Category: 2nd Amendment

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.

How strict are Germany’s gun laws again?

There are numerous stories coming out – despite an orchestrated attempt soften the message, or outright just cover up what really happened and how bad it was – about the rampage these migrant “youths” engaged in, not just in German cities, but all across Europe. From Germany to Finland, stories are coming out that rock the bullshit the pseudo-marxist, multi-culturalism pushing pimp, credentialed elite that run our decaying western once-democracies have been selling about the religion of peace and the risk posed by way too many of its adherents. In ultra-progressive Germany, which first reacted to the news of anti-feminist rampage and rape by warning the very people coming forth to point out that the authorities also did nothing in practically every case, that they would pay a hefty price for saying things the elite would not allow – especially since what they where saying were detrimental to the narrative and agenda of these credentialed elites and totally true – in order to try and stave off the oblivious wrench this would throw in their machinations, things are changing. Heck, the adage that “history repeats itself” again assets itself, drawing parallels with what is happening to the Clintons, which were ridding that “war on women” bandwagon hard and heavy to influence the 2016 election in Shrillary’s favor, that is, until someone pointed out Bill Clinton was a champ at that stuff.

But no, my post isn’t about the fact that the only standards the left has are double standards, or that they are nothing but hypocritical scum that never really walk any of that talk they talk. It’s about the specific move by the Obama crime syndicate to again disarm a populous that they view as stupid rubes too dumb to just go along with whatever their masters and betters – the credentialed scumbags running progressive government – so they can actually do what they want without fear of retaliation. So, without further ado, I present the video below, which shows the “celebration” that gangs of young “religion of peace” worshiping immigrants celebrating 2016 New Year’s Eve, partook in.

Religion of Peace celebrates New Year 2016 in Germany

Note the guns being shot all over the place. Then rack your memory about the German constitution’s second amendment and the country’s gun laws. If you aren’t one of the morons that sucks marxist cock you would immediately grasp that Germany has the same gun control model our leftards in the US would love to impose on us. And yet, here are these adherents of the “religion of peace”, not just acting out like thugs and criminals, but shooting off the very illegal guns nobody but the proper people that the credentialed marxists in charge tell us should be allowed arms of any kind, are not allowed to have.

Reality is that these pseudo-marxist, credentialed elite, leftist governments pass and want to pass draconian gun laws to disarm law abiding citizens, not to protect the citizenry or prevent criminals from getting their hands on firearms, but to make sure that the people they are fucking over can’t take up arms against them when the fucking-over gets really bad (as it is starting to across the western world). As this video clearly proves, criminals and people that don’t have any respect for the law of the land, don’t give a flying fuck about whether they are allowed firearms or not, and disarming those of us that do follow the law will not prevent them from getting guns or using them.In this case they were firing off shots to celebrate the new year, but I am sure they didn’t go through all the “trouble” it would take to get an illegal gun in draconianly gun controlled Germany, just to save some euros by shooting off bullets instead of fireworks.

Don’t take my word for the fact that the left’s agenda is the disarmament of the serfs they feel are too uppity, and that they will tell any lie and resort to any scheme to do this. Recently Obama took to TV, where he put in an Oscar worthy performance replete with falsehoods and bullshit, and got a pass from a complacent and mendacious media. “Sensible gun control” to the left is a disarmed citizenry. The elite will have the monopoly on violence, especially with regards to firearms, and the criminal element and the violence they inflict will be swept under the carpet – there is no use for bandying those statistics as a means to push more gun control then like they do in what happen to be the most draconian gun controlled urban jungles that also happen to be totally owned by pseudo-marxist leftist government after they have confiscated our firearms – because they could care less who gets killed then. Oh sure, they will occasionally grandstand and talk though, or they might warn those pointing out how fucked up things are to shut their trap or else, like they are doing in Europe, but they know that it is nothing but that.

We are at a crossroads right now, and we either wise up to the fact the leftists are destroying modern society, on fucking purpose, or we will all look back on all the troubles of today – those of us with the framework to comprehend it that is – and pine for the good old days. There is hope for Germany, yet, though. The credentialed pseudo-marxist elite running Germany, and for that matter several other European countries, are not going to be able to sell that shit sandwich they have been pushing for too much longer without showing their true colors. Hopefully people here in the US are paying attention too, and know what more of the same will bring us next.

