Category Archives: Gun Rights

Quote of the day—CSGV

Posted on by

@sebastiansnbq @antvq16 @tedcruz They certainly enhance a firearm’s lethality and accuracy, and allows shooters to fire from the hip.

CSGV (@CSGV)
Tweeted on January 30, 2013 in regard to the function of a pistol grip on a rifle.
[Spoken like a complete ignoramus. The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence once again proves they don’t know what they are talking about.

  1. The pistol grip does not affect the speed, size, material, construction, or shape of the bullet or the rate of fire of the gun. Those are the only variables that affect the lethality of any firearm.
  2. If they were interested in the truth CSGV should buy a copy of Rifle Accuracy Facts. But they have given us far too much evidence to the contrary to believe they will ever change their ways. It’s too bad it is out of print and the cheapest used paperback copy is nearly $80. If I could do it for $10 I would send them a copy just so I could point out they should know better the next time they say something demonstrating their ignorance again. It’s an awesome book. You won’t find any mention of a pistol grip enhancing a firearms accuracy. The primary factors affecting a firearms accuracy are the bullet construction, the barrel construction, and the sights. The stock matters some but mostly that has to do with whether the barrel touches the stock or not.
  3. If someone is going to be shooting at me then them shooting from the hip would be an advantage for me since it would not involve using the sights. Please keep advocating this CSGV. Of course since the majority of their audience are pro-gun people who know better it really doesn’t matter.

—Joe]

Quote of the day—DirtCrashr

Posted on by

Sadly that elevator doesn’t even get up to the point of cognition where a gun can protect the innocent from harm. You’re conversing with a mollusk.

DirtCrashr
In a January 4, 2010 comment to Tilting at windmills
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Nobody is going to take your guns

Posted on by

I couldn’t begin to count the number of times I’ve been told either directly or indirectly by anti-gun activists and politicians that nobody is going to take guns away from U.S. citizens. Frequently if you listen to them for another 30 seconds they will tell you the guns they plan to ban next. When confronted with this discrepancy they will tell you what they really meant was nobody was going to take all the guns away. And there is no slippery slope.

Yeah. That really puts me at ease.

I guess I should ignore little things like this police chief saying Americans can be completely disarmed within a generation.

Or political pundits outlining How to Ban Guns:

  1. The very first thing we need is a national registry. We need to know where the guns are, and who has them… I think about 6 months should be enough time.
  2. Make private sales illegal.
  3. Remember those ATF form 4473s? … So, we get those logbooks, and cross reference the names and addresses with the new national registry.
  4. Now that the vast majority are registered, we can do what we will. One good first step would be to close the registry to new registrations.
  5. An immediate, national ban on concealed carry.
  6. A ban on internet sales of guns and ammunition is a no brainer.
  7. I know this seems harsh, but this is the only way we can be truly safe. I don’t want my kids being shot at by a deranged NRA member.

If you read the fine print you will find he has zero regard for the Fourth Amendment as well as the Second. Neither are even identified as a speed bump in his grand plan.

The guy is clearly delusional as he apparently expects gun owners will willingly cooperate with the gun registration if they “make it super easy to do.”

And if his grand plan, with him given credit for it, were to be accepted and implementation began it’s unlikely his kids would be shot. I’m pretty certain all his worries would be very short lived. They would be very intense, but short lived.

Perceptions

Posted on by

Joe and I, and several other bloggers, have referred to this photo as an example of how different people can look at the same thing and see something completely different;
woman
You see either a beautiful young woman or an old hag, or maybe both in rapid succession. It depends on your “wiring”. My theory is that most men will key in on the young woman because our brains are wired to notice them, but I have no evidence whatsoever to back it up other than watching other men in their cars or out and about, looking at young women. If the military could devise a system that efficient at locating enemy combatants, we’d never lose a battle. (Yeah; I see you guys zeroing in on all the women – it’s like a magnet drawing in all those iron filings you never knew could possibly be on your floor, or something)

A search for that image brought me to this site, which is great. I now do not remember what exactly it was I wanted to say using the above image as an example, but that first link also links to this site, where I found a great gift. The person who does most or all of the posts demonstrated the concept, and did so with regard to gun rights! This is a VERY beautiful juxtaposition (or something) on the subject, on a site that SPECIALIZES in perception and illusion art. How great is that?

