Quote of the day—Joy Behar

They should not tell everything they’re going to do. If you’re going to take people’s guns away, wait until you get elected — then take the guns away. Don’t tell them ahead of time.

Joy Behar
November 4, 2019
Joy Behar: Don’t tell Americans before you take their guns
[Behar was discussing failed 2020 presidential hopeful Beto O’Rourke.

Good advice. A little too late. But good advice.

But then, it appears that these days if a candidate has a ‘D’ after them name gun confiscation is their game plan so one should just automatically assume the worst regardless of how public they make their gun confiscation plans.—Joe]

Quote of the day—NitramLand @NitramLand

We are taking your guns. Period. The tide is turning rapidly. The NRA is toast. As soon as trump is gone, guns are gone.

NitramLand @NitramLand
Tweeted on October 27, 2019
[Who’s “we”?

And as if the NRA and President Trump were protecting gun owners from him and others like him. It’s more like he and his unindicted ideological coconspirators are being being protected from us by the presence of the NRA and a president who gives lip service to the 2nd Amendment.

Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Beto O’Rourke

My service to the country will not be as a candidate or as the nominee. Acknowledging this now is in the best interests of those in the campaign; it is in the best interests of this party as we seek to unify around a nominee; and it is in the best interests of the country.

Beto O’Rourke
November 1, 2019
Gun control advocate Beto O’Rourke drops out of US presidential race
[Certainly it’s in the best interests of the country if he never sees political power again. I would prefer that he be given a fair trial, convicted, then sentenced to hard labor. But this is good enough for now.

Although, I will kind of miss the opportunity to collect more “No one wants to take your guns” quotes.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Joseph G.S. Greenlee

The necessity for this Court to clarify the role of history in defining the right is illuminated by so many outcomes depending on whether the reviewing court considers history. Disregarding history and merely interest-balancing Second Amendment rights has allowed the Second Amendment to be singled out for special—and specially unfavorable—treatment. Many courts have boldly admitted doing so, offering justifications that this Court has previously rejected. Until this Court reinforces its precedents, lower courts will continue to treat the right to bear arms as a second class right.

Joseph G.S. Greenlee
Counsel of Record
Firearms Policy Coalition
October 30, 2019
BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE FIREARMS POLICY COALITION, FIREARMS POLICY FOUNDATION, CALIFORNIA GUN RIGHTS FOUNDATION, MADISON SOCIETY FOUNDATION, AND SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS
[This is an Amicus brief before SCOTUS in Brian Kirk Malpasso, et al., Petitioners v. William M. Pallozzi, Superintendent, Maryland Department of State Police

Things are moving in the courts. It’s a good sign that gun owners are choosing the cases to back.

I believe this is our best chance for making progress on the gun owner rights front. I and, through matching funds to 501(c)(3) corporations, my employer donate thousands of dollars every year to FPC and SAF.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Eric Brakey

Extreme liberals like Nancy Pelosi and my opponent, Jared Golden, want to take away your guns.

But I want to give you one!

Eric Brakey
October 23, 2019
Eric Brakey for Congress
[Via email from Paul K. who provided this link.

The gun he is talking about is an AR-15 worth about $1200.

Without reading the fine print one might assume he wishes to use tax money to give away guns. One can constitutionally justify this much more easily than taking them away but that isn’t what he is doing. If you sign up to donate $5.00 or more a month to his campaign he’ll enter you in a drawing for the gun.

Fair enough.

I hope he wins and continues to tweak the noses of the gun grabbers.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Douglas Murray

Kanye had tripped over the same wire as [Peter] Thiel.

At some point minority political grievances transformed into minority political activism. And from there moved into just politics.

Claiming the existence of voting blocks along minority group lines benefits certain politicians looking for voter blocks. And it can benefit professional middlemen who present themselves as speaking for entire community in order to gain their own forms of preferment.

But this, is an exceptionally dangerous juncture. And one that each rights issue in turn has arrived at. It suggests, that you are only a member of a recognized minority group so long as you accept the specific grievances, political grievances, and resulting electoral platforms that other people have worked out for you.

Step outside of these lines and you are not a person with the same characteristics you had before but you have something differently from some prescribed norm. You have the characteristic taken away from you.

