Archive for the ‘Second Amendment’ Category

For those unfamiliar with SilencerCo, they’re a pretty major manufacturer of firearms suppressors in the US.  They have a reputation as a good company, but also one that doesn’t shy away from pushing for further Second Amendment rights.  Specifically, they’ve pushed for a bill called the “Hearing Protection Act” that would take suppressors out of the NFA (National Firearms Act).  Currently in the US, to own a suppressor (which tend to take guns from deafening loud to air-tool loud, not Hollywood whisper-quiet), there are a lot of bureaucratic hoops to jump through, and a $200 tax to pay on items that tend to run between $200-$900, and a several-month wait for bureaucrats to process your request to own something that shouldn’t be illegal.

Among the points Don Jr. makes in the video are that in Europe, suppressors are widely used, because it’s nice to not blow your eardrums out or irritate everyone within a half mile.

The interview is interesting to see what other members of the candidate’s family are like.  I’d never seen an interview with Don Jr., and the assessments I’d read of him before were underwhelming.  Admittedly, SilencerCo is a pretty friendly interview, and aside from the conservative litmus test/exclusion thing that he briefly mentions at the beginning that simply isn’t the case (at least for most of the country), but that’s the only nit I saw to pick – there are a lot of good points covered.

Even if one were to be as cynical as possible about politicians and businesses, the way he knowledgeably and passionately can cover info about the topic demonstrates he’s not BSing here.

A solid point that Don makes is that Hillary has openly opposed the Heller Decision, which started to acknowledge that the Second Amendment says what it says.  If Hillary appoints another couple supreme court justices, we could be looking at decades worth of decisions made by leftist activists in direct conflict with what the law actually says.

Uncut interview here:

His discussion of the NY “SAFE” Act shows that he’s also had to live under absurd gun control laws, and rather than be someone who’s out of touch as some kind of elite, shows he’s been impacted by it as well and that these things aren’t lost on him.

There’s always the problem of disconnect by people who are privileged elites not having to live under the same rules, but here, despite finances and connections, he’s still stuck with the same laws we are, and still clearly sees how onerous it is for all American citizens.

Former TX Rep Dr. Suzanna Hupp said that how a politician views the Second Amendment will show how they view the citizenry:

How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual… as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of.

– and I’ve said for years that the Second Amendment is the canary in the coal mine.  It shows you where statist/leftist/progressive politicians are headed based on how they treat your right to self-defense.

Now here we have someone who’d have the president’s ear who’s been on the receiving end of those citizen-crushing politics, and who sees that the right to keep & bear arms is something critical to the fabric of the nation, and even as someone who does travel in industry circles as a celebrity, he still understands and can articulate much of the essence of the Second Amendment.

In the 1960s sit-ins, the purpose of the sit-in was as a demand for equal rights.

woolworth sit in 1960s

The reason was to sit down and show that you’re as good as anyone else and deserving of the same treatment.

While there’s an argument for property owner rights that a business should be able to reject service to anyone, this was also a cultural argument as well as a legal rights one, such that the property owner would get the idea that he was wrong and that those doing the sit-in were deserving of respect and that their patronage should be appreciated rather than rejected.  Both ways, it was a movement to demand rights.

What the Democrat crybullies are engaging in today is not a movement to demand rights, but to remove rights:

democrat antirights antigun sit in 160624

This is a demand by authorities for more authority.

This is a demand by those in power for more power.

This is a demand by those who control the country that the rights of the citizen be overruled.

They want due process suspended, they want gun rights suspended, they want your rights suspended.  They’ve already managed it in a handful of states – despite the Constitution as written forbidding it – and now they want the rest of the nation to kneel.  And their current method is by throwing a tantrum, mocking the actual sit-ins of the 1960s, and demanding that Congress vote to ignore the Fifth Amendment right to due process of law so they can suspend your Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

Those guys at the lunch counter weren’t recognized as having a right to eat at the same counter that other folks did.  Those rights weren’t recognized by the Democrats in power in the South.  If they went to buy a gun in the South to protect themselves from the racist Democrat KKK night riders, when they went for a permit the racist Democrat sheriff would deny it and leave them defenseless.