First I found this, posted on January 12, 2013;

“We should all stop being petty about each other, learn to be tolerant, and stop aggressively intruding our ways on others. I think if we all learned to do this, we would find our place under the sun, and these differences wouldn’t even be brought as important.” (emphasis mine)

Excellent (the author sees the beautiful young woman). I couldn’t agree more.

And then I found, written by the same person (Vurdlak) on December 16, 2012 (on page three as of the day this is written)

“I have to say I’m still under shock after reading what happened in Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut (USA). My heart is broken, and I can’t seem to understand how such horrible things are even possible. What is happening with our species?! I also read how pro-firearms lobby suggests that every teacher should be allowed to keep firearms in their class (for protections)?! Are those lunatics for real? What makes you think this wouldn’t cause another incident??! I for one wouldn’t feel safe sending my kids to school where teacher keeps a gun in his desk. All this literally makes my stomach hurt. Owning a gun should be heavily regulated, like rest of the world does it – period.” (emphasis mine, for various reasons I’m sure you understand)

And there’s the old hag, and the author is just about ready to beat the shit out of you if you insist it looks like a young woman if you look at it differently. It don’t think it can get any better than that.

I could go on and on with a thousand or more words, fisking that last quote, but I think this audience already understands it completely.

Anyway, to change the subject entirely; check out those links. WOW! I got lost in there for about an hour before I knew it. Now my eyes hurt a little bit. I love that stuff (you probably should avoid it of you’re epileptic – some of that stuff wanted to make me dizzy).

I now remember noticing sometime in junior high school that, looking at a shadow alone, you have zero information to tell you whether the shadow figure is “facing you” or “facing away from you”, hence the moving silhouette of the woman that can be seen to rotate in either direction. Did I tell you I love that stuff? Speaking of shadows; a few weeks ago my wife had a football game on the tele, and you know they use computers to “paint” the scrimmage line and the first down marker line on the ground for the TV audience, while showing the players above it. Pretty sophisticated programming, I figure. Anyway, the thought hit me at that time that it would be really stinking cool if there was a program that could delete the players’ images entirely, and only show their shadows, so you see a game played by teams of two-dimensional silhouettes painted on the turf, fighting over a two-dimensional “ball”. Yikes! Joe?

Background checks

Posted on by

The anti-gun people insist “improved background checks” and even “universal background checks” should not be controversial. Let me try to explain why they are both pointless and completely unacceptable to thinking people.

Pointless demonstration number 1:

The claimed purpose of background checks is to prevent “people who shouldn’t have guns” from acquiring them. That is a noble objective. It sounds so reasonable and “common sense” that I want to agree without giving it even a seconds thought. It’s an excellent idea! It’s such a great idea we should apply that to some other dangerous things. Let’s have background checks before people can purchase recreational drugs. Far too many people abuse them and destroy their lives and frequently the lives of others. Keeping recreational drugs out of the hands of people that would likely abuse them is just “common sense”. Right?

Oh! That’s right. We have something way beyond background checks in place for most recreational drugs. We have banned them not just from “people that might abuse them” but from everyone. How’s that working out? How long does it take the average high school dropout to find a way around the ban? Yeah, that’s right, Einstein. The average high school dropout can get all the recreational drugs they want within an hour anytime of the day, any day of the week. So just how effective you think a background check would be in reducing the abuse of recreational drugs?

Now apply what you know about the recreational drug issue to firearms. A background check is totally pointless.