Midweek Roundup

At a conference this week. Here’s a few stories I’m following:

  • North Korea claims to have tested a hydrogen bomb. Even the skeptics admit that whatever they’ve tested, if not technically an H-bomb, is massively more powerful than the bombs they’ve been testing before. So far, our “smart diplomacy” has yielded nothing with the Norks.
  • Reports are preliminary, but it appears that there was a wave of sexual assaults and robberies in Cologne, Germany, with the perpetrators being gangs of Arab and North African men. We have seen this sort of thing before, although not on this scale. I don’t oppose immigration. I do demand that immigrants observe our cultural norms, obey our laws and treat women with respect.
  • President Obama has announced some executive actions on gun control, mostly tightening background checks. Charles Cooke notes that the President is expending a lot of political capital for very little gain. The President, and the Democrats, continue to think that the country is screaming for gun control and that this will vault them to electoral success. They are deeply mistaken. Liberals, in echo chambers like Vox, are screaming for gun control. The country, generally is not.
  • Continuing on that, the President announced these moves in a tearful press conference. His emotions, however, are not important. What is important, as Ken White tells us, is how the President talks about rights, which is to say in the most disingenuous anti-freedom way imaginable.
  • Jamelle Bouie has a great piece where he argues that the Oregon standoff is not really about race. Our focus shouldn’t be on why police aren’t gunning down the Bundys. It should be on how to get the to show the same caution more often.

I told you so….

Back in the old days of the antichrist Boosh, the left loved to tell us how evil his administration was for all sorts of things, but especially the cloak and dagger shit that the left always projects on their enemies. Of course, those of us that know the left better and realize that projection happens because the left is assuming others do whatever they do, are not surprised to find out, that in the age of Obama, the abuse of power is always directed at your allies and political enemies:

President Barack Obama announced two years ago he would curtail eavesdropping on friendly heads of state after the world learned the reach of long-secret U.S. surveillance programs.

Hah! Is this yet another Obama broken promise? As Glenn H. Reynolds so avidly points out: Obama’s promises all come with expiration dates and usually reflect exactly the opposite of what he plans to do. You pick the promise, and you will find that it was a boldfaced lie or only was kept unitl it became inconvenient for this administration to do so. Here is some juice shit that follows:

But behind the scenes, the White House decided to keep certain allies under close watch, current and former U.S. officials said. Topping the list was Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The U.S., pursuing a nuclear arms agreement with Iran at the time, captured communications between Mr. Netanyahu and his aides that inflamed mistrust between the two countries and planted a political minefield at home when Mr. Netanyahu later took his campaign against the deal to Capitol Hill.

How much do we want to bet that Iran – the bad guy in this stupid deal that is assured to cause us so much more pain in the future – never had anything compared to the level of scrutiny that this administration put on what they labeled a political enemy. And let us not forget, as the left constantly reminds us through word and deed, that the real enemy according to them never is the people that want to kill Americans or Jews and destroy the west in the process, but the political enemies of the left. And Nethanyahu sure as hell is a “grade A” enemy in the eyes if this pro-Islamic fundamentalism administration. With information like this coming out, what more proof do you need that to these scumbags it never really is about the interests of the American people, but always that of the political left? After all, it isn’t like Iran has read anything but acquiescence from this idiotic deal either.

The National Security Agency’s targeting of Israeli leaders and officials also swept up the contents of some of their private conversations with U.S. lawmakers and American-Jewish groups. That raised fears—an “Oh-s— moment,” one senior U.S. official said—that the executive branch would be accused of spying on Congress.

White House officials believed the intercepted information could be valuable to counter Mr. Netanyahu’s campaign. They also recognized that asking for it was politically risky. So, wary of a paper trail stemming from a request, the White House let the NSA decide what to share and what to withhold, officials said. “We didn’t say, ‘Do it,’ ” a senior U.S. official said. “We didn’t say, ‘Don’t do it.’ ”

Yeah, the bad guy according to the WH was that evil Netanyahu guy because he had the temerity to refuse to go along with an absolutely insane and stupid deal that clearly allows Iran to build nuclear weapons and continue to pursue the agenda of genocide against the Jews and the Great Satan, and not the Iranian madmen or the fucking idiots in the WH that conjured up this terrible deal. And am I alone in getting a whiff of the old Clintoneseque lawyerese? “We didn’t tell them to do it, but didn’t tell them not to do it and then share it with us either”, wink wink. Par for the course. From the whole sicking the IRS on political enemies scandal that they have been trying so hard, to squash to the now all but forgotten gun running scam into Mexico run by the DEA that they hoped would allow the massacre that would follow to be used to piss on the second amendment, to the plethora of insane foreign policy debacles that make the Carter years look awesome in contrast (the Arab Spring, Benghazi, Syria, ISIS, Turkey, the Russians, China, Iran, and so fucking on and on). this administration has been about profit for the left’s political machine at the expense of not just the American people, but the world at large. And they don’t even worry much that this agenda shines through, because after all, with the DOJ owned and doing their bidding and Congress neutered, who is going to really stand against them and their criminal and down right evil agenda?

