This is what winning looks like

One of the things Scott Adams says in his podcast is how the moments right before winning looks a lot like the moments right before losing. Let me explain how gun owners can seriously win on gun control while looking at all times like we gun owners are losing…

Privately, the White House has floated at least one particularly unorthodox idea: an app connected to the National Instant Criminal Background Checks system that could be used to conduct background checks on private gun sales, according to three senators and other officials familiar with the proposal who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the proposals have not been finalized. 

Now the gut reaction of most gun owners who are politically active will be “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!” But before you jump up on that table and do your best Patrick Henry impression, let me explain why this is a good idea.

Currently, only Federal Firearms Licensees (gun stores, basically) can access the NICS system in order to conduct background checks. Right after Sandy Hook, Republican lawmakers proposed a method that would allow private citizens to access NICS so they could conduct a background check before a private sale.

It was a simple plan.

A gun buyer would log in to a free federal web portal and enter some personal information. If the buyer passes the background check, he or she would get a multi-digit key code, good for 30 days, to print out and take to a seller. That seller would use the same portal to confirm the authenticity of the background check

The Dems (driven by the gun grabbers) rejected it out of hand.

Why would they do that? If they wanted gun sales to proceed only after a background check, why would they make it impossible to conduct those checks outside of an FFL? The answer is obvious. They don’t care about the background check. They only care about getting the transfer on paper. If they don’t get the transaction written down and permanently recorded, they can’t later take that information and create the firearms registry that they actually want.

There’s an agenda here. The gun haters want to change two things about firearms. First, they want to change firearm ownership from an ordinary liability into a strict liability. Basically we treat dangerous objects like guns just like dangerous objects like cars. If someone runs into your car and your car hits another car, they guy who hit you is responsible for all the damages. They want to change that into a strict liability like for explosives. If you’re transporting explosives and someone runs into you, YOU are liable for the damage from the resulting explosion even though the other guy hit you and caused it. That’s how they want guns treated under tort law.

More importantly for this discussion, they want to reverse the burden of proof on firearms possession law. Instead of the law forcing the government to prove that someone possesses a firearm unlawfully, they want the law to force anyone in possession of a firearm to prove the firearm is possessed lawfully. Instead “innocent until proven guilty,” they want firearms ownership to be “guilty until proven innocent.” They want specific licensing and ownership documentation for anyone permitted to own a firearm and strong punishment for anyone who hasn’t complied with every jot and tittle of their licensing system. When the cops see you have a gun, it’s up to you (and your expensive lawyer) to prove that you have complied with the law and are legally in possession of the firearm.

This is what people mean when they say “firearms are a right, not a privilege.” When something is yours by right, the government cannot take it away without proving that you fall into a special case where your rights have been taken. If it is only yours by privilege, then it is you who must prove that you fall into a special case where you are permitted.

This “background check app” is what’s called a Devil’s Fork.

Image result for damned if you do damned if you don't

It’s a test. If you just wanted Background Checks, this is everything you’ve asked for. But if “Background Checks” are just a stalking horse for the universal firearms registration that you REALLY want, then this is the worst possible thing in the world.

Gun grabbers can’t possibly accept this.

But they can’t reject it either.

Damned if they do, damned if they don’t.

They will reject it. They have to. Accepting it is an off ramp on the highway to gun banning. It throws a permanent roadblock between them and their fantasy of registering all guns, licensing all gun owners, and slowly reducing the numbers of both. It’s a stake in the heart of their long term plans.

But if they reject it, they get two things.
No Background Checks at all.
Their duplicity exposed for all to see.

Us: “OK, guys, you win. Here’s your background checks.”
Them: “THAT’S NOT GOOD ENOUGH!”
Us:

Image result for you get nothing

And then for ever after we get to beat them to death with “We offered you background checks and you refused. You don’t actually want background checks, what you really want is registration.”

Their argument will be “oh! People will just refuse to do the check!”

