search
top

Is SHARE Dead?

Congress basically cancelled everything today, so it’s not a fore drawn conclusion the SHARE bill is dead. That said, political elites are never more protective of their prerogatives than when they feel targeted, so I’m not saying everything is coming up roses either. This isn’t a good situation to be in. It was assassinations that brought us the Gun Control Act of 1968.

Yes, it’s unfair that it was a raging lefty that pooped in the pool. You’re still going to have to smell it. Give it time to pass, then get back to work. Congress is now talking about bringing reciprocity to DC, for Congressmen, not for us serfs:

Under Rep. Barry Loudermilk’s proposal, members who are allowed to conceal carry a weapon in their home state would be able to in Washington. Loudermilk, R-Ga., said the problem is that the nation’s capital does not recognize concealed carry licenses from other states.

Scalise is majority whip, so he gets a security detail. If Scalise hadn’t been there, there definitely would have been bodies stacked. I get that because of DC’s gun laws, you can’t take a firearm into the District, but the solution to that is to trash DC’s gun laws for everyone, and then preempt them from regulating guns ever again. Those same whack jobs are out there among us peons too, you know.

Also, as for the shooting, it’s another example of how bad the situation is getting. Unlike Gifford’s gunman, who was out of his gourd, this dude doesn’t seem to be crazy and knew exactly what he was doing. I don’t lay this current situation at the feet of any person or group, except maybe social media, which I’m coming to regard as poison.

If you keep telling people you’re fighting fascists, that your opponents are literally Hitler, it’s OK to shoot them right?

I’m afraid that I find Scott Adams’ theory increasingly credible:

The bigger picture is that the country is living two movies at the same time, and Griffin was acting “normal” in one of them.

And this shooter was fighting the good fight against the fascists, right? I’ve seen that movie too.

43 Responses to “Is SHARE Dead?”

  1. aerodawg says:

    I really don’t think so. I think all the hunting related provisions are too much red meat to kill it….

  2. Even CNN is covering the “Trump Hate” aspect of this story. MSNBC, of course, has only one mention of it that is slowly disappearing down their page.

  3. Patrick Henry, the 2nd says:

    I was worried any pro-gun bills might be dead, but I don’t think so based on the responses. This freakout will pass, and it does help that it was lefty doing this.

    Maybe they will push National Reciprocity because of this.

  4. BTW — even if they initially limit reciprocity to congressmen only in DC, I still think it’s a move in the right direction. It gives credence to the idea of self defense, may make some lefty congresspeople buy guns and actually learn something about the empowerment they provide, and gives us that rallying point of “are they more special than you or I?”

    But I think you can make an argument in this case they are special. Nobody is going to target me because I’m a software engineer. But you will get targeted if you’re a politician for either side. So if it starts out with congress critter reciprocity … still a start.

    • Joe Huffman says:

      If congressmen can carry then Alan Gura and company might be able to get traction with a lawsuit based upon Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution (Title of Nobility Clause). If congress can carry and we can’t this is similar to the special privileges granted to nobles at the time of the founding of our country.

    • Mike says:

      They said that back in ’05 about LEOSA being the bridge to national reciprocity. Still waiting on that. Congressmen’s lives are no more valuable than mine. No carve outs for special people.

      • Rick Randall says:

        Exactly.

      • reafs says:

        Mike is right. No special rights for Congressmen. Let every law abiding resident of DC carry!

      • We’re still waiting on it, but we’re still one step closer. But as you keep expanding this right out (cops, then politicians, etc.) it helps protect us in any case (allowing police to carry guns everywhere did put more good guys with guns on the street in places they wouldn’t have been otherwise) and expanding that to congressional leaders will go even further.

        And make it harder for pols to argue against us peasants getting the right since they have it.

        Don’t let the perfect get in the way of the good. We’re not going to get where we want to go all at once, and thinking you should doesn’t help. But every special group we add makes it more “normal” and brings us closer to expanding it to everyone.

        • Mike123 says:

          Its doesn’t work that way! If they are exempt from the law, there is no reason for them to change the law.

          • Stephen says:

            There is getting reelected. Few care about carrying guns (they’re all rich and m9stly live with the secutity) but they want to be reelected. It’s still a step in the right direction and we should support it.

  5. The Jack says:

    One thing to note is the overlap between those advocating “Punch a Nazi!” and “Overheated political rhetoric can inspire violence!” is not trivial.

    Which makes some unfortunate questions when someone who has the latter view is okay with espousing the former.

  6. Yes, shouldn’t be limited to Congressmen, but one slice at a time. Some Demos might discover how silly their home state carry laws are along the way.