So Thiel, is no longer gay once he endorses Trump. Kanye West is no longer black, when he does the same thing.

This suggests black isn’t a skin color or a race. Or at least not these things alone. It suggest that black, like gay, is in fact a political ideology. This presumption goes so deep and is so rarely mentioned that is generally simply assumed.

Douglas Murray
September 17, 2019
The Madness of Crowds: Gender, Race and Identity

[I am extremely impressed with this book. Murray researches and explains, with great clarity, some of the things I have been calling mass delusion (see also here and here). Amazon describes the book as follows and with the diagnosis of “mass hysteria”. Perhaps that is a more correct phrase than I use:

In his devastating new book The Madness of Crowds, Douglas Murray examines the twenty-first century’s most divisive issues: sexuality, gender, technology and race. He reveals the astonishing new culture wars playing out in our workplaces, universities, schools and homes in the names of social justice, identity politics and intersectionality.

We are living through a postmodern era in which the grand narratives of religion and political ideology have collapsed. In their place have emerged a crusading desire to right perceived wrongs and a weaponization of identity, both accelerated by the new forms of social and news media. Narrow sets of interests now dominate the agenda as society becomes more and more tribal–and, as Murray shows, the casualties are mounting.

Readers of all political persuasions cannot afford to ignore Murray’s masterfully argued and fiercely provocative book, in which he seeks to inject some sense into the discussion around this generation’s most complicated issues. He ends with an impassioned call for free speech, shared common values and sanity in an age of mass hysteria.

Along the same lines as in the QOTD above he reviews Rachel Dolezal’s claim, and agreement by others on the political left, that she is black because she “identifies” as black even though she is of German and Czech heritage.

He describes some of the many ways Google search results demonstrate some sort of bizarre bias. For example, do an image search for “white couples”. About half of the results will be interracial. A image search for “black couples” shows something approaching 100% black couples. Similar results occur when doing image searches for “heterosexual couples” versus “gay couples”. This has to be deliberate. And to what end? It has to some sort of insanity.

He describes the 2017 protest at Evergreen College in far more detail than I had ever heard before. Amazing stuff. Over the top, unbelievably bat-shit crazy stuff. The things the students were saying and doing would have had me drawing my gun and, had I been unable to withdraw from the insanity, shot my way out of it. Those people were, and probably still are, living in an alternate universe that only has peripheral connections to ours.

Via his research and analysis I find myself hopeful that we will soon have a critical mass of people which will stop the tide of near insanity washing over us and some semblance of normality will be restored.

I expect that when such restoration occurs it will take far less time than what it did to get here. Perhaps only months as the delusion fades into obscurity. Also expect people who had once appeared to be in full alignment with the insanity claim, “I always had my doubts and never really believed it.”

It could be said these are the “crazy years” Heinlein spoke of in his books To Sail Beyond the Sunset (although this was in a different timeline than what you and I are traveling through).and in passing in Methuselah’s Children.

I just wish I was reading a science fiction or even psychological thriller novel rather than current news stories. But such books would never be successful. In order to be mostly believable fiction has to make sense.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Cassandra Crifasi

The drum that they beat that if you allow any [gun control] policy to pass then they’re just going to take your guns away. Then when we have candidates that say yes, well I am going to take your guns away, that doesn’t send the right message in my opinion.

Cassandra Crifasi
Deputy director of the Johns Hopkins Center For Gun Policy and Research
October 23, 2019
From Toxic To Staple: Gun Control Is Now Front And Center On The Campaign Trail
[And nowhere in the article does she, or anyone else, say the goal isn’t to take guns away. So, it appears she is saying the “right message” she wants the candidates to send is something other than their true intentions.

Lying, it’s what they do. It’s an essential part of their culture.—Joe]

Quote of the day—NRA-ILA

Gun confiscation is the goal. Gun confiscation has always been the goal. Thanks to a recent outburst by 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Robert (Beto) Francis O’Rourke, potentially millions more Americans are now aware of this fact.

