Tag: Logic an Anti-Gunner’s Worst Nightmare

That Evil NRA

As Snowflakes in Hell brings up one thing the anti-gunners like to parrot is how the National Rifle Association (NRA) hates police officers. They claim the fact that the NRA works to maintain gun rights for use measly little peasants as proof. Well the NRA must really hate police officers since they’re buying them body armor:

The Taylor County Sheriff’s Office is getting new body armor thanks to a grant from the National Rifle Association.

The funds were awarded earlier this year in an effort to provide body armor that may not otherwise be available because of budget constraints.

Wait that doesn’t fit the anti-gunner schtick.

On the “Assault Weapon” Ban of Yore

In a conversation I had elsewhere on the web the topic of the 1994 “assault weapon” ban came up. The accusation made by the person whom I’ll simply refer to as Mr. Dipshit stated:

Of course, the “assault weapons ban” was anything but; it was actually just a subsidy to the American gun industry. Several American weapons which were nearly identical to foreign ones were not classified as assault weapons, while the foreign equivalents were.

I’m bringing this up because I’ve heard this before and for the life of me can’t figured out where this bullshit originated from. The 1994 “assault weapon” ban was not a subsidy to the American gun industry. How can I say that? Because the 1994 “assault weapon” ban had nothing to do with importation of foreign weapons… at all.

If you read the text of the bill [PDF] that established the “assault weapon” ban you’ll notice it first establishes a list of firearms that are outright banned:

`(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);
`(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;
`(iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70);
`(iv) Colt AR-15;
`(v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;
`(vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12;
`(vii) Steyr AUG;
`(viii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and
`(ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;

I’ve emphasized a rifle on that list, the AR-15. Why? Because it was a popular rifle produced in America. After listing these firearms specifically criteria was given to establish what qualifies as an “assault weapon” (as the term is made up they had to create rules for it):

`(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of–
`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
`(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
`(iii) a bayonet mount;
`(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and
`(v) a grenade launcher;

`(C) a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of–
`(i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;
`(ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer;
`(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned;
`(iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and
`(v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and

`(D) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of–
`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
`(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
`(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and
`(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.’.

None of these listed features were in any way specific to foreign firearms. Likewise many of these features were common to popular American manufactured firearms. Hell this law banned the production of M-14 pattern rifles because they had a flash suppressor and a bayonet lug (the ban was avoided by taking the bayonet lug off).

If there is an argument of a gun control law that established a subsidy to the American gun industry it would be the Gun Control Act of 1968 [PDF] (the last starts on page 4 of the linked document) which established import restrictions:

(4) The Attorney General shall permit the conditional importation of a firearm by a licensed importer or licensed manufacturer, for examination and test- ing to determine whether or not the un- conditional importation of such firearm would violate this subsection.

This granted the Attorney General authority to determine what can and can’t be imported into this country. There are also various parts of the legislation that talk about the concept of “sporting purpose.” The Gun Control Act of 1968 is the law that established restrictions on what can and can’t be brought into this country. If you want to whine about a government subsidy to the American gun industry this is the bill you need to bitch about. Likewise if you want to remove this government subsidy please talk to me as I’d love to help you out by getting the entire law abolished.

The bottom line is if you’re going to bitch about firearm laws then you better fucking know them. Actually this goes for both side because if you’re pro-gun and referencing the wrong, or worse non-existent, laws you’re not helping us. Research before you go on a rant about something because if you don’t do your research nobody is going to listen to you as you’ll be spouting bullshit. Nobody likes bullshit except for dung beetles.

Minneapolis Police Chief Dolan Seems To Think Police Have a Duty to Kill

Somehow the anti-gunners came strolling through my neck of the woods and I completely missed it. Mayors Against Illegal All Guns strolled through Minneapolis with their big truck. Either way Minneapolis Police Chief Tim Dolan has signed on to demand civilian ownership of standard capacity magazines:

Minneapolis Police Chief Tim Dolan spoke out Friday in support of federal legislation that would ban ammunition magazines that hold a large number of bullets.

