Category: 2nd Amendment

The NRA Ad

There are many reasons why, despite being a zealous supporter for the Second Amendment, I am not a member of the NRA. There is their support for the militarization of police and their unblinking support for police in all matters — as exemplified by their total silence on the Philando Castile matter. There is their response to school shootings, which involves putting armed officers in every school. There is their willingness to crush every other Amendment in the Constitution besides the one they like — especially the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. I can not abide an organization that says that the Second Amendment is necessary to prevent tyranny while happily allowing a tyrannical state apparatus to be put into place. And now there’s this, a deranged conspiratorial ad designed to make Americans feel terrified because liberals are saying nasty things about the President; an ad that seems to embrace police crackdowns on protest. These are not the words of an organization that is devoted to freedom. These are the words of an organization trying to cash in on fear. So I’ll side with them when they’re right on opposing gun control. But I can’t side with them on this nonsense.

This is one of the things that I have found bothersome about the Right Wing since about 2004. I understand being angry when your’e out of power. But the anger doesn’t seem to subside when we’re in power. If anything, it intensifies.

Why The Second Amendment Matters

Just a quick note today on a busy week. There are many reasons I support the Second Amendment. But the biggest is stuff like this:

The socialist leader of Venezuela announced in a speech to regime loyalists his plan to arm hundreds of thousands of supporters after a years-long campaign to confiscate civilian-owned guns.

“A gun for every militiaman!” Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro said to uniformed militia members outside the presidential palace, Fox News reported on Tuesday. The Bolivarian militias, created by Maduro’s predecessor Hugo Chavez, already number in the hundreds of thousands and are being used to supplement the regime’s armed forces. Maduro is boosting the number of armed supporters in hopes of keeping control over the country from what he labels “imperialist aggression.”

The arming of Maduro’s supporters comes five years after Venezuela’s socialist regime outlawed the commercial sale and civilian ownership of firearms. Only the military, police, and groups like security companies can buy guns and only directly from one state-run arms company under the law passed in 2012, according to the BBC. The country recently doubled down on its gun ban through a combination of gun buybacks and confiscations in the summer of 2016.

Venezuela’s gun control — which mimics what the Left wants in this country — has always been a disaster. Crime soared. And cops were being murdered for their weapons. But now we see the apotheosis — an armed militia maintaining control over a starving and disarmed populace.

Yeah, I know, it could never happen here. Sure. You keep telling yourself that.

Perspective

As usual, if you followed the media narrative this morning when the sad story broke out about another stupid attack at Ohio State, their speculation went one way, and obviously the wrong way. Before enough facts where out, and as this always plays out with the narrative crowd, the idiots writing articles and commenting at the usual lefty dives such as the HuffPro insane asylum called it all wrong. For this crowd, i had to be Trump supporting, gun toting assholes that are stealing America from the good-thinkers, like them, that obviously did it! More gun laws are going to be needed, and since anyone that is a Trump supporter has to be motivated by hate, racism, homophobia, and whatever other cool term the prog kids throw around to identify those ungood-thinkers, it had – it just had to be – one of them behind this sad affair.

Of course, us ungood-thinkers immediately knew that odds where we were dealing with another follower of the religion of peace, guns had not been involved – Obama was not ridding this to sell his sensible gun banning policies immediately, which was a dead giveaway there obviously was no gun play – as the initial reports mentioned a car and knifes, things followers of the religion of peace have been advocating should be used by their Jihadi recruits in the not so distant past. We also suspected that interest in this story would die out as soon as the facts came out, due to lack of interest in reporting on something that contradicted the narrative the left so desperately needs (don’t worry I am sure some DNC paid paid operative will commit some crime sooner than later that they all will try to blame on others as has been going on for the past year or more).

At least justice was dealt out and the bad guys where captured or killed. But with the narrative not flowing, I suspect this story will go away. Unless the left decides to ask for sensible car and knife laws. How much do we ant to bet that when someone points out the perp was taken down by someone with a gun, their response will be we need more gun control (read disarming law abiding citizens).

