Free Markets, Free People

Guns and Gun Rights

1 2 3 8

Stray Voltage

Another thing I decided during my holiday hiatus was to make “Stray Voltage” a regular Friday feature. Why? Well, it covers a number of subjects/issues and gives everybody a lot to talk about over the weekend.

Question: Why is it the SJWs insist there is a “rape culture” on campus, but are mostly silent about the real rape culture that is rearing its ugly head in Europe among Muslim “refugees”?

Mr. Obama at his recent townhall meeting:

Obama didn’t hold back when asked by CNN moderator Anderson Cooper about the notion that the federal government — and Obama in particular — wants to seize all firearms as a precursor to imposing martial law. He blamed that notion on the NRA and like-minded groups that convince its members that “somebody’s going to come grab your guns.”

I have only one thing to say to that Mr. Obama: “If you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance.”

Well here’s a surprise.  Another late night release, and more evidence that Hillary Clinton should be prosecuted:

The latest batch of emails released from Hillary Clinton’s personal account from her tenure as secretary of state includes 66 messages deemed classified at some level, the State Department said early Friday.

In one email, Clinton even seemed to coach a top adviser on how to send secure information outside secure channels.

All but one of the 66 messages have been labeled “confidential”, the lowest level of classification. The remaining email has been labeled as “secret.” The total number of classified emails found on Clinton’s personal server has risen to 1,340 with the latest release. Seven of those emails have been labeled “secret.”

Does the name Petraeus mean anything to you?  And in comparison his security breaches were minor.  Which makes you wonder what it is going to take to finally see Clinton prosecuted.  I also wonder if the Obama administration may be interested in keeping his executive actions in place after he leaves … enough so they’re willing to make a deal with the Democratic front runner?  I’m sure everyone would be shocked, shocked I tell you, if that was the case.

And while the president is crying and wailing about you folks owning too many guns, the beat goes on:

Two Palestinian men who were born in Iraq and came to the United States as refugees have been arrested in connection with terrorism investigations, federal prosecutors said Thursday.

Imagine that.  Both men of fighting age, both refugees, both engaged in terroristic activities, but I’m the xenophobe (or racist or, well, pick your favorite pejorative)  if I say don’t import trouble in the form of refugee men from Islamic countries that support and foment terrorism?

Finally, Mr. Obama seems to think that if he repeats the same nonsense over and over again, it somehow becomes true.  To wit:

“But we are the only advanced country on Earth that sees this kind of mass violence erupt with this kind of frequency. It doesn’t happen in other advanced countries. It’s not even close. And as I’ve said before, somehow we’ve become numb to it and we start thinking that this is normal.” –President Obama, announcing his new executive orders on guns, January 7, 2016

This claim is simply not true.

This claim is simply not true.  Between January 2009 and December 2015, there are 11 European countries with a higher frequency of these mass public shootings than the US, and 10 European countries with a higher rate of deaths from these attacks.

But hey, this is for the low information citizen who only reads headlines and listens to sound bites (read the whole thing).  What’s that old saying?  A lie can travel around the world before the truth gets its shoes on?  Something like that.  That is why propaganda is so powerful.  And this, my friends, is nothing but propaganda … dutifully retransmitted by an willfully incurious media.

Have a great weekend.

~McQ

The political strategy of a crocodile tear

Mr. Obama shed a tear yesterday as he told us why he was going to bypass Congress and enact gun control (at least a small part of it) by executive order.  Speaking of “gun violence” instead of violence in general, he said:

“We do not have to accept this carnage as the price of freedom,” Obama said.

That’s simply poppycock. We don’t have to like it but freedom, as has been said any thousands of times, is not free.  Nor is it pretty or neat.  Nor are there those who don’t suffer because of it. It always has a cost – a price. But the alternative, what most Democrats seem to want, is the state deciding everything you can or cannot do, everything you can or cannot own.  That alternative is unacceptable to those who value freedom and are willing to suffer the cost.