Today, elected Democrat representatives who already have power are now squatting in the halls of power and demanding more powers and authorities to go after the citizenry – all to strip rights from those who now have them.

The guys at the lunch counter were fighting against Jim Crow laws.  They were fighting for rights.

The Democrat representatives are fighting for more Jim Crow laws.  They’re fighting against rights.

May as well start with the dumbest first.  HuffPo is calling for complete disarmament of the US citizenry.

One may say that the Supreme Court, after 250 years in which the Second Amendment was read as allowing only a well-regulated militia to have guns, recently reinterpreted it to mean that there is an individualized right to own guns. This suggests that we may have to get to domestic disarmament through the back door.

Make the gun manufacturers liable for harm done with their products. Ban the sale of ammunition. And vote for a president that will add to the Supreme Court those who will read the Second Amendment as written.

Above all, domestic disarmament is a true, compelling vision which cannot be said about the small gun control measures that are currently promoted by some of the most enlightened people among us.

That’s a whole new level of smugness right there.  Also, the Second Amendment as written would guarantee access to arms by American citizens, especially weapons used in a military capacity.  It’s very clear what it says, as are the numerous state Constitutions that mirror it.

And the next stupidest, via HotAir, from Democrat Senator Chris Murphy:

Today’s gun vote wouldn’t stop recent mass shootings, admits leading proponent

Asked by guest host Jonathan Karl whether the so-called “gun show loophole” would have done anything to stop Orlando, Murphy stammered and finally responded as though he was Miss Teen Connecticut answering a pretty tough question about what his favorite color is.

MURPHY: So, it may have in the sense that if you partner together with the bill that stops terrorists from getting guns…

KARL: But wait a minute. He didn’t buy those guns at a gun show. And he would have passed the background—he did pass a background check.

MURPHY: He did pass a background check, but if the Feinstein bill was in effect, the FBI could have put him on the list of those who are prohibited from getting guns. And what if he went into the gun store and was denied? He could have just gone online or to a gun show and bought another one. *

KARL:  OK. But what I’m trying to get at is that every time there’s one of these terrible tragedies, there’s these proposals. Your proposal would have done nothing in the case of Orlando. It would have done nothing to stop the killing in San Bernardino, and in fact, was unrelated to the killing in Newtown. So why are we focusing on things that have nothing to do with the massacres that we are responding?

MURPHY: First of all, we can’t get into that trap.  I disagree. I think if this proposal had been into effect, it may have stopped this shooting. But we can’t get into the trap in which we are forced to defend the proposals simply because it didn’t stop the last tragedy. We should be making our gun laws less full of Swiss cheese holes so that future killings don’t happen.**

Couple important takeaways here.

1st, let your lefty, gun-grabbing brother-in-law see this so he can stop telling you that you are an accomplice in the murder of innocent people just because you exercise the right to self protection. And repeat it on your social media as many times as it takes: These laws will not stop bad people from doing bad things with guns. Full stop.

Yeah, that’s pretty much it.

We already know that the Orlando terrorist beat his ex-wife.  He could’ve been denied based on that, but apparently his ex-wife never bothered to call the police.  He wouldn’t have had a security job, nor been able to buy a gun legally.  Wouldn’t have happened.

Speaking of wife-beaters not allowed to own guns, from ThisAin’tHell.  Short version is a reporter went into a gun store to try to buy an evil toddler-killing black rifle and was denied.  He claimed it was because he was a reporter.  Really, it was because he slapped around his wife.

The folks at Maxon Shooter Supplies and Indoor Range, who claim to be TAH fans, send us a link to the story about them in the Chicago Sun Times, wherein the Times sent Neil Steinberg, one of their reporters, to write about his experience buying and firing an evil black, scary gun (known in journalistic circles as an assault rifle). Steinberg does the handwringing thing about guns and journalistic integrity thing during his drive to Des Plaines, Illinois to the Maxon “lemonade stand” as the owner described it to me.

