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]
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.
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.
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.
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]
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.
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]
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.
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]
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.
They don’t fear me. They fear you.
Chris Cox
NRA-ILA Executive Director
The NRA represents the common man and woman.—Joe]
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]
Via email from “kb”, David Kopel has some interesting history to share in The American Indian foundation of American gun culture:
To encourage settlement, the Carolina colony (today, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia) induced immigration by offering immigrants freehold land ownership, along with strong guarantees of religious liberty. To receive the land grant, an immigrant had to bring six months worth of provisions to take care of his family while his farm was being cleared and cultivated. Also required: ‘‘provided always, that every man be armed with a good musket full bore, 10 pounds powder and 20 pounds of bullet.’’ (See “A Brief Description of the Province of Carolina” (London 1666), a pamphlet by proprietors encouraging immigration, reprinted in “9 English Historical Documents: American Colonial Documents to 1776,” David C. Douglas gen. ed., Merrill Jensen ed., 1955).
The Massachusetts Bay Colony ordered parents to arrange for arms training for all their children aged 10 or above, both boys and girls. Conscientious objectors were exempt.
So one effect of the Anglo-Indian encounter was to foster a culture of widespread household gun ownership and widespread arms carrying. This was very different from conditions back in England, where the government was certainly not ordering people to always carry guns to the weekly (and mandatory) Church of England services.
Arms carrying was often mandatory for travel outside of towns and for attendance at large public events, particularly church services. Then, as now, unarmed church services were favorite targets for attack, because there would be lots of people gathered in a small space.
…
The colonists’ new arms culture was profoundly influenced by Indian arms culture, which the colonists imitated in many respects. Perhaps this weekend you may practice precise riflery on a 200-yard range. Or you may take a defensive handgun class that trains you to make quick individual decisions under pressure. Whether or not you like American arms culture, you shouldn’t think of it as something that was brought across the Atlantic Ocean by European immigrants. It’s true that those immigrants brought the firearms. Yet those firearms were quickly integrated into an arms culture that had already existed in America for centuries and that would eventually become the arms culture of American of all races. That was the arms culture founded by the first Americans, the American Indians.
Interesting times. Bill and Melinda Gates are donating (with our help) money to pro-gun charities. Via email from firearmspolicy.org:
Joe,
This
is crazy.
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has agreed to
match all donations made through Facebook to 501c3 organizations up to
$50,000!
YES! That’s right! As a
registered 501c3 organization, FPF qualifies for that match!
That means with your donation, not only will you be
DOUBLING your impact on gun rights, you will also be using BILL GATES’ money to
do it!
Unbelievable,
isn’t it?
This
is huge news!
Every dollar that goes to FPF is a dollar
away from anti-Second Amendment organizations that hate your right to keep and
bear arms.
So don’t wait. Go to FPF’s
Facebook page and donate today!
This
is a once in a lifetime opportunity to use the resources of the anti-gunners
against them!
Bill Gates is ready to give his money away to
pro-Second Amendment groups like FPF!
We HAVE to take advantage of
this!
Make Bill Gates Fund the Second
Amendment!
We can’t
stress how important (and fun) this
is.
Visit our Facebook page and donate to FPF right now!
Stay free,
The FPC Team
I donated $250 because the more I donated the harder I laughed.
I also donated $250 to the Second Amendment Foundation on Facebook for another good laugh.
Update: From the comments:
I read more about the donations.
They have to be spread out, so no one fundraiser or charity can scoop up all the donations. The matching stops at $1000 per fundraiser/donate button.
I don’t think there’s a black gun culture or white gun culture, I think there’s an informed gun culture and an ignorant gun culture.
Maj Toure
Black Guns Matter
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]
I still need to get a barrel blank and a custom set of dies so I can have a rifle in .499 Feinstein caliber.
I keep being tempted to name my guns after contemptible losers in the 2A debate. but my guns deserve better.
Michael Z Williamson @mzmadmike
November 26, 2017
Tweeted (and here)
[I don’t give pet names to my guns (or cars, or body parts, etc.) but I must say I briefly considered an exception to that policy when I read his tweet.