Gun Grabbing Fails

The Democrats filibustered the Senate until they got a vote on four gun control measures yesterday. All four failed:

Senators couldn’t muster enough bipartisan support to pass a series of gun control measures Monday, the latest in a long string of failed attempts at enacting tighter curbs on firearms in the United States.

Spurred by the worst mass shooting in U.S. history, senators from each party introduced the measures they said would have strengthened background checks and prevented suspected terrorists from obtaining weapons.

But tough election year politics, paired with disputes over the effectiveness of each party’s ideas, proved too powerful to break the longstanding partisan gridlock that’s surrounded gun issues for years.

The result was expected. A fifth option, set to be introduced and voted upon as early as Tuesday by moderate Republican Sen. Susan Collins, has generated more optimism, but still faces long odds at passage.

Sen. Chris Murphy, a Connecticut Democrat who sponsored one of the failed measures expanding background checks, reacted angrily after his provision was defeated.

“I’m mortified by today’s vote but I’m not surprised by it,” Murphy said Monday evening. “The NRA has a vice-like grip on this place.”

No, it really doesn’t. What has a grip on Congress is a fleeting minimal respect for due process of law. It wasn’t just the NRA that opposed this. The ACLU vehemently opposed it because the ACLU, unlike the Democrats, sees the danger in restricting basic civil liberties for “potential terrorists” through secret and nebulous FBI criteria.

The Collins bill is a little better in that it would only use the “no-fly” list. But even that list is secretive, vague and almost impossible to challenge. The Democrats know this because they’ve been complaining about that list for years. What’s more, they exposed those years of complaining as political opportunism, not genuine concern about civil liberties. Provisions were offered to reform the terror watch list, to make the process more transparent and to make it easier for people to challenge their placement on the list. The Democrats refused because they really don’t want a gun control law as much as they want a gun control issue for the election.

Remember when not compromising to get legislation passed was a sign of evil Republican unreasonableness and partisanship? Good times.

And just in case you thought the Democrats were the voice of reason here:

If I said opposing the Patriot Act empowered terrorists or opposing torture empowered terrorists or closing Gitmo empowered terrorists or ending mass surveillance empowered terrorists, Democrats would have a fit. But apparently it’s OK to say your opponents are terrorists when it’s gun control.

It’s kind of amazing the philosophical flim-flam the Democrats have pulled off here. As Lucy Steigerwald pointed on Twitter, passing gun laws is now considered an apolitical act, just “common sense”. The only people who “play politics” are those who oppose such laws.

This is how “Sensible gun control” really works

When your government disarms you in the name of public safety and security, the only people with guns will be the agents of the state and the criminals. In Brazil, a nation with one of the world’s most draconian gun control frameworks in place, crime also sets a world record. Case in point stories like this one:

After two members of the Australian Paralympic sailing squad were robbed at gunpoint, Australia’s Olympic team leader is urging Brazilian authorities to implement Olympic-scale security now in Rio de Janeiro “before an athlete gets hurt.”
The weekend incident in Rio highlighted fears of crime against foreign athletes ahead of the Aug. 5-21 Summer Games.

An estimated 85,000 police and soldiers will be patrolling the streets during the Olympics and Paralympics, but violent crime remains a fact of life in Rio.

This shit can’t be made up. In a country where owning a gun carries swift and horrible repercussions, gun wielding criminals robbed some handicapped Olympians despite the fact that the government claims some 85K agents of the state are out patrolling the streets to prevent this sort of crime.

Reality is that when seconds count help will always be minutes late. That’s why the best defense is people that have the ability to defend themselves. Of course, had Brazilians been able to defend themselves, they would have likely lynched their corrupt and criminal political aristocracy after the recent revelations of how hard they have been screwed by them. And I have no doubt that these scumbags that passed these laws’ primary reason behind the “sensible gun control laws” was to make sure that scenario couldn’t play out, from the start.

The left in this country wants to disarm the citizenry for the same reason. They have lost any desire to waste time pretending they aren’t crooks, as the past 7 years clearly show us, and if it was up to them things would only get worse. But the fear of an armed response from an angry people still holds some sway, so from that we get the surreal world we have today where terrorist attacks by islamist monsters warp into calls for disarming law abiding citizens.