[C]ritics say Coburn’s plan relies too much on voluntary compliance by private sellers.

“It’s unworkable,” said Ladd Everitt of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, “and there would be no incentive for any private seller to do a background check under the legislation.”

Our response will be, “And people will refuse to go to the FFL.”

Their real problem with this plan is pretty obvious.

Another problem for gun control advocates: There would be no lasting record of the sale.

“When there’s a crime committed, a police agency can go to a manufacturer and ask, ‘Hey, where did this gun go?'” said Mark Kelly, who founded Americans for Responsible Solutions with his wife, former Rep. Gabby Giffords. The manufacturer can point to a federally licensed dealer, who would have a paper record of the sale, “and then they can help them solve some crimes,” Kelly said.

This was back when Starman was new to the gun control game. I doubt he would be stupid enough to give away the registration game so obviously.

The true goal here is registration of all firearms. The only way they will ever be able to prove transfers didn’t happen legally is to require all transfers to be registered with the government. That’s their end game. Registration, licensing, confiscation, enough red tape and bureaucratic nonsense to dissuade all but the most dedicated from becoming gun owners. Gun Culture dwindles down to just a few old guys clinging to their break action single shot shotguns (and maybe a Bible or two) and eventually just dies.

Robert Francis O’Rourke shot a giant freaking hole in their “No one wants to take your guns” argument, and this will shoot a giant hole in their “we just want background checks on all gun sales.” They never wanted just background checks. Background checks are just a stepping stone to their actual goals.

We need to put out weight behind this and push. Some simple app that allows us to conduct our own private, untraceable background checks before private sales. Something that doesn’t tell the FBI what guns got transferred. Something that doesn’t leave records of the check. Something like the Coburn plan.

How many years in Federal prison should Mike get?

I’ve finally gotten around to reading H.R.8 – Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019 that passed the House recently. I have a question. How many years should my friend Mike get in the Federal lockup?

The law is pretty basic.

“(t)(1)(A) It shall be unlawful for any person who is not a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer to transfer a firearm to any other person who is not so licensed, unless a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer has first taken possession of the firearm for the purpose of complying with subsection (s).

This basically says “unless you have a Federal Firearms License, you can’t give, loan, or sell your firearm to another person. If you don’t have an FFL, you have to transfer it through an FFL.

Like I said, pretty basic stuff. The interesting parts are the exceptions. What gifts, loans, or sales can happen without going to an FFL?

“(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to—

“(A) a law enforcement agency or any law enforcement officer, armed private security professional, or member of the armed forces, to the extent the officer, professional, or member is acting within the course and scope of employment and official duties;

Cops and the military… if they are doing cop and military stuff.

“(B) a transfer that is a loan or bona fide gift between spouses, between domestic partners, between parents and their children, including step-parents and their step-children, between siblings, between aunts or uncles and their nieces or nephews, or between grandparents and their grandchildren, if the transferor has no reason to believe that the transferee will use or intends to use the firearm in a crime or is prohibited from possessing firearms under State or Federal law;

Loans or gifts between specifically listed persons related by blood or marriage. I see that cousins are excluded. Also roommates. Also persons living together without benefit of marriage or some legal domestic partnership.

Note the use of “No reason to believe.” Not “does not reasonably believe” or some other construction to admit ordinary doubt. NO REASON. That means that later, the prosecutor will be at trial saying things like “You sure you didn’t have ANY reason? Any reason at all? Not even the smallest doubt?”

“(C) a transfer to an executor, administrator, trustee, or personal representative of an estate or a trust that occurs by operation of law upon the death of another person;

So I guess inheritance doesn’t require an FFL to wet his beak. That’s nice, I guess.

“(D) a temporary transfer that is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm, including harm to self, family, household members, or others, if the possession by the transferee lasts only as long as immediately necessary to prevent the imminent death or great bodily harm, including the harm of domestic violence, dating partner violence, sexual assault, stalking, and domestic abuse;

Oh, how nice! If someone is actually in the process of trying to murder your friend, you are permitted to hand him your gun so he can defend himself.