Stepped-up NSA eavesdropping revealed to the White House how Mr. Netanyahu and his advisers had leaked details of the U.S.-Iran negotiations—learned through Israeli spying operations—to undermine the talks; coordinated talking points with Jewish-American groups against the deal; and asked undecided lawmakers what it would take to win their votes, according to current and former officials familiar with the intercepts.

Before former NSA contractor Edward Snowden exposed much of the agency’s spying operations in 2013, there was little worry in the administration about the monitoring of friendly heads of state because it was such a closely held secret. After the revelations and a White House review, Mr. Obama announced in a January 2014 speech he would curb such eavesdropping.

Anyone still doubt that Snowden is a fucking hero even if you disagree with how he did what he did? And ask yourself who paid for this absolutely egregious abuse of power. Has anyone in this administration been held accountable? Shit, Nixon wants to retract his resignation. After all, he got run out of town for what amounts to a joke compared to the laundry list of criminal activity engaged in and gotten away with by this administration. A complicit and cowed media goes a long way. Now if they had only managed to get their lie about Benghazi being about out of control social media to stick so they could control the internet as well, they would really be rocking the Kasbah.

In closed-door debate, the Obama administration weighed which allied leaders belonged on a so-called protected list, shielding them from NSA snooping. French President François Hollande, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and other North Atlantic Treaty Organization leaders made the list, but the administration permitted the NSA to target the leaders’ top advisers, current and former U.S. officials said. Other allies were excluded from the protected list, including Recep Tayyip Erdogan, president of NATO ally Turkey, which allowed the NSA to spy on their communications at the discretion of top officials.

I think the WSJ is not being accurate here, because I remember how part of the Snowden release showed massive spying by the NSA on the Europeans, and especially the French and Germans, targeting the leadership specifically (google it, it is out there). I am betting the only people not eavesdropped on are the Iranians, Russians, and the Chinese, probably because all the assets where too busy looking at the political enemies of the administration and those radical right wing fanatics that won’t just let team Obama do their thing. Now for the doozy in the story:

Privately, Mr. Obama maintained the monitoring of Mr. Netanyahu on the grounds that it served a “compelling national security purpose,” according to current and former U.S. officials. Mr. Obama mentioned the exception in his speech but kept secret the leaders it would apply to.

Are we talking about that monitoring that they never really told the NSA to do, or not to do, here? Yeah, I thought so. It is quite obvious to me that Netanyahu was a threat to the security of the Obama Administration and its plans to fundamentally change America as promised, too. Of course I doubt that many people in America, including so many Jews that are bought and owned by the democratic party, realize what this revelation shows this administration really is about. Can you imagine Boosh or another republican doing something like this and getting away with it? Think hard on that people. That’s the litmus test really, and the proof that we are all being had by these crooks. Let’s put Hillary in the WH so this party can go on. On steroids.

The NYT Gets Hysterical

For the first time in 95 years, the New York Times has run a front page editorial. The subject? Guns and how we need to get rid of them. And it is a distillation of the moral panic we are having over guns right now.

The attention and anger of Americans should also be directed at the elected leaders whose job is to keep us safe but who place a higher premium on the money and political power of an industry dedicated to profiting from the unfettered spread of ever more powerful firearms.

So many problems squeezed into one paragraph. First, it is not the job of elected leaders to “keep us safe”. Or at least, it’s not their only job. Their jobs is also to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”. It’s also to exercise restraint when the public is hysterical and hence clamorous to be lead to safety by hobgoblins who dance in the blood of the slain. We responded hysterically to World War I with the Espionage and Sedition Acts (without a front page editorial from the NYT). We responded to Pearl Harbor with a hysterical internment (without a front page editorial from the NYT). We responded to 9/11 with a hysterical Patriot Act (without a front page editorial from the NYT). Must we respond hysterically now?

And the idea that politicians oppose gun control because of money and power from the firearms industry is disgusting. According to the NYT and their allies, gun control opponents are perfectly willing to countenance the slaughter of thousands if it means a few thousand dollars in their campaign war chest. And what about the tens of millions of Americans who oppose gun control? What about the conservative and libertarian writers who oppose gun control? And frankly, what about the NRA, which has millions of members and a higher approval rating than Hillary Clinton? Where’s our bribes?

As I said the other day:

Saying that your opponents are fine with killing is the reaction of an insane person, not “the paper of record”.

I’m tired of hearing this crap that the only reason we don’t get gun control is because of NRA bribes. It’s possible to oppose gun control on principal or because it is not popular with the American public or your particular constituency. Bernie Sanders, to his credit, tried to make this point in the Democratic debate. It basically ended his candidacy.

Today’s liberalism shares a heritage with yesterday’s communism. One of the principle things it has inherited is the belief that their ideas are intrinsically scientifically right and that if anyone opposes them, it is because they have been deluded by a shadowy conspiracy of counter-revolutionaries. For the commies, it was bourgeois. For the liberals, it’s the NRA.

We’re only two paragraphs in and the NYT already needs to get a damned grip.

It is a moral outrage and a national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed specifically to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency. These are weapons of war, barely modified and deliberately marketed as tools of macho vigilantism and even insurrection.

Now we get the distraction on assault weapons. Assault weapons are a tiny tiny portion of violence in the country. And “assault weapon” itself is mostly a marketing term used by gun manufacturers. There really is not much of a difference between a handgun and an “assault weapon”. In fact, most assault weapons are of lower caliber and lower power than a revolver or handgun. Even our government admits that the 90’s assault weapons ban — which mainly banned guns that looked scary — had no impact on gun violence.

The assault weapons ban is a touchstone for what the real issue is: a culture war. The gun grabbers don’t like assault weapons. Wanting to ban them is about signaling, not reducing violence.

And what’s the point? Is the point that these terrorists might have killed a few less people if they’d had rifles and handguns? Or restorted to bombs instead? Is that really what we’re talking about here?

After conceding that gun laws may not stop criminals, that the Constitutional challenges are formidable and that terrorists in France obtained weapons without a problem, they say this:

But at least those countries are trying. The United States is not.

You will never find a moral perfect statement of: “We must do something! This is something! Let’s do it!”

Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership. It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.

The “clear and effective way” last time was to go through a catalog and pick out weapons that looked scary. And note that last part: gun confiscation. Hanging out there all pink and naked.

I’ll close with a few bullet points that the NYT did not mention:

  • Gun violence is down. Way down. 50% off its 1993 peak. And if you’re not in an inner city war zone, violence is at level similar to countries that have way stricter gun control. Violence has fallen even faster than it did in Australia after they passed their restrictive gun laws in the wake of Port Arthur. During this dramatic drop in crime, millions of carry permits have been issued and about a hundred million guns purchased.
  • The problem of gun violence is primarily in inner cities, not among rural and suburban gun collectors. This is why assault weapons are such a tiny part of overall gun violence.
  • The contention that more guns equals more violence is only true if you cherry-pick. The contention that Connecticut’s gun laws massively reduced gun violence is only true if you cherry pick. The contention that mass shootings are way up is only true if you cherry pick. The contention that there have been 350 mass shootings this year is only true if you muddy the definition of mass shooting beyond all recognition. Both the CDC and the NRC conceded, in their studies, that the case that gun control will reduce violence is weak, at beast.
  • Given that, the contention that our politicians could unquestionably stop this violence by passing a law is ridiculous. I’m sorry. This is a matter of debate. This is a matter of disagreement. This is not a matter of just pressing the gun control button and having a less violent society emerge.
  • By phrasing it the way they do — as if it were not even debatable than gun control would massively reduce violence — the gun grabbers unwittingly reveal what this: a religion. They believe that gun control will work because they believe government can do anything if it just decides to. And the millions of Americans who oppose gun control are thus heretics.
  • The tale of gun violence is not told in mass shootings. It’s told in the every day violence in our inner cities and the suicides of many fellow Americans. But addressing that is much more complicated. It probably means ending the War on Drugs. It means addressing the cultural decay and the devaluation of human life. It means fixing our broken education, law enforcement and economic systems. Much easier to grab someone’s AK-47 and call it a day, I guess.
  • Did we mention that these were terrorists? Of all the incidents to pick to lose their minds over, the NYT picked this one.

Oh well. Sorry about the rant, but the NYT has basically distilled the hysteria of the last few days and I needed to vent and put all the responses in one place. I hate having to do this every time some maniac decides to kill. You can read a cooler reactions from Jonah Goldberg or Reason or check out the Twitter feed of the indispensable Charles Cooke for more. I’m sure Hot Air and others will have a reply up soon.

