities which cause the types of wounds she is concerned about. Banning all such rifles would produce an “interesting” response. The millions of hunters who have long thought “They will never come after me because <reasons>” will suddenly be activated, become vocal advocates, and vote with a ferocity we have not seen since the civil war. And if defeated in the political field, well, the ferocity might just continue to rival the previous civil war in other areas where the hunters have a significant advantage over their antagonists.
Concerned for his life, he retrieved a 28mm pistol from his car, loaded it, tucked it into his waistband and returned to the waiting room, where he called police to report that he was in a dangerous situation and needed protection. His pistol was a model that fires high-velocity rounds, similar to a rifle.
Correction: An earlier version of this post mistakenly referred to a 28mm gun as a .28mm gun.
How difficult is it for the writer, proofreader, and/or editor to engage a little bit of common sense and think about what a 28mm gun would look like? There are 25.4mm in an inch, so this pistol, “that fires high-velocity rounds, similar to a rifle” would fire projectiles well over an inch in diameter at rifle velocities.
These people could not have possibly even seen a modest number of pistols. Furthermore if they had ever fired a common .30 caliber rifle they would know that a pistol firing a projectile greater than 3.5 times the diameter (and at least ten times the mass) would cause extremely serious injury to the shooter.
That they discovered they had an error with the caliber and managed to “correct” it with an even more egregious error indicts to me they do not care about the truth. Which leads me to something Albert Einstein said,
Wenn es sich um Wahrheit und Gerechtigkeit handelt, gibt es nicht die Unterscheidung zwischen kleinen und grossen Problemen. Denn die allgemeinen Gesichtspunkte, die das Handeln der Menschen betreffen, sind unteilbar. Wer es in kleinen Dingen mit der Wahrheit nicht ernst nimmt, dem kann man auch in grossen Dingen nicht vertrauen…
When the issue is one of Truth and Justice, there can be no differentiating between small problems and great ones. For the general viewpoints on human behaviour are indivisible. People who fail to regard the truth seriously in small matters, cannot be trusted in matters that are great.
The only reasonable conclusion is that Einstein would have agreed with us that anti-gun people are not to be trusted with truth and justice.
THERE IS NO REASON TO OWN A GUN. The only thing a gun is good for is killing people. I am so happy to finally be rid of my Rifle and AR-15 and i think Trump is heroic for attempting to clamp down in guns.
Anonymous March 1, 2018 I just proudly turned in my guns [I guess this settles it then. Since I have fired, approximately, 150,000 rounds without killing anyone it proves my guns were malfunctioning the entire time.
And furthermore Anonymous apparently believes there is never any instances when it is praiseworthy or even appropriate to kill someone.
Anonymous has crap for brains.
Don’t ever let anyone tell you no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]
Democratic Rep. Carlos Guillermo Smith said on the House floor that he was voting against the legislation, explaining that while he considers some of the legislation’s gun-control provisions reasonable, “they’re not enough.” He said the measure fails to address the root causes of mass shootings, including the ready availability of semiautomatic weapons and large-capacity magazines.
How can anyone believe, “the root causes of mass shootings” include “the ready availability of semiautomatic weapons and large-capacity magazines.”? Are the availability of syringes and surgical tubing the root causes of heroin overdoses? Are the ready availability of trucks and diesel the root causes of terrorists driving through crowds?
So your argument is, “We’ve already violated this amendment to the point where all you have are very basic infantry weapons, and now we’re claiming those aren’t effective without the stuff we’ve already banned, so it’s reasonable to ban that, too.”
And I’m saying, we need to fix the entire problem, which we both recognize, and eliminate those laws so veterans (and determined civilians who for whatever reason were unable to serve), can have the weapons they need so we CAN fight tanks and planes in such an emergency.
The only people who could possibly object are the kind who want to send tanks and planes against civilians.
This post was inspired by a cartoon sent to me by Will S.
It was only in the last few thousand years that facts and logic began to have a toehold on our understanding of world around us. Even then rational thought would lose its footing and slide back down into the dark ages for a few hundred years at a time.
My hypothesis is that there is a reason for this. Reliance on facts and rational thought created an evolutionary advantage which allowed for the survival of a greater number of less fit people. These less fit, emotionally driven, people drag society down again.
The repeated rise and fall of reliance on rational thought is like a cleaning process. Each time the gene pool was cleaned it became a more biased toward rationality and human society became more advanced.
I had hoped that we need not go through another dark age but there are times when I fear we are nearing another downward slide. How else can you explain the continued infatuation with socialism? What other political system has experienced so many attempts and resulted in so many catastrophic failures? How else can you explain the masses of people who blame private ownership of firearms for the massacres of school children when government disarmed the adults, failed to prosecute the villain prior to his attack, and failed to come to the rescue even though they were close by? The government which failed at ever step of the way is now supposed to be tasked with the job of attacking those who held no responsibility for the creating the circumstance, or failing to stop the attack. This is not the result of a rational thought process. This is crazy talk and to me is a strong indicator that the slippery slope into another dark age is only a small misstep away.
Social media at the moment is full of gun opponents celebrating efforts to isolate the NRA and its membership. It also features gun supporters flashing images of their new membership cards in that organization. NRA members now vow economic retaliation against the companies that succumbed to similar threats from anti-gun activists. The big losers are bound to be those companies who felt obliged to publicly pick a side in the new economic phase of the growing culture war.
But pick a side, they did, and many more will come under pressure to do the same in the days to come. The political tribes are restless, and they’re eager to do as much damage as possible to their cultural enemies with the only tools left to them.
You meet different sorts of people who advocate for gun control. Some of them are hard core control freaks who just want to crush flyover country, but if you’re like me you don’t run across them very often. Mostly you run across people who aren’t shooters or gun owners, who haven’t thought about the issue very much, but who are disturbed about the constant media drumbeat about shootings and who just want to “do something”.
We need these people on our side, or at least standing on the sidelines. How do we separate them from the gun control pack.
My last post was how I approach this: I’m not opposed to gun control, I’m opposed to stupid and useless gun control. This is a mind virus that I’m trying to infect them with. I want to sow seeds of doubt in their minds to get them out of the gun controller’s camp and onto the sidelines. Hopefully (if the virus really takes) it will begin the process where they actually start to think about things and they may even end up on our side. It’s a battle for the (very large) middle ground. In the long run, we’re not viable without it.
But, it ignores the principle aspect. Suppose it was found it was not “useless” to implement policy of summary execution for anyone to be caught on video committing a crime of violence, i.e. violent crime dramatically dropped. A little later lawmakers decided to extend the policy to possession of a gun or ammunition and violent crime dropped even further.
The safety net of the right to keep and bear arms just went away. Stupid? Almost for certain, particularly since summary execution is now viewed as acceptable. What next? Political speech? But the question of “stupid” is going to be subject to debate. We are now on a slippery slope well into tyranny hell with no recourse.
Bottom line is that I like it but it needs to be tempered with at least a bit of philosophy that respects the fundamental, natural, right to self-defense from both criminals and a runaway government.—Joe]