When in Doubt (Liberals) Make Stuff Up.

Doubt me? Well, let’s take a look at Exhibit A, a little ditty over on PoliticusUSA.com, entitled The NRA Says the Right to Not Be Murdered by Lunatics is Bizarre.

The author, one Hrafnkell Haraldsson, (seriously, dude…that’s your real name?) begins by relating that he’d received a solicitation from NRA, entreating her to join up, or as she puts it, “Yes, an invite to liberal Heathen ole me.” Now I won’t bore you with the text of the solicitation. (God knows, we can all paper a good size room with the volume of mail the NRA cranks out on a yearly basis.) But his analysis of the current state of gun laws and what is to come is revealing – about his own, Liberal bias.

His first point is that nobody’s lost their guns in some Federal gun grab, ipso facto, Obama must not want to take our guns. A five-year-old could drive an 18-wheeler through the hole in that logic. Just because the Obama administration has not gotten laws passed curbing private citizens rights to own guns has no bearing over what Obama wants to have happen, what he plans, or what will happen. Based on his track record and his public speeches, I think a pretty clear-cut case can be made that if he is not out in front on the “let’s curtail 2nd Amendment Rights” thing, he’s certainly on board the train.

He goes on to cite the NRA’s rejection of the ObamaNation’s plan to reinstate the so-called “assault weapons gun ban” as hysterical and bizarre. Of course, he tries to pair the gun ban with the Obama Administrations plans to stem the flow of weapons from America into Mexico. (Nope, Hraf…may I call you Hraf? That would be operations Gunwalker and Fast ‘n Furious. Get your facts straight, sir.) The “assault weapons” ban is an all-purpose meme, that the Left loves to trot out when- and wherever they want to try the slippery slope approach of “well, if we can’t ban everything, how ’bout just the scary-looking guns?” Only problem with the first time they tried this – it didn’t work. Epic fail. You see, most criminals don’t have the scratch for an AR15, M16, M4, or whatever melts their butter. Cheap revolvers and semi-autos are their thing. Banning semi-automatic weapons (full-autos have been banned since the days of J. Edgar) and extended-cap magazines did exactly NOTHING to reduce gun violence. Not with criminals. Not with domestic violence. Not nowhere, nohow. And while the Brady Bunch and Bloomie and his Buddys won’t come right out and say it publicly, they know it. The data is there for anyone who cares to look. And the data shows the gun ban did nothing to reduce crime. Period.

He goes on to cite a passage in USA Today (the newspaper for those who find People Magazine a challenging read) that 383 of 400 weapons sized “in the largest weapons seizure in Mexican history” were from the USA. Nice. But what about the 3,000 weapons that the ATF purposefully let slip through so they could ‘track’ them back to the big fish? You know, the guns that the dealers didn’t want to sell to the suspicious-looking buyers, but the ATF said “go for it!” THOSE weapons. Of course, researching facts past a quick look-see in USA Today is apparently not on the Liberal agenda over at PoliticusUSA.com. But I digress.

Then he engages in a bit of rhetorical acrobatics, when he claims Obama “just wants to keep the guns out of the hands of dangerous people.” Um…so does the NRA, Hans. Href. Whatever. The NRA (much to the displeasure of some of their rank and file) came out in favor of legislation that would forbid people that have a history of mental illness from owning or keeping guns. So your entire premise? Down the tubes, Sven.

What bemuses me is how this guy can take a statement by Obama and claim that it settles anything. This from the guy who just ignores the Constitution when he feels like it (Libya, ObamaCare, etc.), and one who is adept at saying one thing and doing another. And let’s not forget the immortal words of His Barackness on the campaign trail, when he opined about flyover country and our tendencies to “cling to our guns and our religion.” Yeah. THAT Obama.

Of course, all this begs the very real and valid concern: how do you protect the public from nutjobs like Jared Lee Loughner before they actually commit a crime, without trampling the rights of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms for self-defense? I dunno. You figure that one out, call me. Far as I can see, having to deal with the tragedy of an occasional rampage by some deranged idiot is the price we all pay for being able to protect ourselves and our families in our own homes. Frankly, I like my odds.

Haraldsson closes with yet another non sequitur, this time, insisting that all Obama wants to do is to enforce existing laws, and that the NRA is somehow against that. Dude…perhaps you might want to spend an hour or so reading up on the NRA, their positions, their legislative initiatives. Maybe give Chris Cox a call and see what’s up. You know – get a legit quote or two. Ask the source, instead of regurgitating pablum you read in OTHER Liberal publications. (In computer science, we call what you do a “closed-loop system.” In sociology, however, it’s called a “circle jerk.”)