    • reafs says:

      No way! Once they have theirs they will screw regular people. Consider what Congressman Rangel said:

      “I wouldn’t want them to have it,” adding, “Law-abiding citizens just shouldn’t have to carry a gun.”

      The reporter pointed out the armed U.S. Capitol Police inside the building, just a few feet away from the congressman, Rangel laughed and responded, “Well that’s a little different. I think we deserve — I think we need to be protected down here.”

      http://www.theblaze.com/news/2016/06/23/congressman-says-no-guns-for-his-constituents-however-congress-deserves-and-needs-them/

      • Whetherman says:

        “No way! Once they have theirs they will screw regular people.”

        Right on!

        And for an analogy, think of how many other benefits they’ve heaped on themselves, that many of us have pointed out as hypocrisy almost from Day One, and yet the trend is not for our benefits to approach theirs, but, exactly the opposite.

      • SPQR says:

        We aren’t trying to convince Rangel.

  7. Whetherman says:

    I heard it speculated late this afternoon that the shooter committed “suicide by cop.” He was 69 years old and it was said by someone that he had serious health issues. I don’t think any of that has been nailed down yet.

    Even before this incident came along I was wondering not if, but when, suicide attacks were going to make the cultural leap from (for now) mostly Muslim terrorists, to western folk who take their ideologies seriously. (I’ve always thought that “72 Virgins” stuff was bullshit; they just really, really want to kill their enemies.) In my era, suicide bombers and sappers were somewhat a factor in Vietnam; and I don’t think theirs is a particularly suicidal culture, nor has any illusions of anything comparable to 72 Virgins. And, the martyrdom fixation has infected all cultures at some time.

    • I think that the asian culture has always honored the suicide attack (i.e. Kamikaze).

      But suicide is considered a sin against God in Western theology (unforgivable to catholics) and unless you’ve got some idea of an afterlife I don’t think anybody suicides because the government wants to manage their insurance and make them pay more. There’s no history of suicide bombers of the kind you’re talking about and no reason to think there will be (and if you’re religious the promise of after life treasures, nirvana or virgins, is VERY real)

      • Whetherman says:

        “I think that the asian culture has always honored the suicide attack…”

        Sincere question: Why do you/we think that? Japanese seemed to have the “suicide culture” related to their samurai “code of honor,” but I personally can’t think of any parallels in, say, Chinese culture — though every culture has people who commit suicide.

        In general, what we “know” about Asian culture is what we were told to know, as it would serve geo-politics or our economic interests.

        Ditto Muslims and “72 Virgins.” Maybe you can find someone somewhere who believes that (like we have our own bizarro sects who invent beliefs that can be attributed to all Christians) but to me it sounds like a meme to short circuit questions about “is there a reason they hate us enough to die over it?”

      • Whetherman says:

        “…if you’re religious the promise of after life treasures, nirvana or virgins, is VERY real.”

        I looked into the “72 Virgins” thing, and it was apparently invented by Shiite mullahs in Iran during the Iran-Iraq War during the 1980s.

        It was later adopted by Abdullah el-Faisal in his attempts to recruit British Muslim youth for jihad.

        I could find no reference to it existing in the Quran or the Hadith.

        I like to relate these things to my own life-experience: In Basic Training in the Army, we were coerced into attending religious services, by being told if we didn’t, we’d be conscripted (again) for Sunday fatigue duty. One Sunday at Mass, the Catholic chaplain told us in his homily that a nuclear holocaust was certainly coming, but not to worry, because we as Catholics would be spared.

        After that I decided to just take my chances with Sunday fatigue duty. Even as an unsophisticated kid I had an ear for relgionist bullshit, and I don’t believe Muslim kids are any dumber than I was at their age. Their 72 Virgins are my immunity from nuclear holocaust.

        • When I said “I think that the asian culture has always honored the suicide attack” I was painting with too broad of a brush. I was thinking specifically of Kamikase (Japanese) and the vietnamese and Tebetan monks immolating themselves, and to a degree about the massive, suicidal Chinese wave attacks during the Korean war. But I wouldn’t argue that point.

          But in terms of the virgins … if the virgins are specifically made up or not it doesn’t matter — when people believe they will receive special blessings from their God for a suicide attack it really helps to get volunteers. Especially if you assure them of salvation from it. The Muslim religion currently has some followers who promote that in a major way, and it will work with the faithful.

          In your case you turned away from religion, but not every one does my friend. I’ve also heard a few crazy things in churches but it doesn’t affect my knowledge and relationship with God overall. That’s not something I get to choose, because once you know it you can’t unknow it.

          Fortunately Christianity is against suicide and suicide attacks in general, and generally makes people and communities better instead of worse.

          • Whetherman says:

            “to a degree about the massive, suicidal Chinese wave attacks during the Korean war.”