NRA-ILA
September 20, 2019
Beto’s Confiscation Plan Shows Why Gun Owners Must Reject Appeasement
[This quote, from over a month ago, is nothing new. It’s mostly my lead in to this:

The NRA’s PAC raked in $1.3 million in total contributions throughout September, an increase of nearly $400,000 from its previous month, with an overwhelming majority of its cash haul coming from small donors. Of the $1.3 million, $981,277 was sent from individuals contributing less than $200. September was the fourth month in 2019 that the PAC has collected at least $1 million; it currently has $10 million on hand.

FEC documents show the NRA PAC brought in $50,902.20 from itemized donors before Beto’s comments on September 12—about $4,627 per day. After them, the group brought in $276,208.20—about $15,344 per day. That represents a threefold increase in daily giving to the gun-rights group.

The Giffords PAC, which works to elect gun-control proponents, reported just $11,000 in contributions in September, a major drop from the $195,000 it reported in August. Everytown for Gun Safety Victory Fund, an independent-expenditures only PAC, does not have to submit its next report until the end of the year. However, its mid-year report showed that the committee was given just $5,000, which was transferred from the group’s action fund. The Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund, Inc. PAC has taken in just $18,000 this year from six donors and currently has less than $90,000 cash on hand.

The more than $10 million in the bank the NRA PAC ended September with is more than three times that of Beto O’Rourke, and even outpaces Democratic frontrunner Joe Biden.

There are multiple ways to spin this:

  1. The NRA loves gun control politicians. If it weren’t for them the NRA would go broke or at least downsize and lay off a bunch of people. But this same logic could lead one to conclude these anti-gun politicians love the NRA and are helping them with their fundraising. Politicians need a bogeyman to scare voters into supporting them.
  2. Americans support gun ownership far more than they support gun confiscation.
  3. Anti-gun groups represent a few rich people. Pro-gun ownership groups represent the little guy. This makes sense because the rich have connections to political power and can, if they wished, run roughshod over the masses using the government. Guns in the hands of the ordinary individuals empowers them and acts as a last ditch defense against the injustices of a corrupted and/or tyrannical political system. As Mao said, “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”

It may be insightful to read the entire Mao quote. Marxism, Socialism, Communism all require a powerful government to enforce the redistribution of food, housing, health care, jobs, etc. to the politically loyal. A government can increase their power in absolute terms by increased spending on the military and/or police. More subtly, they can increase their relative power by reducing the private ownership of guns. The second route is less costly and less likely to alarm the general population. In fact, the second route can be, and is, spun as improving the safety and security of the average person even as it makes them more and vulnerable to the abuse of government power.

It should come as no surprise the Marxists, socialists and communist running for the most powerful political positions in the world want to take your guns. And if you value your freedom, wealth, and health don’t allow these villains access to the power they crave.—Joe]

Threepers in the news

After Mike Vanderboegh died discussion of Threepers pretty much disappeared off my radar until yesterday when there was an article in the Seattle times:

The talk at the Yelm Prairie Christian Center was of frustration and anger — and of what to do about Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson.

So intense is the distress over new firearms regulations in the state and Ferguson’s support of them that a group of 35 or so came together to discuss what many saw as a constructive next step: Go to court to file citizen complaints against Ferguson or maybe even attempt a citizen’s arrest of him.

Many wore insignia of the Washington Three Percenters — a group whose website says its goal is to “utilize the fail safes put in place by our founders to reign (SIC) in an overreaching government and push back against tyranny.”

I had my say about Threepers a little over 10 years ago and rereading it, and my comments to the post, I don’t see there is anything I would change with the most recent attention from the Times. I would, however, add that I see a citizen’s arrest of Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson as counterproductive.

Quote of the day—Aishu Sritharan

The only way to meet the challenge of gun control is to meet it with the boldest possible proposal that will save the most lives and that will tell the opposition that we are not backing down on this issue.

Aishu Sritharan
October 19, 2019
Democratic Debates, the Media, and Gun Control: Why the Needle Isn’t Moving on a Critical Issue
[This seems to be a very naïve viewpoint. Let me suggest a proposal along those lines and see if it works:

No more infringement of our specific enumerated rights! Abolish all gun control laws. Government subsidies for people who can’t afford a gun!

Prosecute those who conspire to infringe upon our rights.*

There. So, what do you think Aishu? Will that help move the needle on this critical issue? Enjoy your trial.—Joe]


* Added at the suggestion of Tirno.