No one is in favor of “carnage”.  But it isn’t the guns which cause the violence, sir.  Figure it out please.  When you tell me that abortion instruments are what kill about a million unborn human beings in the US each year, perhaps I’ll at least consider your thinking to be somewhat consistent.  And of course, that means cars and pools and rope, well you name it, also need to be controlled even more because the “carnage” they cause rivals anything to do with that involving guns.

Gee, given the numbers, perhaps he ought to be going after Planned Parenthood instead of demonizing the NRA.

Oh, and this was rich:

“No matter how many times people try to twist my words around, I taught constitutional law, I know a little bit about this. I get it,” he said. “But I also believe that we can find ways to reduce gun violence consistent with the Second Amendment.”

Apparently he thinks he knows the Constitution, but if true, he’d know it doesn’t allow aristocracy, and certainly it doesn’t allow kings.  Laws are passed through Congress and if the President doesn’t have the heft or gravitas or whatever he needs to see it done, then it doesn’t get done. Obama doesn’t have any of that. And the people have been quite clear that they don’t consider guns or gun control to be much of an issue.  In fact, it barely registers, no pun intended. So instead he  does “work arounds” with executive orders.  Tell us again about how you know the Constitution, please?

But let’s get to the nuts and bolts of what went on yesterday, shall we?  It is about, get ready for it, ideology:

Despite professing an unflinching commitment to curbing gun violence, Obama and Biden have been thwarted by Congress and what Obama calls a lack of national will to change the way Americans think about guns.

Got it.  It’s about changing the way you think about guns.  Its about making them the equivalent of a cigarette.  You remember when cigarettes were popular?   And what happened?  Well, think about it.  It wasn’t about people making poor choices and suffering for them that was the “cause” of their diseases. It wasn’t about their refusal to heed the strident warnings about smoking.  It became “the cigarette”.  That was the “cause”. And it was the cigarette that was killing people, not the people’s choices.  The object became the problem.  People were excused for making poor decisions even though the information that cigarettes caused horrific health problems had been out for years … decades.

The same sort of argument is being made about guns and “the strategy of a tear” was just the latest emotional appeal to a people who’ve been pretty darn logical about guns so far and aren’t buying into the argument as readily as they did with cigarettes.  In fact, they’re not buying into it at all and are, instead, buying more and more guns.  If you can’t get them to swing your way, cry on national TV.  That’ll show ’em how sincere you are.   And, of course, it seems to have fooled a good number of people out there already.

But to the point – this is frustration for Obama because you and most Americans won’t think the way he wants you to.  So?  So screw you, he’ll stamp his feet, hold his breath and make you do it by taking unilateral action.  But he knows the Constitution, by George.

This is just another in a long line of tantrums by this man.  When he can’t get his way, he simply looks for a means to impose his will.  He has no concept of what a President is or what one is supposed to do and he’s certainly no Constitutional scholar.  This is just the latest example.

So why is the cigarette model not working for the left?  For the most part it is because there really is no redeeming value to a cigarette.  But there is tremendous positive value to a gun.  You can’t defend yourself or your family with a cigarette.  You can’t feel more secure in your person with a cigarette.  You can’t protect your life or your property with a cigarette.  So despite the demonization of the object the left has committed itself too, the positive aspects of gun ownership simply won’t be buried, even with a tear.

The bottom line however should be clear – the left will do whatever it thinks necessary to strip Americans of their right to own firearms.  You will see every sort of argument tendered and numbers that, without context, seem horrific.  Such as “30,000” gun deaths – 62% of which are suicides.  Anyone who believes removing guns will prevent suicide just isn’t very serious about discussing suicide.  Japan, which has strict gun control laws, has more suicides than the US.  The problem isn’t the means.  It is the mental state of the person.  35% are homicides, most gang related.  No matter the laws passed, criminals are not going to obey them.  This seems to be a point the left can’t comprehend.  And finally accidents claim most of the remainder (about 606 in 2010).  “Mass shootings”?  A small minority of the final total.  And, in fact, gun violence and gun homicides are and have been trending down for quite some time.

However, like “climate change”, the alarmist hysteria continues despite the fact that the data doesn’t support it.

So now, it is all about an emotion.  A tear.