So, what we’ve got here are the ravings of a Liberal writer, who doesn’t bother to get his facts straight or let those facts get in the way of a pet theory. Oh, and did I tell you the best part? Wait for it…the photo they used at PoliticusUSA.com for the story? It came from TheTruthAboutGuns.com. Priceless.

comments

  1. avatar Ralph says:

    This is an example of why I do not bother to engage with wingnuts. All I ever hear or read is the same regurgitated crap, over and over. With undecideds, no conversation is necessary. Just take them shooting.

  2. avatar A Critic says:

    (full-autos have been banned since the days of J. Edgar)

    Completely untrue.

    1. avatar Brad Kozak says:

      So you can just waltz into a gun store and pick out a machine gun? Nope. You have to go through a background check designed by a team of proctologists. Once you qualify – IF you qualify, you pays your money and give up your Constitutional rights. That’s right. When you hold a Federal permit to own a fully-auto machine gun, you agree to allow the Feds to stop by just any old time to inspect your premises and your guns. Can a private citizen own a machine gun? Yes, but only at a very high price. as far as most people are concerned, it’s the same thing as nit being able to own one at all.

      1. avatar Athegon says:

        With all due respect, what the fuck? Owning an NFA item as a private citizen doesn’t give up any of your constitutional rights. You fill out the form, you pay your tax, you wait, and when you get the form with the stamp on it, you pick up your firearm. That’s it… there is no “permit” to own NFA items; just the tax to be transferred the firearm.

        What you are referring to is being a Special Occupational Taxpayer, which is a licensee to be a manufacturer and/or dealer of NFA items. FFL/SOTs are subject to yearly inspections of their acquisition and disposition books and their firearms inventory. Individual are not SOTs.

        1. avatar TCBA_Joe says:

          To add to this, you don’t give up your 4th Amendment rights either. The ATF can not stop by and demand enterence to your home based on NFA ownership.

          Occassionally (rarely), there may be an inquiry in regards to chain of ownership, or some other question regarding the item in question. However, you have a right to say “get a warrant”.

          Brad, I like this blog, but I’d suggest some serious research on the NFA before talking out of your lane.

          These claims, (IE: MGs being banned, loss of 4A rights, etc…) are urban legends that have been around since long before the 86 ban, and are completely false.

          Brad, you have the internet and write for a gun blog, you have no excuse to be ignorant of these laws.

          And, not to be a jerk, but apparently “When In Doubt (Gun Writers) Make Stuff Up”

        2. avatar Brad Kozak says:

          Points, taken, however my info came from what I ≤i≥thought≤/i> were a couple unimpeachable sources – a Texas Sheriff and the owner of a sporting goods store who sells rifles, shotguns and handguns. I recounted exactly what I’d been told was true, and frankly, didn’t see (then) a need to research the matter. But it just goes to show that A) I’m not infallible, and B) there’s no substitute for obsessive research.

      2. avatar David B says:

        New word to me: Protologists – persons who study origins and of first things, usually religion. Or did you mean proctologists?

        1. avatar Brad Kozak says:

          Damn spell check.

      3. avatar Lex says:

        Brad,
        I am a student attending the Univeristy of North Texas and a few months ago I checked out a book called, “The Eddy Kozak Musigraph Theory Book 1.” UNT will not allow me to attend any of their music theory classes because I am not a music theory major. I have been playing various instruments for a good couple of years and have been dying to learn a little music theory to help aid the passion I have for music to grow further. I stumbled upon what I believe is your father’s book in the music library on campus. I checked it out months ago and with our students having an overwhelming option of music books, I was the first to check it out in over 11 yrs. Since then, I have checked it out an additonal 7 times.. This book has been an awesome easy to understand quick guide to music theory for me, and it makes me upset that between working and going to college, I don’t have as much time as I would like putting my new music knowledge in action. I’ve been trying to find another copy of your father’s book to own myself and I’m having no luck.. UNT will not sell their copy to me and it’s coming to the end of the semester, which is when I would finally have more time to sit down with it. So after writing you this book of my own, 1.) I hope you are Eddy Kozak’s son otherwise I’ve wasted you’re time (for that I’m sorry), 2.) Is there anyway you know where I may be able to purchase an available copy? After reading of your father’s musical accomplishments, like playing with Sinatra, it would be even more amazing if I could have my own copy. Sorry I am contacting you this way, it was the closest thing I found to getting a copy!

