At times I think they just have a lot of gall, like a “group” (actually only one or two guys) calling themselves the Freedom States Alliance and advocating anti-freedom laws against gun owners. And other times I have to believe they are just totally off in la-la land:

The Parker Heller cases were a devastating defeat for gun rights ideologies [in part because those decisions affirmed that a wide range of gun control regulation is both constitutional and permissible and because they refused to adopt a strict scrutiny standard for future regulations]. If the gun lobby does not accept the opinions of the courts, the constitutional challenge to them is to launch a campaign for a constitutional amendment. The cynical business of defeating legislation does not secure a constitutional right.

…

The Federal Government need do little more. That goal can only be accomplished by registration of ownership and reporting of private sales…

[The solution] is very simple: Resurrect the original militia concept and practices as manifest in the “Militia Act of 1792.” Registration for militia call-up—regardless that a call-up ever takes place—is a matter of military preparedness. It can have the added benefit of controlling the illegal traffic [in firearms]. We can call it the “Homeland Security Militia Reserve Act.”

The constitutional authority for such a national firearms policy is not the much overused Commerce Clause, but the militia clauses and the Second Amendment. Militia duty was conscript duty. Privately owned weapons were a public resource [used for] public duty. They were placed on inventories and reported to the president of the United States … Can the Judiciary Committee conduct a badly needed national civics lesson? There are no libertarian individual rights in a conscript military organization. After the Parker/Heller opinions there can be no constitutional objections.

Apparently they didn’t read the Heller decision. From pages 1 and 2:

Held:
   1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53. 
       (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.
       (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

It’s amazing, absolutely amazing, what these people will convince themselves is reality.

A few weeks ago I piled on James Kelly with Kevin over the usual topic of gun control. I left the debate when Kelly admitted facts were irrelevant to his beliefs.

Yesterday Kevin dropped a nuke on him and Kelly responded, in part, with:

Secondly, if as Kevin earnestly believes, he has ‘statistically proved’ that more liberal gun laws actually make people safer, why can’t he show that the level of violence has not just fallen, but fallen to a lower level than in a comparable country that has had stringent gun laws for a prolonged period? As I’ve said repeatedly, that’s the kind of ‘statistical proof’ that would impress me, and it’s distinct absence is one of the reasons why most people in this country are secure in the knowledge that, at least on this one issue, we’ve got it right and countries like the US have got it disastrously wrong.

But Kevin showed that the U.K. violent crime rate dramatically increased after stringent gun laws were passed while U.S. gun laws remained “lax” and the supply increased while the violent crime rate went down. And if current trends continue it will only be a couple years before the official reports will show U.K. has more violent crime than the U.S. I say “official reports” because the U.K. government recently admitted they have been under reporting the numbers for years.

And furthermore Kevin pointed out numerous studies, including ones done in the U.K. that showed gun control laws, at best, did no good.

And what does Kelly say about Kevin’s post?

I will obviously never convince Kevin that those benefits exist, and he will doubtless continue to try to disprove their existence by resorting to a barrage of voodoo statistics, but I remain more than content that I am on the right side of this argument.

…the vast bulk of Kevin’s dissertation genuinely makes no sense to me at all.

He claims something would “impress me” then when given just that he says it is “voodoo statistics” and “makes no sense to me at all”.

He also takes the time to say that he didn’t read one of my posts because he didn’t like the title of the post:

I was also concerned at Joe Huffman’s semi-abusive blog post title, directed toward me personally. (Joe, incidentally, seemed astonished that I didn’t bother reading the contents of that post – did he seriously expect me to consciously choose to read a post entitled ‘What Was It That James Said That ****** Me Off’?) No-one with an ounce of self-respect would persevere with a ‘debate’ that had descended to that level.

That was “semi-abusive”? That was the reason he didn’t bother to read it? And he got the title wrong! It was actually “What did James say that pissed you off so much?”. Typical. He hears/reads what he expects/wants to hear/read rather than what was actually said.

And of course he refused to answer Just One Question with anything other than numbers that were easily demonstrated as wrong at which point he ignored it.

Kevin’s nuke from orbit was overkill for the pointy sticks and stones defense Kelly put up but it’s a great to have that post in the arsenal for next time.

From James Kelly on the gun control debate (see here, here, here, here, here, here, and here):

The difference in this debate is that I have been arguing on the basis of what I believe to be true, and doing my best to explain why I believe it. Kevin, by way of contrast, claims to be able to literally ‘prove’ his case beyond any doubt whatsoever by recourse to detailed statistical data.

Kelly argues on the basis of his fantasy world. Kevin argues on the basis of real world data which of course cannot hope to have any effect upon Kelly’s imaginary world. And he admits it. There is no point in engaging him. Only reality itself will be able to connect with him when it bites him in the ass.