My freedom isn’t for sale for a tear, crocodile or otherwise, Mr. Obama.

~McQ

 

About San Bernardino

One – the immediate politicization of any tragedy involving guns, facts or no facts:

Just when we think that politics can’t sink any lower, President Obama once again proves us wrong by politicizing the tragedy in San Bernardino before the facts were even known. What we do know is that the American people are heartbroken by these horrific crimes — and despite what the president would have us believe — America’s law-abiding gun owners are heartbroken by these horrific crimes as well. At the same time, we are sick and tired of this president suggesting the men and women of the National Rifle Association are somehow to blame.

Why, you ask? Well because this supposed “leader” of ours is all about politics and agendas. He’s already decided what is “best” for the rest of us whether or not the actual fact match the narrative or not.

Two, which is related to One.  The hypocrisy and cowardice of the left.  Radical Islam has struck more than once here in the US the and cowards won’t acknowledge it or face it.  But they will vilify and defame those who won’t strike back and blame them for the problem such as Christians, the NRA, and the Right in general.  God help you if you believe in the 2nd Amendment.

Screen-Shot-2015-12-03-at-2.20.24-PMYes I know Jon Gabriel and yes I know he’s being totally sarcastic.  I also know he makes the point perfectly.  By the way, did you see where Bloomberg and MSNBC tweeted that the shooting was only “blocks away from a Planned Parenthood” facility.  See “One” above.  Think narrative construction.

Three – we now have the Attorney General of the United States promising to take action against US citizens if she considers their rhetoric to be anti-Muslim and “edges” towards violence:

Attorney General Loretta Lynch on Thursday warned that the Justice Department could take aggressive action against people whose anti-Muslim rhetoric “edges towards violence” and told the Muslim community that “we stand with you in this.”

Speaking at Muslim Advocate’s 10th anniversary dinner, Lynch said since the terrorist attacks in Paris last month, she is increasingly concerned with the “incredibly disturbing rise of anti-Muslim rhetoric … that fear is my greatest fear.”

Who will be the arbiter?  And, why selective treatment?  See “Two” above.  They won’t face the real enemy and they want to chill speech pretending it is anti-Muslim rhetoric that is the problem, not Radical Islamists.

These three things are consistent in every shooting that involved radical muslims.  One, the attempt to initially frame it so that the right is the problem.  Then to frame it as if it was just another “mass shooting” – you know, “workplace violence.”  The cause: guns, not followers of a 7th century death cult.  Two, deny, deny, deny and try to shift the blame.  Don’t face the reality of the problem.  “ISIS is contained”. Instead of facing the problem and addressing it, Mr. Obama’s answer is to contemplate stricter gun laws by executive order that will do nothing to stop what happened in CA.  But the left believes that the criminals and killers out there will be done … even though in California had every law Obama want’s nationally in place and supposedly functioning and the Islamic Radicals still had the banned weapons.  Third, the erosion of freedom.  Now we have the AG saying she’ll decide what “edges” toward violent rhetoric and will apparently act unilaterally to arrest the “perpetrator”.  However rhetoric “edging” toward violence against any other non-protected group?

Meh!

~McQ

 

Quick thought for the day

Contemplate for but a moment, that while numerous murderous gunmen and hijackers who self identify as warriors of Islam,  killing tens of hundreds of people (if not thousands), specifically do NOT represent Islam when they commit their heinous crimes;  one lone whack job with questionable social practices that are hardly deemed Christian, by anyone, ( peeping tom, animal cruelty, rape, spousal abuse, philanderer, adulterer and more) and holding an unquestionably warped view of what it is to be a Christian altogether, DOES in fact represent American Christians.

He is also the complete responsibility of pro-life Americans, and Americans who owns firearms (entertaining photo meme courtesy of Zerohedge at the end of the article).

 

 

You may now resume your day, pondering the fairly obvious double standard, assuming you’re not a progressive liberal, or the President of the United States (but I repeat myself) who won’t be able to see one at all.