Driving to Maxon Shooter’s Supplies in Des Plaines on Wednesday to purchase my first assault rifle, I admit, I was nervous. I’d never owned a gun before. And with the horror of Sunday’s Orlando massacre still echoing, even the pleasant summer day — the lush green trees, fluffy white clouds, blue sky — took on a grim aspect, the sweetness of fragile life flashing by as I headed into the Valley of Death.

Earlier, in my editor’s office, I had ticked off the reasons for me not to buy a gun: this was a journalistic stunt; done repeatedly; supporting an industry I despise. But as I tell people, I just work here, I don’t own the place. And my qualms melted as I dug into the issue.

At 5:13 Sarah from Maxon called. They were canceling my sale and refunding my money. No gun for you. I called back. Why? “I don’t have to tell you,” she said. …

A few hours later, Maxon sent the newspaper a lengthy statement, the key part being: “it was uncovered that Mr. Steinberg has an admitted history of alcohol abuse, and a charge for domestic battery involving his wife.”

Well, didn’t see that coming.

This would be on the 4473:

4473 lautenberg

From the Maxon Facebook page;

Mr. Steinberg was very aggressive on the phone with Sarah, insisting he was going to write that we denied him because he is a journalist. “Journalist” is not a protected class, BTW. We contacted his editor and said that, while we don’t normally provide a reason for a denial, in this case to correct the record before you publish, here’s why; we pasted a couple links of press accounts of his past behavior and his admission of same. He’s free to believe or disbelieve that’s why he was denied, but that *is* why he was denied. There was no “We’ll see you in court!!!!” type of language from us – we simply want to set the record straight. That it undermined his thesis and rendered the column incoherent isn’t really our problem, is it? Thanks for your support.

 

Via WeeklyStandard and HotAir:

The problem we have—and really, the firewall we have right now, is due process. It’s all due process. So we can all say, ‘yeah, we want the same thing,’ but how do we get there. If a person is on a terrorist watch list like the gentleman—the shooter—in Orlando, he was, twice by the FBI, we were briefed yesterday about what happened. But that man was brought in twice. They did everything they could. The FBI did everything they were supposed to do. But there was no way for them to keep him on the nix list or keep him off the gun buy list. There was no way to do that. So can’t we say that if a person is under suspicion, there should be a five year period of time that we have to see if good behavior, if this person continues the same traits? Maybe we can come to that type of an agreement. But due process is what’s killing us right now.

Haven’t committed a crime but the government wants to restrict your rights because you’re on a secret list somewhere?  No problem!  Just do away with due process.

How to get rid of the 2nd Amendment?  Easy – just get rid of the 5th Amendment first!

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

5 years of rights restriction based on being put on a watch list?  A watch list that Ted Kennedy had to fight to get off of?

How about… no.

tar and feather

It’s a pretty powerful piece.

It’s also being decried in the comments as either a good thing because guns=bad, or by people who are Australians (or claiming to be or speaking for them) who say it’s bull.  Except it’s no fabrication.

The Australians I know who are/were into the shooting sports confirmed it for me years ago.  There are lots of restrictions, and there are restrictions based in which region you live (New South Wales vs Queensland vs Northern Australia, etc.).  There were mandatory buybacks – which are confiscation with a gift certificate.  There are laws like having to leave your firearms at a club rather then be able to take them home (no self defense), a limit on the number and or type of firearm you can own, where you can and can’t use it, and how they have to be inspected and can be revoked as per whims of the police.

A couple years ago I had some interesting conversations with an Australian who’d been a police officer and firearm afficionado (until the ban came and his guns went away) and a New Zealander.  The Kiwi delighted in giving the Aussie grief about how his rights had vanished into a revoked privilege.

Another Aussie I know who was a prolific collector finally just quit because the licensing and legal hassles pushed him out of the hobby he enjoyed.  And he was someone who through family was in a financial position to not have to worry about it.  Of the Aussies I know who were gun folks, only one bothered to keep jumping through the hoops to please a government that actively sought to legislate, regulate, and restrict his natural rights into nearly non-existent and easily revokable privileges.