Here’s the problem. “Imminent” has a very specific legal meaning. It means “RIGHT NOW.” It doesn’t mean some future speculative harm. So when your girlfriend says “My ex threatened to murder me because I left him,” this doesn’t cover you if you say “here’s my AR, take it home with you and if he comes in, blast him.” Because that’s not “imminent.”

“(E) a transfer that is approved by the Attorney General under section 5812 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or

Oh, how nice! If I pay my $200 tax stamp to the IRS, I don’t need a background check to hand my SBR to someone else on the trust.

“(F) a temporary transfer if the transferor has no reason to believe that the transferee will use or intends to use the firearm in a crime or is prohibited from possessing firearms under State or Federal law, and the transfer takes place and the transferee’s possession of the firearm is exclusively—

“(i) at a shooting range or in a shooting gallery or other area designated for the purpose of target shooting;

So if I am on an actually designated shooting range, I can let my buddy shoot my P320, but if we’re out on his back 40 shooting tin cans and cardboard boxes, FELONY!

“(ii) while reasonably necessary for the purposes of hunting, trapping, or fishing, if the transferor—

“(I) has no reason to believe that the transferee intends to use the firearm in a place where it is illegal; and

“(II) has reason to believe that the transferee will comply with all licensing and permit requirements for such hunting, trapping, or fishing; or

What does “reasonably necessary?” Clearly the classic “crossing a fence while carrying rifles” qualifies. But can I go down to my friend Andy’s house and borrow his turkey gun so I can try to whack a turkey during the season? Is that “necessary?” Is it “reasonably necessary?” Or am I required to take Andy to the FFL and pay $50 to transfer it because we have time, so it’s not “reasonably necessary” for him to just hand it over? Inquiring minds want to know.

“(iii) while in the presence of the transferor

Oh, that’s nice. So long as I am standing right there, we’re golden. But if I wander off to use the toilet (for some reason my lady friends are less than sanguine about standing right next to me while I pee on a tree) are we both felons? There’s a choice. Creepy? Or FELON?!

So let me spin you a true story. I swear on a stack of bibles that this actually happened. It’s not something I dreamed up to illustrate a point, it’s what I’ve actually done.

Mike is a friend of The Wife’s* and mine. We’ve known Mike for more than 25 years. Mike is an Army vet and someone we’ve known through the historical re-enactment group we all participated in. In this group we fought with swords and armor in mass battles. In order to prove you were safe, you had to take a practical combat test where you fought a test bout against another known skilled fighter. In 1993 when I took that test, the person I fought against was Mike.

This is me in my armor

That’s the kind of history I have with Mike.

One day a few years ago, The Wife, who is not a gun person, said to me, “If I wanted to learn to shoot that little rifle you built to go to Appleseed, and Mike was willing to teach me, would you loan it to him so we could shoot on his farm?”

Mike owns a .410 shotgun for farm work, and he’s pretty much the definition of “guy you would want at your side if you needed any help at all,” so I’m totally OK with loaning him a gun. Hell, he was even a foster parent until he just adopted the kid. If you’re going to let someone teach your wife to shoot, you could do a lot worse than Mike. You could PAY for a lot worse than Mike.

I grabbed my Ruger 10/22, a few boxes of .22LR, hopped in my pickup truck, and roared off to Mike’s house about 45 minutes away. I handed him the rifle, the ammo, and drove straight home. The Wife said “I guess that’s a ‘Yes’ then?”

Over the course of the next two or three months, whenever The Wife went up to help out on Mike’s farm, they’d take a few minutes during lunch to shoot some paper plates or cardboard boxes out on (literally) his “back 40.” Then sometime 3-6 months after I took it up, The Wife comes home and says “here’s your rifle back” and hands me the cased 10/22.

The question I have is, how many years in Federal Prison should the three of us have gotten for letting Mike teach The Wife how to shoot my Ruger 10/22?

