Tag: Gun politics in the United States

More Garden State Gun Insanity

A couple of years ago, we talked about Brian Aitken, the man who was convicted of violating New Jersey gun laws because he had guns in his car while he was moving. He was released from prison by Christie and his convictions were eventually thrown out (in part because the judge gave poor instructions to the jury; proper instructions might have resulted in acquittal).

Then it was Shaneen Allen, who faced felony charges for having a registered gun in her car while driving through New Jersey. After enormous public pressure, the prosecutor relented and let her go into a diversion program for first-time offenders.

These things keep happening because New Jersey’s gun laws are insanely complicated and ignore any idea of mens rea:

Carrying a firearm in a locked container in checked luggage in an airport terminal to declare it to the airline constitutes unlawful possession and is not protected under the law.

This decision was a direct result of a 2005 incident where Gregg C. Revell, a Utah Resident with a valid Utah Concealed Firearm Permit was traveling through Newark Airport en route to Allentown, Pennsylvania.

Because of a missed flight, he was given his luggage, which included a properly checked firearm, and was forced to spend the night in a hotel in New Jersey. When he returned to the airport the following day to check his handgun for the last portion of the trip, he was arrested for illegal possession of a firearm.

Revell lost his lawsuit after The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held in Gregg C. Revell v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, [222] held that “Section 926A does not apply to Revell because his firearm and ammunition were readily accessible to him during his stay in New Jersey.”

This opinion will apply to NJ airports. If you miss a flight or for any other reason your flight is interrupted and the airline tries to return you luggage that includes a checked firearm, you cannot take possession of the firearm if you are taking a later flight.

Well, meet the latest victim:

Gordon Van Gilder is a retired New Jersey school teacher and collector of 18th century memorabilia. That innocuous hobby could land the 72-year-old behind bars for the rest of his life.

Van Gilder owns an unloaded antique 225-year-old flintlock pistol, the possession of which carries a potential 10-year prison sentence and mandatory minimum sentence of three to five-and-a-half years with no chance for parole.

When a Cumberland County sheriff’s deputy pulled over Van Gilder last November for a minor traffic violation, Van Gilder—after consenting to a search—volunteered the information that the unloaded pistol was in his glove box. The next morning, according to Van Gilder’s account in a video posted by the National Rifle Association (NRA), four officers showed up at his home with a warrant for his arrest.

New Jersey’s strict gun laws explicitly include antique firearms, despite the fact that federal laws exempt them from most gun control regulations.

The local cops are doing ballistics tests on the flintlock just in case Van Gilder used it to commit the world’s slowest robbery or something.

Most federal gun laws exempt weapons made before 1898. The reason is that antique firearms are usually the province of collectors and historians. When was the last time you heard of someone holding up a liquor store with a musket?

There’s no question that Van Gilder broke the law. But there’s little question in my mind that the law is an ass. A Republican state legislator has introduced a bill to exempt antique weapons from New Jersey’s gun laws, but that won’t stop this prosecution. Even if he pleads out, a conviction could jeopardize his pension. I don’t know the ins and outs of New Jersey law, but if Van Gilder is eligible for the diversion program, he should absolutely get it.

This is an inevitable consequence of overly broad gun control laws. They are passed in the wake of some awful act of violence and wind up snaring law-abiding people who pose no danger whatsoever. And any opposition is written off as the result of NRA mischief.

NYT admission that democrats are anti-second amendment thugs

The NYT OpEd page carries an article by Lois Becket which all but admits that democrats manufactured the term assault weapon because they hate armed citizens, and it now being admitted because this author thinks they should ban handguns:

OVER the past two decades, the majority of Americans in a country deeply divided over gun control have coalesced behind a single proposition: The sale of assault weapons should be banned. That idea was one of the pillars of the Obama administration’s plan to curb gun violence, and it remains popular with the public. In a poll last December, 59 percent of likely voters said they favor a ban. But in the 10 years since the previous ban lapsed, even gun control advocates acknowledge a larger truth: The law that barred the sale of assault weapons from 1994 to 2004 made little difference. It turns out that big, scary military rifles don’t kill the vast majority of the 11,000 Americans murdered with guns each year. Little handguns do. In 2012, only 322 people were murdered with any kind of rifle, F.B.I. data shows.

