Want to Ban My Guns?

Japete is a bit incredulous we think so. I know I said it was time for me to disengage from Common Gunsense, but it’s too much to resist. She’s trying to rewrite history. We’re all well aware of the Brady Campaigns past, and their support of an effective ban on handguns. She points out that even the assault weapons ban didn’t actually ban anything. True, but the only reason that wasn’t the case is because they didn’t have the votes to pass confiscation, which is also the only reason it had a sunset clause. Let’s not also forget the last proposed incarnation of the AWB, which was far more draconian. Japete also needs an explanation for what followed up on the heels of the Assault Weapons Ban and the Brady Act, which was only stopped because we flipped Congress in 1994. Brady II, as it was dubbed, would never see the light of day.

Let’s make one other things clear. Whether or not you want to ban guns, or make them so difficult to own that for all practical purposes no one bothers, is an academic argument. I really could care less at this point. Recently a state lawmaker proposed a universal registration scheme which would have amounted to a tax on gun ownership. For serious collectors or competitors it would mean hundreds of dollars a year. You expect me not to oppose that because it’s not a ban? You think the fact that it costs 500 dollars to legally own a gun in DC, before even buying the gun, should be acceptable to us? Is it acceptable to you? Constitutional rights, but only for the rich? Oh, I’m sorry, I forgot the position was constitutional rights for no one.

She then goes on to lament that the slippery slope can go the other way. Yes it can. It works in both directions. That why we’re all working to make sure it keeps heading in her direction. Is there anywhere it’s going to stop? Who knows. But it’s not like gun control works anyway, so don’t expect me to stand atop my soapbox and yell “stop.” Gun control advocates seem to think if somehow we believe you aren’t going to ban guns, we’re not going to oppose you. At this point we’re not afraid of your end game anymore. We just resent the interference with our rights. Where will the slippery slope stop? When you’re about as relevant as these people.

23 Responses to “Want to Ban My Guns?”

  1. jefferson101 says:

    Not to be picking flycrap out of the pepper, but the WCTU has been reincarnated as M.A.D.D.

    And they are making a strong comeback.

    I’d prefer that the Brady Org. have fewer lives, and even less influence than that.

  2. Miguel says:

    Well, I posted my reply. Let’s see if it get approved this time.

  3. I don’t think it is worth arguing with most antis, especially the zealots like Ms. Peterson. Many of their opinions are based on emotion, fear, and rhetoric. The facts are irrelevant at best or tools to be twisted at worst (lies, damn lies, and statistics…).

    The best approach, in my opinion, is tangible, hands on activity. Ideally, that means taking an anti shooting. Most hard core zealots probably will refuse, but many of those who have vague leanings opposing firearms based on what they’ve heard in the media are amenable.

    Most people don’t care about the statistics that show that cops are NOT being killed with “assault weapons” or about the intricacies of ATF trace statistics. They are likely to be less freaked out about assault weapons however after they’ve shot your 10/22 with a 25 round magazine and say, “Gee, that’s fun!” Or when they realize that an adjustable stock makes a firearm easily and safely usable by a smaller statured woman and a larger male — it doesn’t just look scary, there’s a good reason to have one. They might realize some of the absurdity of our gun laws if you show them your Ruger Charger and mention that it’d be very illegal to put a stock on it, and equally illegal to cut down your 10/22 carbine to <16". Or if you drive within 1000 feet of a school with all those guns in the trunk then you've just violated the Gun Free School Zones Act as there is no exception for traveling on a major thoroughfare or requirement for mens rea.

    I think the best thing you can do is take someone on the fence to the range and have a safe, fun day. The next best thing you can do is "come out of the closet" as a safe, responsible, respectable gun owner. Sadly, dialogue and logical argument won't get you very far. I used to think it would, but now I'm starting to think that Joe Huffman's approach of equating the extreme Brady Campaign zealots with the KKK while simultaneously using low-pressure hands-on experiences with moderates that can be persuaded is more effective. Not that we should give up on other approaches like engaging the media, but I just don't think engaging with the antis directly will help us much.

  4. BC says:

    Re: “assault weapons”, let’s not forget that the Brady Campaign thinks California’s law — which grandfathered existing weapons so long as owners registered them, but otherwise banned possession, import, and transfer — is a model for the rest of the country.

  5. ctdonath says:

    She’s approving mine (so far), and backing herself into a corner in the process. Can’t deal with the accusation that she’d ban ’em all, but won’t draw the line either.

  6. DirtCrashr says:

    California’s law based on a “series” list of manufacturers has been basically rendered moot, first in the decision Kasler v. Lockyer in August 2000, and set aside in Harrott v. Kings County 2001 where it said that cops, DAs and trial courts could not determine if a firearm was a “series” member: not one until promulgated by CA DOJ – and that because AR- and AK-type bare receivers not listed in the California Code of Regulations, §979.11 are not assault weapons as long as no SB23 “evil features” are attached, these “off-list”, or “non-Kasler” bare receivers can be legally purchased and possessed by California firearms consumers. Since 2003 thousands of off-list AR receivers have been sold and built in California.
    Here’s how to get around it.
    And here’s what it looks like when you’re done.

  7. thirdpower says:

    She states: “I have stated many times what I think is a good law- background checks on all gun sales at gun shows.”

    We have that in Illinois yet the BC, of which she is a board member, continues to push for even more laws, completely fabricating claims in the process.

    Last time that was brought up when Petey Hamm posted here, he completely avoided the question.