  3. avatar NCG says:

    Brad, I pretty much agree with you about the subject at hand. But I wish you would knock it off with the demonization of every Liberal. It’s not helpful. I listen to a fair amount of right-wing radio, and the basic idea is that everybody to the left of Dick Cheney is automatically a lying scumbag, probably inclined to eat aborted fetuses for dinner. By all means, attack the ideas you disagree with. I think you can win on the merits, but the paranoid style is the wrong approach.

    I’d say that a significant minority of Liberals (and I hang out with your enemy) are, in fact, anti-gun. I also suspect that some Tea Party people are totally racist, but I only know a couple of them, so it’s a small sample. But honestly, I think only a very small proportion of Liberals in my neck of the woods (Oregon, a lefty, gunish state) are anti-gun, and they’re you’re yuppie (okay, now I’m generalizing) liberals.

    As for Obama, I’ll say again that he’s hoping to get by with the bare minimum of “gun control.” He’d rather leave it alone, it’s a losing issue for him, and he has no major donors backing gun control. I know you don’t like Obama (frankly, I don’t either, for totally different reasons), but he’s not the guy you need to worry about.

    As for your feelings on the Libya adventure, you’re in excellent company:

    http://ohiodailyblog.com/content/kucinich-interview-meet-press-david-gregory-libya

    1. avatar Brad Kozak says:

      NCG – you’re right – sort of, as far as my casting aspersions at liberals. Partly, that’s because the word has been devalued over the years, co-opted by people who don’t understand it’s original meaning. If you looked at my politics, for instance, I’m what I suppose would be called a “classical liberal” – someone who wants less government, lower taxes, less intrusion into our daily lives, et cetera. Back in the day, that was a “classical liberal.” Today, it’s a “Conservative,” while “Liberal” has morphed into a synonym for “Progressive,” “Socialist,” and borderline-Marxist. It’s the danger that accompanies a language where meanings change/evolve over time.

      I’m generally not a big fan of labels, because they serve mainly as a shorthand way of communicating complex ideas, dumbed-down for the soundbyte generation. If you know that I’m a “Conservative,” that label allows you to make some (occasionally, but not always logical) assumptions about my politics and mindset. Those assumptions may or may not be wrong, and are often colored by your past experiences with others who have worn the “Conservative” label. Same goes for me in regards to Liberals.

      The bigger issue here, is that labels encourage polarization, which essentially means nobody from either side is listening to the other. Problem is, it’s the classic tug-o-war stand-off…to engineer a win-win solution, BOTH sides have to stop firing missiles at each other simultaneously. I don’t know how to get that to happen. What’s worse, is since the mainstream media strikes me as so one-sided (favoring the Left), anything said on the right that is equally as snarky (see: Ann Coulter) gets cited (on the Left) as an example of how evil the Right is. (Kind of the whole ‘mote in the eye thing’ from the Bible.)

      I have a LOT of friends that are far more liberal than I am. (You should read some of the posts on my Facebook page. Sheesh…) Since I’m a professional musician and graphic artist/animator/videographer, I work in industries dominated by Liberals, and where being a Conservative actually hurts my employment chances. (Most of the people that write for Britebart’s BigHollywood.com choose to submit their work under pen names, to avoid job discrimination.)

      In point of fact, most of my Liberal friends and I are able to find some common ground on some issues. Which keeps our friendships intact. Wish the rest of the country could find that same kind of thing.

  4. avatar Andrew Wiggins says:

    #corrections There are some gender issues in the second paragraph I think.

    1. avatar Bob H says:

      It looks like RF has granted Brad the power of gender reassignment.

    2. avatar Brad Kozak says:

      Actually, I found this article on an iPad app, Zite, where the author was listed as “Sarah Clarke.” As I was writing the article, I visited the PoliticusUSA.com site for more background, I found a male author’s name. (Thought I’d caught all the second-person pronouns, but I guess I missed one.) Read some of his stuff, and realized that he represents the ‘foaming-at-the-mouth, knee-jerk” style Liberal writer that drives me nuts. Which accounts for the mocking of his name.

  5. avatar homobangbangamus says:

    I think the word you seek is Marxist, not liberal.

    There is method and purpose behind all they do and it isn’t limited to the “gun” issue.

  6. avatar Magoo says:

    Brad, I fail to see where your piece is any more factual or logical than the one you are attacking. You simply oppose the writer’s views with your own, as if your opinions are are interchangeable with facts. Really, you are only exchanging one spin for another. Liberals make up things? So do conservatives. Happens every day.

    Also, why repeatedly mock the writer’s name? Seems childish at best, and could easily be read as xenophobic. It’s not like it adds any weight to your arguments, obviously, and whether it’s funny or clever is strictly in the eye of the beholder. Here in America, we all have strange names from someone’s perspective. Readers in several northern states will wonder why you find the name so exotic.