The continuing focus on assault weapons stems from the media’s obsessive focus on mass shootings, which disproportionately involve weapons like the AR-15, a civilian version of the military M16 rifle. This, in turn, obscures some grim truths about who is really dying from gunshots. Annually, 5,000 to 6,000 black men are murdered with guns. Black men amount to only 6 percent of the population. Yet of the 30 Americans on average shot to death each day, half are black males.

It was much the same in the early 1990s when Democrats created and then banned a category of guns they called “assault weapons.” America was then suffering from a spike in gun crime and it seemed like a problem threatening everyone. Gun murders each year had been climbing: 11,000, then 13,000, then 17,000. Democrats decided to push for a ban of what seemed like the most dangerous guns in America: assault weapons, which were presented by the media as the gun of choice for drug dealers and criminals, and which many in law enforcement wanted to get off the streets. This politically defined category of guns — a selection of rifles, shotguns and handguns with “military-style” features — only figured in about 2 percent of gun crimes nationwide before the ban.

Emphasis mine. That term – assault weapons – was manufactured by democrats to push the anti-second amendment agenda. At least the author now admits that the problem the left has with guns is that their is no legal solution to people that feel life is cheap and that don’t care about laws, and making up shit to scare people doesn’t really stop crime. But her solution seems to be more of the same. The only way to reduce gun crime is to educate people about guns and to really put the type of people that use guns to commit the crime of murder out of circulation. But demcorats don’t want to do either. Roll back the stupid laws and actually deal with the criminals as criminals.

Progtard narrative misleading yet again

Let me start by saying that the death of a child is a terrible thing, but I just can’t stand the progtard’s deceptive use of tragedy to rob us of our freedoms, especially when statistics tell a different story than the one they want you to hear. From this stupid article:

About 500 American children and teenagers die in hospitals every year after sustaining gunshot wounds — a rate that climbed by nearly 60 percent in a decade, according to the first-ever accounting of such fatalities, released Sunday.

In addition, an estimated 7,500 kids are hospitalized annually after being wounded by gunfire, a figure that spiked by more than 80 percent from 1997 to 2009, according two Boston doctors presenting their findings at a conference of the American Academy of Pediatrics, held in Orlando, Fla.

Eight of every 10 firearm wounds were inflicted by handguns, according to hospital records reviewed by the doctors. They say the national conversation about guns should shift toward the danger posed by smaller weapons, not the recent fights over limiting the availability of military-style, semi-automatic rifles.

“Handguns account for the majority of childhood gunshot wounds and this number appears to be increasing over the last decade,” said Dr. Arin L. Madenci, a surgical resident at Boston’s Brigham and Women’s Hospital and one of the study’s two authors. “Furthermore, states with higher percentages of household firearm ownership also tended to have higher proportions of childhood gunshot wounds, especially those occurring in the home.”

Among homes with children, rates of gun possession ranged from 10 percent in New Jersey, for instance, to 62 percent in Montana, the researchers found.

Madenci, and his colleague, Dr. Christopher Weldon, a surgeon at Boston Children’s Hospital, tallied the new statistics by culling a national database of 36 million pediatric hospitalizations from 1997 to 2009, the most recent year for which figures are available.

During that period, hospitalizations of kids and teens aged 20 and younger from gunshot wounds jumped from 4,270 to 7,730. Firearm deaths of children logged by hospitals rose from 317 in 1997 to 503 in 2009, records showed.

Among those victims may have been 3-year-old Will McAnaul, who died on July 21, 2009 in Dayton, Ohio. The preschooler discovered his father’s loaded handgun under his parents’ bed and accidentally shot himself.