Say what you want, but the forefathers that created this once great nation had the prescience to realize that the constitution was worthless paper without it also guaranteeing the people with the means to protect their rights from a calous political class claiming to want to do something noble and good and robbing us of said freedoms and the ability to protect them especially. Collectivism may claim noble intentions, but it is a scourge on humanity.

This is how the left sees the system work

Sure, I can refer to this Washington Times editorial piece and stick to the fact that, again, the very asshole leftists that want to disarm the people so they can become even more horribly tyrannical in their ways, are violating the second amendment of the constitution, but in doing so I would be missing the forest for the trees. The big lesson here isn’t that these assholes exempted themselves from gun control laws they foisted on the plebes, but the following bigger problem:

The California state Senate voted 28-8 Wednesday to exempt itself from the pointless gun-control laws that apply to the rest of the populace. Legislators apparently think they alone are worthy to pack heat on the streets for personal protection, and the masses ought to wait until the police arrive.

This is just one of many bills Golden State politicians used this legislative session to set themselves apart from the little people, the ones who pay their inflated salaries.

And this double standards when it comes to the people vs. the political aristocracy doesn’t stop with the blue states like California, but is now central to the entire political machine of this country. Wherever you turn, blue state credentialed politicians have straddled the productive with draconian legislation and fiscal responsibilities, while exempting themselves from them. In many cases they have blatantly passed laws to specifically make this the case, but in most cases, what you have is them simply enforcing the laws against the little people and their political enemies while keeping themselves exempt from that.

What is my proof, you ask? Well, if the law applied equally to us all, Obama would have been indicted for doing what Nixon couldn’t – sick the IRS against his political enemies – and the woman running for president on the Demcoratic ticket would be doing it like this:

This is what Hillary's campaign should look like

This is what Hillary’s campaign should look like

UPDATE: Yeah, she has been lying through her teeth about how bad what she did was:

Once again Hillary’s been caught lying about her criminal mishandling of classified national security information. Recall that Ms. Clinton swears none of the emails which passed through her off-the-record email server system was ever marked classified.

Uh oh. Au contraire, madam, once again you are exposed as a liar.

Fox News gets the credit. In an exclusive report published June 11, Fox News revealed that one of Ms. Clinton’s emails had a “portion marking” that identified the specific information contained in the “portion” as being classified. That means the information was sensitive and was legally protected.

The information had the lowest level of classification, Confidential. It discussed a phone call with the president of Malawi, Joyce Banda. Fox News included an information-rich screen shot of the email.

I wonder how much of that stuff that was “accidentally destroyed” makes this all look like peanuts. Actually, no I am not. I know they got rid of it because it was incriminating, and playing this game where we give them the benefit of doubt is long pas its expiration date.

The Anti-Gun Arguments Get Stupider

I’ve been pro-second amendment as long as I can remember. My dad owned guns. Most of the people I knew growing up either owned a gun or hunted. I try to engage the anti-gun arguments but I know I come at it from a bias: it didn’t occur to me until a relatively late age that there were people who wanted to rid our society of guns.

But as Americans continues to stock up on guns and gun violence continues to fall, the arguments of the anti-gun crowd are getting weaker and weaker. Samanatha Bee ran a bit on her show, demonstrating — to our supposed horror — that it’s easier to get a gun than to obtain a NRA mascot costume (although they didn’t actually buy any guns). Charles Cooke:

There are disagreements in politics. And then there is willful stupidity. This, alas, is an example of the latter. “Eddie the Eagle” is a private, trademarked, fictional character owned by an organization that is able to restrict his replication as much as it wishes. Firearms, by contrast, are constitutionally protected goods that cannot be denied to free people without good cause. Of course it is easier to get hold of one than the other. To buy a gun one needs to be of a certain age and to be without a criminal record; to obtain an “Eddie the Eagle” costume one needs to meet whatever conditions the character’s owners have imposed. One might as well ask why it is easier for a person to buy a machete than to take Jennifer Lawrence out for dinner. “But one is nicer than the other; surely that counts for something?!”