Under this law I committed a Federal felony by handing Mike my rifle. Mike committed a Federal Felony by handing the rifle back to The Wife. Perhaps The Wife was free and clear, because it’s not really a felony for her to give the rifle to me, but then again, she received it from Mike, so maybe that’s a felony.

In any case, all three of us would be bankrupted by the resulting legal fight. All because out here in Real America, it’s totally normal to have a guy like Mike teach your wife to shoot a Ruger 10/22 out on his farm.

*The Wife is always referred to as “The Wife” online as she does not wish her photo or her name to be bandied about among all you lovely strangers. When the old GunBlog VarietyCast Radio crew went to Atlanta, one of the house guests made drinking glasses with the logo and names on them. Mine said “Dysis’s Human,” and hers said “The Wife.”

Meanwhile in Sarah Brady Paradise

We know that in (Formerly Great) Britain, guns are banned. This means that no one can get a gun…

Three identical triplets have been jailed after being found guilty of supplying an “extremely dangerous criminal” with an Uzi sub-machine gun and a loaded pistol.

They could have just supplied the “extremely dangerous criminal” with a Glock Fowtay, but I guess they decided that might as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb.

You’re asking the wrong question

  • “Why do they think so-called ‘Universal Background Checks’ will prevent crime?”
  • “Why don’t they understand that so-called ‘Universal Background Checks’ are useless?”
  • “Don’t they understand that so-called ‘Universal Background Checks’ criminalize ordinary behavior?”

Stop asking these questions. They don’t matter to the debate. But for your information,

  • They don’t think they will prevent crime.
  • They are only useless for their stated aims. They will work very well for destroying our ability to pass on gun culture to our friends.
  • This, for them, is a feature, not a bug.

The actual question that needs to ask looks something like this…

https://twitter.com/GrassRootsNC/status/1169553112954298369

And this one

https://twitter.com/GrassRootsNC/status/1169553466760531968

How many years in Federal PMITA prison does AOC, ‘The Squad,’ Douche Nukem, and the rest of the Left think should gun owners get for ordinary gun owning behavior?

Make them defend sending Uncle Andy to the Federal slammer for loaning his turkey gun to his neighbor. Make them defend sending Cousin Mike to the Big House for teaching his friend’s wife to shoot. Make them defend it in public and on the floor of the House of Representatives.

This is the conversation they don’t want to have.

Scott Adams’ “opinion” on guns is itself a “half-pinion.”

My recent post on Scott Adams and his “opinion” on guns…

My opinion: I am willing to accept up to 20,000 gun deaths per year in the United States in order to preserve the 2nd Amendment right to own firearms.

is itself a “half-pinion.”

A full opinion on any topic considers both the benefits and the costs. A half-pinion looks at only the costs or only the benefits in isolation.

It just occurred to me that at no time did Scott Adams discuss the benefits of gun ownership and the Second Amendment. He only actually discussed the costs. So-called “Gun Deaths™.”

So what are the benefits?

We could try to make the case that an armed citizenry makes a rogue government less likely, or that it’s good for the moral character of our citizens to be armed. But we can’t actually quantify those things.

What can we quantify? Defensive Gun Uses.

There are several estimates of total number of Defensive Gun Uses, from Kleck’s 2.1 million per year down to the unlikely low number from the National Crime Victimization Survey’s 55,000-80,000 per year.

That means that even the lowest possible number, which has been criticized for not being designed to count defensive gun uses, is still higher than the total number of people who are killed each year with a gun. And if you don’t consider the actual tangible benefits of fairly widespread gun ownership, your “opinion” is just a “half-pinion.”

How many “gun deaths” are we willing to tolerate?

Scott Adams (you know him as the guy who does Dilbert) offered what he considers to be ” first opinion you have ever heard on the topic of gun ownership in the United States. “

I am willing to accept up to 20,000 gun deaths per year in the United States in order to preserve the 2nd Amendment right to own firearms.