You get a whole bunch of numbers, numbers that are not adequately explained, and then they focus on one case: the tragic death of a 3 year old. Because that sob story is far more likely to appeal to their agenda than pointing out that most of those deaths and injuries happen to gangbangers under the age of 20. It is outright despicable that this author is that much of a scumbag.

Yeah, the death of this poor, young, child is a horrible tragedy, but this vile and deceptive story leaves you believing that this scenario is the norm, not the exception. Nothing could be further from the truth. The vast majority of the killed and hurt are gangbangers doing their thing. The story doesn’t even mention these facts. This piece masquerades as news, but it is nothing but propaganda, and despicable propaganda that uses the death of a child to push a vile agenda. These people are scum, I tell you.

About time they reversed that stupid Clinton era law preventing military personel from being armed

Bill Clinton, whom told us he loathed the military, and whose administration treated the military like they were valet parking monkeys, pushed for and got a law that disarmed everyone on U.S. military facilities. Considering how the left looked down on the military at that time, I can see how these morons were scared of troops with weapons, and thought themselves pretty clever disarming them all. The media did a great job of keeping this piece of information away from people when Nidal Hassan killed innocents in his Jihad, then managed to bury that story completely. Fast forward to the Navy yard attack, and suddenly everyone is wondering how it could be that even the guards on base were unarmed. The base marines in addition to being told to stand down, couldn’t have responded anyway, since they had weapons and no ammo. It smacks of stupid on a level that should make everyone but the gun grabbers get whiplash. Gun-free zones have the same effect on deranged mass murderers as a Chinese buffet has on a 400lbs hungry hulk with a massive eating disorder.

So I am glad to see that some good will finally come out of this tragedy.

Service members and federal civilians could carry personal firearms on military bases under a bill introduced Thursday by Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas, that would reverse a 20-year-old policy on firearms.

“Why are civilians at a restaurant allowed to defend themselves but soldiers trained in firearms aren’t?” Stockman said. “Why can’t we extend common-sense gun laws like open carry to our soldiers?”

The Safe Military Bases Act, HR 3199, is Stockman’s response to the Sept. 16 shooting at the Washington Navy Yard and is similar to legislation introduced after the 2009 mass shooting at Fort Hood, Texas.

Stockman said mass shootings could be stopped if people on base carried their own guns.

Seriously, if we can not trust the people we let into the military with firearms, we have big problems. Then again, this administration has made no bones of their belief that the more immediate terrorist threat in America isn’t Islamofascists, but ex-military people with a grudge against our abusive nanny state, so I can see them not wanting to let the military carry weapons.

Why the LSM is not talking much about the NAVY yard shooting any more..

I think the first, and most obvious reason, is that the LSM can not use this incident to push for more gun control, without some serious problems for the government gun grabbers, from those of us that are not going to just swallow their bullshit without checking the facts. From the article:

In Washington, D.C. on Monday, Aaron Alexis gunned down twelve people. As if designed to preempt the scripted reactions of those who fight for an anemic interpretation of the Second Amendment, the Navy Yard massacre included no assault weapon. Alexis committed his crimes in a virtually gun-free zone. His background had been checked in order to gain the active security clearance he held prior to the shooting. While I’m usually game for a good discussion of the proper limits of the Second Amendment, that alone cannot sensibly be the focus here.

So Alexis didn’t use that AR-15 that gave the gun grabbers a boner, as they originally tried to pretend he had. And, while the LSM ran away from reporting this, just as a vampire runs away from sunlight, it turns out that Alexis was a big lib and Obama supporter too. Can you imagine the fucking howling from the LSM had this guy been shown to be a conservative or Tea Party supporter? In fact, they all speculated he was one of these right from the start, and like a lot of other shit, they had it all wrong. Worse of all, while the leftists morons went out of their way to pretend that the problem was with the usual background checking procedures law abiding citizens have to go through to buy firearms, which they claim the NRA has kept from being effective, the fact remains that to hold a security clearance Alexis went through a much more thorough background check, run on behalf of the government, and passed that. Do you think that if he got through a government security background check a more beefed up check of any kind to purchase weapons would have made a difference? Really? Maybe they should have made that area a “gun-free-zone“! Oh wait, as someone much wiser said: yeah, I thought so.

