Monthly Archives: August 2019

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.

What if I need to kill a lot of people?

Whenever some jerkoff mass murders people with a semi-auto rifle we have the usual suspects lining up to screech “‘Assault weapons’ have no legitimate purpose! They are designed solely to kill!”

Ok, so what?

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know. They’re also good for target and sport shooting, as well as hunting. Anyone who owns an AR knows several things they can do with it that don’t involve killing anyone. But go with me for a second. For the purposes of argument, let’s pretend that the gun grabbers are correct. Let’s pretend that there is LITERALLY nothing else I could do with my AR-15 besides killing people.

So what? Really, SO WHAT?

I carry a handgun. I don’t carry it because I think an IDPA match will suddenly spring up. I don’t carry it because I’m hoping for a deer to pop up so I can whack it for dinner. I carry a handgun in case I meet someone who needs to get shot. I would hate to meet a person who needs to get shot and not be able to oblige him by shooting him. My handgun’s primary usefulness is to shoot people. Yes, shoot them only in the appropriate circumstances, but shoot them.

That’s what it’s for.

My rifle is the same, but even more so. I absolutely want to hunt a deer with it. I even have a silencer that I can attach to it so I can be a little more respectful of those around me. But that’s really not what I own an AR for. I own it in case I need to shoot someone.

Or several someones.

Its primary purpose is to shoot people. Not paper, not deer, and not those annoying coyotes who live on my friend’s property. The reason I own it is to shoot people who need to get shot.

So, for the purpose of this discussion, let’s assume that the gun grabbers are correct and my AR is solely for killing people. So what? You know that in certain circumstances it’s totally legal to kill another person, right? It’s even considered by most people to be a socially responsible thing to do. If someone kicks in my door at night with the intention of robbing, raping, or murdering me and my family, pretty much everyone agrees that putting a few bullets in him is not only legal, but moral, and ethical as well.

“BUT YOU DON’T NEED AN AR-15 TO DO THAT!!!”

Why not? Who are you to tell me that I can’t or even shouldn’t do exactly that? What’s the difference to you if I shoot a home invader to death with a shotgun or with an AR? Dead is dead.

“BUT AR’s ARE ONLY FOR KILLING LOTS OF PEOPLE!!!”

So what? What if I need to kill a lot of people?

This is usually their back up argument. First ARs are only good for killing. Then they’re only good for killing LOTS OF PEOPLE!

Again, so what? Let me philosophize with you a bit.

How many grains of sand constitute a beach? How many grains of sand do I have to pile up in one place before you are willing to call it a beach and not just a pile of sand next to some water?

One grain? Surely not.

Two grains? Still no.

Ten million grains?

At what point does a pile of sand next to water become a beach?

Same thing goes for self defense. When the gun grabbers fall back from “It’s for killing!” to “It’s for killing LOTS of people really fast!” they’re trying to make the argument that maybe it’s ok for you to kill one person who is trying to murder you, and maybe two… or three at the outside. But not TEN!

Why not? Is there some tipping point where the criminals have gathered enough people together who want to kill you that you’re outvoted? If the vote is three to one you’re allowed to fight back, but at ten to one you’re supposed to lay down and die like a good little subject?

No. I don’t care if you line up the entire population of Newark, New Jersey outside my house. If they try to take me, I’m legally, morally, and ethically permitted to keep shooting until every one of them is dead, running away, or otherwise unable to continue harming me.

The gun grabbers, however, are terrified of having this conversation. This conversation exposes them for what they really are. They aren’t anti-gun. They’re anti-self-defense. They don’t believe that you should be permitted to use deadly force for any reason. You’re not a government agent, sprinkled with the pixie dust that imbues cops and soldiers with the authority to kill. You’re just some peon whose life belongs to the State.

So the next time you’re given some BS line by the gun grabbers, ask them a simple question.

“Is it ever legal, moral, or ethical for me, a non-police officer, not military civilian, to kill another human being?”

If they’re honest they will say “no.” If they’re mealy mouthed about it, make them describe in detail when they believe you are permitted to kill another person. I’m betting you’ll get some convoluted explanation that basically means “never.” But if you get a “yes,” along with conditions that seem reasonable, ask them one more simple question.

“If it’s legal, moral, and ethical for me to kill another human, why do you care if I do it with an AR-15 rather than a 12 gauge?”