You can imagine, of course, how the Left Wing idiots praising Bee’s skit would react if Glenn Beck showed it was easier to get an abortion than to adopt a child. Some things are harder to do than others. This does not convey any kind of social commentary.

It is notable that when Bee finally compares like with like — that is, when both of the products within her comparison are available on the open market — she has to resort to debunked lies. “It turned out the organization that makes it easier to get a gun than Sudafed . . .” Bee claims at one point. This is false. In truth, both guns and Sudafed are regulated in all 50 states when they are purchased from a professional dealer. Moreover, as anybody who has bought both knows, it is infinitely easier to buy Sudafed from a pharmacy than to buy a gun from a dealer, and easier, too, to buy Sudafed from a secondary seller than it is to buy a gun privately.

I haven’t watched Bee’s show because I don’t watch much TV. I liked her on The Daily Show but the clips that show up in my social media are of a piece with this: condescending, incorrect and more smarmy than they are insightful. And liberals seem to love it. She had a recent bit responding to Rubio’s comment that some Democrats support abortion up until birth, saying, “Removing the baby on the due date isn’t an abortion, it’s a cesarean.” No, it isn’t.

The diaspora of Daily Show correspondents has been a mixed bag. John Oliver’s show is pretty good (and tackles issues that are in the libertarian wheelhouse, like asset forfeiture). Colbert’s show is OK. Whitmore’s show is OK at times. Bee’s show, from what little I’ve seen, mainly appeals to liberals who want more sass than fact. The Daily Show itself is struggling. Trevor Noah isn’t a bad host but he lacks Stuarts’ skill in making both sides laugh.

Well … it could be worse. We could be seeing this bullshit from a “real” news organization.

Update: A lot of the anti-gun foolishness these days is a result of desperation. The gun grabbers have lost the argument and keep losing it. Every time someone is hot, they try to milk the tragedy for more gun laws and it simply doesn’t happen.

How desperate are they? Well, the Brady Campaign has gotten shooting Alice in Wonderland in the face desperate.

Update: Oh. Guns are now racist as well.

No, You Can’t Sue

Hillary Clinton, feeling the heat of Bernie Sanders’ surging campaign, has decided to go after him for his support for the limited legal immunity given to gun owners. This attack became particularly sharp after Sanders gave an interview in which he said the families of the Sandy Hook victims should not be able to sue the gun manufacturers for damages, a statement that prompted this hysterical reaction from the New York Daily News:

LGF2440

However, this is one issue where Bernie is absolutely right and Clinton is absolutely wrong.

The liability protections for gun companies were created in the mid-2000s. The reason it was created was because Democrats like Richard Daley and Andrew Cuomo were trying to use the Courts to bypass the legislatures. They were filing massive suits against gun manufacturers to hold them liable for the cost of people getting shot. Such lawsuits have no basis in common law or American legal tradition. You can sue people for making defective products or breaking the law (or lying about their products as the cigarette companies did). But you can’t sue someone who makes a perfectly legal product because you don’t like what people do with it. This would be like suing airplane manufacturers over 9/11. Or suing Apple because someone wrote something libelous on a Mac.

Walter Olson:

PLCAA codified the common-law principles that have long applied in tort claims following shootings: if an otherwise lawful firearm has performed as it was designed and intended to do, its maker and seller are not liable for its misuse. (Exceptions permit liability in some situations where, e.g., a defendant has broken regulations or knowingly sold to a buyer intent on harm.) In other words, Congress acted specifically to preserve the law’s traditional handling of gun liability as against activists’ efforts to develop novel legal doctrine.

A good way of visualizing it was posted by Harley on Facebook earlier this week:

12957593_1162794513732785_6211668944986006261_o

While the lawsuits were bullshit and were mostly rejected by judges and juries, the hope was that either a) one jury would get stupid and open the door to multi-billion dollar suits; or b) the pressure of being sued by governments with effectively unlimited legal resources would force gun companies to make changes to their guns or sales procedures. In fact, this is exactly what happened in 2000, when Bill Clinton coerced Smith and Wesson into adopting more restrictive sales procedures. That’s what’s really going on here: having failed to get gun control through Congress, the gun grabbers want to use the threat of lawsuits to enact gun control through the back door.