Pointless demonstration number 2:

Universal background checks can only claim effectiveness if they can be enforced. Prostitution is illegal in most states but if a beautiful woman leaves a $100 bill on my nightstand when she leaves in the morning (yes, stretch your imagination a bit, or a lot, for purposes of illustration) how does  the government enforce the “no sex for money” prohibition in this case? It was a “private transaction” between willing parties. Do you think either party has an interest in disclosing the transaction to the police? And even if they do there is a significant obstacle in that it becomes a “he said, she said” problem.

In the absence of gun and/or gun owner registration the case of the “private transaction” between gun owners boils down to the same thing. The government, and perhaps one party to the transaction, can claim no background check was done. As long as the person being prosecuted keeps their mouth shut and the transaction wasn’t recorded it is going to be impossible to prove that a background check wasn’t performed. Remember, in order to get the Brady Act (“instant” background checks for gun transactions) passed the law states that all record of passing background checks must be destroyed. Searching the records of all those authorized to perform background checks would be a violation of Fourth Amendment rights.

Pointless demonstration number 3:

Even if a background check is performed it only requires a stolen or fake ID to defeat it. The fake ID doesn’t even have to be for a real person! The check is not against a “white list” of people that are “allowed” to have guns. The check is against a “black list” of people that are disallowed from possessing guns.

Conclusion:

If you still advocate for background checks for firearms I can only think of two possibilities:

  1. You have a motive other than reducing the misuse of firearms.
  2. You also get confused when your caretaker is reading Dr. Seuss books to you.

Now that we have it settled that background checks are completely pointless let’s proceed on to the “unacceptable” demonstrations.

Unacceptable demonstration number 1:

Background checks cost money and time. The FBI portion of them is “free” to the people doing the transaction. But really that just means the government is wasting scarce law enforcement resources using money they obtained through taxes (obtained at gunpoint–oh, the irony!). The only people authorized to do background checks are people with Federal Firearms Licenses (FFLs). Because it is time consuming they always charge a fee and you must do a face-to-face transaction. This adds more wasted time and money to the transaction. A transaction which is a specific enumerate right.

This pointless waste of time and money is unacceptable at any time but when the government is deeply in debt and the economy is doing poorly wasting precious government and private resources it is even more so.

Unacceptable demonstration number 2:

If law requiring universal background checks is passed it will only be a short time before the politicians will “discover” the “loopholes” that prevents the law from working as intended. These include the lack of gun registration and the lack of defense against fake IDs. Any attempt at gun registration in the U.S. will result in massive non-compliance on a scale that will make alcohol prohibition look like first graders failing to stay in a straight line while waiting to go on recess. Look at the non-compliance experienced in the failed long gun registration in Canada. Multiply that by three (the difference in per capita gun ownership rate), multiply that by two (U.S. citizens trust the government less than Canadian citizens), then add ten billion rounds of ammunition (annual consumption by private citizens). Or look at New York state,  multiple by fifty (the citizens of other states included in the non-compliance) and multiply that by ten (the citizens of New York state have the option of moving to a freer state, with no place to escape the resistance will be more fierce), then add ten billion rounds of ammunition.

The “ID loophole” was identified years ago by the Feds and they passed a law requiring “Real ID” by the states. How’s that working out?

For the government to force this sort of situation upon the people is unacceptable.

Unacceptable demonstration number 3:

Since demonstrating that background checks are pointless the continued insistence upon forcing them upon the people this must mean that those continuing to advocate for them are either evil (option 1 above) or have the comprehension skills no better than that of an above average German Shepard (option 2 above). Despite the existence of blue dog democrats we have never elected someone so stupid as a real dog to a Federal office (Senator Patty Murray is not a counter example, she is capable of reading and comprehending most Dr. Seuss books). One can only conclude those advocating for background checks are evil or are doing so under duress.

Good people don’t knowingly and willingly cooperate with evil. It is unacceptable.

Conclusion:

Background checks are pointless and unacceptable. We are better than this.