Anyway, there are lots of unanswered questions the LSM now no longer cares about since the story can not be used to push more gun grabbing. For example, how many people in the US have reported on the stand-down order given to the NAVY yard SWAT team? Or what about rescinding the Clinton era order that disarmed the people on military bases? I have my beliefs of why Clinton did this – he was making sure that military he loathed couldn’t do shit to him – and I am pretty sure the fact that the left & congress don’t trust the enlisted men in the military that do not depend on their political largesse for their career advancement like the officers, had a lot to do with this idiotic decision. So now we have had an Islamist radical and an angry leftist prove how dumb disarming base security has played out in the real world, but I bet the call will be for even more gun-free, gun-free-zones.

The media now see this story as detrimental to the gun grabbing agenda. So the story will go away or die down. And then, later, when they hope most people have forgotten the facts, they will rewrite what really happened to push the gun grabbing agenda. Me, I spent the past weekend in Maine shooting at some stuff with people that respect firearms and are law abiding. Disarming people like us isn’t going to stop gun violence of any kind, and would certainly not have prevented the shooting at the NAVY yard in D.C. I bet you armed guards with orders to shoot to kill on the base however would have stopped the NAVY yard shooter. He would have picked some other “gun-free-zone” to go do this thing at, is my guess…

Law abiding citizens are going to be punished, and it will not prevent another massacre

The idiot fucking leftards that run the state of CT have yet again managed to fuck over those of us that are law abiding, while doing nothing of any significance. And of course, they did it in secret, because they knew that if people found out how these fuckers where again shitting all over the 2nd amendment, they would not have been able to pull it off. From the article:

HARTFORD — After nearly a month of closed-door meetings, legislative leaders have reached bipartisan agreement on new gun control proposals that they intend to present to rank and file members Monday afternoon.

“The leaders have had productive conversations through the end of the week,” said Adam Joseph, spokesman for Senate Democrats. “The leaders are going to give all four caucuses an update of where negotiations stand … our hope is to have a final vote in the immediate future.”

We kept it from you, for your own good – and kind of like we had to do to Obamacare, where we told you it had to pass for you to find out what was in it – because you serfs need to let Leviathan run things. Fuck, I hate the evil progressives and their authoritarian shit. Look, the only reason for the secrecy is that they wanted to prevent people from finding out what they were up to or debating the issues – the real ones, not the usual platitudes from the anti-gun left – until it was too late. And remember that bipartisan literally means you do what democrats want. Besides, a conservative in CT is just someone that would have been a democrat anywhere else 30 years ago. Real conservatives or libertarians are such a minority that we statistically don’t count. Anyway, some details:

Details of the bill were closely guarded.

Legislators have been pushing for expanded background checks, a broader ban on assault weapons and a ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines.

A ban on magazines containing more than 10 rounds has been a thorn in the negotiations.

“The magazines have been a sticking point,” Sen. Beth Bye said. The West Hartford Democrat, who stressed that she has not seen the proposed legislation, favors tougher gun laws.

“I feel strongly that if we grandfather the magazines with no end date it is as good as not banning them,” Bye said.

Lawmakers have been called into session on Wednesday, said Pat O’Neil, spokesman for the House Republican caucus. “There is a session scheduled for Wednesday and the idea is that this would be coming up,” he said.

Andrew Doba, a spokesman for Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, a proponent of stricter gun laws, declined to comment on the specifics of the proposal. “We will review the language once we receive a final version from the legislature,” he said.

Gun policy has been at the top of the legislature’s agenda since the Dec. 14 shootings in Newtown. Police said Adam Lanza was carrying three weapons and hundreds of rounds of ammunition when he shot his way into Sandy Hook Elementary shortly after 9:30 a.m. He killed 20 first-graders and six women before killing himself.

