There’s no longer any denying that the latest wave of gun control activism has passed. Following the Sandy Hook shooting everything was on the table, and the usual gun control extremists managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory once more by over reaching and proving that they really have no idea what they are doing. It’s taken two years, but it seems that not only has gun control fever gone back down to “normal” levels (at a national level, anyway) but gun rights groups have made some major gains. With the typical gun control targets no longer proving as fruitful, I suspect that we are about to see a shift in tactics to focus on the new “low hanging fruit” . . .
Sorry to harp on about this, but it’s important to understand that TTAG shines a bright light on police militarization, police negligent discharges and bad police shootings (including homicides) in part because doing so undermines the antis’ agenda. As you know, gun control advocates argue for civilian disarmament. But they do not for a moment suggest that the police should be disarmed. Nor, of course, do we. But the antis’ double standard – no guns for non-law-enforcement civilians, any gun goes for LEOs – reveals the antis’ underlying desire for a police state. How else would you describe that outcome? The fact that high-ranking police officers buy into this “only ones” POV is doubly scary to those of us who cherish our individual liberty. If our focus on police ballistic malfeasance makes us seem unduly harsh, so be it. Again. Still. [h/t DB]
It seems like more and more of my day is filled with handling the administration of items regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934. And with the influx of new silencer, SBR and machinegun buyers, there’s a flood of people who don’t know what they’re doing. Last week I had a fellow purchase a silencer on my webstore and he had his FFL send me over their license. There was no SOT attached, so I asked his dealer to send theirs over so I could get forms filed at ATF. What I expected was a scan, or in a pinch – a cameraphone photo of an SOT. What I got was a teachable moment . . . Continue Reading
Thailand’s military junta is confiscating weapons from the populace. [Click here for an autoplay video report.] It’s what dictators do. Otherwise, the public might remove the dictator by force of arms. Our founding fathers crafted the Second Amendment to prevent our constitutional republic from becoming a dictatorship. So far, so good. Then again, African-Americans, native Americans and the ancestors of interned Japanese Americans might have a bone to pick in that regard. But hey, they were disarmed before they were persecuted. So why would anyone argue that Americans should be disarmed? I found something about the Japanese-American internment that offers insight into the gun control mindset . . .
There’s a hilarious cartoon by Simpson’s creator Matt Groening from his Life in Hell series. Bongo, a young rabbit, is speaking with his older sister. She’s pointing to an open basement door. “Mom and dad left presents for you down there,” she says. “Go down and get them.” The young bunny responds, “But every other time I did that, you locked the door and turned out the lights.” The older sister smiles, “This time I won’t.” In some strange way, that cartoon sums up gun control. The “presents” are the mythical end of gun violence, and the older sister might as well be Shannon Watts promising that this time the outcome will be different so ignore everything that’s happened before . . .
In Hillary Clinton’s 2016 putative run for the White House, one rhetorical trend is already clear: speak only in platitudes, virtually never articulate principles. She wants everyone to think hard, and think carefully, and make hard choices. About which specific policies and the principles that inform those choices, well, that’s hard to say–with a single, notable exception. During a June 17th interview with Brett Baier and Greta Van Susteren, Van Susteren questioned Clinton about the 4th Amendment implications of domestic NSA spying, repeatedly and obviously inviting Clinton to express support for the Fourth Amendment and its warrant requirement . . .
Last month I had a meeting with two friends of mine who practice criminal defense in our area and we happened upon a strange topic. What’s the benefit to convoluted gun laws? Is there a military industrial complex in the gun world? An iron triangle? People don’t understand these laws. Even some prosecutors barely understand them, but they get convictions. How is the public served by the giant ball of wax that is gun control? The fundamental basis of all gun control isn’t necessarily guns – it’s control. We all know that, but there’s a unique vicious circle that can ensnare even the most law abiding citizen . . .
Dear Mr. President,
You recently hailed “Australian gun laws”. In doing so, you praised a government for forcefully removing all semi-automatic firearms from its populace, you admired the banning and confiscation of guns. We expect to hear that from a European leader. But not you. You’re the leader of America: the world’s first free country, the nation that has inspired many to be free, that has protected the freedom of others, that has spread more freedom than any other. I am an Australian and I must set the record straight . . .
I was sitting at this desk at 9:42 pm last night when the iPhone alert came through. “Tornado Warning in this area til 10:15 CDT. Take shelter now.” I woke my daughter, corralled the schnauzers and decamped team Farago into a tiny windowless bathroom in the middle of the ground floor. I lay a blanket down for the dogs and sat on the floor. Lola perched on the toilet. The minuscule radar image on the iPhone and the barely legible text crawling below it were not reassuring. Quite the opposite . . .
I don’t post stories about the firearms-related killings south of our border every day. But I could. Because every single day there are tales of unfathomable horror committed at the point of a gun somewhere down in Mexico. Well-armed, perpetually warring drug cartels exert a reign of terror over the populace; extorting, kidnapping, raping, torturing and murdering at will. We could – and have – focused on the question of where the drug thugs get their guns. Truth be told, you can trace the vast majority of their weapons to official American sources. But who cares? The cartels are making billions of dollars from the illegal drug trade. Guns they can get. If we want to stop this blight on human rights . . .
By: Mike McDaniel
The Sandy Hook Elementary School attack has indeed changed America, but not the way anti-freedom advocates hoped (my three-part series on that attack is available here, here and here). After the abject failure of Mr. Obama’s post Newtown gun-control initiative, a new reality began to emerge, one I’ve been advocating for years: arming school staff. To be sure, this is a new movement and as such, it’s subject to confusion and half measures. After all, there is no truer expression of the truism that a camel is a horse designed by a committee than watching government at work . . .
Assembly woman Nancy Skinner [above] felt so bad about the UCSB murders that she decided to introduce California AB 1014. After sitting with her through a marathon committee hearing last year, I can say with confidence that Nancy knows virtually nothing about firearms. But after reading this legislation, it’s clear she knows even less about the judicial system, due process or the mental health system . . .