Category: Anti-Gun Folks

Josh Sugarmann is wetting his pants because Bushmaster is recalling the ACR. Based on the fact that Bushmaster describes this problem as dangerous, I’m going to guess something like a hammer follow. Unfortunately for Josh, all semi-automatic firearms can malfunction in this way, not just evil assault weapons. The venerable M1 Garand (that’s still not an assault weapon right? Oh wait, no, it is) can certainly do it as well.

But Sugarmann seems to think this is some kind of gotcha “See! See! Assault weapons really are machine guns!”

Jacob has been following the continuing troubles of Carolyn McCarthy, and notes that NRA is hitting that district on behalf of Becker. The Democrats are having a difficult time even manning the firewall. John Richardson notes that McCarthy is running attack ads, which is something not typically done by candidates who are on top.

This is one election I’m going to be watching with anticipation on Tuesday night.

Our favorite Brady Board member:

As I have said over and over and over again- yes sir, it is legal to sell guns to felons in most states that have not passed a law to require background checks on all gun sales at gun shows. Private sellers are more than just people selling occasionally. Some of these private sellers sell hundreds of guns a year at gun shows. That is a fact that cannot be avoided…

Under current law, it is never lawful, in any state, to knowingly sell a gun to a felon, whether there’s a background check conducted or not. It is never legal for a felon to purchase a firearm, whether from an FFL or from a private seller. It is never legal to sell a firearm to someone who does not reside in the same state that you do. It is again, not legal for someone to be engaged in the business of selling firearms and to not hold a federal firearms license. This is all current law. I could quote the relevant parts of federal statutes, but I think most people here are familiar with them.

So essentially, the leaders of the gun control movement are advocating we make changes to federal law, when they don’t even really understand what federal law currently is. Not only that, but if there’s a coherent argument for ending private transfers coming out of Common Gunsense, I’ve yet to hear it. This is in spite of some people being willing to have a dialog on the issue.

We can certainly talk about enforcement of these current laws at gun shows, and how we can do better. ATF has undermined enforcement of illegal trafficking at gun shows by not being able to help itself from using strong-armed police state tactics when it’s tried. A better run agency would find a lot of willing help from the firearms community when it comes to preventing people dealing and buying unlawfully, but they don’t, and part of the reason is ATF’s long history of treating their mission as if it were to destroy the lawful commerce in firearms rather than to ensure that the firearms commerce proceeds according to the law.

Dennis Henigan seems pleased that Sestak got Pat Toomey to dance around the gun issue a bit. Joe Sestak is all in favor of denying people fundamental constitutional rights based on people’s name being on a secret government list. Doesn’t sound too great when you frame it that way does it? Of course, in Joe Sestak’s mind, you don’t even have a right to own a gun, so why not?

The problem is that people don’t understand the issue. The Bradys are experts at exploiting ignorance to their advantage, and framing the debate in terms that people think they agree. I mean, who wants terrorists getting guns? Who wants people to have weapons that are used for assaulting people? Who wants wife beaters armed?

Toomey had to dance because he’s not going to come out and say he favors guns for terrorists. The moderators were only too happy to frame the issue the Brady way. But that’s not really the issue. The issue is how I framed it. They can only win through deception.

UPDATE: Think about it. What does it say that Henigan is proud that the Brady misrepresentation of the issue is working the way they want it to? What other constitutional rights does Dennis think is OK to deny Americans without any due process whatsoever? Inquiring minds want to know.

Chris shares with us some of the Reasoned Discourse^TM, and notes:

As a side note, I’m not a huge fan of hand grenades, personally. I just don’t see an epidemic of hand grenade crime, they are already highly regulated, and I really doubt that you can just go to a gun show and buy one over the counter.

Not something I’m chomping at the bit to get my hands on either (unlike, say, something belt fed), but I think it’s interesting Ms. Japete believes we can just pick them up at any local gun show. Nothing could convince me more her entire field of knowledge about gun shows comes from scary crap she’s read from the Brady folks, and their like.

I’ve never been to a gun show that didn’t have law some law enforcement presence, with the exception of some smaller ones. Who would have guessed a place where people are buying and trading valuable items that criminals want to steal, the promoters might want a cop or two around.

So how, exactly, does Ms. Japete think that a highly contraband object is being sold at gun shows where there is likely to be law enforcement presence?

