“Something must be done,” is the first step in the political process. Shouted by ignorant voters, who find some problem they don’t like. Not even considering complexity, nuance, grey areas, or unintended consequences, this low-information sentiment is latched on to by politicians eager to assert their power: “This is something, so therefore it must be done!”
We don’t want to take firearms from responsible gun owners, but it’s hard to imagine any of these people fit that description.
Ah yes, it’s just that easy. The central premise of gun control is that criminals obey gun control laws. If only we had this law or that, none of these bad things would happen. If this were so, California would be a crime free paradise, rather than having a violent crime rate higher than the national average, and higher than it’s neighboring states that lack California’s strict gun control laws:
“What is alarming to the police is that they have no power to ascertain the potential criminal background of an armed individual until a crime is committed, and by then it is too late,” said Ladd Everitt, spokesman for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, an advocacy group.
That’s typically how it works Ladd, even with permits, because the police can’t stop someone without reasonable suspicion the person is committing a crime. That’s the law. There is no earthly reason in this day in age when police have laptops in their cruisers, that they can’t determine whether someone is eligible to possess a firearm in a few minutes, if it comes to an actual stop. Permits are entirely unnecessary.
I don’t know much about how steep of a hill it is to climb with this kind of lawsuit in Virginia courts, but I wouldn’t be afraid of looking into suing in federal court, especially if they revoke occupancy. I would file in federal court under 42 U.S.C. Section 1985(3), “Conspiracy to Interfere with Civil Rights.”
A lot of folks on our side incorrectly speak of using civil rights laws to shut down what is mere advocacy, but in this case, by using State Legislators and County Government to attempt to shut down Nova Armory’s business, they have actually taken measures to deprive Nova Armory of their Second and 14th Amendment rights. Absolutely if this were happening because residents of Arlington County didn’t want a Black-owned business opening, and engaged in a conspiracy to take actual measures to shut it down, that business owner would have a case. This is no different. The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is necessarily the right to buy, sell, and trade in arms as well. Granted, Heller lit the way for government to regulate arms sales with that infamous clause we’re all too familiar with, “The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on … laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” But this is going much farther than regulation.
In this case, they are not imposing conditions or qualifications, but arguing that no gun store may operate in Arlington County, and they’ll act extra-legally if need be to ensure it doesn’t happen. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, in which Virginia resides, has been more friendly to a lot of Second Amendment claims than others. I’d say dragging these fiends into federal court is worth a shot. You can’t negotiate with people who do things like this. You just have to hit back and hit back hard.
Remember when President Obama ordered the military and federal agencies to come up with a plan on how to promote smart-gun technology through the procurement process? Well, that report might be due out this week:
Sources in and out of government say the administration is about to put forward a report from the agencies on the way forward on smart guns. The document could be released as early as this week, these sources say.
Its exact recommendations are being closely guarded by the White House, but it’s likely to reopen a years-long debate on whether smart guns ultimately can cut down the number of accidental shooting deaths — 500 in 2013 alone, 30 of those under age 5.
Bicycles kill more people in accidents every year. Accidental poisoning kills 38,851 people every year, and 76 of those were children under the age of 5 (via Poison Control Center). Unlike accidental shootings, which thanks to community education efforts have been on the decline, accidental poisonings among both adults and those under 5 have been increasing substantially. So why all the attention on this issue? To me, the answer is clear. This isn’t about saving the lives of children, it’s about gaining political advantage over those rubes in flyover country.
We have to be ready for this. Any manufacturer who cooperates with this shit gets the Smith & Wesson treatment. For those readers who are young, gun owners nearly drove the iconic gunmaker out of business because they cooperated with the Clinton Administration to enact back door bans for civilians. Military and police contracts represent a small percentage of the industries overall business. If a company wishes to lose all their civilian business entirely, by all means, bow to pressure from this administration or the next.
I guess the epic smackdown Michael Bellesiles received at the hands of Clayton Cramer and other in the gun community wasn’t enough. The left is back again with this fraudulent argument, arguing that Americans had no real interest in guns until after the Civil War. In this case, the argument is that Big Corporations made us love guns. I can’t imagine why anyone heading out west on the wagon train might, for perfectly rational reasons, desire themselves a repeating rifle. Yep. Must be slick marketing.
What it boils down to is that this is an election year, and Clinton is determined to get elected on a platform with gun control at the center. Notice Haag, the author, says:
Haag says she began this project determined not to become “entrapped” in gun-control politics. “I came to this material as an historian,” she writes. But she concludes with calls to put the bottom-line gunmaker, rather than the emotionally invested gun owner, at the forefront of the battle over gun violence. She calls for “smart gun” technology, by which a weapon can be used only by its rightful owner. She wants to remove the barriers to research and data collection on gun violence. She calls for additional consumer regulations and protections involving firearms. (“A toy gun is subjected to more consumer safeguards as a product than a real gun,” Haag writes.) Most important, she urges the repeal of the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which shields manufacturers, distributors and dealers from civil liability for damages caused by their products.
