Category: Anti-Gun Folks

As the Senator from next door, I’ve had the displeasure of a long familiarity with Joe Biden. Stories like this, where Biden claims to have had a brush with the Nickel Mines massacre in Pennsylvania are nothing new to anyone familiar with his career. I’ve concluded that Biden may, in fact, be a pathological liar. He’s certainly a world class weirdo, at the least, and certainly makes you hope the Secret Service has their A game on.

Our favorite Brady Board member writes:

The emotion about the Sandy Hook school shooting is exactly what is driving the movement to change our current gun laws so that more parents won’t send their children to school in the morning and get a call that their child is one that didn’t make it home that afternoon. That’s emotion. The emotion felt by those families was felt by the entire country. If the protesters who showed up on Saturday don’t or can’t feel that emotion, what is wrong with them? Their emotion is all about fear and paranoia that is fueled by the NRA lobbyists.

This represents something the gun control faithful won’t accept and truly don’t understand, it represents why their can’t really be any “national conversation.” We all want to make sure our children are well protected. We all felt awful in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre. To think that every protester that showed up as some kind of uncaring monster is exactly the kind of attitude that makes having a conversation impossible. We are not monsters. We care just the same for our families as you care for yours, we just have vastly different philosophies on how they are best to be protected. That’s a wide gulf, to be sure, but it’s not one so wide that people on the other side can smugly declare that they are the only ones who care about children.

I’ve seen many gun owners argue that the anti-gun efforts aren’t aimed at their guns. Some don’t like that many of us describe so-called “assault weapons bans” as semi-auto rifle bans, even though that’s exactly what they are banning (or, in many cases, much, much more). In this case, Exurban Kevin notes that Time Warner is banning all images of semi-automatic firearms of any kind in commercials.

They, of course, will continue to show movies that feature criminals using semi-automatic firearms to kill and hurt people. But, allowing law-abiding gun owners to be shown what they can legally purchase and use at the range or for home defense is clearly crossing their moral line in the sand.

UPDATE: It just occurred to me. Time Warner Cable is now going to refuse every Hollywood movie trailer with a semi-automatic firearm. Right? Oh, wait, no. This is only a rule targeted at hurting our community.

Dave Hardy looks at some history on this background check issue. Here is the gun control logic in a nutshell, imagined as a conversation between gun control advocates and policymakers:

Circa 1968:

Gun control advocate: “Well, you see, we have this problem, and the problem is that that all these gun transfers are private and largely unregulated, and we need a way to regulate and scrutinize these things.”

Policymaker: “Here is a Gun Control Act, which is the solution! We will license them!”

And the gun control advocates did thus rejoice.

Circa 1993:

Gun control advocate: “The problem is that too many people are complying with your previous solution and getting too many licenses, so now we need a solution to the problem caused by the first solution.”

Policymaker: “Well, OK then, we’ll make it expensive and difficult to get an FFL, and add all kinds of new requirements!”

And the gun control advocates did thus rejoice.

Circa Right Now:

Gun control advocate: “Well, we a problem with all these private, unregulated sales, so we need a solution to the problem caused by the solution to the problem caused by our first solution.”

Policymaker: “It sounds like the problem caused by the solution to the problem caused by the first solution is an awful lot like the original problem we passed the first solution for in the first place.”

Gun control advocate: “Well, do you want to talk about a solution for the problem of there being gun owners yet?”

Recommendations from the Gun Policy Summit, which I’m sure did not include any actual experts on guns or policy, and more accurately is a summit composed of a bunch of people with pieces of paper that they think say they are smarter than the rest of us. The rest of us who decided to forgo six figure debt to get into an unrewarding and over-regulated profession controlled by politicians, government bureaucrats and insurance company lobbyists. See also, anti-gun hacks sitting around a table trying to figure out how to better run your lives. No wonder Bloomberg is funding this. He loves this kind of nanny bullshit.

Many journalists have taken the attitude that they should try to shame people out of gun ownership, so Project Veritas decided to challenge them about how proud they are of their non-gun owner status. Would they be willing to actually tell the world that they don’t own guns in a way that’s personal? The same kind of personal they made it for gun owners in New York whose houses were put on a map…

I suspect you already know the answer – not a single one of them accepted the sign to declare themselves non-gun owners.

One of the most interesting parts of the video is the section with the husband of the publisher of the Journal News who admits that he’s so anti-gun, he fled the country to avoid them; yet, they gladly hire armed security that he brags are armed. He also continues on how we need gun control that allows nothing more than a single shot – which is less than what his armed security detail is likely carrying.

One of the editors of the Journal News had her armed security detail try to threaten the “anti-gun group” with calling the police for trespass – while they stood on public property. I guess that reflects their views on any so-called “rights” of these “little people” to assemble and even walk down a sidewalk.

The new law in New York does not outlaw magazines that hold more than 7 rounds. You can still own a magazine that holds up to ten. It’s just that if you put more than 7 rounds in the magazine, you’re a criminal. This has to be the most laughably ridiculous things I’ve ever seen come from the anti-gunners. Does anyone seriously think criminals and mass shooters are going to even be remotely concerned?

UPDATE: Upon more careful reading of the statute, it does indeed ban magazines that hold more than 7 rounds. There is no grandfathering for magazines that have more than ten rounds. Those are contraband. You have a year to get rid of them or become a criminal. There is grandfathering for 8-10 round magazines, you just may not put more than 7 rounds in them, or you become a criminal. I should note that this isn’t just magazines. This is now an illegal item in New York:

So is this:

If you have any belts with more than 7 rounds on them, they are illegal. In fact, because it covers “readily restored” as well, any belt links at all, if you have more than enough to string 7 rounds together, are now contraband. Blocking would also seem to be out, because it could be readily restore to shoot more than 7 rounds.

UPDATE: Bill here. The stuff in CAPS is changes. You will note there is a C&R exception, but if it can be used in a replica rifle, it doesn’t apply by my reading. So it’s a useless exemption.

Well, for a while they were running out of money. This is about double what they made in all of 2010. Once people start thinking gun control isn’t a lost cause, they are more willing to send checks. We’re in this for the long haul.