Alternately titled “leftists saying what they really want, but also using it as clickbait“:

The president zoomed in on exactly the right point Tuesday: What about the rights of those killed by gun violence to live free from terror?

There is no right to freedom from fear.  It also could never be achieved.  Some people fear the dark.  Some fear light.  Some fear clowns.  Some fear bees.  Some fear the unknowable, unfeeling empty vastness of space.

As a technical point, those killed aren’t alive, so they can’t live free from anything.

President Obama said a lot about guns in his teary press conference Tuesday, but the one thing that he is not saying, despite all the howling from the right, is that he intends to take away Americans’ guns. Yet equally significant is the realization that individual citizens are unwilling to free themselves of the destructive weapons that are wreaking havoc on our society. Numerous Americans care more about their individual freedoms than our collective freedoms, and they are unable to see how these individualistic desires undermine the essential fabric of a democracy.

All freedoms are individual freedoms.  If individuals within a group have no freedom, there is no freedom.  Restricting individual rights to free speech also means restricting a “collective” right to free speech by removing voices that the government doesn’t like.

Much like the bumper sticker slogan, my guns must not be working right, because they haven’t wreaked any havoc.

This democratic fabric includes the Second Amendment that has been contorted, misinterpreted, and applied in a way that destroys its intended meaning and threatens the safety and stability of our nation.

Here comes the usual “the Second Amendment doesn’t mean what it says” argument.  The only people contorting it and misinterpreting it are those trying to destroy its meaning in order to disarm the populace.

And as the president pointed out on Tuesday, this grotesque emphasis on the Second Amendment impairs other Americans’ ability to freely exercise many of the other 26 amendments.

Try exercising your Third Amendment rights without any way to resist.

Come to think of it, your First is easily extinguished, as we’ve seen on college campuses where a mob can simply push a reporter out of public spaces.  Your Fourth is pretty hard to defend if you can’t protect your own home.  Your Fifth is a lot easier to have ignored if the police and prosecutors simply threaten you.

As President Obama forges a lone path toward gun regulation, we must wonder how we as a society have arrived to a point where “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” has morphed into allowing individual citizens to possess firearms for their individual protection with little to no concern about the security of a free state.

There’s not much security to a free state when only the government and its agents have guns.  In fact, that’s not a free state at all, that’s a tyranny.  That’s exactly what the founders were discussing.

And then there’s this asshole comment:

It is well documented that gun sales and gun-related deaths have increased since Obama came into office, but the Supreme Court’s 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller (PDF), which opened the floodgates and redefined the Second Amendment, rarely receives mention.

Murder is down.  In 2007 there were 17,128 murders.  In 2013 there were 14,196.  Numbers have been on the decline for decades.

Murders with firearms are down.  2010 saw 8,874 murders with firearms.  2014 saw 8,124.

DC v Heller didn’t change the Second Amendment functionally for most of the nation.  Many state constitutions already cover the right to keep & bear arms even more specifically as a personal right of self-defense.  There were no “floodgates” to open.  Places that have historically been anti-gun are still throwing up barricades to exercise of rights that are still being fought against in court.

The court’s decision in the case went against 70 years of legal interpretations of the Second Amendment that stated in United States v. Miller that the “obvious purpose” of the Second Amendment was to “assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of” the state militia, and the Amendment “must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.”

Brown v Board of Education went against nearly 60 years of legal interpretations justifying segregation, too.  It also corrected a historic wrong.

US v Miller was a bullshit ruling.  The arms-infringing National Firearms Act of 1934 which Miller was challenging says that a shotgun with a barrel under 18″ requires a $200 tax stamp to own, buy, or sell.  $200 in 1934 amounts to $3500 today.  It’s a financial barrier to firearms ownership and exercising of rights.  It’s a poll tax for guns.

The court magically ruled that a shotgun under 18″ barrel length isn’t suited to any kind of militia use or any other use (despite the fact that agencies from the FBI to USBP to IRS all use 14″ barreled shotguns today in manners that are entirely consistent with the uses the judges said they couldn’t be used).

