Mikeb302000 is not the major voice for gun control. That honor belongs to the Brady Campaign for the Prevention of Gun Violence. But the bombastic Brady Bunch don’t blog often. Well, not often enough for TTAG’s insatiable electronic maw. And Mikeb302000 is almost as editorially manic as yours truly. Bonus! He’s been known to comment over here, giving our Armed Intelligentsia a chance to engage. And for that we are truly grateful. And for this, Mikeb302000’s three-point plan to give gun rights advocates something to fight against for the next twelve months or more . . .

I suggest a three-pronged attack. 1. full licensing and registration and strict controls on new gun purchases. That would eliminate straw purchasing. And 2. background checks on every transfer. That would eliminate all those supposedly inadvertent private gun sales to criminals. And 3. enhanced and strictly enforced safe storage laws. This would cut down on theft.

Firearms registration is one of those slippery slopes to gun grabbing tyranny deals. In other words, it’s hard to argue against thew concept without sounding like a gunloon. (We try.) Background checks? Same thing, only worse. But it is the last idea that is the most insidious.

How can safe storage laws be “strictly enforced” without the government entering your home? Penalties for failing to store a weapon safely would merely be one of those closing the gate after the horse has bolted deals. A good idea if there are more horses. But still, a home visit is the only way to make sure gun owners are following the law.

Joy. Anyway, I’m thinking that Mikeb302000 would probably agree that revoking a firearms license would be the appropriate penalty for improper storage. Lock it or lose it? How great is that? Cause here’s the thing . . .

On one hand, locking-up a firearm is the best way to reduce (not eliminate) theft and provide safety against possible in situ suicides and thwart children and other potential cat-killed curiosity seekers. On the other hand, locking-up a firearm is the best way to reduce (not eliminate) readiness to repel home invaders.

I know! Let’s let firearms owners decide what level of security they need for their firearms! No wait. Hear me out. If they don’t have children or mentally ill people hanging around the house, they could have less security and more readiness than people who do! All they’d need to make that judgement is . . . judgement.

And if they lack that judgement and something bad happens, well, that’s the way it goes in a country where the police can’t knock down your door without proving to a judge that there’s probably cause that a crime’s been committed. Unless . . .

Owning a gun in a house with children or a high crime area where thefts occur is probable cause enough for a search to make sure I’m not breaking the law mandating safe storage. Brilliant! I’m convinced. Where do I sign?

10 Responses to Gun Control Agenda 2011

  1. Robert thanks for the mention and the compliment.

    It seems your entire argument presumes the average gun owner is NOT law abiding. The strict law itself would be enough for most of the gun owners to comply. The images of police violating your right to privacy are just so much paranoia.

    Of course you’ve got the 10% I’m always talking about, they wouldn’t be affected. And you’ve got the bad laws be damned crowd, but I have faith in human nature and I believe what you and the others keep telling me, most are law-abiding.

    As far as not being able to thwart a home invasion because the gun is not at your fingertips, well that’s more paranoia. I know those anecdotal horror stories, but they’re no more indicative of reality than the stories I post. They’re extreme examples. Most gun violence happens in the ghetto and is gang related. You guys say that when it suits. As a result it’s very unlikely that you’ll experience that hollywood-like home invasion. And it’s even less likely you’ll experience one that happens so fast you can’t get to your safely-secured gun.

    • “Most gun violence happens in the ghetto and is gang related.”

      If ALL violence occurred in the ghetto, we wouldn’t be as concerned unless we lived there. But our unease isn’t about “most” violence, it’s about the potential for violence against us and our families where we live. From the Clutter family in rural Kansas to the Petit family in upscale, suburban Connecticut, home invasion beatings, rapes and murders of “good people” occur every day. Yes, every day. The bad guys have discovered that it’s easier to get away with taking off someone’s home than to knock over a 7-11. No pesky surveillance cameras.

      I live in a upscale community of seven-figure homes with a very responsive PD. Issuance of handgun permits is not a problem here for people with clean records. My neighbor was as blissfully unaware of potential crime as you seem to be, until his home was invaded by a gang of armed punks. The cops came as soon as another neighbor called them, but the damage was done and the BGs got away clean. As for my neighbor, he should eventually recover from his beating, but he may require a lifetime of physical and psychological therapy.