“Law enforcement should not be outgunned by criminals: it’s just common sense,” Dolan said Friday, according to remarks prepared in advance for an event to draw attention to loopholes in the nation’s gun background check system.

Wait,the police, who have access to fully automatic rifles, body armor, urban assault vehicles, and a legal authority to use force, are somehow outgunned by criminals who have access to standard capacity magazines? What? That makes no fucking sense.

You know what Mr. Dolan as a law abiding person I would like to not be outgunned by criminals. Can I have a machine gun, some body armor, an urban assault vehicle, and a legal authority to use force? Hell I’ll just settle for being able to continue purchasing standard OEM equipment magazines for my firearms.

It seems Mr. Dolan buys the anti-gunner’s party line that the only reason standard capacity magazines exist is to kill and many people as possible in a short span of time. He’s advocating for the prohibition of civilian purchasing of these magazines yet is advocating no such prohibition for the police force. It would seem Mr. Dolan believes it’s the duty of police officers to kill as many people as possible in a short span of time.

If I lived in Minneapolis I think I’d want a Police Chief who had a slightly less grim view on what the duty of a police officer is.

Since this attempted ban is being pushed by Mayors Against All Guns I think it’s important to remember which Minnesota mayors are members of this atrocious group. According to their website (not directly linked to due to a policy of not linking to anti-gun groups but can be copy and pasted: http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/members/members.shtml) the following Minnesota mayors are members of Bloomberg’s Posse:

Mayor Don Ness of Duluth, MN
Mayor R.T. Rybak of Minneapolis, MN
Mayor Chris Coleman of St. Paul, MN

These people are against your right to defend yourself and should be elected out of office. Hell if you can recall a mayor it would be a good idea to recall these three bozos.

Another Reason For the Right to Bear Arms

The right to keep and bear arms doesn’t only allow us means to protect ourselves from other people but it also helps ensure something like this doesn’t happen here:

Police in Saudi Arabia have opened fire to disperse protesters in the eastern city of Qatif, a day before planned countrywide anti-government protests.

Witnesses said police also beat demonstrators with batons injuring at least three people.

When the government has a monopoly on arms the citizenry are at their mercy. Peaceful protests are great right up to the point where the government decides to start shooting the protesters. This is the point where peaceful protests no longer work and the need to take up arms to defend yourself against the government arise.

As it sits the chances of something like this occurring here are much lower as the government realizes many American citizens can shoot back. This mutually assured destruction helps keep things civil. To quote a Heinlein novel, “An armed society is a peaceful society.”

How’s That Gun Control Working

Apparently even France’s strict control on firearms isn’t enough to prevent people from shooting each other. An 78 year-old man shot shot three people in France:

A man of 78 shot dead two council workers and a passer-by on a street in the southern French town of Rivesaltes before trying to take his own life.

Obviously France isn’t banning guns hard enough. We must remember the golden rule, if something doesn’t work you just have to try again only harder.

More Government Officials Running Guns

Bad news for several public officials in Columbus, New Mexico. It seems their plot to run guns into Mexico has been discovered:

The police chief, the mayor and a local politician of a small town on the American side of the US-Mexico border have been charged with gun running.

Prosecutors say the officials from Columbus, New Mexico, bought some 200 guns which they allegedly planned to sell to drug cartels in Mexico.

Explain to me again how enacting laws to restrict the rights of American citizens is going to stem the flow of guns into Mexico? It doesn’t seem that plan of action is going to work so well when it’s the government smuggling the guns. Maybe we should enact laws restricting access to firearms but the government instead.

In the Absence of Guns

Anti-gunners are often fond of claims that eliminating guns will reduce violence crime. Of course that assumes there are no other weapons which as Egypt demonstrates isn’t the case:

“Hundreds of men carrying knives and swords entered Tahrir,” the AFP news agency quoted a report on Egypt’s state TV as saying.

The TV channel showed footage of hundreds of people involved in a stand-off and throwing stones at each other.

“A group of gangsters attacked us with stones, they seemed to be wanting us to leave the square,” Gamal Hussein, one of the pro-democracy protester, later told Reuters.