    I’m sure it was never your intent to come across as some hick from Texas who has never been over the state line, ridiculing people with funny-sounding furrin’ names, but that’s how it reads, unfortunately. Among other things, this feeds into a familiar stereotype of gun totin’ ignorami that is totally unfair. Or is it.

    1. avatar Brad Kozak says:

      Magoo:

      I mocked the writer’s name as a way of mocking his far-left beliefs. Satire. Comedy. It’s what we do here. It’s the reason that “Achmed the Dead Terrorist” is one of the highest-rated YouTube videos, and why Jeff Dunham’s bit does far more to combat terrorism than all the “Today is a Level Orange Threat” crap does coming out of Homeland Security.

      Far as my intent, of course not. I have a more-or-less global view of things, having spent time in Europe, Australia, Japan, and about 2/3rd of the Continental United States. (I was gonna mention that I was born and raised in Louisiana, but from your point of view, that’s probably not a good thing.) I’d encourage you to go read some of the posts on PoliticusUSA.com – you’ll probably really enjoy them – but even you will be able to see how one-sided they are. I was simply responding in kind.

    2. avatar Rob Crawford says:

      Gun owners are nowhere near as ignorant as your typical leftist.

  7. avatar Bill says:

    For all of you claiming it is easy to get a Full auto weapon, good luck. While you have chastised Brad for saying it is illegal while it’s not, it might as well be.

    Here is the process:

    First, you must live in a State that “allows” a citizen to own a full auto. I don’t have the list, but I am guessing it is quite short.

    Step 1-You must find a dealer with a Class III FFL as they’re the only ones who may deal in NFA weapons (machine guns, silencers, etc.) and select a weapon that was registered in the NFA registry before 1986.

    Step 2-You must make your application to both the federal gov’t and your local chief law enforcement officer, both must approve.

    Step 3-Pay the $200 tax stamp; Non – refundable.

    Step 4 – Wait approximately 4 – 5 months

    Step 5-Take posession of your weapon.

    The largest impediment is that the NFA registry was closed to full-auto in 1986, therefore only LEOs or Class III FFL’s may legally posess a post-86 full auto. Because of this, the price of pre-86 full-autos is very high (typically $10K and up).

    Jump through those hoops, it’s EASY and CHEAP, yea right.

  8. avatar GR8GUY says:

    HAH… u-guys on this blog r a trip! HALF of u apparently think “Lib-socialists” r just misunderstood soles – po’ things -always picked on. The other half – well, lets just say -wouldnt want u covering MY back ’cause u have NO IDEA of the ramifications of POWER LAWS [CONTROL, BABY!] or the side-effects OF them on ALL OUR LIVES. Like siding with the Auswitch Guard because he helped u up after u tripped… as ur heading to the gas Chamber, sounds like many of u – TOO many of u r lib-confused. In other words, I have NO idea WHO the hell u-all r, r clearly what side ur on!! U BETTER get more decisive – soon- or u could be mistakenly I.D’d! …know what I mean. New to the site, so remember: If I see it that way – so will others.

    1. avatar David says:

      Not to be a jerk, but I have always found that presenting a well written argument is the best way to inform others of your opinions. A few tips from an amateur, but educated(History/Poli-Sci degree) writer.
      1)Keep off of the shift key. Most readers find it annoying, and it does very little to prove your point.
      2)Punctuation. It is much more effective at getting a point across than item number 1.
      3)Use of actual English. Nobody takes you seriously when you write in the manner that you have in the post above.
      4)Spelling. Use of “’cause” and “Auswitch” do not work well when you are trying to establish yourself as a valid commentator.
      5)Capitalization. Why would guard and chamber be capitalized?
      I am sure that you had very valid points to make, but your manner of writing was so distracting and annoying that I simply chose to critique it, rather than trying to decipher it. Again, sorry to nag, but after editing hundreds of papers for both excellent and horrific writers, I get somewhat annoyed when I see a post like this.

  9. avatar ConfederalRepublicBy2030 says:

    It’s called illogic, immorality, irrationality, stupidity, statism, authoritarianism. Any person, in any situation or sphere of public discourse, who thinks that the way to remedy the damage caused by criminals is to place free men into chains and bondage is a fucking imbecile and deserves the bus that’s going to drive his sorry sack-of-shit self over on the crossing.

  10. avatar Mike Betts says:

    As long as it’s “Pick on Brad Day”, I’ll throw in that you neglected to mention in your last paragraph that Obama condemns the NRA at the same time as federal prosecutions for violation of firearms laws have fallen 40% during his regime.

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email