Miller was a bank robber who argued against laws that would’ve sent him to jail not so much for bank robbery, but for effectively owning a piece of pipe that was less than 18″.  The court decision was made in such a way that Miller could never travel to the Supreme Court to challenge the ruling, and Miller was killed before the ruling came down and he could’ve effectively challenged it.

It’d be like if the Miranda decision were never made because Miranda were killed before being able to make the challenge to SCOTUS.  Mind you, Miranda was a kidnapper and rapist who was convicted both on initial trial and on retrial after SCOTUS review – it’s said good court decisions can often come from bad people.

In Heller and then in McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Supreme Court in a pair of 5-4 decisions determined that federal, state, and local governments could not create restrictions that could prevent an individual the right to possess a firearm in the home for self-defense. The intent of the Second Amendment had shifted from allowing citizens to own firearms so that they could band together in an organized and regulated militia run by either local, state, or federal governments to allowing citizens to own guns for their own purposes so long as they fell under the individual’s definition of self-defense.

Let’s reference Blackstone, which is part of where the Second Amendment came from:

a public allowance under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression

And that’s just pulling a quote from wikipedia.  The founders knew that restrictions turned into strangulation of rights, and that’s why they eliminated that part – and stuck simply to a codified recognition of protecting the tools of self-preservation.

To borrow from Tom Gresham:

A well-educated people, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.”  Now, ask if this means that only well-educated people could keep and read books, or does it mean that everyone can have books as a means to produce a well-educated people?

Clickbaity McDailyBeast goes on:

Not surprisingly, countless Americans purchased more and more firearms to protect themselves from the “inevitable” moment when the government or “Obama” was going to forcefully take their guns away. Not surprisingly a byproduct of this new interpretation of the Second Amendment has been a rise in unregulated militias or American terrorist groups who challenge the authority of federal, state, and local governments.  Ammon Bundy and his posse of men who call themselves the Citizens for Constitutional Freedom who just this week forcefully took over a federal building in Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon are just one such iteration of this emboldened unregulated militia movement in America.

Actually, this “new interpretation” is pretty much what most state constitutions have always said.

“American terrorist groups”?  I think the Bundys are basically the same kind of people the president would support if they were a union blocking a factory.  The Bundys just want to take over their agricultural means of production – which means public land they don’t feel like paying for.  No real difference from the union members who try to take over industrial means of production except that the unions try to take from private citizens they view as class enemies while the Bundys want to take over from a government they view as a class enemy.

Frankly I find both of them reprehensible, but neither are very good terrorists.  Unions haven’t been effective terrorists since the Wobblies, and ranchers haven’t made effective terrorists since the Johnson County War.

The Oath Keepers, formed in 2009, are one of the largest unregulated militia movements in the nation, and regularly you can find them injecting themselves unnecessarily into conflicts. In Ferguson, Missouri following the death of Michael Brown, Oath Keepers arrived carrying semi-automatic riffles so that they could prevent looters from destroying property, and many of them said that they saw nothing wrong with taking the life of a looter to prevent the destruction of property. They also advocated that Ferguson residents obtain firearms so that they could protect themselves from the police.

So they wanted to protect people who lived there from armed mobs that were burning their homes and businesses?  And they wanted Ferguson residents to protect themselves against police they viewed as threats to the community?

I tend to view the Oathkeepers as a bit silly, but reading it from this Daily Beast goofball, he makes them seem positively balanced.

Also, I don’t think trying to provide stability for a community, however misguided, makes them terrorists.

Instability, terror, and death are the inevitable outcomes of a heavily armed citizenry, yet in the 1846 case Nunn v. State of Georgia, an integral case that the Supreme Court used in the Heller decision, the state of Georgia—my home state—argued that arming citizens and allowing them to openly carry firearms created a safer environment. And the referencing of this decision only continues the Supreme Court’s idyllic reimagining of America’s Southern states.

Lolworthy.