In the absence of guns the only thing that is guaranteed is the lawful and innocent are disarmed when the bad guys come with weapons.

Why Are Anti-Gunners Still Using These Argument

So the BBC has a writeup on America’s liberalization (term used in the classical sense not modern sense) of gun laws. Obviously being the BBC they give more time to anti-gunners such as Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik:

“They’re hell-bound to try and put guns in schools,” he says of Mr Gould and his Republican colleagues.

“If they’re successful in my opinion at some point in the future there’s going to be a ‘Gunfight at OK Corral’ in some classroom.”

Emphasis mine. Anti-gunners have been claiming there will be “blood in the streets” since right to carry laws started being enacted. The problem comes from the fact this still hasn’t happened and we’ve had right to carry laws for quite some time now. Continued use of this argument is a side effect of the fact anti-gunners have no argument to stand on. They’ve been proven wrong time and time again yet are so scared of inanimate objects with triggers that they refuse face reality and admit they are wrong.

I’m still baffled at the fact that anti-gunners don’t get the fact that criminals ignore laws. Saying a place is a gun free zone doesn’t stop shootings as noted by school shootings. The best thing we can do is give people a fighting chance and that can only be done by allowing them equal force to the criminals.

Of course Brady Campaign shill Colin Goddard has some input on the subject at hand:

He says he’s not opposed to the right of law-abiding citizens to bear arms, but he doesn’t like the idea of concealed weapons, especially on campus.

“That is not a right, that is a privilege that we grant to certain people who meet certain requirements,” he says. “And I’m saying those requirements are very low.”

Of course he mentions the United States Constitution:

“The second amendment is the only amendment with the word ‘regulated’ in it. And I’d say that’s there for a reason.”

The Second Amendment states “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Notice that regulated appears in relation to the militia but there is a comma which delineates a separation of thought. The amendment then says the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Shall not be infringed means what it states. Another thing Mr. Collins completely ignored is the Arizona constitution which is covered in the Second Amendment Foundation’s (SAF) article:

Article II, section 26 of the Arizona Constitution guarantees the following: “The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.”

No mention of “well regulated” even appears in Arizona’s Constitution. Too bad so sad Mr. Brady shill. Until you anti-gunners can demonstrate a gun control law actually preventing murders your argument is completely irrelevant due to the fact we can demonstrate liberalized gun laws haven’t increase violent crime rates.

New Made Up Term, Assault Clips

I wish I could make up terminology just like the anti-gunners. Take the following e-mail released by the Brady Campaign (yeah they’re still around):

Yup they’re calling standard capacity magazines “assault clips” now. First off I don’t know how well a 32 round clip is going to work. Most clips hold between 5 and 10 rounds because pushing more into a magazine is a bitch. Hell Looking at the M-14 Army manual they have a section on how to use clips to load magazines and none of them are all that easy.

Wait, now I’m confused because the e-mail says the Tuscon shooter used “high capacity ammunition magazines” but the Brady Campaign is calling for a ban on “assault clips.” Wow… if you’re going to call for a ban on something at least call for a ban on the thing you claim a bad person used.

My favorite part about a magazine ban is the fact law enforcement and military are exempt. Combine that with this quote from the e-mail:

The only people who want to shoot 32 bullets in 16 seconds are the last people who should.

I’m inclined to agree. I don’t think the police or military should have this type of firepower available to them. Therefore I’m making a decree that all magazines of an arbitrarily large size should be clearly stamped “For Civilian Use Only.” Since the police and military are exempt from the magazine ban bill they must want to shoot 32 bullets in 16 seconds and thus, according to the Brady Campaign, are the last people who should be able to.

The Impossibility is Mind Blowing

This has to be the most impossible shooting I’ve read about in a while. Not only did it occur in Germany where gun control laws are about as strict as you can get without an outright ban, but it happened in an airport where guns are a big no-no as well.

I’m completely baffled at how such a thing could happen, it’s double-illegal to shoot somebody in a German airport!