 


 

UPDATE: DEC 3 – Post San Bernadino


 

Now that some smoke has cleared and the progressive left has, you know, some actual details on the shooting in San Bernadino:

Given the spew of rhetorical bull that started 5 minutes after the 1st reports of the shooting I have some questions.

Would it still be safe to assume that Sayed Farook is a “white” gun toting American Christian motivated and inflamed by rhetorical bombast against abortion clinics to take his wife and launch an assault on his fellow county workers having a party in a building a couple miles away from the Planned Parenthood building?

Can someone ask President Obama and former Secretary of State, felony violator of her oaths to properly handle secret government materials, Democratic Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton; would it still solve all our problems if we closed up that mystical ‘gun show loophole’ that allows Right Wing Christian maniacs to buy weapons and shoot up the country?

Perhaps Secretary of State Kerry can explain again how it was probably motivated by justifiable anger over cartoons of the prophet Muhammad?

Should we assume that it was all spontaneous, based on Sayed getting into an argument or being thrown out of the party and going home to get the mock pipe bomb, weapons, vests and wife (and their GoPro cameras to record the special moments)….to come back for the attack?

Is it really just another case of work place violence, like Fort Hood?

 

So –

When will the idiot left and their media morons stop jumping to conclusions before the damn brass has stopped bouncing on the ground at the killers feet?

How many times do they have to look like complete fools in their desperate wish for the perfect Tea Party, Republican, Christian, middle class traditional American Ozzie and Harriett, straight, white male, mentally balanced, MACHINE GUN toting shooter before they hold their damned tongues long enough to get some actual details and facts before they start spouting off and BLAMING THEM when they don’t have any real clue about the shooters, their motives, or the freaking weapons used?

 

Enough with my snarky, and wasted on progressive leftist morons, anger –

I have some questions for the armed America side too.

Full disclosure I was one of the record setting 185,000+ background checks on Black Friday this year, purchasing a ‘military style’ carbine that was intended by the manufacturer to appeal to law enforcement, 32 round magazines and all.

and it ain’t the only high capacity, high caliber semi-automatic weapon I own.

 

ARE we really going to solve this problem by arming everyone, by eliminating gun free zones?     Neither of those things will happen of course..  I do believe an armed person in the room certainly stands  a better chance of putting a stop to it than someone armed with a paper plate of turkey, potatoes and gravy.   But pandering politicians on the right claiming that’s the answer need to shut up when this stuff happens, this ISN’T the time.

WAS this a function of the shooters religion?   Is it not just it too easy to assume that a non-muslim couple could not have done this for some reason?

IS there actually an answer, or is this just something we’re going to have to endure until we get a bunch of other needful things back under our control, like a sane honest government and ALL that that entails.

Honest dialog between honest opposing sides without this ‘win at all costs, screw you and screw your rights’ mentally that seems to have developed.

Perhaps it is needful for a recognition for many amongst us that no matter how hard we try, no matter how much control we hand over to someone else for our lives, no matter who we hire, appoint, elect, no matter how many stupid useless laws we pass that we just cannot achieve perfect safety. 

 

It’s was depressing as all hell yesterday afternoon and I want my damn country back.

 

The media, the left, their politicians and the truth about gun violence

I don’t know about you but I find that no matter where I turn, I’m being told that gun violence, gun crime … anything negative to do with guns … is at an all time high.

Is it any wonder that this is what people believe?

SDT-2013-05-gun-crime-1-4

Check out the second chart. Note the key word in the title of the chart … “unaware”.

Why are they unaware?

Well, for one the media sensationalizes every event that might involve a gun.  And they usually misrepresent, or don’t report, the fact that gun crimes and homicides are down … a lot!  They imply it is getting more and more dangerous out there and the threat is … guns.

But that is simply not true.  In fact:

SDT-2013-05-gun-crime-1-1

 

Yet we have a President and the Democrats who’ve claimed that gun violence is epidemic.  Obama even made the claim yesterday that other countries don’t have mass shootings … in Paris … a week or so after a mass shooting (what effin type of a cocoon does the man live in to make such out of touch and idiotic statements such as that?).

In reality, in a country in which there are more people than in 1993 as well as more guns, we see everything trending down and markedly so:

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

Those are huge numbers.  Yet to hear the left, you’d think the gun violence epidemic was about to overwhelm us unless we do something NOW!  And of course, the solution they most favor is the elimination of guns for law abiding citizens.  I say that very purposely because it would only be law abiding citizens who would be effected.  Criminals would then have free reign.

The point of this rant is to point out that, just like with “climate change”, we’re being lied to again and the data obviously refutes the lie … in both cases. But for the left that doesn’t matter.  They firmly believe in their agenda and they’re more than willing to lie to accomplish it, credibility and integrity be damned.  The media is complicit and politicians are the most visible agitators. That’s why you have a Democratic President in Paris pushing both lies and the media doing its usual job of spreading them.

Sometimes you just want to bang your head against the wall, for all the good calling them out on it does.

~McQ

Another closet totalitarian speaks out

This is one that you have to read to believe.  It is one of those irredeemably stupid people and two time losers that helped Obama to two terms.  Of course you won’t be particularly surprised that she is the director of Women and Gender Studies at The College at Brockport – whatever that is.  Apparently she and her family ate off of Obama placemats prior to 2008 and were pretty sure that this was the guy who could change the world, stop the seas from rising and deliver the utopia that includes “free stuff” and world peace.  Then reality set in, sort of, and the goodie bag wasn’t delivered as promised, the seas ignored him and world peace was even more illusory than before his ascension.   But they still BELIEVE!

Today, I write this letter with a bleeding heart. I admire Obama. But he has let me down. I am disappointed because his presidency could have done more for our country, and sadly, the many taken lives who cannot read this essay. I still worry about urgent social tensions facing our nation, and I recognize their ongoing complexities in policy and legislative action. But gun violence can be averted. Can our country ever be free from senseless gun-crime?

Firearm possession should be banned in America; President Obama can orchestrate this directive. His presidency can be remembered as a remarkable turn in United States history where a progressive leader forever changed the landscape under which we live and work. This is his legacy. To establish gun control laws in America that will reduce high levels of male violence and usher in a culture of peace and civility.

Barack Obama is the president of the United States. He can change the country. He can do it today. I believe in him.

Ye gods.

Gun violence can be averted by banning guns?  One would assume then that knife violence, sword violence, club violence and fist violence  can all be “averted”- if we “ban” all those things.  Because we know that as soon as a law is passed, and all those are banned, it will “usher in a culture of peace and civility”.  Because … every violent male will put those things aside and become a part of … what?

Would anyone actually want to be a part of this woman’s world?  She’s all for taking things away from you. In fact, she lobbies for it.  And my guess is she’d be fine if the things were taken away from you violently in the name of her utopia. You know, whatever’s necessary.  After all, that’s what government is for, right?

As with most progressives, she’s anti-freedom, a closet totalitarian and has an anti-male bias so strong it colors everything she says or does.

And she votes.

~McQ

How do you argue with those who base their arguments in fantasy?

Ah, yes … another sicko rampages and the same old bromides are offered as a cure.  More laws.  Fewer guns.  Yatta, yatta.

Let’s face it, if restrictive laws were the answer, we wouldn’t have a drug problem, would we?  And we’ve tried prohibition before, haven’t we?  How’d that turn out?

What we have among the gun grabbers is an argument based on a false premise.  It goes, “if we restrict or ban something (guns), we’ll have less of something (in this case, violence and death) else.”  To believe that premise, you have to believe that the “something” is the problem and the only problem, and not anything else (i.e. the culture or human nature (or both)).  You have to believe that if you “ban” that something (and in this case the “something” is an inanimate object), that alone will achieve the goal (less violence and death).

There is absolutely no rational basis for such a conclusion, especially when banned object is inanimate. Dumb.  Can’t act on its own.  It isn’t the “cause” of the violence and death.  It may be the instrument, but the cause is holding the gun, or knife, or club or rock, or explosive.