I just can’t not look, even though I know I’d be better off just getting to my destination faster. Despite my best efforts to not pay any more attention, Cemetery’s title was pretty much my exact quote this morning when I saw this over at our favorite Brady Board member’s blog. I will reproduce the portion of the comment here in case it disappears into the pool of Reasoned Discourse:

So here are some examples of hand grenades, which are being smuggled into Mexico as we speak, according to Brady Campaign Board members:

They are even offering, the horror, a chance to win a pistol with it too I guess, and in the colors Bloomberg hates. Surely that will also end up fueling violence in Mexico. And we all know what every Mexican drug dealer wants under his tree at Christmas time…. just to make sure your kids know who’s boss, and stuff. I had no idea that Amazon was such a big time supplier! Wait, wait, how about this one, “Jose was such a great guy when we had parties down at the drug cartel office, until he bought one of these. It took the janitor three hours to clean up the mess!”

Surely Joan Peterson has at least enough ability to tell truth from falsity to know the difference between a real grenade and a lamp shaped like one? Or a cigarette lighter? Paperweight? Or an air device that just sprays plastic beads everywhere? I have to believe the answer is yes, because if the answer is no, this is more an issue in distinguishing reality from fantasy rather than truth from falsity. In this realm, I’m a real Airline Captain, because I’m going to go home tonight and hop on the the X-plane flight server and go somewhere in my very own Boeing 737. So just call me Captain Sebastian from now on. Do I get a barrel of rum? Who wants to go to Bermuda? Wait, Airline Captains can’t drink. Someone call the FAA and report me immediately.

Sorry folks, this just has me in stitches. I usually try to keep it classy, but sometimes you just have to laugh at your opponents. Before I believed there was value in maintaining a dialog with the other side. Now I am absolutely sure there is value in it!

UPDATE: Seems now she’s suggesting they ought to be illegal because you could take a deactivated grenade and make it live again. Does she also believe in prohibiting bottles because I could fill one with gasoline, stick a rag in it, and make a molotov cocktail? Does she favor banning iron pipes?

As soon as you’re dealing with explosives, you’re probably already breaking existing law. Definitely if you put it in something meant to fragment. Inert grenades are hunks of metal lady! That’s all they are. There’s no explosive, fuse or detonator in them.

And this is who we’re told should be making public policy? Please. I’m really curious to know what magical properties inert hunks of metal have in Joan Peterson’s mind.

Jacob mentions she’s won an editorial board endorsement based on her record for gun control. He also and points out her record even on this pet issue is practically non-existent, and completely non-existent on other issues. In addition, Democrats in her district are worried about turnout being low. I’m sincerely hoping the gig is going to be up for McCarthy in a few weeks. That victory would be so sweet it would rot my teeth.

UPDATE: Becker is running campaign ads trying to tie McCarthy to Nancy Pelosi:

Any judge who does something I don’t agree with. Irrelevance sucks, doesn’t it?

One thing I’ve wrestled with, in thinking about whether our opponents on the gun control side of the debate are evil, misguided or just plain wrong (or some combination of the three), is the consequences of what they advocate. After all, “an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man,” so you’re putting an individual at some risk by taking away his ability to defend himself and his community against the criminal element, whether that criminal element comes under color of law or whether it is just commonly criminal.

It’s seriously business, restricting the tools of self-defense. To justify it to themselves, our opponents have tried to convince us that we’re misguided and paranoid, and that really, they only want to disarm us for our own good. They try to convince us they don’t want to do this, while trying to prevent us from exercising the right anywhere but our homes (and even there prior to Heller).

It is infantalizing, but America, since the first settlers hit Plymouth Rock, has always had an element that wanted to infantalize and control the population for their own good. It is a common streak through our history. Blacks were told slavery was for their own good. The Irish were told they were going to have to give up beer and whiskey for their own good. We were all told that people would go mad if we didn’t let the federal government ban reefer, among other things.

All these policies have grave and negative social consequences and have cost lives. All the people who advocated for them believed they were doing it for everyone’s own good. What was the mixture at work for these policies, between misguidedness and evil? I don’t think anyone can say for sure. Certainly slavery was evil. But were alcohol prohibitionists? People who advocate keeping drugs illegal? I think it’s much harder to say there. Since a great many Americans approve of these policies, there’s an awful lot of evil people out there if that’s the case. My grandmother, who had to live for many years with my alcoholic grandfather, was still to her dying day a believer in the value of prohibition, and I don’t think she was evil. Misguided, yes, but not evil.

I tend to think our opponents are more wrong and misguided than evil, though I do think their ideas are dangerous for a society that’s based on, and claims to value individual freedom.