Lawmakers have held several hearings on gun proposals, drawing thousands of gun owners and employees of the state’s gun industry to the Capitol. Gun control opponents are pressing for a public hearing before the bill that was hammered out by legislative leaders reaches the floor.

Several other states, notably New York and Colorado, have already passed new gun legislation in the aftermath of Sandy Hook.

Connecticut lawmakers have taken steps to craft a bipartisan bill. They created a task force to examine gun policy, school security and mental health policy in response to the Sandy Hook massacre.

But, said Bye, Monday “is the most significant day yet, when the caucuses decide whether this is going to go on Wednesday. Tomorrow is a turning point.”

I read this freedom robbing list, twice, and concluded that not a single one of these items will stop the gang shootings or the massacres like the one at Newtown. Looks like we will need to have another SCOTUS smack down of these fucking liberty stealing communists. And, that gun law they passed in NY, for example? Even the Post Standard, a left wing rag, had to admit, albeit while trying to defend the unconstitutional and horribly flawed bill, that it was a pile of shit. In fact, the law was so poorly written, that’s what you get when you hurry to pass a law so you can capitalize on emotion – again, kind of like Obamacare, which we are now discovering won’t lower costs, will limit access, and will result in rationing, and guarantees the healthcare system in the US is going to take some major steps backwards – that it fucked over the state police’s ability to respond to shootings like Newtown. Lucky for law abiding citizens, it looks like it will not survive the courts. And this pile of shit they want to pass in CT, will end up with the same faith.

Leviathan wants to control people. They need citizens disarmed. That’s what these laws do. Not a single item here would prevent Newtown or other mad people from doing the same. I am not even going to bother explaining how criminals, and especially the gangs, will see this whole law as a boon to them. Unarmed citizens are easier to take advantage off, especially with the police always minutes away when seconds count, and these laws will do nothing to deter them from getting their guns. What is clear is that the left might pretend they care about gun violence, but the goal is to undermine, if not outright destroy, the 2nd amendment, and you do that only because you see advantage in a populous that can not defend itself. This is not being done to help us: it is being done so they can tighten the collar around our necks even harder without worrying that there will be consequences.

Obama Moves On Guns

Obama is announcing his new gun policies right now. I’ll post as I get updates. There are apparently 23 executive orders. I’ve looked over them quickly and I don’t really see anything terribly objectionable. Most of it is strengthening exiting law and the background check system. Here they are, with my commentary. None would have prevented Sandy Hook. But if you’re looking to reduce gun violence overall, they do address that.

1. “Issue a presidential memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.”

2. “Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.”

3. “Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.”

All three of these are reasonable ways of improving the background check system and are orders to federal agencies not requiring new laws.

4. “Direct the attorney general to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.”

As long as any new proposed categories go through Congress, this is fine.

5. “Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.”

Again, as long as we get to see the rule before its implemented. We have, for very good reasons, grandfathered people in on background checks. We don’t want to set a precedent of seizing guns to do a retroactive check.

6. “Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.”

7. “Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.”

8. “Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).”

9. “Issue a presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.”

All of these are programs within the Justice Department. I would like to see some commentary on the legality of gun traces.

10. “Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.”

11. “Nominate an ATF director.”

We don’t have an ATF director? Seems we should, no?

12. “Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.”

I suspect this will be a waste of money, but it seems within the powers of the DOJ providing they have Congressionally-approved funds for this sort of thing.

13. “Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.”

This is more of a goal than an actual policy.

14. “Issue a presidential memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.”

This may be controversial. Congress has specifically prohibited the CDC from engaging in anti-gun advocacy which has been interpreted to ban all research. Given the Nanny Staters tendency to make loud noises with bogus research (the claim that obesity killed 400k people a year, claims on second-hand smoke), they are right to be suspicious of this. I do think we should clarify what the CDC is and is not allowed to do on this subject.

15. “Direct the attorney general to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.”

16. “Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.”

17. “Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.”

Words words words. No problem with words. I’m not sure if the ACA does or does not prohibit doctors from asking about guns, so that might be an issue. I believe several states, including Florida, have banned doctors from asking about guns.