The obvious extension of such thinking is cars cause accidents, spoons make you fat and beer makes us alcoholics.   If we just banned them we’d have no accidents nor would we get fat and there would be no alcoholism. There is no one that will admit to believing that (and at least with the last, we have practical experience to refute the belief).  Yet those who want gun control willingly put forward that argument when it pertains to guns and are amazed when others not only don’t agree but tend to deride them and their argument (and privately, they likely question their ability to reason critically).

So to those of you who know all of this already, I apologize.  I know … basic reasoning 101.  Nothing really magic here.

However, this is the argument those who would ban guns (and “cleverly” try to hide that in phrases like “common sense gun laws” and “more rigorous background checks”) use daily.  And, unfortunately, there is a rather large segment of the population who abandoned critical thinking (and knowledge about history, economics and all sorts of important and useful subjects) a long time ago that buy into this nonsensical argument.

In the case of guns, those who would take yours also live with a number of fantasies they (at least when it concerns guns) consider to be fact and the underly their “argument”.  A) Laws will stop unwanted actions and outcomes.  B) Banning something effectively removes it from society.  And C) Criminals will obey the law and the ban.  Again, no thinking human being can intellectually buy into those fantasies.  Laws don’t stop unwanted outcomes (they proscribe the behavior and punish the law breaker who behaves in that manner), banning usually has the opposite effect, creating a black market in the banned item (and giving it a certain chic) and finally criminals, aka “scofflaws” will not obey the law nor will they honor the ban.  They never have … thus the name.

So, here’s my question – how do you argue with people who insist on fantasy based arguments?

Ok, so it’s sort of rhetorical – the answer, as you all know, is “you don’t”.

You don’t waste your time or your effort on people who seem unable to separate fact from fiction/fantasy and critical arguments from bunk.

The problem, of course, is if you remain silent, then the “low information” types are left with a single, screechy and strident voice that misrepresents facts and figures to back their fantasies.

And we all know that if they get enough of that type, things like “prohibition” happen (and frankly, it is a miracle of sorts that prohibition actually was repealed … government rarely gives up any power it gathers to itself).

If you want to see a civil war in this country, it likely won’t be about race, or abortion, or even a hundred other wedge issues.

It’ll be about guns and who is or isn’t allowed to keep them.

~McQ

 

White House politicizes a tragedy … again

Can’t take a break from ideology and politics to simply comment on a tragedy.  The newswoman and cameraman who were shot and killed on a live TV feed this morning were apparently the perfect fodder for the White House’s anti-gun campaign:

The White House on Wednesday redoubled its call for tougher gun laws in the wake of a shooting that killed two television journalists in Virginia.
“This is another example of gun violence that is becoming all too common in communities large and small all across the United States,” Press Secretary Josh Earnest told reporters on Wednesday.
Earnest said there are “common sense” steps Congress can take to reduce gun violence in America without infringing on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.
Well, as Charles C. Cooke points out, this is simply wrong. I.e. the facts (you know, those pesky little things) don’t support the implication.  For instance:
National rates of gun homicide and other violent gun crimes are strikingly lower now than during their peak in the mid-1990s, paralleling a general decline in violent crime, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of government data. Beneath the long-term trend, though, are big differences by decade: Violence plunged through the 1990s, but has declined less dramatically since 2000.
Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

The facts simply don’t support the statement that this is becoming “all too common” anywhere.  In fact, they say the opposite.  It’s becoming less common.

Don’t forget, the Charleston SC mass murderer was given a government OK to buy a gun even though we found out the background check was faulty. That’s one of those common sense steps that we entrusted to the government and guess what failed?

Cooke frames their argument in the only way that makes any (common) sense and then takes it apart:

If there is an argument to be made, it’s that America has too many gun-related deaths in absolute numbers, and that this drop does not make up for that. Personally, I don’t know what people who say this really mean. As always, we start from where we are, and we are going in the right direction. That’s good, especially given that the positive changes have come at the same time as the laws have been liberalized and the number of guns increased vastly. Either way, though, it is simply not true that there is an “epidemic” or a “surge” or that shootings are becoming “more common.” It’s not even true that mass shootings are up.