One closing thought. The NYT’s front page editorial (and the NY Daily News increasingly deranged covers) are a sign of a movement that is angry because they are not convincing anyone. Every time a tragedy happens, they leap to the microphones, computers and desks to say that now is the time to enact “sensible” gun control and the American public … ignores them.

So is the final straw? Is this the moment when American will “turn their back on gun violence” and repudiate the NRA and finally enact the gun control the liberals wants?

Well, the last time the NYT ran a front page editorial was to lament that nomination of Warren Harding for President.

He won the election by one of the biggest popular vote margins in American history.

Colorado Again

We’re still learning the details, but some information has emerged on Friday’s shooting at a Planned Parenthood Clinic. It does appear that Planned Parenthood was the target but that no one was killed there because the patients and staff went behind a security door (abortion clinics have developed extensive security procedures since a wave of anti-abortion violence hit in the 90’s). Preliminary reports are that the shooter was talking about baby parts so this does not appear to have been a random attack.

A few little thoughts:

Democrats who are jumping on this to promote gun legislation can go to hell. Colorado has background checks and an assault weapons ban and it’s still not clear what weapons were used. I have lost patience with this business of milking every tragedy for their agenda.

Last week, we got a bunch of think pieces asking why Muslims always have to denounce jihadist violence. We’re already seeing those same outlets demanding that anti-abortion politicians and Christian organizations denounce this act of violence. Of course, many of them, including Mike Huckabee, already have.

Was this terrorism? Well, it wasn’t part of a mass organization to attack abortion clinics. But it is violence directed against innocent people to try to end abortion. So, yeah, I have no problem calling it terrorism.

There has been a recent uptick in attacks on abortion clinics. But, overall, violence directed against clinics and providers is way down from the late 90’s. Keep that in mind.

In keeping with my previous posts, I will not name the shooter. I will, however, name Garret Swasey, the police officer murdered by this lunatic.

Clearing out the Tabs

A few things I don’t have time for a full post on:

Talking Turkey

Query: am I the only person in American who doesn’t have shouting political discussions at Thanksgiving? Passover, sure. When I was a kid, it wasn’t a real Passover until my Reagan Republican dad and his Roosevelt Democrat parents started talking about whether Walter Mondale was an idiot, a kook or a kooky idiot. But Thanksgiving?

The reason I ask this is that every liberal outlet on the planet is putting up some thinkpiece about “how to argue with your conservative relatives at Thanksgiving”. I’ve got news for liberals. If you’re constantly arguing politics over turkey, the problem is not them; it’s you.

Talking Turkeyshit

As you know, I’m in favor of admitting Syrian refugees, given proper vetting. But my own side is beginning to annoy the crap out of me with ever more ridiculous arguments. Viz:

Guns, Guns, Guns:

The Democrats have proposed that we ban gun sales to people who are on the terror watch list. Charles CW Cooke responds, pointing out that the terror list is an ad-hoc conglomeration of data, rumor and myth. No less than the ACLU oppose using it for … anything. There are hundreds of thousands of people on it for arbitrary or unknown reasons. And it’s hard to get off of it. And now the Democrats want to deprive citizens of a constitutional right based one it.

In times past, officials advocating the simultaneous undermining of a range of constitutional rights would have been tarred, feathered, and dumped into the sea, along with their staff, their press agents, and anyone else who saw fit to acquiesce in the scheme. A little of that spirit might be welcome here.

However the press might cast it, there are not in fact “two sides” to this issue. It is not a “tricky question.” It is not a “thorny one” or a “gray area” or a “difficult choice.” It is tyranny. Somewhere, deep down, its advocates must know this. Presumably, Chuck Schumer would not submit that those on a terror watch list should be deprived of their right to speak? Presumably, Harry Reid would not contend that they must be kept away from their mosques? Presumably, Diane Feinstein would not argue that they should be subjected to warrantless searches and seizures? Such proposals would properly be considered disgraceful — perhaps, even, as an overture to American fascism. Alas, there is something about guns that causes otherwise reasonable people to lose their minds.

As Cooke points out, people would go ape if we talked about suspending first Amendment rights for a million people because their name is on a list. The problem is that Democrats don’t see the Second Amendment as a fundamental civil liberty.

You should read the whole thing. It’a an awesome rant.

(And I’m working on Turkeys and Drumsticks post. A lot of Turkeys this year. Hard to sort them out.)