18. “Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.”

19. “Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.”

I’m not sure what this means but it sounds like a waste of money. These events are very rare and any preparation for a once in a thousand year event is likely a waste.

20. “Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.”

Words.

21. “Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.”

22. “Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.”

Finalizing ACA regulations would probably be a good idea anyway, no?

23. “Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.”

Ooh, a dialogue! Dialogues solve so many problems.

The executive orders cross me as a non-issue. Almost all of them relate to clarify or writing regulations and soap-box stuff. The only substantive objections might be lodged at 14 (the CDC) and 16 (ACA). I don’t think any of this will help but I don’t think it will hurt. And it’s certainly not the tyrannical gun grab everyone was clamoring about.

The real substances is what he has asked Congress to do. It is, again, largely expected: universal background checks, assault weapons ban, magazine limits and tougher penalties for illegal sales. I suspect, apart from the penalties, most of that is DOA in Congress. But if we could create a system that would allow easy cheap universal background checks, I would be in favor of that. It would not have prevented Sandy Hook. But it might make a dent in the broader issue of gun violence.

Really, this is a non-event. Almost everything was as expected. And it’s largely going nowhere.

NRA In Earth Orbit

Last week, while I was away, the NRA had a press conference about the Connecticut shootings. Actually, it wasn’t a press conference since they took no questions. It was more of a statement.

A statement from the NRA in the wake of Sandy Hook required a degree of tact. I realize that the Left expected the NRA to come out, do a mea culpa and call for a gun ban … you know, the same way they expected pro-choice groups to reverse course after the Gosnell scandal. But those of us who live the real world knew that the NRA would stand for gun freedom. The question was, after a week of thinking about it, how would they stand for gun freedom while respecting the delicate feelings of a wounded nation?

What I expected and hoped for was something along these lines:

It’s important to recognize that there are 300 million weapons in this country and less than one in a thousand is used every year to commit a crime. Less than one in 25,000 will be used to commit a murder. Violent crime has fallen dramatically in the last twenty years — and we’re willing to admit that part of the reason may be measures that the NRA opposed. And mass shootings, contrary to hysterical claims in the media, are not increasing.

Clearly, more needs to be done. We are ready to take whatever steps are needed to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally disturbed; as long as that does not compromise the Second Amendment liberties of law-abiding Americans.

The NRA’s statement, to say the least was not this. In fact, I think it did more to damage the cause of gun liberty than anything the gun grabbers could have said.

Let me back up a moment. The anti-gun lobby has a problem: the public has considered and rejected most of their arguments. There is sympathy for banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, but efforts to recreate gun bans or repeal the Second Amendment are going precisely nowhere.

In the wake of this complete defeat in the arena of ideas, they have been reduced to making absurd suggestions like gun buybacks. Gun buybacks sound good until you consider you’d have to spend $5 million for every gun murder prevented. If I gave you $5 million, I guarantee that you could save more than one life with it. And that’s assuming 100% efficiency. More likely, gun buybacks would take guns away from the law-abiding or allow criminals to dump “hot” weapons.

Another dumb idea that has surfaced is restricting or taxing bullets. HuffPo makes the case that when you buy bullets, you should have to crawl to the local police station and lick their feet until they agree to give you some ammo (I’m exaggerating only slightly). I’m sure this sounds good to someone who doesn’t know one end of a gun to another. To an enthusiast, who typically uses more bullets in a day at the range than a spree shooter will use before putting one in his own brain, it sounds insane. It also simply wouldn’t work. Black market bullets would flood the market, people would start making their own bullets and the Supreme Court would almost certainly reject it as a too clever attempt to get around the Second Amendment.

They’ve also been reduced, as defeated movements usually are, to saying things that simply aren’t true. I covered before how they manipulated the numbers to make it seem that spree killings are rising. Here I take apart a claim that we have more spree killings than 36 other nations combined. Here is a refutation of the false contention that spree killings are never stopped by armed civilians (a claim that was patently ridiculous when it was made). The ridiculous and insulting “If I Only Had a Gun” piece is also making the rounds despite Gary Kleck’s actual, you know, research on the defensive use of guns.