Quote of the day—David Harsanyi @davidharsanyi

Corruption, murder and starvation aren’t incompatible with socialism–most often they’re a requirement.

David Harsanyi @davidharsanyi
Tweeted on October 11, 2019
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Rebellion is about winning hearts and minds

Sean points out the failure of the Extinction Rebellion to convince people of the righteousness of their cause by disrupting their lives. Mob action is a form of direct democracy. Democracy has its dark side.

It’s easy to demonstrate Extinction Rebellion claims are almost for certain in error. But even being 100% correct in your facts, logic, and principles doesn’t guarantee success. If your position is only shared by one out of every 10,000 people your position isn’t getting adopted.

Get more people on your side. Take a new shooter to the range. Invite them to Boomershoot as a spectator. Encourage people to take a firearms class with a focus on personal protection.

Win the civil war without mob violence or firing a shot in anger.

Quote of the day—muricatoday.com

Look, this is really simple.

All you have to do is comply and you won’t get hurt by cops. When they tell you to get down, you get down. When they tell you to turn in your guns, you turn in your guns. When they tell you to get in the boxcar, you get in the fucking boxcar. Why in the hell is this so difficult to understand people?

Tusky_Share_Media_20191014_072259

muricatoday.com
Via Rabbit Chasing @Chasing_Rabbits on September 22, 2019.
[muricatoday.com has been down when I have tried to visit. Perhaps your luck will be better than mine.

Beto doesn’t expressly say this but it’s implied. And if he doesn’t actually think things through far enough to arrive at this conclusion there are lots of other Democrats who have and wish he wouldn’t have “spilled the beans”.—Joe]

Quote of the day—AuricTech

The traditional media use fact checks for the same reasons that hockey players use body checks: to disrupt their opponents and advance their own game plan.

AuricTech
October 15, 2019
Comment to Layers of fact checkers
[Great point!—Joe]

No bias here

From CNN (of course):

Gordon Sondland, is expected to tell Congress this week that President Donald Trump relayed to him directly in a phone call the content of a text message that Sondland sent denying quid pro quo, The Washington Post reported Saturday, citing a person familiar with his testimony.

Sondland’s text message was sent to the top US diplomat in Ukraine, Bill Taylor, who raised concerns in a text to Sondland about the US withholding nearly $400 million of US military and security aid. This text message exchange has become a major focal point of the impeachment inquiry into the President.

Sondland is expected to testify to Congress that he has no knowledge of whether Trump was telling him the truth at the time, the Post reports. “It’s only true that the President said it, not that it was the truth,” the person familiar with Sondland’s planned testimony, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive diplomatic matters, told the Post.

So… The President of Ukraine says there was no quid pro quo. Sondland is quoted as saying there was no quid pro quo. CNN then tries to keep their impeachment hopes alive by claiming some unnamed source with, “It’s only true that the President said it, not that it was the truth.” Yeah. That really gives them a strong case.

I rolled my eyes at that and was about to stop reading when this caught my eye (emphasis added):

He also exchanged messages about whether foreign aid was being withheld while Trump and Giuliani pushed for Ukraine to open an investigation into business activity by the son of one of the President’s 2020 Democratic rivals, former Vice President Joe Biden.

There is no evidence of wrongdoing by the Bidens.

Oh, really!

No bias here.

Quote of the day—Melanie Phillips

What are witnessing is not the imminent extinction of the planet. It is the extinction of reason.

Melanie Phillips
September 20, 2019
The extinction of reason
[Reason is but a thin veneer over the emotional mind. It takes very little to pierce that veneer. The persistence of superstition, Marxism, and hundreds of other things both large and small is proof of it.

Stand up to those who advocate for the extinction of reason or prepare for the endarkenment.—Joe]

AR-15 lowers are not firearms

The anti-gun people are running up against the definition problems of an “assault weapon” at a more fundamental level.

Very, very interesting. The courts are reluctantly being our friends (emphasis added):

Nicolaysen argued that the definition of a receiver under the relevant federal code differed in various ways from the AR-15 component Roh was accused of manufacturing.

