Anti-Gun Folks – Page 18 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Executive Orders on Guns Coming

Obama has been meeting with Bloomberg. I really have no idea what’s coming, or what the timeline is going to be. It seems that no one else does either. There is speculation that it will be related to the requirements for when you need an FFL because you’re “in the business” of selling firearms.

Officials say expanding background checks by closing the “gun show loophole” is the most likely option, though they concede legal and administration hurdles have slowed the process.

In his executive action, Obama could alter the government’s definition of who is “in the business” of selling guns, expanding it to include private dealers and others who can currently sell without completing a background check.

This is likely going to demand ATF set a fixed number of guns people could sell before being considered “in the business.” If they really wanted to solve this problem, they’d remove all the Clinton-era restrictions on obtaining a Federal Firearms License, including reducing the fee back down to what it used to be. Let’s be clear about what these fanatics are doing:

Step one: Make FFLs much more expensive and difficult to obtain, so as to drive hobbyists and occasional sellersÂ out.
Step two: Punish hobbyists and occasional sellersÂ for not getting FFLs when they really should.

I won’t deny there are people out there who are walking a thin line in regards to “in the business,” but this was less of an issue when the government made FFLs relatively easy and cheap for part-time and occasional sellers to obtain. Instead they smeared hobbyists and occasional sellers as “kitchen table dealers” who were of course Shady People whose only interest was selling guns to the underworld.

I think people are starting to realize that the only thing the gun control movement is good at is manufacturing bullshit issues aimed at sticking it to Those People, with Those People being people like us.

Obama’s No-Fly No Buy Proposal for Guns Falling Flat

It’s always amazed me how often the gun control folks fail because they simply can’t help themselves from going a bridge too far. I can speak anecdotally that not many left-leaning folks have been willing to stand up and enthusiastically get behind the Terror Watch List proposal. But in this case, we can stop just speaking anecdotally, and note that the LA Times thinks the proposal is a bad one. That was followed up by Slate.

I’ve been of the opinion that the entire Bush-era “no fly” list as applied to flying is and ought to be ruled completely unconstitutional. Neither the 9th Amendment to the Bill of Rights, nor the “Privileges or Immunities” clause of the 14th AmendmentÂ does much for us these days, but it has been recognized to protect the rights of citizens to travel the country unimpeded. It’s good to see there are still some traditional liberals out there who find the use of secret government lists to restrict the liberties of citizens distasteful.

Via Glenn Reynolds, who notes: “To be fair, the whole thing was just intended as a distraction from Obamaâ€™s many national security failures, not as a serious proposal.”

When Democrats would rather talk about gun control, an issue that they not long ago regarded as poison, how bad have things really gotten for them?

And End to the Debate: Of Course They Want Your Guns

Joe Huffman, who tracks instances of people demanding prohibition and confiscation, notes about the New York Times front page editorial (the first since 1920!):

Yesterday Barb and I were at the range with a relatively new shooter and her husband. The check-in counter and gun store was packed with people. I supposedly had the training bay reserved for them but it was packed with a class.

And that will be the end result of all this. Each time the New York Times or Obama opens their mouths, it’s minting tends of thousands of new gun owners.

This New York Times op-ed is a keeper. It should forever refute the accusation that it’s NRA driven right-wing paranoia that there are powerful forces working to disarm you.

Supposedly Barack Obama is going on TV tonight to lecture the nation once again about more gun control. Personally, I think this is all an attempt to try to draw attention away from the fact that we just got hit by ISIS, and that the current occupant of the White House doesn’t have the first clue what he’s doing.

Pat Toomey Goes for More Gun Control

CeaseFire PA is bragging that Sen. Pat Toomey called them with promises of pushing more gun control as he goes into his final year of this term.

As you may recall, the gun control legislation that Pat Toomey actually authored is not at all what Pat Toomey tells voters he’s backing. Toomey’s numbers were already anemic at best. I don’t see how telling American gun owners that they need to give up their gun rights in light of a terrorist shooting is good politics.

No Guns for Abortion Protestors

AbortionÂ is one of those issues that doesn’t rise very high on my give-a-shit-o-meter. Bitter is a nominally pro-life person who recognizes the unintended consequences of making all abortion illegal, and I’m a nominally pro-choice person who think maybe there’s a point to be made by people who oppose late-term abortions. It all comes down to where you think the line should be for an unborn child to earn the full rights and protections of a human, and I don’t claim to have any special moral insight into that particular subject.

I’m generally OK with making it a crime to block access to health care facilities, as I would be for any protester who blocks public or private thoroughfares to block access to any private property, including gun stores and libraries.

But one thing I would never advocate is for such a petty, non-violent crime to earn anyone even a temporary ban on a person’s right to keep and bear arms, and that seems to be exactly whatÂ Harry Reid is planning to force a vote on in the Senate.Â This is shameful pandering. Reid should be ashamed of himself.

“Mass Shootings Don’t Happen in Other Countries” Says POTUS… in Paris

Obama once again with “This just doesn’t happen in other countries.” He said this in Paris, which of course has just had the most horrific mass shooting in history.