If you don’t get the joke with Williamson’s first sentence leave a comment and someone will explain it to you.—Joe]
It’s out of bounds to observe that “Chicago” is shorthand for “we only have gun crime because of black people” or how often “I want to protect my family” is code for “I need to prove to my girlfriend who’s really boss.”
David Frum
October 6, 2017
The Rules of the Gun Debate–The rules for discussing firearms in the United States obscure the obvious solutions.
[I wouldn’t say it’s “out of bounds”. I would say it’s stupid to say things that are obviously and easily provably to be false.
I have to wonder if Frum’s straw man arguments are the result of raw talent or if it took years of training.—Joe]
The political left tends to call anyone who disagrees with them lunatics. As Lyle points out, in some cases it’s about perception. When I’m in a mellow mood I give them a pass on being stupid, ignorant and/or evil. Maybe they just can’t see things from my point of view.
Then there cases like this (via a Tweet from Michael Z Williamson) regarding protestors who are blocking railroad tracks in Olympia Washington:
“There is reason to suspect that the blockade protesters are neither interested in negotiating nor in an amicable resolution that would result in removing the blockade without force.”
A protester who signed in with the name Franz spoke during the meeting’s public comment period, and read the protesters’ list of demands.
The demands, also sent to The Olympian in a press release, are for:
▪ The Port of Olympia to cease all fossil fuel and military infrastructure shipments.
▪ Democratic control of the Port of Olympia by the community as a whole.
▪ A just transition for port and rail workers to good, green jobs, and for the economy of Thurston County as a whole to transition to a cooperative, fair and sustainable economy.
Franz asked the City Council not to order another violent attack on protesters, referencing police involvement in removing last year’s blockade.
Reed Wing also spoke during public comment. He pulled a fluorescent green hat over his face and identified himself as a Martian sent to Earth to speak out in favor of the blockade.
“I come from the representative of the United Federation of Mars, an ecological and utopian society where we have abolished fossil fuels, police, and the exploitation of one Martian by another,” Wing said.
I think “Reed Wing” is deliberately misdirecting people from his actual origin. The available evidence indicates he is actually from Luna.
When the political left calls their opponents lunatics it’s a textbook case of projection.
Following the Newtown shooting, Larry Pratt, the Executive Director of Gun Owners for America, suggested that these massacres might be avoided in the future, if only more teachers were armed.
As Pratt’s sentiment should make clear, the United States has slipped its moorings and drifted into a realm of profound national lunacy.
Patrick Radden Keefe
December 15, 2012
Making Gun Control Happen
[The fact that the prohibition against teachers being armed is an infringement upon their specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms and is a felony punishable by death doesn’t even enter into Keefe reality bubble.
Also, I find it very telling that anti-gun people derisively dismiss statements out of hand which could be either verified or refuted with a little research. Facts are irrelevant in their alternate reality and tell us who the lunatics really are.—Joe]
Fighting for the right to own a gun is a way of asserting control against a society that many feel is encroaching on their values and freedoms. Millions of people with such feelings want guns less to protect themselves against physical danger and more to protect themselves from the threat of a society they feel is taking away their ability to control their own lives. That deeper loss of control fuels the disproportionately intense passion of gun rights advocates and explains what The New Yorker calls the ”conspicuous asymmetry of fervor” that energizes 4 million members of the National Rifle Association to effectively determine gun control policy for a country of 310 million.
People with these concerns have been identified by research into the Theory of Cultural Cognition as Individualists, people who prefer a society that grants the individual more freedom and independence and leaves them more personally in control of their individual choices and values. Contrast that with the sort of society preferred by Communitarians, who feel most comfortable, and safest, in a “We’re all in it together” world of shared control and communal power, a society that sacrifices some individual freedoms in the name of the greater common good. These deeply conflicting worldviews drive the central conflict in the fight over gun control.
David Ropeik
2016
The Gun Control Battle Isn’t About Guns As Weapons. It’s About Guns as Symbols.
[Via an email from Paul Koning.
Ropeik, while obviously anti-gun, does give almost fair respect for our philosophical viewpoint. It’s nice to see the debate framed with something approaching reality as opposed to straw men.—Joe]
I want your guns melting in pile in the town square, deal with me.
SteveM081411
November 11, 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.
People should be careful what they ask for.—Joe]