Under the US Code of Federal Regulations, a firearm frame or receiver is defined as: “That part of a firearm which provides housing for the hammer, bolt or breechblock, and firing mechanism, and which is usually threaded at its forward portion to receive the barrel.”

The lower receiver in Roh’s case does not have a bolt or breechblock and is not threaded to receive the barrel, Nicolaysen noted.

He called the decision to classify it as a firearm nonetheless, the result of “secret, in-house decision-making.”

Nicolaysen accused the ATF of abusing its authority by pursuing Roh based on his alleged violation of a policy “that masquerades as law.”

He asked the judge to consider recommending that then-US Attorney General Jeff Sessions conduct a review to determine whether there were any similar cases pending around the country or past convictions “sustained on the basis of ATF policy, rather than law.”

Prosecutors acknowledged there were technical differences between the regulation and the lower receiver in Roh’s case, but said the ATF’s interpretation of the regulation was consistent with the intent of federal gun laws. The agency’s reading of the law “should also receive deference from this court,” prosecutors Shawn J. Nelson and Benjamin D. Lichtman argued.

Adopting the defense position, the prosecutors wrote, would be “manifestly incompatible” with the intent of the federal Gun Control Act and would “severely frustrate” enforcement of the law.

The prosecutors’ filing said a ruling in favor of the defense could impact the receivers for up to 90% of the firearms in America.

“The necessary result of this would be that the unregulated parts could be manufactured, sold, and combined with other commercially available parts to create completed, un-serialized firearms which would not be subject to background checks, and which would be untraceable,” the prosecutors wrote. “Defendant’s interpretation would mean that nearly every semi-automatic firearm could be purchased piece by piece with no regulation or background check before a prohibited person would have a firearm.”

Though the trial lasted less than a week, Selna deliberated for more than year. In April, he issued a tentative order in which he determined that the ATF had improperly classified the AR-15 lower receivers in Roh’s case as firearms.

He rejected the prosecution’s argument that the ATF’s interpretation of the regulation describing a receiver could reasonably be applied to the device at issue in Roh’s case.

“There is a disconnect,” the judge wrote.

Selna added that the combination of the federal law and regulation governing the manufacturing of receivers is “unconstitutionally vague” as applied in the case against Roh.

“No reasonable person would understand that a part constitutes a receiver where it lacks the components specified in the regulation,” Selna wrote.

Therefore, the judge determined, “Roh did not violate the law by manufacturing receivers.”

This may mean is that we may be able to legally get away purchasing AR-15 lower receivers and perhaps many semi-auto firearm frames without 4473s, background checks, and licensing.

If we can get this firmed up a little bit before congress can act there could be a huge flurry of gun sales that will give the anti-gunners difficulties for years. All those guns they thought they had registered and restricted can be made to legally disappear:

  • “You want that registered firearm I had a year or two ago? Yeah, I remember. I broke it up into parts and sold via the bulletin board at the gun range in the next state over.”
  • “Nope. I didn’t buy a gun over the Internet from the other coast. I just bought a few parts.over the course of a couple days.”

Another brick in the wall.

Interesting times

Judicial Watch Files Two New Lawsuits on Biden Scandal:

Our government doesn’t assume that every business investment opportunity is good for our country, and so there are checks in place, including something called the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). CFIUS is commissioned to review “transactions involving foreign investment in the U.S. to determine the effect of such transactions on the national security of the United States.”

What does CFIUS know about Hunter Biden’s questionable overseas ventures? The agency is playing its cards close to the vest. So we are suing the State and Treasury Departments for information on CFIUS’ handling of investments in the U.S. by two companies tied to Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden. The companies are Ukraine’s Burisma Holdings and China’s Bohai Harvest RST (BHR).

We sued in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia after the departments failed to respond to June 24, 2019, FOIA requests for CFIUS records related to investments by the Ukrainian company Burisma Holdings LTD or any of its affiliated entities and records related to investments by the Chinese company Bohai Harvest RST or any of its affiliated entities (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:19-cv-02960)), (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of the Treasury (No. 1:19-cv-02961).

