Category: Anti-Gun Folks

Story here. The good news for Brady is that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act I don’t believe will cover a lawsuit against a gun classified agent, since they are not among the protected classe. But the bad news for Brady is that the First Amendment very likely does apply. Is anyone surprised they care about as much for the First Amendment as they do the Second? Especially when you consider fascist statements like this and this from their fellow travelers. When they can’t get what they want legislatively, they’ll try to go into court to have the courts legislate for them. What’s sad is that it’s a smart tactic, but that says a lot more about our court system and judges than it does about the Bradys.

Thirdpower is selling patches for all you CSGV-designated insurrectionists out there.

UPDATE: Whoops… Thirdpower writes: “I am not selling the patches, Kurt H. is.” They looked like similar crazy, anarchist, and traitorous patches he’s been selling. Pictures make brain turn off, no read good.

I believe a basic lack of ignorance should be a prerequisite to anyone wishing to be taken seriously in public debate, and that goes double when you’re presuming to check the facts of your opponents:

Fact checking the claims in this video is easy enough. Just for one, the National Firearms Act of 1934 refers to regulations on only certain types of guns like automatic machine guns. The original NFA of 1934 is now void. What is left of the original 1934 NFA is not an assault weapons ban by any stretch of the imagination. Unless, of course, you believe that only automatic machine guns fit the definition of assault rifles.

If this is what passes for fact checking in the gun control movement, no wonder they’ve been losing. First, the original 1934 NFA is most decidedly not “now void,” though in some cases the government must now carry out prosecutions under the FOPA Hughes provision (18 USC 922(o)) because it can no longer accept taxes for machine guns manufactured after 1986. The National Firearms Act is not, and was never intended to be, and “assault weapons ban,” given that the assault rifle was not invented until the 1940s, and the term “assault weapon” didn’t come into the legal lexicon until the late 1980s, when some states, and eventually the federal government, started restricting them. NFA did regulate assault rifles once they came onto the scene, by virtue of regulating machine guns, but the law could never have specifically targeted what did not exist at the time. That brings me to the final point, which is that assault rifles are rifles capable of automatic fire because that is just a fact. That is a separate category from assault weapon, which is a legal term of art. Again, these are not opinions, these are facts. Also a fact, not up for debate because they admitted it, is that the gun control movement deliberately went after assault weapons as an incremental step on the road to further restrictions. They fully admitted that defining them would be difficult.

Is it really too much to ask that someone understand the topic they demand we make new public policy on? Apparently in the gun control movement, it is. One reason I’ve given up on persuasion, or even serious debate with many of our opponents is because there can’t be any basis for such when the other side is committed to defending an utterly false set of facts. There is plenty of room in this debate for differing sets of opinions. There’s even room to spin statistics, which can often be read like tea leaves. But having a debate where the other side believes they are entitled to their own basic facts is just a waste of everyone’s time, and fortunately only serves to display their stunning ignorance of the very issue they want to influence opinion on.

HatTip to Chris in AK for the story, who notes “Thank goodness for ignorant political opponents.”

In his latest column, he admits to being “inarticulate” and “off message,” suggesting he was tired when he said the NRA is the new KKK, but basically does not apologize for the remark, and even doubles down:

We can’t see this or even have a discussion about it because the propaganda-political-lobby-machine, the NRA, has hoodwinked America into believing handguns make us safer. The NRA, like the KKK, has brainwashed us through fear and division.

We had a discussion about guns, and your side lost. Furthermore, when you insult NRA, you insult its members as well. When you suggest we’re dupes, you’re calling us weak minded fools who can’t think for ourselves and who blindingly believe and accept everything NRA says or does. When you say “NRA capitalizes on and promotes racial fears and ignorance,” how are you not saying NRA members are ignorant racists.

You’re standing by what you said, Jason Whitlock. It’s still condescending and offensive. You weren’t inarticulate or off message. You let the world know what you really believed, and what you believe is that NRA members are racist, ignorant dupes. That shows your own ignorance more than it does ours.

Diana DeGette (D-CO) is busy joining Bob Costas, because clearly what House Democrats need in the middle of fiscal cliff negotiations is to refocus the Costas firestorm on them. She’s joined here by Ed Perlmutter (D-CO) who goes farther and notes:

“Unfortunately, it’s tragedies like [the Kansas City shooting] that brings people’s attention back to the issue,” she said.

Perlmutter’s primary concerns center on renewing an assault weapons ban and keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. There is some speculation that Belcher may have been suffering from head injuries incurred while playing football, as well as abusing painkillers and alcohol.

So how is it not using coffins as soapboxes to have people like DeGette and Perlmutter advocating for laws, like an assault weapons ban, that have exactly nothing at all to do with this recent murder-suicide? Belcher didn’t use an assault weapon, and in this country, where owning a gun is a fundamental constitutional right, under what grounds can we remove someone’s rights based on “some speculation?” Maybe I’m crazy here, but I’m pretty sure the Constitution that both Representatives DeGette and Perlmutter swore to uphold says that “due process of law” is what is required to deny someone fundamental constitutional rights.

Title of this post is according to Jason Whitlock, who was the author of the original piece that got Bob Costas in trouble. Our opponents in the gun control movement are salivating about this recent rhetoric, but in truth, this is the kind of coverage NRA feeds off of, because people who are even remotely inclined to side with NRA get galvanized by it. I know this is hard for many people in the gun control movement to understand, but suggesting people who enjoy shooting and value the Bill of Rights are the moral equivalent of a domestic terrorist organization bent on enforcing the kind of racial policy only Hitler could be proud of, tends to upset people enough to get more seriously involved:

You know, I did not go as far as I’d like to go because my thoughts on the NRA and America’s gun culture — I believe the NRA is the new KKK. And that the arming of so many black youths, uh, and loading up our community with drugs, and then just having an open shooting gallery, is the work of people who obviously don’t have our best interests [at heart].

That’s crazy tin foil hat stuff right there. What they fail to understand that there are a lot of gun owners, shooting enthusiasts, and other people inclined to our point of view who have better things to do, ordinarily, than to get themselves involved in a political scrap. Any hateful rhetoric such as this, is enabling for an activist. It brings people in, causes them to seek out kindred spirits, gather information, and makes them pay attention. It opens to them the idea that the only way to crush the hateful is political engagement. They begin to understand that people like this can not be compromised with. In short, it makes my job as an activist much, much easier.