            I’m hoping to stop short of becoming just argumentative, but:

            I’m not sure the suicidal Chinese assaults in the Korean War were so different from some of the Allied or Central Power assaults in WWI. In both examples it is alleged that the troops committing suicide had officers behind them who would shoot any soldier who appeared to be faltering. (With regard to suicide assaults, I’m recalling a Robert Service poem that includes a line that goes approximately, “we went forth a thousand men; we came back thirty-five.”)

            With regard to religion and belief therein: Yes, there are True Believers, and I was raised by parents who were True Believers in their way, but perceptive as to what Belief was being cobbled up or cited selectively by mortals to serve their own current interests; which was, most of the time. Given that my parents were minimally educated (and that for one of them, in parochial schools) I am supposing that while there are certainly “culture differences,” most Muslims are as capable of being able to detect religious opportunism (aka “bullshit”) as my parents were. And like them, I haven’t “turned from religion,” only from organized religion; though I am considerably more agnostic than they were.

            • “I’m not sure the suicidal Chinese assaults in the Korean War were so different from some of the Allied or Central Power assaults in WWI” Fair enough. And the monks who committed suicide through burning probably aren’t really reflective of the whole culture. I can’t argue the point (which means I was wrong). Even in Japan the Kamikazes were probably a special case.

              “most Muslims are as capable of being able to detect religious opportunism (aka “bullshit”) as my parents were.” I agree with this 100%. But if .01% of the 1 billion muslims become radicalized that is still a hundred thousand suicide bombers. If you’ve read both the Koran and the Bible you know the former almost inarguably promotes a level of violence, whereas you have to seriously cherry pick the latter and ignore the overall context to find rationalization for anything but supporting and NOT judging your fellow man (though I am aware that some do and have managed to create that rationalization).

              So to my point … the foundation of religions is not society or culture but their holy books. And however progressive a family is now their children will always have those books to build their own beliefs on. Several of the recent attacks have been by children of progressive muslims who focused on the “bullshit” parts their parents ignored.

              • Whetherman says:

                Good discussion!

                The problem I see is that if we, who are in no position to know the consensus of belief within another culture/religion, adapt a belief in a simplistic motivation for our opponents; and it is not as true as we are led to believe; then we are less likely to be able to address the real problem.

                To provide one example I think is sufficiently analogous: I have encountered comments within the past year to the effect that the motivation of Irish Republican Army Volunteers was to “force their religion (Catholicism) on everyone.” That so far misses the mark as to their motivations, which are primarily political (Irish national reunification and civil rights) that it is beyond absurd. But it is what the UK sold in the U.S. market, and obviously enough people bought it to still be repeating it 30 – 50 years later. Those who believed it were no help toward finding a solution to the real problem.

                “If you’ve read both the Koran and the Bible you know the former almost inarguably promotes a level of violence…”

                I don’t know whether anyone has ever quantified that, but I have my doubts, primarily about the Old Testament; the Old Testament is chock-full of God’s chosen people slaughtering infidels, down to women and children, by the thousands; “genocide” is not too strong a word, if you apply it to whole tribes. The difference is, God directed it as “good” and “justified.”

                And the problem with that is, our Fundamentalist sects are inclined to pick and choose what passages from the Old Testament must be strictly obeyed in terms of establishing an ideal model for contemporary society, based of course on the unalterable Word of God.

                To diverge slightly: As an erstwhile applied mathematician, I can’t help ponder how you could quantify a Quran/Hadith-to-Bible comparison; assign different weights to “directions” versus “practice”? E.g., assign different weights to commands to “kill the infidel” as compared to examples of those commands being obeyed, the number killed, and being reported on favorably by God/Allah in each holy book?

                However things fell out in comparison, I don’t think either would come out looking very good.

  8. Sam P says:

    This is in Virginia which has relatively sane gun laws, but presumably many of the congressmen and staffers live in DC.

    It’s possible some may live close by, there is a lot of new mixed retail/condo development on the other side (east) of US 1 and north from the park, Eugene Simpson Stadium Park. It is bikeable to the Capitol and a moderate walk/short bike ride to multiple metro stops. (nearest about 2000 feet) The next neighborhood to the west, Del Rey, is a “hip” place to be.

    I lived for a few years 4 blocks/1000 feet from that park about a decade ago, often walking my sisters dogs to the off leash dog park in that park complex.

    • Patrick says:

      Agreed. Of course, it is neigh impossible to work in the Metro Tri-Plex of DC, MD and VA and lawfully carry a firearm for defense.

      Not being able to carry in even one of them often rules out carrying that day. Congress has the same problem. Those guys were practicing in Alexandria (carry allowed) but then had to drive back to their offices in DC. So no carry for them.