Georgia in 1846 was a slave holding state where African Americans were counted as three-fifths of a person and were not allowed the right to vote.

The 3/5ths compromise was so that states that weren’t slave states wouldn’t be outnumbered in congress by slave states.  Slave states wanted black slaves counted as whole persons for purposes of distribution of representatives.

Firearms at this time were regularly used to keep blacks in line and sustain the South’s racist, oppressive society.

Dumb.  Gun control was used to keep blacks in line – The Racist Roots of Gun Control is a good read that explains it.  If only the powers that be in racist slave states had firearms, they would’ve had them to “keep blacks in line” as well – and if they needed more arms, they would’ve expanded the authority of the state.

Short version of that section is basically he thinks that guns=racism.

But far from rejecting that old logic, we’ve embraced it, and the application of the South’s antithetical principles have brought instability, danger, and a disregard for human life to rest of the United States. Armed and dangerous and unregulated militias are on the rise, in addition to the numerous lone-wolf attacks that befall schools, offices, shopping centers, and public spaces at a disturbing frequency.

Except they haven’t brought violence.  Those “lone wolf” attacks aren’t from “unregulated militias”, they’re from individual lunatics who can’t be stopped with laws and who are frequently jihadis – adherents to a terrorist ideology.

Right now the Second Amendment is being applied in a way that takes away the rights of thousands of Americans each year, and the president must address this crisis to ensure the safety and stability of not just the American citizens who are threatened by gun violence, but also the ideals and institutions that govern our society that are being threatened by the archaic notions of stability from a racist and oppressive society and the unregulated militias of today that openly advocate armed conflict against the government.

Nice try playing the race card.  Gun control was used against the black man to control the black man.  Take the guns from the free men of all colors today and you just put your faith in government, which between 2000 and 2008 I’m sure this clown would’ve opposed as Bu$Hitler would’ve been his boogeyman of the day.  Take all the guns from the free men of Georgia in 1846 and you have a slave state controlled by a government that would expand its authority until blacks (and poor whites) were controlled anyway.

Obama is not going to take away America’s guns. I would argue that he should, as countless Americans have displayed a gross misuse of the social responsibility that comes with gun ownership, except that using force to attempt to disarm people of their firearms might inevitably lead to more violence and bloodshed.

Obama is not going to take away America’s presses.  I would argue that he should, as countless Americans have displayed a gross misuse of the social responsibility that comes with the written word, except that using force to attempt to silence people might inevitably lead to… he’s gonna disarm them first, right?  Well then no problems!  On to our glorious utopian future!

Gun owners should want to regulate and reduce their gun usage for the greater good, but our society is too consumed with the myopia of employing lethal force to resolve minor disputes that it cannot imagine an environment without widespread gun usage. And countless Americans are unable to see that their gun usage actually jeopardizes the very freedoms and liberties they have chosen to fight for and defend via the barrel of a gun.

Ah, the “greater good”.  He should’ve said “for the children” instead.  Gets more feels that way.

Lethal force isn’t used for minor disputes, unless you consider human life something of minor consequence… of course being a big control freak statist… he probably does.

Widespread gun ownership, bearing arms, and possession of arms, does not necessarily mean usage.  I burn down targets at the range, but I have yet to use a firearm in to resolve any dispute inside the US.

Actually, declining gun usage and ownership, and trusting the state with arms and force is what jeopardizes freedoms and liberties, because no man can legally take another man’s rights away – but a government can, and governments do.

On to stupidity part 2 “America should regulate bullets“:

When I chaired the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, I was grateful that we had authority to regulate lead in household paint. Banning the use of lead-based paint in homes has prevented brain damage in countless children over the years.

So why wouldn’t Congress allow us authority over another dangerous consumer product often made with lead?

Specifically, why not bullets?

Although it may seem unbelieveable, at one point I was a child.  I don’t remember ever looking at walls and thinking “I should start chewing on paint chips”.  When I was at an age younger than that, my family lived in and worked in an environment that would be considered dangerous for a child today… but my parents kept me from eating screws, nails, and construction debris.  Congress wasn’t needed to protect me as a child.  Nor was it needed before 1972 when it was created.