In absolute numbers, the people dying in car crashes every day is too high, but you don’t see anyone pushing for the abolishment of cars. Unlike guns, they hold the drunk or reckless or incompetent driver at fault.

But in the era of postmodernism, “facts” are passe.  Now it’s all about the narrative, and the White House has again pushed the narrative forward over the still warm bodies in Roanoke.

Never let a crisis (or apparently a tragedy) go to waste, huh?

~McQ

If you can’t ban the gun, ban the ammo

That’s the apparent intent of a BATFE proposal as it applies to 5.56 ammunition.  The left, for years, has been trying to ban “assault weapons”, which are, essentially dressed up semi-automatic rifles.  Assault weapons, as you might imagine are capable of fully automatic fire.  Such weapons are already illegal without a very difficult to get permit.

Nevertheless, it is a long cherished dream of the left to implement gun control, because, well the key word is the second one – control.

So, having been absolutely and totally rejected when they tried to impose such laws, they’re decided to take what Marie Harf would surely characterize as “a more nuanced approach“.

As promised, President Obama is using executive actions to impose gun control on the nation, targeting the top-selling rifle in the country, the AR-15 style semi-automatic, with a ban on one of the most-used AR bullets by sportsmen and target shooters.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives this month revealed that it is proposing to put the ban on 5.56 mm ammo on a fast track, immediately driving up the price of the bullets and prompting retailers, including the huge outdoors company Cabela’s, to urge sportsmen to urge Congress to stop the president.

The pitch:

At issue is so-called “armor-piercing” ammunition, an exemption for those bullets mostly used for sport by AR-15 owners, and the recent popularity of pistol-style ARs that use the ammo.

The inexpensive 5.56 M885 ammo, commonly called green tips, have been exempt for years, as have higher-caliber ammunition that also easily pierces the type of soft armor worn by police, because it’s mostly used by target shooters, not criminals. The agency proposes to reclassify it as armor-piercing and not exempt.

But now BATFE says that since the bullets can be used in semi-automatic handguns they pose a threat to police and must be banned from production, sale and use. But, as Goodlatte noted, the agency offered no proof. Federal agencies will still be allowed to buy the ammo.

And, according the the article, there is no proof to provide.  None exists.

Of course, the AR15 is one of America’s most popular weapons and hundreds of thousands of them, if not millions are in the hands of Americans.  Certainly not a hard weapon for a criminal to get and use on police. However, they rarely do.  They tend to eschew small caliber arms for those which have a bigger punch in a handgun.

So, logically, that makes little if any sense.  As for the armor piercing capability, while I’m sympathetic to the point, a little proof of it being a problem would be helpful.  To this point, everything I’ve read says it hasn’t been a problem to this point.

“This round is amongst the most commonly used in the most popular rifle design in America, the AR-15. Millions upon millions of M855 rounds have been sold and used in the U.S., yet ATF has not even alleged — much less offered evidence — that even one such round has ever been fired from a handgun at a police officer,” said Goodlatte’s letter.

Even some police don’t buy the administration’s claim. “Criminals aren’t going to go out and buy a $1,000 AR pistol,” Brent Ball, owner of 417 Guns in Springfield, Mo., and a 17-year veteran police officer told the Springfield News-Leader. “As a police officer I’m not worried about AR pistols because you can see them. It’s the small gun in a guy’s hand you can’t see that kills you.”

Another manufactured “crisis” and another “solution” which involves government using its coerscive power to ban something that a particular political ideology finds odious – beside you being free, that is.  And, of course, it opens the door to more invented problems solved by more bans.

This is called “democracy”.  One side gets enough votes to seize power and then they force their ideology on you – if not by legislative means, then by executive action.  The document that is supposed to protect your freedom from government has been declared null and void.  Your freedoms?  Well, let’s just say that they’re up for interpretation depending on which faction is in power.   But what is for sure is they’re eroded and will continue to erode under this system of politics.  Government gets larger and more intrusive and as it does, it squeezes out your freedoms in the name of the “greater good”, or “for the good of police” or “the children” or whatever bit of gimcrackery they can use to attract enough votes.

Your freedom suffers the consequences.