Why does he consider this the first opinion? Because in his formulation, anyone who doesn’t consider both the pluses and minuses of a particular course of action before offering their viewpoint is giving a “half-pinion.” If all you care about is the benefits, you’re not considering the costs. If all you care about is the costs, then you’re not considering the benefits. If you don’t address both, your “opinion” is not actually an opinion at all. It’s just you bloviating.

Let me preface all of this by saying that I like listening to Scott. I enjoy his Periscope talks, which I listen to as podcasts. He makes things easier to understand and he makes a lot of what’s going on in the world less infuriating. Moving on…

So, what’s my opinion? My considered opinion is I’m willing to tolerate 325 million “gun deaths” in order to preserve the 2nd Amendment. I don’t care if every last one of the rest of you go out and blow your own brains out. I’m not trading in my AR for a Walmart gift card.

Now let’s discuss his “opinion” that “gun deaths” need to fall by about half in order for him to be satisfied that the 2nd Amendment is worth retaining.

Just for the sake of argument, I’m going to use only CDC WISQARS data. We understand that what the CDC calls “homicide” does not track with the official FBI data on total murder and non-negligent homicides, but the FBI doesn’t track suicides, so we’re stuck with these numbers. You can check these numbers directly on the CDC database yourself if you’d like.

WISQARS Death by Firearm 2017

CategoryNumber
Unintentional486
Homicide14,542
Legal Intervention553
Suicide23,854
Undetermined338
Total39,773

What would be the easiest way to “cut ‘gun deaths’ in half?

Eliminate all firearm suicides.

I have a plan. Exit Bags

Instead of letting white men 35 and over (49.2% of all suicides, 58.7% of all firearm suicides) shoot themselves, let’s hand out helium or nitrogen cylinders, tubing, and a head bag to everyone. Hold a great big campaign. Make up some rhyme that encourages potential suicides to suck some inert gas rather than use a gun. Maybe do some PSAs with crime scene cleanup crews who discuss the mess and evidence of the agony of those who shoot themselves while contrasting that with the ease of cleanup and the total quick exit provided by inert gas.

Scott Adams says he’s a master of persuasion. Maybe he could join in the effort by helping persuade people that suicide by gun is so last year. All the cool kids are sucking helium.

Of course, suicides would skyrocket, but no one gives a shit about that. No one cares about the person who kills themselves, especially not those who cry crocodile tears over their dead bodies while using their blood to lubricate the slippery slope of gun control.

If all you care about are how many people die due to gunshot wound, then the solution is easy. If you actually give a shit about people, it’s a little harder.

Maybe, Scott Adams, you should consider giving a shit about people and not just about numbers in a chart.

You Can’t Fight Drones and Tanks with AR-15s!

I like to point this out to people…

I used to live in Garner, NC. When the NC CHP database was something you could get, I searched it for everyone with a Garner address. There were more than 850 people who had Concealed Handgun Permits in the city of Garner. Not “gun owners,” but people who had taken a one day class and spent about $200 total just to get permission to carry a gun. You have to assume that the total number of gun owners was far higher.

Garner had (at the time) a total police force of 56 sworn officers. The total number of officers on patrol never exceeded 12 and was usually 6-8.

How the hell are 12 people going to police a town that has 850 concealed handgun permit holders and an unknown number of gun owners unless those gun owners WANT to be policed?

We knew exactly where the Mayor lived. And the Town Manager. And every single member of the Town Council.

One phone call and we could have summoned the cops on duty to an ambush and murdered half the cops on patrol before anyone knew what was going on. Then hit the Mayor’s house. And then randomly start attacking infrastructure. And then disappear, only to pop up from time to time whacking cops or town leaders or burning down buildings.

There’s literally nothing the cops could do to stop us. Cops would have to ride two-up in cars and respond in groups. They’d have to stop short of the call location and be careful on the way in, never knowing if it was an ambush or a real call. The Town Council could never meet again in public. Never mind having elections.