Yes, I do not wish to become “entrapped” in gun control politics. She’s just a poor little innocent historian, after all. So now allow me to regurgitate every talking point from Hillary’s campaign.
Like most people who support gun control, I figured this article was written by an old white woman, but she seems to be of my generation. The silver lining in this article is that if she’s having to deal with female students exciting about shooting, we’re winning. Winning even though in this case, she questions giving a student a recommendation because the student enjoys shooting:
She seems to be a good kid, Sarah. And I don’t know what she really thinks of gun advocacy and political failures that have cost us all these lives and our sense of safety as educators. I don’t know what she does on the weekends. I also don’t know if she understands emotions, or what real rage feels like. It seems to me no person who has truly experienced the full impact of their own emotions would ever go near a gun.
Sounds like you’re projecting some of your own personal failings onto others there, Professor. I agree, if you’re so emotionally unstable that you worry you’ll hurt others in a fit of rage, don’t own guns. It’s really not for you. She speaks of her mother who got rid of all the guns in the house because her father was manic depressive and had wild mood swings. No one on our side would argue with that. But not everyone is the same way. I’ve never in my life been so angry that I felt like I did not have control, and I’ve been plenty angry. There are millions of other Americans who are the same way.
Sorry, but tricking people into watching a snuff film is pretty ghoulish. If I were interviewed afterwards, I’d argue the people who arranged this were sick. It’s not that I am not aware that violence happens, or refuse to face the “consequences” of my beliefs, it’s that I don’t particularly want to watch murderers ply their trade. It’s not the guns that killed those people… it’s the murdering sack of shit behind the trigger. I get that argument has become tired and cliched, but it’s still true.
I’ve seen this article over at Forbes pop up quite a bit, about how a Canadian hacker can do a better job of finding gun sales online than Facebook can. There’s a lot of things I believe that might seem conspiratorial, like the fact that anti-gun groups, namely Bloomberg’s groups, are feeding the media these stories. But that’s really become standard practice, so the surprise would be if they weren’t doing it. Maybe this one was spoon fed, but maybe it wasn’t. But the strategy at work here is pretty smart (from their point of view).
Having the machines look for patterns is going to create a lot of false positives, because machines kind of suck at this. If that wasn’t the case, you’d never have to retrieve anything out of your spam folder, and in some ways that’s an easier problem if you have enough samples to evaluate.
I think the anti-gun folks know this, and that the real target are the false positives that will be generated. Social Media is a key place we promote the shooting culture, share information, and self-organize. Facebook is now my number two referrer (behind SayUncle). The false positives are going to occur most often when people are talking about guns, sharing pictures, and spreading the culture. If people can be made to fear sharing that information, because of their accounts keep getting suspended when they do, it would hobble us as a social movement pretty severely.
It’s not just Bloomberg’s money I fear, but the skills the man has that got him that money. I doubt it’s lost on the leaders of his gun control organizations that the spread of the culture is a real problem for them finding success going forward.
Samantha Bee of TBS’s Full Frontal tries to fraudulently obtain an Eddie Eagle costume for the purpose of mocking the NRA and gun ownership. She doesn’t succeed, but the video is pretty awful. Count the number of gun safety violations. What a stuck up ignoramus she is. Hard to believe people actually watch that trash.
Do the folks like Bloomberg and his paid lackeys still want to argue that gun ownership is really in decline?
Apparently, the answer is yes, yes they do. Do I think this will go on forever? No. It some point the market will stop booming. But it’s hard to argue there hasn’t been significant expansion in the gun culture. You know, the gun culture Bloomberg wants to destroy. With that, The Trace gets the Baghdad Bob award for reporting.
I’m sure folks have seen what’s being dubbed the “iPhone gun” by now. I haven’t written anything about it, because a) it’s just silly, and b) it looks like vaporware, and possibly a hoax. But that hasn’t stopped the media from hyperventilating about it. It’s silly because do you think an armed robber, rapist, or kidnapper is going to stand there patiently and wait for you to unfold your phone gun so you can shoot him?
On Monday, Senator Chuck Schumer, D-New York, asked the Justice Department and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to block sales of a double barreled .380 caliber handgun from gun maker Ideal Conceal.
“This iPhone gun is a disaster waiting to happen,” Schumer said in a news conference Monday in New York.
I think its a disaster too, but not for the same reasons you do Chucky. Whether this would be an AOW or not, I can’t say for sure. The US Code says a handgun is “a firearm which has a short stock and is designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand” and in its firing configuration, it fits this definition. But the definition of AOW is muddled. So is it an AOW? I think that depends on what ATF determines, meaning it depends on the season, and whether you sacrificed a chicken to the God of Bureaucracy.
The amount of pearl clutching over this silly thing is amazing. It never fails to amaze me the things the media and politicians freak out over. It’s a two shot .380 derringer, basically, that would take some pretty explicit and slow moves to bring into action. If I were a cop, I’d be more worried about the dude with a gat in his coat pocket.