~McQ

 

How do you argue a point with a side which hasn’t a clue how the real world works or what a logical “non-sequitur” is?

I think we all know which side that is.

Here’s the premise put forth by an article in The New Republic:

“Libertarians Who Oppose a Militarized Police Should Support Gun Control”

Here’s a sketch of the argument:

There is indeed agreement between many liberals and libertarians that the militarization of the police, especially in its dealings with racial minorities, has gone too far. But this consensus may crumble pretty quickly when it’s confronted with the obvious police counter-argument: that the authorities’ heavy firepower and armor is necessary in light of all the firepower they’re up against. At that point, many liberals will revert to arguing for sensible gun control regulations like broader background checks to keep guns out of the hands of violent felons and the mentally ill (the measure that police organizations successfully argued should be the gun control movement’s legislative priority following the Newtown, Connecticut shootings) or limits on assault weapons and oversized ammunition clips. And liberals will be reminded that the libertarians who agree with them in opposing police militarization are very much also opposed to the gun regulations that might help make the environment faced by police slightly less threatening.

But it doesn’t “crumble” at all.  You have to buy into the premise that it is a more lethally dangerous out there for police than it appears to be.  But it isn’t:

The number of law-enforcement officers killed by firearms in 2013 fell to levels not seen since the days of the Wild West, according to a report released Monday.

The annual report from the nonprofit National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund also found that deaths in the line of duty generally fell by 8 percent and were the fewest since 1959.

According to the report, 111 federal, state, local, tribal and territorial officers were killed in the line of duty nationwide this past year, compared to 121 in 2012.

Forty-six officers were killed in traffic related accidents, and 33 were killed by firearms.

The number of firearms deaths fell 33 percent in 2013 and was the lowest since 1887.

And the drop is credited to bullet proof vests, not SWAT Teams and MRAPS. Pretending that the threat is any higher now than it always has been seems obviously wrong, given the facts.  Certainly there are toxic cultures within our society who believe that violence is the answer to whatever they encounter as a problem. And yes, police have to face that potential threat all the time.  Do I think police should be armed adequately?  Yes, but that doesn’t at all begin to cover what we see among today’s police forces in terms of both equipment and tactics.  In fact, I believe it is all of these “wars” on everything from drugs to terrorists which have had a hand in helping to militarize the police.

That said, agree or disagree with that point, gun control is essentially not only been shown to be ineffective but is a non-sequitur in this “argument”.  See Chicago, Detroit, Washington DC for proof the ineffectiveness of the ban.  But you have to ask, who in this day and age but a clueless journalist would even begin to believe that “broader background checks” are going to keep guns out of the hands of “violent felons?”  Have they in the past (their answer is they just haven’t be stringent enough)?  Honestly, do they really believe a felon is going to waltz into a gun store to buy what he wants knowing full well he’ll have a background check run?  Really?

Have these rubes never heard of a black market (they can buy guns from Mexican cartels, thoughtfully provided by the DoJ)?  Do they not realize that any “violent felon” who wants a gun isn’t going to even try to get one legally?  So, knowing that, why in the world would any libertarian grant the absurd premise knowing full well that doing so only limits the freedom of the law abiding citizenry?  It’s absurd on its face.  And, logically, it is a non-sequitur to any libertarian (again, libertarianism isn’t about shrinking rights and freedoms for heaven sake).  How does making it more inconvenient for citizens who aren’t “violent felons” to buy a gun for self-protection going to stop a felon from obtaining his gun illegally?  It isn’t.

Because, of course, that’s not what they really want (i.e. incremental change via “broader background checks”).  They want a total ban on guns, for government and felons to be the only people with guns and to essentially outlaw then outright.  Obviously they are oblivious to the danger of only government having guns and they certainly don’t seem to be able to wrap their heads around the fact that felons aren’t going to pay any attention to the law.  Nor will the black market in illegal guns.  So why, again, should anyone grant this argument credence?

I swear, you just wonder at times what goes on between their ears all day, because it certainly has nothing to do with the real world or reason.

~McQ

1 2 3 8