Even compromising with those that advocate for them is the moral equivalent of compromising with people that want “common sense” limits on the 13th Amendment or someone intending to rape your 10 year-old child. The response must be an exceedingly firm no.

Update: I almost forgot, as pointed out by Tim S. in email a few days ago, there is a form of background check almost all gun owners would accept. That is if there were an “endorsement” on your state ID card (such as drivers license) like the restriction for corrective lenses or endorsement for motorcycle or commercial drivers license. It wouldn’t be much, if any, more effective than that currently proposed by the anti-freedom people. But it would eliminate the concerns over registration and most of the expense and wasted time. If such a thing is offered as a compromise to the anti-gunners expect it to be vigorously rejected. They know it doesn’t meet their “needs” and as such will refuse to give in.

Update 2: See also the conclusions which can be drawn from this study.

Quote of the day—Holden_McGroin

Posted on by

The only thing a gun is good for is killing. That is it’s only purpose, and nobody needs a gun for anything other than killing.The NRA seems to be full of a bunch of morons who just want to kill things, instead of doing something constructive.

Holden_McGroin
January 19, 2013
[Their ignorance is astounding.

  • I’ve fired about 100,000 rounds through my guns and only killed two deer (one shot for one and two for the other) and a rattlesnake (two shots). Does that mean that my guns have only worked 0.005% of the time?
  • The police carry guns so they can kill people?
  • The police, and others who carry guns for self-defense do so to protect innocent life. They shoot to stop the attack. Not with the express intent to kill someone or something.
  • It’s a Bill of Rights. Not a Bill of Needs.
  • Nearly all the NRA members, staff, and people on the Board of Directors that I know have college degrees. They are not morons.
  • The NRA teaches gun safety, self protection, hunting, sport shooting, and protects civil rights. Those aren’t constructive?

—Joe]

Seattle’s gun "buyback"

Posted on by

As I mentioned Saturday morning on Twitter I went to the Seattle gun “buyback” (how can you buy back something you didn’t own to begin with?

I went with a fair amount of cash to buy things that were of historical value or something I might be interested in owning. I had fantasies of buying an AR-15 for $250. No such luck. The sidewalk in front of the site was packed with other private buyers:

IMG_3878

The sidewalks approaching the site from every direction had people on them too:

IMG_3880
IMG_3881
IMG_3882
IMG_3883
IMG_3885
IMG_3888

I did get a chance to look a few guns being brought in. I was only interested in one, a semi-auto 30-06 with a Leupold scope on it. Someone else quickly made an offer and got it for $125.

One of the guns, an old shotgun, literally fell apart as the owner tried to hand it to someone to evaluate. Another gun I saw was an old .22 revolver with the muzzle all covered in rust. The guy I was sort of hanging out with told the owner, “You couldn’t get $5.00 at a pawn shop for it.” The owner agreed and said that is why he brought it. A $100 gift card for something that probably wasn’t safe to shoot was a good deal.

I talked to another guy that said he got rid of a junker for $100 as well. It was literally, a “Saturday Night Special” an old Bryco of some sort. He had a great big smile on his face about getting a $100 for that.

I talked to quite a few of the guys there. You could tell who the gun guys were. They were all happy, talking, and smiling. I didn’t take any pictures of them but there were people turning in guns who looked like timid “grass eaters”. Many of them wouldn’t sell to the private sellers. One told the guy I was with, “I won’t sell to anyone without a background check.” The would-be buyer told him that he had a concealed pistol permit (background check required) but that didn’t faze the seller. So apparently it wasn’t about background checks.

I asked several buyers if the police gave them any problems. Only one guy had some problems. He was told he was parked on private property and had his table on private property. Even after he was told he had permission of the property owner the cop continued to harass him and told him he didn’t have a business license and that he was going to give him a “Ticket that will cost you $1000”. The buyer held his ground (before showing up he had asked the Seattle police, the ATF, and a lawyer if it was okay and got the go ahead from all of them) and the cop eventually went away without writing a ticket.

One guy I talked to categorized the sellers into two groups. 1) People getting rid of junk and 2) People who want to save the world. I didn’t have a good sample but it sure looked to me like there were a lot more in the first category than in the second.

There were a few guns of value that made it to through to the police so the politicians, and news media declared success when they ran out of money about 11:45. I have to wonder how many more guns were purchased by private buyers after the police closed up shop. I really need to make a bunch of very cheap single shot guns out of tubing, a piece of wood, a nail, and rubber band or make the rounds at the pawnshops before the next “buyback”.

I hung around for probably 45 minutes before leaving. With all the competition I figured I wouldn’t get my hands on anything of interest and I had other things I wanted to do.

Just as I was leaving the guy I was hanging out with jokingly asked if I had anything I wanted to sell before I left. I told him the only gun I had was the $2000 STI on my hip. He “offered” me $10.00 for it. I told him, “Screw you!” He told me, “I appreciated the offer but prostitution is illegal in Seattle.” We both laughed and I left.

Quote of the day—Bobby

Posted on by

If it ever comes to the point where they’re using GPR, we have long passed the point of having needed to be using .gov penetrating lead.

Bobby
January 21, 2013
Comment to Not intended for underground use.
[GPR is ground penetrating radar.

I have nothing further to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—The Root ’83

Posted on by

Shall Not Be Infringed. Period. End of discussion.

Look, every Politician KNOWS this.
Leon Panetta KNOWS this.
So does Obama, Bloomberg, Cumo and everyone in the NY State Legislature as well as every Supreme Court Justice living and dead.

Ginsburg, Stomayor, all of them.
They KNOW this is what the Second Amendment MEANS, what its intended to DO…
And they DESPISE IT WITH A PASSION because it gets in their WAY.

These people are EVIL, not stupid.
And its long past time we just said it, and moved on.
Let THEM do the “catching up” for a change.

ALL of the guns are OURS.
None of the guns are YOURS, capice’

You want them?
Come and GET THEM.
Cause we’re DONE talking about it.

The Root ’83
January 18, 2013
Comment to Does ‘Gun Show Loophole’ Actually Result in Gun Crime?–Statistics do not point to criminals using this tactic.
[Clayton E. Cramer responds with, “You are giving the left credit for intelligence that just isn’t deserved.”—Joe]

Quote of the day—Senator Dianne Feinstein

Posted on by

It will not effect hunting or sporting firearms, instead the bill will protect hunters and sportsman.

Senator Dianne Feinstein
January 24, 2013
Feinstein: Goal is to Dry Up the Supply Of Weapons Over Time
[Ignore the “effect” instead of “affect” error. That could have been the reporter not Feinstein. Instead concentrate on “the bill will protect hunters and sportsman”.

Thank you Senator Feinstein, that line should go down in history with other memorably phrases such as the following:

I am of the opinion that Senator Feinstein has fully mastered doublethink. What she did here demonstrates her contempt for the true meaning of the Second Amendment.

This quote should be used as evidence at her trial.—Joe]

Another quote of the day – Me

Posted on by

If it’s the best thing I’ve read all day, why after all should I be prevented from posting it here just because I happen to be the one who wrote it?

Seen in comments at Uncle;

“Machineguns are in common use by military, and AS SUCH they are protected by the second amendment. Actually, if it is or can be considered an “arm” it is protected by the second amendment (the second amendment doesn’t have any qualifiers, exceptions or modifiers in it).

One might be able to make the case that strategic weapons like nukes and other WMDs are not, but even then you may be running afoul of the balance-of-power concept embodied in the second amendment.

In the American Revolution there were private owned war ships, were there not? Those would be analogs of our modern aircraft carriers and destroyers.

And don’t give me court precedent bullshit. If precedent defines (redefines) our rights, it means that any and all rights degrade and evaporate over time. No thanks. I’ll stick to original principles.”

There is a common error committed by our side. It is the use of arguments along the lines of, “Machineguns are ALREADY banned [and so leave our semiautomatics alone].” That’s a bit like saying to the alligator, “You already ate my buddy (and I didn’t like him a lot anyway) and so you should therefore leave me alone (I guess because your appetite should already be satisfied, or something…)”

In fact, if they can ban the most common small arms used by military and police, and get away with it, they can certainly ban everything else, just as the alligator can eat you some time after it ate your buddy. The fact of the matter has been established, so at best you’re only arguing over the details of the infringements at that point.

The Hughes Amendment to FOPA of 1986 should be rendered null and void, followed by GCA ’68 and NFA ’34.

Quote of the day—David E. Young

Posted on by

The gun control advocate view of the Second Amendment is a house of cards – nay, a rather extensive castle of cards. Removing the foundation, which consists of factual errors, causes the whole to crumble.

David E. Young
January 13, 2013
Second Amendment Intent / Right to Keep and Bear Arms Explained
[Of course this depends on having an originalist view of Constitutional law. People who prefer to redefine words and intent as the “need” suits them don’t really care. But it is interesting that the anti-gun people, even in SCOTUS legal briefs will pretend to be originalists and make catastrophic errors or believe others won’t notice their deliberate attempts at deception.—Joe]

Fox News poll on guns

Posted on by

There are some fascinating results in this poll (my cached copy is here, H/T to Brennan from work). Keep in mind all of these results are post Newtown. I have selected the poll results I find the most interesting:

Q: Do you think tougher gun laws can help stop things like the Newtown school shooting, or do you think the people who commit these kinds of acts will always find the guns to commit violent acts?

A1: Tougher laws can help stop acts—22%
A2: People will always find guns—71%
A3: Laws help, but still find ways—5%
A4: Don’t know—1%

Q: Would there be less violent crime in the United States if:

A1: Guns were banned—28%
A2: More law-abiding people had guns—58%
A3: Don’t know—15%

Q: Does anyone in your household own a gun?

A1: Yes—52%
A2: Now—44%
A3: Don’t know/refused—5%

Q: If the government passed a law to take your guns, would you give up your guns or defy the law and keep your guns?

A1: Give up—22%
A2: Defy law—65%
A3: Don’t know—13%

All of the numbers have profound implications but look at that last one.

65% say they would defy the law! And my guess is that a fair number of the people in the “Don’t know” category said something of the equivalent of “None of your business.”

Hmmm…. there are about 315 million people in the U.S. 52% (households, not people, but still…) have guns so that is about 150 million people with guns of whom 65%, ~100 million, say they would defy the law. As of 2006 there were about 800,000 police officers of all jurisdictions. That means that if all the police sided with the government they would still be outnumbered by about 125 to 1.

Don’t bury you guns. Tell them Molon labe!

Not intended for underground use

Posted on by

Via email:

 MetalShilhouettes

Greetings,

SPC introduces it’s line of full size metal wall silhouettes. Shown is a Remington 870 that looks great on the wall of any gun room, den or shop.

The Plasma cut steel units are available rough as well as finished and painted.

SPC has heard of individuals burying full size silhouettes as decoys to throw off ground penetrating radar or imaging metal detectors that might be used by criminals to locate weapons, however SPC silhouettes are designed to be enjoyed on the wall, and SPC will not warranty silhouettes that have been buried.

SPC also has wall silhouettes of magazines, handguns and can do custom work as well.

For more info go to http://minisentryalarm.wordpress.com/

Regards,

Dennis Evers
dennis@thepocketpartner.com

I am of the opinion if you bury most or all of your guns to keep them safe from confiscation it is mostly a victory of the mind rather than something particularly useful. Putting out a few decoys might be useful though. And if you put them on the property of an anti-gunner it might even be entertaining.

Quote of the day—MY

Posted on by

I can easily buy a hand gun or a rifle without restriction. It is absurd that someone like me could ever have access to such dangerous weapons.

MY
Sonoma
January 19, 2013
Comment to Please Take Away My Right to a Gun
[Many people have said something to the effect, “They want to take other’s people’s guns away because they believe other people are the same as they are.” I never really expected to find someone who admitted that.—Joe]

There were slaves that didn’t want freedom too

Posted on by

Wendy Button almost begs Please Take Away My Right to a Gun.

After the civil war there were slaves that didn’t want their freedom either.

Just because a few people want their rights taken away from them doesn’t mean the rest of us do, that it is the right thing to do, or that we won’t fight to keep them.

Quote of the day—Mark Ridley Thomas

Posted on by

Let’s stop mincing words; Let progressives — not all but certainly many — stop feigning tolerance for a gun culture we abhor and rampant gun ownership we cannot comprehend.

Mark Ridley Thomas
January 17, 2013
Supervisor for the Second District in Los Angeles County
The National Rifle Association Is Correct: I Do Want Your Guns
[First off, his admission should be used as evidence at his trial.

Second, if he has that tough of a problem with comprehension why isn’t he in an institution of some sort instead of public office?

Third, H/T to Say Uncle.—Joe]

Random thought of the day

Posted on by

Doesn’t it seem more than a little messed up when Pravda is urging us to never give up our guns, telling us we are wrong to go down the Marxist path while the New York Times is urging us to give up the constitution?

Ammunition Capacity Limits – the “why” of the matter

Posted on by

Trying to cut to the chase; there are two possible reasons that I can see, why a rogue government (and let’s be honest– that’s what we’ve had for some time now) would want to limit ammunition capacity. One would be simply to irritate and harass their political opposition, putting a few innocent people in jail now and then as a bonus. The other would be to limit the ability of the citizenry to fight against mass attacks (two or more assailants).i.e. to promote the ease of government attacking citizens. A possible third reason, going along in part with the first, would be to generally degrade society with more complex laws, more bureaucracy and more violent crime (criminals will have 30 round mags, but law-abiders won’t).

Any or all of those motivations would appeal naturally to any authoritarian, and to anyone who sees the founding of the U.S. as a problem (unfair, unjust, etc.)

If anyone can think of another reason, I’d like to know it.

ETA, 1-18-13; I’d thought of another, hoping maybe someone would chime in with it, and Publius pretty much, sort of did in comments here, though it’s not the way I would have put it. That motivation being to control the framework of the conflict (between liberty and authoritarianism), to keep us fighting THEIR fight and not ours. On that they have done a most excellent job– I bet you can find a million words, just today, about details of this or that proposed restriction and how it will not “work”. Well, it is working– they’re keeping us talking about THEIR ideas. As I’ve said before and elsewhere; it is a subtle yet crucial tactic, though most every little kid understands it. You see that bratty kid fussing loudly at his mother in the supermarket? He knows how to keep his mom off balance, off kilter, off her game, distracted, irritated, embarrassed, until he gets something from her (recently I noticed one such brat pause in his “tantrum” to look around and make sure he was getting a reaction from bystanders, then resume his fake tantrum, thus demonstrating that he understood exactly what he was doing). HE set the agenda, the framework of the conflict, not his mom. That one should have occurred to me foremost. It goes along with number one, but the distinction is between simply wanting to irritate your opposition on one hand, because you dislike them, and maintaining control of the whole discussion’s very framework on the other. The communists are experts at this.

Quote of the day—Bob Owens

Posted on by

Governor “Common Sense” Cuomo is a stumbling, bumbling example of the kind of person emotionally unsuited for high office, a fact the flaws in the draconian SAFE Act will show over time as unintended consequences catch up to bad legislation.

Bob Owens
January 17, 2013
Oops. Were there not LEO magazine exemptions in the rushed NY SAFE Act?
[H/T to Chris Knox who retweeted thegunwire.

The only thing I can add is that anyone who advocates for gun control is emotional, logically, and philosophically unsuited for any public job above toilet scrubber.—Joe]