And where would the State and the Feds be in all of this? Dealing with their own troubles. One town rebels and they could all descend on them like a ton of bricks. Piss off everyone and the same thing starts happening everywhere. There are 800K sworn police officers of any description in the US, from your local beat cop to the head of the FBI. There’s no possible way that 800K could force 300 million to obey.

And don’t give me any guff about the US military. They’d desert before they went to war against their own people. (as would most of the police, but let’s ignore that for now) You can’t run drones or warships without safe locations to refuel and rearm. Guess what? We know where all those places are. Where do you think the people who man these weapons live? In a secure bunker someplace inaccessible? They’re your neighbors. So are the people who move the fuel and armaments. What do you think will happen to their families if they chose the wrong side?

We obey because we want to. They police us with our consent. If that consent was withdrawn, no one could exert power over us ever. That’s the reality of an armed population. That’s why we fight to keep our firearms.

Image result for you can't fight tanks with ar-15

The Greatest Gun Control Plan of Our Lives

Please, I’m begging the Dems to take up this plan and run with it.

The student activists who crashed the political arena after the mass shooting last year at their high school in Parkland, Fla., are throwing their weight behind a new and ambitious gun-control program that they hope will set the tone for the debate following the most recent mass shootings and headed into the 2020 elections.

Oh? So what’s David (Camera) Hogg’s plan?

Every day in America, more than 100 lives are taken by the deadly epidemic of gun violence. Among young people, gun violence has become a top cause of death, second only to drug overdoses. It has many root causes, including hate, poverty, and despair. It’s a deeply intersectional issue, inextricably bound with our long journey for racial justice, economic justice, immigrant rights, and the rights of our LGBTQ allies. And it’s amplified by the societal belief that a gun can solve our problems. Gun violence is destroying our generation. This is simply unacceptable. That’s why, as survivors and students of March For Our Lives, we believe it’s time for a Peace Plan for a Safer America.

OH! A PLAN! Gimme some nuts and bolt, please. I’d like to know what you think the terms of our surrender should be.

1 – CHANGE THE STANDARDS OF GUN OWNERSHIP

Advocate and pass legislation to raise the national standard for gun ownership: a national licensing and registry system that promotes responsible gun ownership; a ban on assault weapons, high-capacity magazines, and other weapons of war; policies to disarm gun owners who pose a risk to themselves or others; and a national gun buy-back program to reduce the estimated 265-393 million firearms in circulation by at least 30%.

Let me see if I can break that down into action steps

  • Hold Star Chamber hearings to take away the civil rights of people convicted of no crime.
  • Ban Semi-Auto rifles. (and probably a whole lot more)
  • Ban magazines that hold more bullets than I have fingers.
  • Confiscate them, but throw a few bones at the citizens serfs you just took them from.
  • Keep taking guns until there are only about 200 million left.
  • Make a complete list of all citizens serfs who have official permission from the government Soviet to possess arms suitable to their condition and as allowed by law.
  • Make a complete registry of all guns that remain permitted so they can be collected at a later date when the rules change.

OK, what’s next

2 – HALVE THE RATE OF GUN DEATHS IN 10 YEARS

Mobilize an urgent and comprehensive federal response: declare a national emergency around gun violence and announce an audacious goal to reduce gun injuries and deaths by 50% in 10 years, thereby saving up to 200,000 American lives.

This isn’t a plan. This is a goal. This isn’t even a goal, really. It’s wishing upon a star. I could “declare” a “financial emergency” and “set an audacious family goal to make a million dollars next week,” and it would have about the same total effect as this “plan.”

3 – ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THE GUN LOBBY AND INDUSTRY

Hold the gun lobby and industry accountable for decades of illegal behavior and misguided policies intended to shield only themselves; reexamine the District of Columbia v. Heller interpretation of the Second Amendment; initiate both FEC and IRS investigations into the NRA, and fully repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act

Ok, that’s more like it. He’s giving us some more steps.

  • Reverse the Supreme Court decision that said the right to keep and bear arms was the right of INDIVIDUALS to keep and bear arms.
  • Instigate some lawfare against a civil rights organization
  • Return to the days when deep pocketed states and localities could sue gun manufacturers for the criminal actions of third parties, lose their case in court, but still win because they bankrupted the gun manufacturer in the process.

Yeah, OK, I see where you’re going here.

4 – NAME A DIRECTOR OF GUN VIOLENCE PREVENTION

Appoint a National Director of Gun Violence Prevention (GVP) who reports directly to the President, with the mandate to operationalize our federal goals and empower existing federal agencies such as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) – agencies that have all been structurally weakened by the gun lobby. The National Director of GVP would begin by overseeing a down payment of $250 million in annual funding for research by the CDC and other federal agencies on gun violence prevention.

Ok, some more action steps. A bit vague, but…

  • Hire a professional gun hater to work inside the government.
  • Turn the ATF, the DHHS, and the CDC into anti-gun groups. (worse than they already are)
  • Prime the pump of anti-gun “research” by giving a quarter of a billion dollars to Garen Wintermute, David Hemenway, and Arthur Kellermann so they can fake up some more anti-gun statistics rather than get honest jobs.

All right, the picture is getting clearer.

5 – GENERATE COMMUNITY-BASED SOLUTIONS

Fully fund targeted interventions addressing the intersectional dimensions of gun violence, including community-based urban violence reduction programs, suicide prevention programs, domestic violence prevention programs, mental and behavioral health service programs, and programs to address police violence in our communities.

Apparently everyone causes “gun violence,” from crazy people to cops. But no good “plan” for more government forgets to slop a little pork barrel spending onto their favored foot soldiers. Can you guess who will be first in line to get a piece of that particular pie? If you said “gun grabber groups” then move to the head of the class.

6 – EMPOWER THE NEXT GENERATION

Automatically register eligible voters and mail voter registration cards to all Americans when they turn 18. Create the “Safety Corps,” a Peace Corps for gun violence prevention. The younger generations are disproportionately affected by gun violence. They should have a say in how their country solves this epidemic.

A “safety corps?” A “Peace Corps for gun violence prevention?” Are they Handgun Hall Monitors? Ballistic Crossing Guards? Seriously?

I, too, think that everyone should be registered to vote. I think that when people turn up at DMV to get their driver’s license they should be offered a voter registration card and a Concealed Handgun Permit card. If we’re trusting you with a 2 ton missile capable of triple digit speeds, we can trust you with a gun and a vote. But I don’t think Camera Hogg agrees on this point.

This “plan,” which is more of a pie-in-the-sky wishlist, needs to be the front and center at the next Dem debate. I’d like to see a show of hands…

Durham Wants New Gun Laws, Won’t Enforce the Ones it Already Has

Surprising absolutely no one, a report entitled “Felons with Firearms in Durham County” shows that out of 363 arrests for “felon in possession” in the last three years, 53% of were dropped.

The report also indicates people sent to prison from Durham for possession as a firearm as their most serious crime have declined steeply. From 2016 to 2018, there was a 54 percent decrease in prison entries for that charge (from 35 to 16), while North Carolina saw an 11 percent increase.

I have my problems with the idea of a permanent ban on gun possession for those who have completed their sentence, but it certainly puts into perspective the recent attacks on lawful gun ownership while Durham, one of the most violent cities in this state, doesn’t seem to care about actual lawbreaking.

“I think it raises questions as to what happens when someone is arrested on that charge,” said report author Jim Stuit, gang reduction strategy manager for Durham County.

Ya think?

There are some reasons that these charges get dropped.

“A defendant may be charged with armed robbery and with possession of a firearm by a felon,” [professor of public law and government at the UNC School of Government and director of the North Carolina Judicial College] Welty wrote. “If the defendant agrees to plead guilty to the robbery, the State might agree to dismiss the gun charge. There’s nothing nefarious or inappropriate about that.”