My point is that the anti-gun lobby has a very limited influence right now. They might be able to get a ban on high-capacity magazines or something but disarming the nation is simply not on; at least not with the gang of clowns and idiots currently comprising the radical anti-Second Amendment wing. Even Diane Feinstein’s newly-proposed gun grab is likely going nowhere.

They realize this, which is why they have stooped to such Orwellian methods as publishing the names and addresses of legal gun owners in New York.

No, I don’t think the anti-gun lobby is a real threat to Second Amendment liberty. The only threat I foresee is that the pro-Second Amendment side manages to turn back the progress made in the last twenty years by playing to every gun-totin’ stereotype the Left can imagine, by turning the vast middle of this country against gun freedom, at least on issues like assault weapons or conceal-carry, where public opinion is more finely balanced. And the NRA’s statement couldn’t have been better crafted to do precisely that.

LaPierre came out and blamed everything except guns. It was the fault of video games, of movies, of Obama, of hurricanes, of everything. He talked about Natural Born Killers for Christ’s sake, a movie that came out 18 years ago and that no one watched. All of this played right into the Left’s “anything but guns” narrative, making the NRA seem desperate to avoid even talking about weapons.

Their specific proposals were even more appalling. They called for Congress to look into violent entertainment and create a national database on mental illness (because nothing says “liberty” liked trampling on the First and Fourth Amendments in defense of the Second). Most notably, they called to have armed guards in every school. Never mind that Columbine had armed guards and most college campuses have police forces. Never mind that this plays into every our kids are in danger! hysteria. Never mind that a child in school is safer than they are anywhere else. (The number of children murdered in school every year is about 20-30. The number of children murdered outside of school is more like a couple of thousand, depending on how you define child.)

Thankfully, sensible people like Chris Christie and Ron Paul recognized this proposal for what it is: a tremendous waste of resources, a hysterical response to a tragedy and appalling encroachment of a literal police state into every school.

Of course, this is just the statement from the NRA, not a politician. So why did it bother me so much? It took me a few days to unpack what really bothered me about it: it’s a pattern that has become endemic to the conservative side of the aisle lately. It sounded like something a caller to a radio talk show would say; not something worthy of the leader of an organization number 4.3 million people. I’m sure it rallied the pro-Second Amendment base. But ardent gun rights supporters are not what we should be worried about. What we should be worried about are the tens of millions of people who are kind of mixed on the gun issue and could easily be persuaded that DiFi’s horrible assault weapons bill is a sensible alternative to the NRA’s bluster.

LaPierre has history, of course. His famous “jack-booted thug” letter caused George H. W. Bush to resign his life membership. But he also came to the front when gun freedom really was under siege, with mainstream politicians openly calling for gun bans. He’s fighting the fight of 30 years ago. This simply does not apply today, when Obama’s response to this tragedy was to … have Biden convene a commission. In fact, Obama has yet to do anything about gun control and has specifically said the Second Amendment protects an individual right. When LaPierre came to lead the NRA, even the NRA was tentative about saying that.

I think it’s clear the LaPierre has outlives his usefulness Someone needs to step up who has come of age in the 2000’s and understands that the main thing the NRA needs to do is hold the line, to maintain the freedoms we have rather than fight against a political opponent that is beaten, defeated and impotent. My fear is that if they keep fighting the political fights of the 1980’s, they will get them back: blow life into an anti-gun movement that is currently moribund.

Selective enforcement of the law: a sign of tyrannical government at work

TMZ has and exclusive in which they claim that NBC, when they had their request to show an ammunition clip that is banned in D.C., denied or unlcearly sanctioned by the D.C.P.D, went to the ATF, which then somehow gave them permission to show it anyway. I am smelling a rat and think that there are tons of things wrong with this story.