It’s like he thinks if he says it often enough, it’ll become true. I keep hearing from people on the left the shootings are different, because the mass shooting in France was terrorism. A friend notes the inconsistency on the Book of Face:

Person 1: The mass-shooting at Planned Parenthood is terrorism! No other country has this problem! We need more gun control
Person 2: But, it didn’t seem to stop people in Paris.
Person 1: Oh, but the mass-shooting in Paris attack doesn’t count because it was terrorism.
Person 2: What about Anders Breivik in Norway?
Person 1: ONLY AMERICA HAS MASS SHOOTINGS!

We’ve become a cartoon nation, with cartoon voters, electing cartoon politicians.

Banning Possession of Gun Knowledge

New South Wales has moved to ban the possession or sharing of information on 3D printed firearms.

Considering that plans have been available since 2013, this seems a bit like trying to put the genie back into a bottle. We know how well it works to tell people that they can’t have something anymore when it can be downloaded from the internet. It’s not like Australia doesn’t already have laws on the possession of actual guns, but I guess now they want to ban the knowledge of guns, too.

WaPo Article Condemns Silly Right-Wingers for Politicizing Tragedy, then Proceeds To Do the Same

A few figures on the right politicized the terrorist attack in Paris pretty much while it was happening. I might agree with the sentiments expressed, that people are generally made safer by having a well-armed population who are well-trained (dare I say well-regulated?) in the use of those arms. But I agree that jumping right in with fodder intended for domestic political audiences is distasteful. But my question for the folks arguing this: is it wrong when Obama jumps in with political rhetoric immediately following mass shootings? Is it wrong when gun control advocates immediately start pushing their policies in the media immediately in the wake of mass shootings? If you say it’s wrong for Newt Gingrich to do it, but fine for Barack Obama, then you have a double standard, and pardon me if I don’t then start thinking your an unthinking partisan. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with having the policy discussion. That will inevitably come. But I do think it’s the decent thing to do to tame the rhetoric until people have had a chance to process what happened. At least give it a few days.

And notice, in the linked article, the Washington Post laments politicizing the attacks, and then turns around and belches out several anti-gunÂ talking points, like they couldn’t help themselves, and like that itself is not controversial or political. So who’re really the assholes here? You’d almost think for as narcissistic as some in the media are, they might look in the mirror now and then.

New False Flag Group Appears

They are called American Coalition for Responsible Gun Ownership, and you can find their press release here. Apparently they are quite proud of their “viral” video. I put viral in quotes, because the last time I checked a 122,000 views video does not constitute “going viral.” Notice the usual “reasoned discourse” in effect. One of the videos on the blog’s YouTube channel has 484,941 views. Another 247,619 views. Yet another 107,462 views. I don’t really work on my YouTube channel either. Where’s my invitation to the White House? If anyone believes this is a spontaneous grassroots movement, let us get together and discuss some opportunities I can offer you in Florida real-estate. Their Facebook page has about 6100 followers. There are blogs with stronger Facebook presence.

It’s an election year, and what would an election year be without a false flag group to try to offer vulnerable Dems some cover on the gun issue.

Bloomberg Moves in on Celebrities, Brady Moves in on Mayors

As you’ve all seen in recent months, Bloomberg has been moving in on the Brady Organization’s turf, in the form of celebrity recruitment. We know there has been some tension between Brady and Bloomberg in this regard from the Freedom of Information requests to the City of New York. That’s why I find this recent release from the Brady Campaign to be filled with hilarity:

We have exciting news! The mayors of Americaâ€™s three largest cities — Los Angeles, New York, and Chicago — have joined the Brady Campaign in calling on Attorney General Loretta Lynch to take action against the five percent of â€˜bad appleâ€™ gun dealers who are responsible for ninety percent of the crime guns terrorizing our communities.

This letter calls for the investigation, reform and possible closure of â€˜bad appleâ€™ gun dealers, as well as the adoption of an enforceable code of conduct. Simply put, we know who the â€˜bad applesâ€™ are, and we want the Attorney General and the Justice Department to take action!

This is an important step in our Stop Bad Apple Gun Dealers campaign, and the voices of many are more impactful than the voices of a few.

Thatâ€™s why we need your help in getting more mayors to sign on to this important letter!

We want to show Attorney General Lynch that stopping â€˜bad appleâ€™ gun dealers is a priority across the country andÂ youÂ can help make that possible!

Thank you for your continuing support and stay tuned for more exciting updates about our Bad Apple Gun Dealer campaign!

Brian Malte
Senior National PolicyÂ Director
Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence

You move in on our turf, and we’ll move in on yours? You know, there was a reason that Everytown absorbed MAIG right? There was a reason Bloomberg deemphasized that effort. It’s because Mayors tend to be corrupt, narcissistic, borderline sociopaths who often find themselves in trouble with the law. Good luck with this new strategy, Brady folks. Good luck! Way to bring the fun back in this debate. I can’t wait to start pointing out how many Brady mayors are being incarcerated.