Hunter Biden, son of former Vice President Joe Biden, is reported to be one of nine directors of BHR Partners, which was registered 12 days after the vice president’s son, in December 2013, flew to Beijing aboard Air Force Two, while his father made an official visit as vice president. Hunter Biden, then-chairman of the private equity firm Rosemont Seneca, reportedly signed a deal with the Chinese government-owned Bank of China to set up the BHR $1 billion joint venture investment fund.

From the same update:

Here’s an update on the Clinton email deposition.

A federal court will soon rule on whether Hillary Clinton and her top aide can be questioned under oath by our lawyers about her email and Benghazi controversies. The court has already granted us additional discovery and is now considering Clinton’s objections, filed on September 23, to being questioned. We filed our response to Clinton on October 3 (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:14-cv-01242)).

The court previously ordered discovery into three specific areas: whether Secretary Clinton’s use of a private email server was intended to stymie FOIA; whether the State Department’s intent to settle this case in late 2014 and early 2015 amounted to bad faith; and whether the State Department has adequately searched for records responsive to our request. The court specifically ordered Obama administration senior State Department officials, lawyers and Clinton aides to be deposed or answer written questions under oath. The court ruled that the Clinton email system was “one of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency.”

On August 22, 2019, the court then ruled that Clinton and Mills had 30 days to oppose being questioned in person under oath by us related to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server. Additionally, we were granted seven new depositions, three interrogatories and four document requests.  In granting the additional discovery, U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth commented: “I’ll tell you everything they’ve discovered in this period raises serious questions about what the hell the State Department’s doing here.”

One has to wonder if the the reason the Democrats have gone so completely bonkers is because they know there is a noose tightening around their necks.

We live in interesting times.

Quote of the day—Alan M. Gottlieb

This is a case that literally begs for Supreme Court attention. When the Court ruled in the 2008 Heller case that the Second Amendment protected a fundamental right, it was clear that this right belongs to everyone, not just the residents of an individual state. The Seventh Circuit held in Moore v. Madigan that the carrying of firearms in public for self-defense is a fundamental right, but under existing Illinois restrictions, that right has been limited to Illinois residents and citizens from only four other states.

All the plaintiffs in this case are asking for is to be treated equally to Illinois residents. They’re not asking for special treatment. They will take the training required by state law and abide by all the other rules.

Alan M. Gottlieb
October 11, 2019
SAF SEEKS SCOTUS REVIEW OF IMPORTANT ILLINOIS CARRY CASE
[From a constitutional point of view one has to ask, “What other specific enumerated right requires you to get a background check and undergo training before you can exercise it?”

But, as a practical matter, what is more important at this point is to get the existing oppressive laws struck down. This is how we went from concealed carry only allowed in a few states in the 1980s to now with some form of concealed carry in essentially all states and constitutional carry in 15 states. In the mid 1990s I was skeptical. How, I wondered, would we get from licensed carry to “Vermont Carry” as it was called then? Well, no we know how it is done. Incremental legislative and judicial action.

By taking relatively small easy steps (see also New York State Rifle & Pistol Assoc. v. City of New York) to SCOTUS we are building a judicial wall that makes it easier and easier to win the next prize ahead of us.

Had we gone with “Shall. Not. Be. Infringed!” and stuck with that in the 1980s today I believe things would be much different now. I suspect we would be grumbling about needing to apply for a permit to purchase and background checks to acquire one Airsoft gun a month. And a few people, near end of life, futilely telling their grandkids about a few real guns buried underground or in caves.—Joe]

Quote of the day—ernest ortega @designbypipe

DEAR GOVERNMENT,

After a 47 year ‘war on drugs’ you can’t keep drugs off the streets, you can’t keep drugs out of elementary schools, you can’t even keep drugs out of federal prisons.

Yet, you want me to disarm myself and trust that you can keep guns from criminals?

DearGovernment

ernest ortega @designbypipe
Tweeted on September 13, 2019
[It’s possible someone else came up with this but the only time I have seen it was when ortega posted it.

Excellent point.

The government also hasn’t been able to keep guns out of prisons.

But a more important point is that politicians who desire to disarm us know all this and don’t care. Disarming criminals isn’t their primary goal. They want ordinary citizens disarmed. They intend to change the relationship from citizen and public servant into subject and ruler.—Joe]