      It amazes me that you, who doesn’t have a gun and has never trained, can tell me, who does and has been, what I need to defend myself. That’s hubris of the highest order. Then you dismiss my neighbor’s story as “anecdotal.” No, schmuck, it’s not anecdotal, it’s eyewitness.

      • Ralph, You’re embarrassing yourself there.

        “It amazes me that you, who doesn’t have a gun and has never trained, can tell me, who does and has been, what I need to defend myself.”

        You don’t know the first thing about me, so you shouldn’t make it up.

    • “It seems your entire argument presumes the average gun owner is NOT law abiding. The strict law itself would be enough for most of the gun owners to comply.”

      This is brilliant logic! You know what we should do? Pass a law that outlaws crime and there won’t be any crime or criminals. Only law-abiding citizens without any guns and living in perfect harmony. And whenever anyone gets angry, we’ll just dose him with a hit or two of medical marijuana and everything will be aaaalllllll-right, man.

      Hey, someone fetch me a bottle of Coca-cola! I feel a song coming on…

    • “It seems your entire argument presumes the average gun owner is NOT law abiding.”

      Actually, the whole idea of gun control laws, seem written for a whole separate third class of people.
      Think about it: The law-ABIDING don’t need the gun control laws, they aren’t going to commit rape, robbery and murder with a gun in the first place.

      The CRIMINALS, are simply going to ignore the gun control laws just as they ignore the laws against rape, robbery and murder.

      So what is the THIRD type citizens that WOULD be affected by the gun control laws?
      This THIRD class of people, would be law-abiding (if they were criminals, they would simply ignore the laws), YET there would have to be some motive for the desire to disarm them.
      Hmmmm, what could that be? I KNOW!
      It’s easier (and SAFER) to beat, and lynch “those uppity _____” (insert the minorities slang of your choice here) if they had been “lawfully” disarmed, before the Ku Klux Klan arrived. (A high percentage of Democrat politicians and law enforcement officers were Klansmen. Remember Robert Byrd was even an “Exalted Cyclops”.)

      “Most gun violence happens in the ghetto and is gang related. You guys say that when it suits.”

      You are correct about violence being mostly “in the ghetto and is gang related”.
      In 2000, 20% of U.S. homicides occur in FOUR CITIES with just SIX PERCENT of the population – New York, Chicago, Detroit, and Washington, D.C. – Did those cities have STRICT gun laws?

      Black people are 13 percent of the population, and make up a high proportion of “the ghetto” population. According to Bureau of Justice statistics, between 1976 and 2005, Blacks committed over 52 percent of the nation’s homicides and were 46 percent of the homicide victims. NINETY-FOUR PERCENT of Black homicide victims were murdered by a Black person.
      The point; the original purpose of gun control laws was racist in nature by targeting ALL Blacks. (All stereotypes are TRUE, or they would have never become stereotypes; you just can’t judge INDIVIDUALS by stereotype.)

      “The images of police violating your right to privacy are just so much paranoia.”

      I believe the law-abiding citizens of New Orleans, after Katrina, would disagree with you.
      You notice I said “lawfully” earlier, Hitler’s attempt to exterminate the Jews was LAWFUL: When the oppressor writes the law, all of his atrocities are lawful.

      I can hear you now: “Wildfire it’s paranoid to compare THE UNITED STATES to NAZI Germany!”
      But before you post that…ask people of Japanese ancestry that were lawfully living their lives, running legal businesses and raising their families in this Great Country . . . in the 40’s.
      What do you believe would prevent that same thing from happening here again?
      “Government integrity”?

      “As far as not being able to thwart a home invasion because the gun is not at your fingertips, well that’s more paranoia.”

      I’ve driven over a million miles since I last changed a flat or blowout . . . an I paranoid for having a jack and spare tire in each of my vehicles?

      I have had fire extinguishers in my home for the last 40 years and have, thankfully, never needed it even once . . . does having fire extinguishers in my home make me paranoid?

