1. Victim Disarmament Zones are the problem
The Aurora Theater, the Newtown school, and the Washington Navy Yard all shared something in common: carrying weapons for self defense was prohibited in each of these. Robb gives a personal anecdote about this:
At 19 years old, I would sit in the cockpits of fully armed Cobra helicopters with the express knowledge of how to arm and deploy an honest to God shitstorm (and even the knowhow to disable the Weight On Wheels sensor so that I could do so while parked on the ground). I was trusted with this. I was trained for it. I was actually pretty damned good at it.The Navy Yard had Marines stationed there, Marines who had at one point deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan. They couldn't do anything because they were not allowed to have ammunition:
And yet, I was not allowed to carry a gun on base.
Because I couldn’t be trusted with it.
These are the fruits of the anti-gun labor. A Marine, trained in the art of rifles, with a Secret clearance, fully background checked and given access to real, military grade hardware, could not own something as simple as a handgun while on base.
"My son was at Marine Barracks -- at the Navy Yard yesterday - and they had weapons with them, but they didn't have ammunition. And they said, 'We were trained, and if we had the ammunition, we could've cleared that building.' Only three people had been shot at that time, and they could've stopped the rest of it."2. The gun used is irrelevant
Ignore the wildly inaccurate early reporting that the Navy Yard shooter had an AR-15. Ignore Piers Morgan's ranting. Now everyone knows that the shooter had a pump action shotgun. And yet we hear calls for the same old "ban 'assault' rifles".
I used to think that the strategy of the gun control advocates was to try to ban guns used in shootings. Over time, this would whittle away at the available options for shooters. At the extreme, most types of guns would be banned.
Now I think that they don't even care. There was a shooting? Ban the AR platform. The shooter used a shot gun? Ban the AR platform. Because guns suck.
The details of any of these events is entirely irrelevant, as the end goal is pre-determined and non-negotiable.
3. Negotiating with gun control advocates is a waste of time
Given their unwillingness to address the current failures of their preferred policies (item #1) and their unwillingness to enter a rational conversation about which guns are the problem (if in fact this is even the question, which it's not) (item #2 above), it's pretty clear that there is no possible compromise that should be considered by pro Second Amendment advocates. The "common sense gun control" proposals are, as The Bard put it, a tale told by an idiot; full of sound and fury, and signifying nothing.
I know that "compromise" if valued above all by the establishment, but it's very hard to see how "compromise" in this case is anything other than a stalking horse for Progressive dogma.
6 comments:
The ultimate push is, and will continue to be, for increasingly stringent universal (i.e, FEDERALLY CENTRALIZED) background checks for firearms purchases (and then knives and other sharp objects - see United Kingdom).
Once universal background checks are in place the push will be for ever expanding and loosely worded definitions of the reasons for failing the background check. The ultimate goal is to disallow all firearms purchases for those with mental disabilities and the desire to purchase a firearm defined as a mental disability.
Our fellow citizens disbelieve that at their own peril.
I don't negotiate with gun banners anymore than I would negotiate with the Klan. For much the same reasons -- both are actively opposed to people practicing specifically enumerated civil rights.
Geodkyt: They also tend to use "negotiations" as a publicity ploy rather than an exchange of ideas. That's the only reason I can think of why the Klan would continue to have rallies where the police and news media outnumber Klan members -and- counter-protesters 5 to 1.
When someone asks me why I own (and sometimes carry) a handgun, I tell them that I'm prepared to defend myself when on the street as well as defend myself (and family) when in my home.
The next question is inevitably, "How would you know an intruder from someone who is legally in your home?" My answer is always, "My home is equipped with electric lights - isn't yours?" They obviously would shoot at noises in the dark. I, on the other hand, want to know my target and what's beyond it, and that requires that the lights are turned on so I can identify my target (ahem).
Then, I counter with, "How would you prevent harm to you and your family from a home invasion at 2am?" Their response is always that they'd call 911 if they heard a sound. Then I remind them of the Cates and Quesada home invasions and ask whether a 911 call would have prevented the invader from murdering the residents.
And, inevitably (once again), I am subjected to an angry outburst and accusations of being all sorts of evil things...
...when, in fact, all I did was ask a question.
The anti-gun folks' argument is based on a false presumption: that bad things don't happen, and that 911 should be the only available answer when they do. Against this head-in-the-sand attitude, neither reason nor logic will ever prevail.
BTW: it's really easy to turn an AR-15 90% casting into a receiver...
I believe in limited gun control, just ban all Democrats from possessing them.
Also what do people expect would happen when congress and the senate voted to remove ALL reference to lunatics in the criminal code for PC reasons, hence why they could not remove his security clearances. I'm sorry but if you hear voices in your head letting them have guns is not the smartest thing to do. Unless they are forced to wear a tinfoil hat to keep the microwaves out.
It's not secret, at least to anyone who pays attention, that they want to ban them all. From the single shot Cricket on up. They are just attacking what they consider the low hanging fruit first.
We must oppose them at every turn.
Post a Comment