As to why not bullets?  Because ammunition is a key component of arms.  And because you’re trying to come up with a backdoor regulation scheme to go after something you don’t personally like.

Why not have some chaste religious zealot decide that the risk of STDs that condoms don’t actually prevent means the CPSC can regulate condoms in order to cut down on sex that the zealot doesn’t like?

This idea isn’t new. In 1974, the CPSC’s first chairman made clear his belief that the agency could probably regulate ammunition, and a court agreed — whereupon a frightened Congress passed laws making it impossible even to try. Now is the time for the president to begin pushing to correct that mistake.

I can’t help but hear that last line said like Dick Jones in Robocop saying: “I had to kill Bob Morton because he made a mistake… now it’s time to erase that mistake.

The slavering regulatrix can’t even begin to fathom that there are people who don’t regard her totalitarian state as something desirable, nor that their representatives would seek to prevent tyranny which she demands through any means possible.

How can we do more when the National Rifle Association has persuaded Congress to put roadblocks in front of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention research into gun deaths? When more than half of Americans oppose tighter gun control even after a year of such bloodshed?

Support for gun control has been falling dramatically.  People know being disarmed doesn’t make them safe, and doesn’t make anyone safe.

The NRA opposes CDC “research” because it’s “research” that will be pushed into the kind of conclusion that statists desire.  Stats will be massaged until they get the “right” answer demanding more regulation, more control, and less freedoms.

James Holmes bought more than 4,000 rounds online before his 2012 rampage in a Colorado movie theater. Twenty years ago, when purchases were offline, it would have been tough to spot someone like that. Today it would be easy.

Why should my old agency be the one to do the regulating?

No one should be doing regulating.

James Holmes is a wonderful example of how there are no dangerous weapons, only dangerous men.  Holmes was working on neuroscience/neurosurgery before he snapped.  He was being trusted enough to become the kind of person you call when you need someone to stab around in your brain.  On paper, he looked like a fine upstanding young man.  He also spent time making IEDs and rigging his apartment to explode.  Take away ammo and he’d use something like a pressure cooker bomb and fireworks.  Or he might just kill patients for decades on the operating table.  It’s not the tool he uses to cause the harm, it’s the person doing the harm.

When someone who may be dangerous is prevented from buying ammunition, any gun he has hidden becomes like a car without gas: a useless hunk of metal.

Yeah, and he can go buy a few gallons of gasoline and he has a firebomb ready to go.  He can also start playing with chemicals and explosives like were used at the worst mass killing at a US school in history – the Bath School Disaster of 1927.

There are many ways to move ahead. We could license ammunition purchases like drivers, ban online purchases and mandate background checks for buyers. But it would be pointless for me to outline the precise steps that should be taken up front — except for the first one: ending Congress’s disgraceful attempt to chill research. Funding to study regulating ammunition should begin now.

Congress was wise enough to see through that.  It’s not “research”, it’s funded justifications for tyranny at the expense of a constitutionally recognized right.  The author of this anti-freedom screed outright says she wants more restrictions on a right, and she wants to backdoor it with a bureaucracy that’s largely unaccountable, and she already has her answers.  If the CDC came out with the same conclusions the FBI shows in crime stats (referenced above) that gun crimes are down, and that they found John Lott’s study (More Guns, Less Crime) is the case, she’d demand more research until such time as her answer is reached.

This would be like Congress funding research for the CDC to analyze the effects of unpleasant speech on the public in order to go after the First Amendment, or funding research into the the effects of lethal chemicals and execution methods to undermine the Eighth Amendment.

Times and cultures change.

Tyrants never do.

From the ATF’s facebook page (click comments on the link to open it up):

atf facebook & furious 160106

Screenshots and assorted shenanigans here, including an ATF agent telling people to “get off this page”:

atf facebook & furious 160106 get off this page

In for a penny, in for a pound:

atf facebook & furious 160106 cartels

Nice.