      I have homeowners insurance, and until 6 months ago (my roof blew off), I had used a gun to stop 5 serious crimes since I last needed my homeowners insurance. Does spending the money to carry homeowners insurance . . . mean I’m paranoid?

      Of those 5 crimes prevented, I didn’t even have to fire a shot! (Is it maybe the carrying BULLETS that means I’m paranoid?)

      “As a result it’s very unlikely that you’ll experience that hollywood-like home invasion.”
      Do you know how THOUSANDS of customers ate at Luby’s where the worst thing that happened was poor service? How many DOZENS of times did Thomas Glenn Terry eat at Shoney’s, where the worst thing that happened was the waitress got the order wrong?
      The people in Luby’s made WORLD NEWS and were made famous!
      While those poor hostages at Shoney’s, just 2 months later, didn’t even get noticed!
      DANG THAT THOMAS GLENN TERRY and his GUN!

      “I know those anecdotal horror stories, but they’re no more indicative of reality than the stories I post.”

      Your position uses a flawed premise: Crimes prevented because the criminals KNEW there were guns present can’t be counted, and massive slaughters or atrocities that are stopped early appear insignificant.

      Salvation because of the presence of a gun isn’t as readily obvious as the failure of the First Responders (the Victims) to stop the crime WITH a gun; while the lack of guns is often made painfully clear through 20/20 hindsight.

      Had the “house mouse” (Cho victim #2) been ARMED, instead of bravely but foolishly confronting Cho UNARMED, and had instead shot and killed Cho, ending the “incident”. We would have never heard of the 31 lives that the gun SAVED. Instead, the Brady’s would have declared: “Racist shoots and KILLS foreign exchange student ON CAMPUS! COLLEGE CAMPUSES are no place for GUNS!”
      (Hmmm, wasn’t it the Bradys that want charges brought against assistant principal Joel Myrick for “violating the ‘Gun-Free School Zone Law’ by bringing a GUN onto school grounds!” . . . when he used HIS gun to stop the Pearl High School Massacre?)

      “And it’s even less likely you’ll experience one that happens so fast you can’t get to your safely-secured gun.”

      What do you base this on?
      “Baldwin Man In Wheelchair Shoots, Kills Teen Intruder.”
      (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40876780/ns/local_news-pittsburgh_pa/)

      “Three men are being held for a Palmview home invasion where an 11-year-old boy was shot defending his mother.” (http://www.valleycentral.com/news/story.aspx?id=402271)
      Bradenton FL: A 74-year-old man shot and killed the would-be robber who broke into his home …started hitting Harris in the face and head with some sort of club.(http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/news/local/sun_coast/elderly-man-shoots-kills-robber-051810)

      Yes these “were ONLY 3 examples” . . . how many of these people do you believe wish their guns had been locked-up “safely-secured” instead of quickly at hand as they were?

      Believe me, I have ABSOLUTELY NO INTEREST in laws being written to force you to be armed.

      However, I would like any call to 9-1-1 to go something like this:
      9-1-1 Operator: “9-1-1 operator, what is the nature of your emergence?”

      Caller: “SOMEONE KICKED MY FRONT DOOR! They tied me up, but I got away and called 9-1-1. PLEASE, OH GOD, PLEASE SEND THE POLICE! HURRY! I hear my wife screaming in the other room! OH GOD, PLEASE HURRY!”

      9-1-1 Operator: “Try to remain calm sir. Now, what type of gun are you holding as we speak?”

      Caller: “WHAT?! Are you out of your F@#$%^G MIND?! I don’t have a GUN!”

      9-1-1 Operator: “I understand. It is now 02:00, our ‘gun-free’ officers don’t clock in until 08:00.
      But the MINUTE they clock in, I will dispatch them to your location.
      Until then . . . Good Luck. *CLICK!*”

      • More Laws More Regulations = Less Freedoms = Subverting the constitution of the United States…. Are you blind….. Or just want everybody in a cage that doesn’t look & ACT LIKE U… The difference between Free People & Caged Minds, is thinking outside the box… Change the system to a free & open society= less anger, frustration = less violence

  2. The so called ‘safe storage’ laws are a non-starter anyway, as the Heller case addressed the mandatory lockup issue. Sure, you can keep legislating iterations of them until the supreme court denies cert giving you a ‘de fecto’ lockup law, but eventually another federal circuit will undercut it forcing a subsequent supreme court showdown.