      We really need reciprocity and carry protection.

      • Sam P says:

        It’s better than it used to be for a Virginian, since carry in National Parks was legalized in 2010. The big catch before was that the George Washington Parkway is under NPS jurisdiction.

  9. Whetherman says:

    “I’ve seen that movie too.”

    Here’s an interesting stunt; watch that movie in a mirror, over your shoulder, and you’ll see it’s really just a remastering of that movie about “militias” fighting the good fight against the commies, that was first released about 23 – 25 years ago.

    (Actually longer, I guess; I was approached by our company armorer to join the Minutemen, when I was in the Army 50+ years ago, but they didn’t get much press.)

    • Sebastian says:

      I don’t disagree… but like I said before in the comments… the scale is amazing. Fringe is going mainstream…. and I don’t just mean only on one side.

      • Whetherman says:

        “Fringe is going mainstream…”

        I think they’re calling that “normalization.”

        If you were to pin me down to come up with a theory, it would be that it happens when rate of change becomes too rapid; and I’m not sure whether it has to be rate of change of existential issues (like the economy) or if more superficial things can ignite it.

        This is kind of a cliche’, but a lot of fringe became normalized, all over the world, as a result of the fallout from WWI, and the Great Depression was just the icing on that cake. You and I or probably no one reading this was there to see it, but Sinclair Lewis thought the fringe was being normalized enough in 1935 that he wrote “It Can’t Happen Here” and lots of people thought the scenario plausible. Other than the very dated technology in the scenario, what it outlines is appearing plausible again.

  10. beatbox says:

    And if it turns out he had a ccw, then reciprocity is sunk as well

  11. Geoff says:

    There is crazy whacko mentally unstable and there is crazy angry and destructive.
    This shooter was the latter.

    • mike w. says:

      I’ve known people who aren’t “Crazy” in the “off his rocker” way most people think of the term, but who are definitely unstable in a behavioral disorder kind of way that can render them hostile, dangerous and unpredictable in some circumstances. Think malignant narcissists, histrionic personality disorder etc.

  12. beatbox says:

    Okay. So it looks like he got the guns (SKS) in Illinois and he had a FOID and CCW.

    The message should be that:

    1. Since he had a FOID, he got background checked 365 days a year.

    2. SKS is not an “assault weapon”

    3. Since he had a CCW it means he went through more extensive training than is required by most states.

    Basically he went through a process that gun control groups think is awesome.

    • Sigivald says:

      Yup.

      The only way to “government” out of him having a gun is to disarm everyone.

      Which, well, they don’t want to admit that, since it’s a rough sell.

  13. RAH says:

    Background checks does not check if the person is a lefty and prone to logic failures. We do not want firearms licenses depend on political idealogy So this guy should not have been denied his rights

  14. Ian Argent says:

    I freaked out as soon as I heard the news, but now I’m in wait-and-see mode. Get back to me next week, and while we’re at it, would someone at SCOTUS crap or get off the pot in re Peruta? The suspense is agony.

  15. RAH says:

    I was stopped in DC traffic on the beltway when I heard there were multiple shots I thought a robber and a CWw since it was Alexandria Then I heard GOP baseball which puzzled me. Then I heard the M Brook interview what happened The Congress critters did very good concise reporting.

    My immediate thought were 2 things One DC obstruction of gun carry is toast The second is the GOP will win GA 6

    Rand Paul has made statements before about getting rid of DC jurisdiction on guns He was there and was upset he was defenseless.

  16. RAH says:

    Rep Massie introduced a bill to allow reciprocity of CCW holders in DC Not just politicians, just as I expected It has 23 sponsors.

    http://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/81210-2

  17. Billll says:

    I spoke with my representative Saturday and he sounded decidedly cynical about any gun bills getting anywhere at all in the immediate future, 3-6 months. He did expect the usual raft of anti gun bills to pop up again, but to my observation they won’t go anywhere either. The hunting and fishing stuff may help though.

    • Andy Barniskis says:

      “I spoke with my representative Saturday and he sounded decidedly cynical about any gun bills getting anywhere at all in the immediate future, 3-6 months…”

      Statements like that always give me a flashback to 1995, when, very concerned about what I was hearing, I called my state representative about pending gun control legislation, and was told by him to relax — not gun control legislation was going to go anywhere that year.

      That was exactly a week before the comprehensive gun control package passed into law. And he voted for it.

      Give me a choice between what an elected official says, and a magic 8-ball or tea leaves, and I’ll take the 8-ball or tea leaves word every time. They don’t have an incentive to lie, or nearly as much practice at it.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. SayUncle » After the shooting - […] Sebastian: This isnt a good situation to be in. It was assassinations that brought us the Gun Control Act…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

top