Daniel Meier, a Durham defense attorney, said to really know if a dismissal is meaningful, “you need to know what, if anything, wasn’t dismissed.”

But this seems to me to be a red herring. If you’ve got the guy on a big charge, what’s the harm on adding the “felon in possession” charge? Failing to do so sends the message that as long as you’re willing to commit bigger crimes, no one will care that you do it with a firearm.

“At least at first blush, it makes it seem like we are not taking firearms seriously,” Meier said. “I think that is one of the big issues. Before you start focusing on new gun laws and everything else, enforce the ones we have.”


City Manager Tom Bonfield was surprised by the number of dismissals.
”It does seem to me to send a signal that the possession of a firearm by a felon is not that big of deal,” he said. “There is not really consequences.”

I’d like to get my hands on the actual report, but it doesn’t seem to be available online. The story certainly didn’t link to it, and a Google search doesn’t reveal it.

Warren, in comments, provides a link to the report itself.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6306627-Felons-with-Firearms-in-Durham-NC.html

Let’s hope for the worst gun ban ever

Image result for assault rifle

I’m hoping for the worst gun ban ever, and you should be too.

“BUT SEAN! WE’RE IN DANGER OF LOSING OUR RIGHTS! IF THE DEMS PASS THEIR BAN WE WILL LOSE OUR GUNS!”

Let me explain politics to you. If you can’t get your enemies (and they are our enemies) to pass the bill you want them to pass, then get them to push for the worst, most draconian, most evil bill they can think of. Why? Because it’s easier to defeat a horrible bill than a merely bad one.

This is one of the biggest mistakes gun owners make in politics. They try to educate their enemies. “Maybe if they just understand how things work, they’ll change their minds.” Or worse, they tell the enemy what we will accept. “Oh, that’s terrible, so you need to get rid of this part and this part and we won’t fight you on that last bit.”

Our enemies know what they need to know. Gun ownership is a direct threat to their desire to rule over us. Our guns mean they can’t force us to obey. They don’t need to know the details of how their laws are just freaking moronic, because their desire isn’t to “reduce crime” or any of the other lies they tell us. Their desire is to reduce the number of guns we own. Down to zero if possible.

Our enemies also don’t need to know what compromises we’re willing to make to save as much of the 2A as we have left after all of our previous compromises. That’s literally giving information to the enemy.

The best strategy is to convince our enemies to fill their anti-gun bills with every single awful gun ban they can imagine. Why do you think they failed to pass so-called “Universal Background Checks” after Newtown? Because they also tried to ban AR-15s. They pissed us off so badly that we went hard at our representatives and enough Senators filibustered everything that came down on us. That’s our strategy.

So how do we accomplish this goal? We make the enemy believe he can pass everything he asks for. We make the loudest elements of the Far Left believe that they have a chance to pass their fondest desire, disarmament of their enemies, us. We encourage their would-be leaders in the Dem presidential primary race to run as far to the anti-gun left as possible. We promote a bidding war between the candidates to see who will be the hardest against guns.

And then we fucking stomp them.

In order to accomplish this, we need two things. The enemy to be encouraged to act stupidly, and the pro-gun base to be outraged and ready to fight.

Watch the President’s moves. See how my explanation of his goals accurately predicts his moves. His daughter is running around talking to lawmakers, “gauging support.” He himself is signalling openness to gun bans.

This will convince the enemy to overcommit. They’ve already submitted a near total ban on semi-auto rifles. A nudge and a wink, and we can get them to go full retard on this bill. These actions have also caused the pro-gun side to go apeshit online. They’re ready to fight.

All we need now is for Congress to get back in session so we can get the enemy to speak openly about how many guns they’re going to take away from us. It’s all just posturing until then.

I’m hoping for the enemy to push for the absolute worst anti-gun bill they can dream of. And you should be hoping for that as well.