    Of course, the whole objective isn’t safety, it’s disarmament. The goal being to create as many disqualifying felonies as you can so that there is essentially no way to exercise the ‘right in question’. Examples: If you’re the victim of a firearm theft, you violate the hypothetical “lockup laws” mentioned above and off to jail you go -after- all your remaining firearms are seized.

    I think the registration gambit is going to fall thanks to Daley & Chicago mostly but partially thanks to states like New Joysey, New Yawk & MA. These states in particular because you can’t even transit these places with a handgun without some tangible threat of arrest. MA might survive because of the non resident LTC permit but I think eventually that will have to be made more like the resident permit to survive. I see NY as being most vulnerable here.

    Ending gun shows is a high priority for the Neo-Socs ( new socialists ) and this is a credible threat. Though the current congress will have very little appetite for private sale requirements for BG checks, it is not outside the realm of possibilities.

    I think that the antis will continue to be defensive for some time now because the movement is no longer upright after Heller & McDonald. I think that pretty much everything they propose is a dead letter for probably another year or 2 federally. This will be plenty of time to start the ball rolling on eliminating some RKBA incursions implemented over the course of the last 50 years.

  3. Disagree on all three points.

    Point 1: registration and rationing scheme of fire arms… already declared unconstitutional, and a severe threat to our liberty. In fact, I view any paper record of a firearms transaction to be an assault on ones’ liberties as it invariably can be used against the owner. Especially in a case where guns are to be confiscated by the government or some other force. The only thing the government should have is a receipt of a background check on a given purchase number. But no address or firearms info should be recorded.

    Point 2: Why do I need a background check to sell a gun to my dad? Or my brother? Or best friend? In my state, they cost $15 a pop, and I have to go through an FFL who charges $35-50 in fees. Fuck that.

    Point 3: Can’t force safe storage. Punish people after the fact, that’s the best lesson to be taught. The gun isn’t the problem, it’s how responsible it’s owner is. If they are responsible, they will store their firearms safely. If not, they will have to face the consequences. Can’t legislate stupidity, yadda yadda

  4. “Most gun violence happens in the ghetto and is gang related. You guys say that when it suits. As a result it’s very unlikely that you’ll experience that hollywood-like home invasion. And it’s even less likely you’ll experience one that happens so fast you can’t get to your safely-secured gun.”

    Now I wonder what the ratio is between gun thefts in the non-ghetto and home invasions in the non-ghetto, especially since it’s hard to have the first one without the second one.

    If I can get punished for not storing my guns the way the government wants me to, do my relatives get to sue (punish) the government if I get killed in a home invasion because I couldn’t get to my guns in time? …since it’d be their fault and all. I would also expect home invasions and thus gun thefts to increase since criminals would know “90%” of people would be slow to be armed. And on that note, I’m also curious what the ratio of these kinds of crimes are between states that have Castle Law and those that do not. I’m too lazy right now to look up the stats, but I hear Robert likes to write about guns and stuff, so maybe he’ll get around to it.

    Question: doesn’t the ATF’s own data show straw purchases and “gun show loopholes” are either very small numbers or they have no idea what the numbers are? Pretty sure Robert did an article or two on that.

    Speaking of straw purchases and transfers, I know someone who, when asking about buying or being gifted private guns from another state, was told multiple times by FFLs and two police departments that you don’t need to transfer any of them at an FFL. One FFL told him, “Since you mentioned it might be a gift, I can’t even legally talk to you about it anymore.” (?) Both police departments said, and I’ll quote one of them exactly, “What’s an FFL?” …you DO need to use an FFL when selling/gifting between states except for parent-child, right?

  5. I was going to take a shot (so to speak) at friend of the forum Mikeb30200 but jeez, that’s sort of like kicking my cat.

    So instead let compliment the image at the top of the post. A more apropos photograph I could not imagine. Well done Mr. F.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *