Yesterday I quoted Robyn Ringler on her error in thinking the D.C. snipers used a .50 caliber rifle. Today she posted a correction. Although she had been informed of her error in the comments two days before that she didn’t correct it then. Yesterday she got additional comments about her error and then this morning she posted her correction.

Today she made another post and another error:

A guy walks into a gun shop to buy a gun. The gun shop’s employee performs a background check. The information from the background check which links the gun to its new owner and its origin (the gun shop) must be destroyed WITHIN 24 HOURS.

…

So, now, a crime is committed with a gun. Any record of where that gun originated has been destroyed. How do we trace it? How do we figure out where it came from? It is impossible to follow the gun’s journey when we destroy the records after ONE DAY.

The NICS check does not, and was never officially intended, to link a gun to it’s owner. That is what Form 4473 is for. The 4473 has been the law of the land since GCA68 was passed (1968). The 4473 is required by law to be retained for 20 years. There has not been any repeal of this records keeping requirement as Ms. Ringler believes. She is confused. But that’s not surprising, bigots confuse and warp the facts to maintain internal consistency with their world view.

I briefly mentioned in this post about the natural advantages and disadvantage on both sides in our “war” against the anti-gun bigots. As I mentioned then one of our advantages is that we have the facts on our side. Another advantage is that because we use, buy, and sell guns we know them and the laws governing them much better than the other side. Because of this lack of familiarity it’s easier for them to confuse and warp the facts. It’s also easier for them proselytize their bigotry to other ignorant people.

Ms. Ringler and other bigots have a very difficult time getting their minds around the concepts (thoughts about “small-minded bigots” come to mind here). The definition of a barrel shroud or a folding stock is likely to go right over their heads. But of course that doesn’t stop them from want to ban them. When they make errors like this we get to make them look stupid by pointing out their ignorance. In general they aren’t really stupid. They are just at a disadvantage because they don’t have the extensive contact with the subject matter that we do. That doesn’t mean that I think they should be given any slack. If they are honest people, and most of them probably are, as they become more and more aware of the facts they will have a more difficult time spouting their bigoted ideas in a sincere manner.

As Barb only too well knows, I enjoy pointing out the errors of others (I also like for others to point out my mistakes). Ms. Ringler promises to be a source of great fun for me.

Reading the worst of the nut case anti-freedom, anti-gun bigot websites I came across this:

That kind of sentiment is exactly what we need more of online. We definitely don’t need any more gun guys blogging– they’re full of venom and vitriol, cursing and overcompensating masculinity, and instead of providing insight on the news, they provide rehashes of decades-old NRA lies and propaganda. We definitely don’t need any more gun nuts coming up with (or, more likely, just parroting) NRA catchphrases or repeating nonsense about how guns are the only way you can protect yourself– the fact is that guns don’t protect you at all.

The “gun guy blogging” link is to Say Uncle. I spent quite a bit of time with Uncle at the Gun Blogger Rendezvous last fall. The above characterization of Uncle is completely wrong. Uncle is incredibly soft spoken and full of thoughtful insight. Overcompensating masculinity? Ha! But then bigots don’t really care about the facts. Stereotypes are their currency.

The owner of the anti-freedom, anti-gun site visits here (Hi Gonzo!) occasionally too. When I link to the “gunguys.com” site, even with the “rel=nofollow” attribute set, he checks out my posting within a day or two.

From a “Gun Guy” email I received.

If someone is opposed to one inalienable right, such as the right to keep and bear arms, then it comes as no surprise when they are also opposed to other inalienable rights:

Terrorism suspects shouldn’t be allowed access to any weapons, much less these deadly ones.  But if the bill is defeated by the NRA, those suspects will still be able to walk into any gun store and buy a weapon off the shelf.

“Suspects” are whoever law enforcement wants to call a “suspect”. There is no due process, another inalienable right, involved. Everyone could be a suspect. But of course “everyone” is who this bigot wants to prohibit from owning a firearm.

Another thing this idiot bigot doesn’t understand is that making it illegal to sell a “suspect” a firearm gives people an easy way to find out if they are “on the list”. Just try to buy a firearm and if you are successful you can be pretty sure law enforcement isn’t watching you or that your fake ID hasn’t been exposed yet.

If someone is so dangerous they can’t be trusted with a firearm then they shouldn’t be allowed to roam the streets and buy gasoline and matches either. Either lock them up or stop infringing their rights.