And that’s why Congress was absolutely right to put a stop to it. Because allowing anyone to bypass Congress and legislate through the courts is an invitation to disaster. Once you’ve opened that door, there’s nothing to stop interest groups from using it to do whatever the hell they want. There’s nothing to stop President Cruz from effectively outlawing abortion by allowing thousands of wrongful death suits against abortion providers. There’s nothing to stop President Lieberman from enacting censorship on movies and video games by suing claiming it causes violence. When you’ve embraced the idea that companies can be sued for doing something legal because you don’t like it, the entire rule of law is upended. All that has to happen is for an industry to become unpopular and they can be crushed.

Hillary Clinton is not an idiot. She knows this. Any Democrat with two brain cells to rub together knows this. But the gun grabber hysteria on the Left is too strong right now for them to say, “Uh, no I favor gun control but we can’t upend the rule of law to do it.” This is effectively what Bernie Sander is saying. And for that, he’s being castigated by a gullible press and a desperate Presidential candidate.

Banana republic it is

I speak from personal experience when I point out that when people piss off the left and members of this administration in particular, they end up being raided by the legal arm of the corrupt system. And I am sure this is done to find a way to punish anyone that dares stand up the these corrupt kleptocrats as well as set an example for anyone else that might think to stand up against the establishment’s chosen.

We have a system of law that was created by these plutocrats over decades, always pretending the idiotic laws were to help people, that now ends up making sure every single one of us is a criminal, at least 3 times a day. Most people feel fine with the bureaucratic morass that passes for a legal system, because the masters that direct that system against their enemies usually finds them not worthy of much effort, and lacking any taste of how contemptible things have become, they think the system still serves to mete out justice instead of the will of the masters. But piss off the masters, and they will show you that your assumption of having rights and constitutional protection was long ago rendered mute, and that you are at their whim, like this sap and so many others have found to be the case.

You ask why they would allow something like this to be published if they were abusing their power? The answer is simple: they not only see it as a deterrent, but they flat out believe nobody can do anything to them about it. After all, they have been pissing all over the constitution and over our freedoms for so long, setting new records of abuse over the last 7 plus years, and have not just gotten away with it, but get defended by idiots that think that not only is this fine because it is their side sticking it to the others, but because they are either naive enough to think that because they pledge allegiance to these vile and corrupt masters, they will be spared, or worse, because they hope that as everyone gets thrown to the crocodiles, they will be last.

Don’t piss off the new American aristocracy of this fundamentally transformed country, or else. When you trade your freedoms for the veneer of security or social justice, don’t end up surprised when you end up with nothing at all but an obligation to your new masters.

SCOTUS Second Amendment Smackdown

One of the more ridiculous argument used by anti-Second-Amendment types goeth thusly: “OK, the second amendment gives you the right to bear arms … as defined in 1789. So you can have a musket.”

The idiocy of this argument scarcely needs commenting on. No one would claim the First and Fourth Amendments didn’t apply to computers since computers didn’t exist in 1789. No one would claim Mormons can’t have religious freedom because the LDS church didn’t exist in 1789. And yet this argument has been dragged out from time to time. And a Massachusetts Court gave some credence to that argument:

Enter Jaime Caetano, a Massachusetts woman who had obtained a restraining order against an abusive ex-partner and carried a stun gun for self-protection. When police discovered the weapon in her purse, she was convicted of violating the state’s ban on stun guns. She appealed, contending that the ban violated the Constitution’s right to bear arms. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled against her, declaring that stuns guns were not in existence when the Second Amendment was written.

So how did the Court take to this argument? Very poorly. They rejected it per curiam in scathing terms with Alito and Thomas issuing a concurring opinion. To be clear: they didn’t decide that the stun gun ban is unconstitutional; they simply sent it back to the Supreme Judicial Court with a note saying, “Think harder, Massholes.”

Again, per curiam, which means the “musket gambit” is so silly, even the liberals on the Court who voted against Heller thought it was a ridiculous argument.

Because … you know … it is a ridiculous argument. It might make for good cheer lines on The Daily Show/Full Frontal/SNL/Real Time. But it won’t hold a thimble of water in a Court.