First and foremost, I hear from several other people that the ATF “permission” came after the fact, and then because of a WH push for it. I am also not sure how the Feds get to trump D.C. law, just like that. This is not a mix up: I smell some coercion and a lie here. My bet is that the DC police told NBC no when they asked. NBC, then called their buddies and told them the narrative would be better served if they could show it. The buddies the made the ATF call the D.C, police and told them to play along. The clip was shown before the permission was given.

What this then amounts to, even if they asked for, is selective enfrcement of the law. I wonder how many D.C. natives would be given the same courtesy that Greogry got?

You can not legislate away evil or crazy.

Everybody is trying to make sense of this tragedy. Too many are so desperate for a reason other than we are dealing with someone that was mentally deranged, just like they want to pretend that evil doesn’t exist, because otherwise we have to admit that our supposed security is just ephemeral, that they are looking for anything to avoid having to grasp that we are never perfectly safe. Even the perp’s own father is searching for answers. I am afraid we will never understand, and too many will simply not accept thathere might be no good reason why this tragedy happened, because the truth is inconvenient.

We now have people that are scrambling to find a reason or motive for this horrible act. They are already trying to lay blame on the mom, a legal gun owner, because of the fact that she was a prepper. Others are saying that the killer was a loner, another troubled kid with school issues. And I am sure we will soon hear a lot more about violent music, video games, or movies are to blame, without pointing out that it is the very same people telling us we need to disarm everyone that are the biggest peddlers of this violent stuff, too. And having the discussion about how too much coverage by the stupid media of these tragedies encourages the fame seekers to copy cat, however? Nah, that we will not hear much about. Just like we will not hear much about the fact that tragedies will happen.

As expected, the two sides are at it. I don’t believe I need to point out that I think that more stupid laws that deprive people of the god given right to make sure they can defend themselves from tyrannical government are not going to stop these sorts of tragedies. Too many people, frightened and desperate to keep their security bubble, forget that in a society where the law disarms the lawful, the only people armed will be criminals and government enforcers. Things like this are not just plain stupid and serve to do nothing but confound the issues. The fact is that the pursuit of security at the cost of liberty results in less of both. Our problem is our inability to accept evil and crazy exist. It’s easier to pretend the problem is guns. You can then ban those and pretend it solves the issue. You can’t ban either evil or crazy.

Despite the fact that this young man was prevented from buying his own guns, just recently, by the existing laws, the cries for more “control” are going out. The tyrannical stupid that want to use the pretense that the problem is an inanimate object, instead of evil or crazy people, to disarm the populous are trying hard to convince everyone that bans are the answer. I do not for a second believe that these people’s main priority is as noble as they pretend it to be. They have been taking advantage of tragedies like this one for a long time to achieve their goal of disarming the populous. I find it despicable that they are capitalizing on so many people’s inability to accept the fact that there is evil and crazy in the world, and that nothing we do can stop it all, to push their agenda to disarm the citizenry.

I find exercises like this one utterly fruitless and a waste of time. Would you take anyone telling you that we should stop winter from coming seriously? What about people that tell you we should prevent all deaths? Why then the desperate need to pretend that banning guns will somehow stop evil and crazy? What magical power do Obama and the other gun grabbers have that will prevent evil or crazy from doing what it does? Are we going to ban knifes yet? Are we going to ban anything that can cause death or be used to kill?

We are going to be doing a lot of soul searching, second guessing, and Monday morning quarterbacking, along with the mourning, but the fact remains that I am afraid that we will not get any answers. That’s because we simply do not want to focus on the real issue, because there is no answer to solving or preventing evil or crazy from doing what it does. It’s much easier to blame guns, and if you are one of the few that subscribes to Mao’s axiom that power comes from the barrel of a gun and making sure that only the government has guns, it is doubly so. Here is the sad fact: people that want to do evil and cause harm will never be dissuaded by any laws. Laws only influence those that are lawful. Of course, accepting this fact undermines our quest for feeling secure.

UPDATE:: Best quote to summarize the problem here:

“After each tragic shooting spree by someone a few cards short of a full deck, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn’t do it.”