    We all know why.

  8. Laughingdog says:

    ” I really could care less at this point.”

    I think you meant “I really couldn’t care less”. If you could care less, that means you actually care.

  9. Laughingdog says:

    “When you’re about as relevant as these people. (Woman’s Christian Temperance Union)”.

    They may not be relevant by that name anymore. But I’d be very surprised if most members of that group weren’t also active in MAAD.

  10. Sebastian says:

    Yes, but gun control isn’t going to go away any more than temperance is. It’ll take other forms. But the gun control movement born out of a desire for prohibition is going down the toilet. It will be replaced with something else.

  11. Bob S. says:

    I find it interesting that she says she doesn’t want to ban firearms but she worked against Minnesota H.F. 415

    From the website which is the site for the “Citizens for a Safer Minnesota”

    The Minnesota bill reads:

    Proposed bill: The right of a citizen to keep, bear, and use arms for the defense and security of the person, family, or home, or for lawful hunting, recreation, or marksmanship training is fundamental and shall not be infringed.

    If you value the right of the people:
    · to regulate ownership and possession of arms, and

    · to pass laws to keep guns out of the hands of children, teens and criminals

    then you must oppose this bill.{3D395028-C26F-49AF-A8D9-4BB9126C59E4}

    To regulate ownership and possession of firearms

    Notice how that is completely separate and apart from

    to pass laws to keep guns out of the hands of children, teens and criminals

    A ban by any other name is still a ban

  12. Miguel says:

    No joy on my post. I should have kept a copy. I basically told her that her side has been consistently wrong and the best example started 23 years ago when Florida passed the CWP laws. All the predictions that her side made have been wrong for 23 years over and over but they still do not seem to get it.
    And that is where they tick me off: irrationality taken to the extreme of ignoring what’s obviously slapping them in the face but they choose to ignore it and call it morning breeze.

  13. Colin says:

    I’ve had many on topic, polite comments that raised difficult to answer questions for her kind get flushed down the memory hole. I even called her on it, and she still just says, “Whatever.”

  14. Matt Carmel says:

    Why keep on going back to the well with Japete? The more you engage, the more you bestow her legitimacy. It is a religion to her, nothing more, nothing less. You will never shake a belief system so why try?

  15. Miguel says:

    Matt, a lie left unchecked………….

  16. Colin says:

    Plus it’s entertaining and it gives me something to do since I’m out of work right now and don’t feel like spending the WHOLE day hunting the internets for a new job.

  17. thirdpower says:

    And the MN group is funded by……. (drumroll please)

    The Joyce Foundation.

    Is anyone actually surprised?

    Here’s what they had to say about Heller and McDonald

    “We disagree with both the 2008 Heller decision overturning the Washington, D.C. handgun ban and today’s McDonald decision applying it to Chicago,” said Heather Martens, Executive Director of Citizens for a Safer Minnesota and Protect Minnesota.

  18. Link P says:

    What’s the 1995 AWB that sunset in 2005 that Japete keeps referring to? I would be less particular about her ignorance of the 1994 law that sunset in 2004, but she is a Brady board member. I would expect her to be a little more familiar with her organization’s crowning moment.

    Every time says that she is against a gun ban, I can’t help being more reminded of Inigo Montoya from The Princess Bride when he says “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

  19. Sebastian says:


    The news cycle is pretty scarce these days. Not much going on with guns. You need to go cause more trouble somewhere ;)

  20. DirtCrashr says:

    She shows no inclination to exercise a single bit of her own intellect in the matter and merely repeats lies, memes, and stale tropes, but at least she provides a forum for us to hone ours.

  21. Colin says:

    I think we’ve gotten her to the point where she can no longer rationalize her irrational position without having her head explode. I think it’s only a matter of time now before she turns her comments off and goes the way of the dodo like the rest of the Brady Bunch cheerleaders. Check out these gems:

    “Your comments are irrelevant to what my purpoe [sic] is on this blog.”

    “My concern is that too many of you guys sound whacky to me.”

    “Ever since I started blogging, I have been harassed and attacked because of the difference in the way I see the issue of guns and gun violence from some of my readers.”

    Won’t be long now–I giver her to the end of the month, tops. Still, kudos to her for making it as long as she has, I guess. The mental gymnastics of trying to prove that the sun revolves around a flat earth despite being shown overwhelming evidence to the contrary would be extremely taxing I’d imagine.

  22. MJM says:

    And, initially, who believed that Hitler wanted to ban Jews? He just wanted to secure the German people by reasonable measures.
    Yes, Japete, I have no doubt your position is Michael Dukakis’s position: “Only the police and military should have guns.”
    So, we are pushing to explore this freedom to its limits in part because we don’t trust you.

  23. ctdonath says:

    Well, we’ve shaved her position down to disavowing wanting to ban, save for AWB variants affecting what demonstrably aren’t a problem.

    We’ve pressed her to refusal to specify the extent of control desired, a silent expression of her shame in holding her positions.

    We’ve pressed her to claim unwillingness to control the law-abiding, with no statement of how to achieve her goals without doing so.

    We’re educating her, kicking and screaming, about much whether she admits or not.

    Oh, she’ll never give up nor switch sides, but as a leader thereof her side is fading.

    I’ve seen people with like views come around, between prolonged reasoned arguments (and inability to refute them) and contact with real-live positive examples.


  1. Bob Mayne – 116 - [...] Want to Ban My Guns? [...]