“Red Flag” Laws, or, Why Gun Owners are Stupid

What is it about gun owners that makes us argue stupid things? We get all facts and logic about something but the reality is that facts and logic don’t change minds. If facts and logic worked to change minds, no one would be pro gun control.

Case in point. So called “Red Flag” laws. Sometimes called “Extreme Risk Protection Orders,” these laws basically say that someone can report you to the government, usually in secret, and a judge will secretly order your guns seized without ever giving you a chance to dispute it in court. At some later date, you are expected to show up in court, with a lawyer you’ve paid for, and try to get the judge to agree that you’re not a danger to anyone.

Cue the gun rights activists:
“WHAT ABOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW!!!111Eleventy!”

This seems like a fair criticism, doesn’t it? Secret Star Chamber rulings that take away enumerated fundamental civil rights seems like it would be totally against the Constitution. Kind of a slam dunk 4th and 14th Amendment violations.

Here’s the problem.

NO ONE CARES

Is that a little harsh for you? Too bad. No one gives two hoots in hell about the due process of law for gun owners. The gun grabbers actively want to prevent you from getting any due process, and the middle ground people just don’t give a damn one way or another.

Why does this matter? Because gun owners are so stupid that they make unpersuasive arguments that no one but they care about. Only gun owners actually care about due process of law for gun owners. So stop making the argument and pretending that you’re moving public opinion.

NO ONE CARES.

To my mind there’s a much better argument against so called “Red Flag” laws.

They don’t work.

It’s not because they are gun control laws and gun control laws by their very nature just don’t work. No, “Red Flag” laws don’t work because they were never intended to work. They literally cannot achieve their stated purpose.

Let’s take a look…

Imagine that you were a person of good will, just trying to prevent crazy people from doing damage to the rest of society with their craziness. For the purpose of this discussion, “crazy” encompasses everything from “psychotic” to “hates people because of their skin color.” While technically being a racist isn’t in the DSM-V (as far as I know), people who murder others based on their skin tone are crazy for our purposes. Regular well adjusted people (even racist ones) don’t murder people. Only crazy people do that.

For the purposes of this discussion, we’re going to imagine the “best case scenario.” In this case, the “Red Flag” law works EXACTLY as it is intended. Nothing at all goes wrong. No one does anything foolish, stupid, venal, or criminal in the process. Everything works perfectly.

  • A person is actually dangerously crazy for whatever reason.
  • A person with a legitimate concern goes to the appropriate reporting agency and reports that the person is dangerous.
  • The reporting agency does their due diligence and verifies all the information given to them.
  • That agency takes the reporting person in front of a judge, who carefully evaluates the reports of the person reporting and the agency that evaluated the situation
  • After careful review the judge comes to the correct conclusion that the dangerously crazy person is actually a danger to himself or others and authorizes seizure of his/her/xer’s firearms.
  • The local police, in a carefully planned and perfectly executed mission capture the dangerously crazy person, expertly search his house, car, and all his possessions, and seize every single firearm the dangerously crazy person has.
  • Then they walk away, leaving the dangerously crazy person free to do whatever he wants with the kitchen knives, gasoline, and the chemicals under the sink.

Remember, this scenario is the BEST CASE SCENARIO.

Let Gru explain the process to you:

Image may contain: 1 person, text

Would anyone with even half a brain have come up with this stupidity? Get a judge to rule that a person is dangerously crazy but instead of putting him somewhere he can be helped (or punished) just leave him on the side of the road after taking his guns? No one with a lick of sense would even consider a law this dumb. A two year old could figure out that if a person is so dangerous that you need to take his firearms, he’s so dangerous that you need to invite him for a custodial stay at the happy place with the nice young men in clean white coats. Or he needs to go to jail.

This is how you know that the gun grabbers are lying. They say, “It’s not about the guns, it’s about safety!” But in the end all they’ve done is seize the guns. No attempt is made to put the dangerously crazy person in a mental institution. Nope, just take the guns. It’ll be fine!

So called “Red Flag” laws are a lie. There’s no way to make them work. They aren’t designed to work. They’re designed to violate your civil rights while not actually solving the problem of preventing crazy people from killing themselves or others.

Stop making the weak Due Process argument. Judges might be interested in that argument once it gets into court, but the public doesn’t care. Use the stronger argument. That argument is “If you’ve gone to all the trouble to convince a judge that dude is nuts, why not take dude down to a safe and secure location where he can get the treatment he needs?”

Anyone who cannot be trusted with a firearm cannot be trusted without a custodian.