And for me this is a long one.
I was thinking about what was done to Luty in what used to be Great Britain, and I realized that it being a select-fire/auto firearm really only added to the “How dare you!” from officialdom; had it been a single-shot they’d still have thrown him in prison for it; can’t have the subjects getting above themselves, y’know. Arms are for the GOVERNMENT, not commoners.
It speaks of- well, I’m not sure what all, this fear of people making things. We’ve got control freaks wanting to license/restrict/whatever not just the printers for making your own magazine or receiver, but- ESPECIALLY- the information itself, the program. Read that clown Israel’s words:
`(C) any ammunition magazine, manufactured by a person who is not a licensed manufacturer--
As noted, if he were actually worried about ‘plastic magazines’ he’d be going after companies that make them, but- for now- he’s not; it’s the idea of some commoner making them himself that troubles him.
And did he really think there had to be a license to make a magazine? Entirely possible; we’re talking about people generally very ignorant of the subject of firearms yet wanting to make laws on the subject, without even bothering to find out what laws are ALREADY in effect. Or bothering to learn what the hell they’re talking about before they head out with a head of steam and a handful of bill.
Connected: a while back, in the comments of some news article on the idiot laws Howler & Co. shoved through in New York, when someone wrote a fairly detailed comment on the problems with the magazine restrictions and just what calling them the wrong thing can mean, one hoplophobe sneeringly wrote “Just because ‘X’ isn’t as familiar with the inconsequential details as you gun nuts doesn’t mean he didn’t write a good bill”. My first thought was ‘Getting those details wrong can put people in PRISON, you fucking idiot! Don’t you think that makes them ‘consequential’?”
It doesn’t; not to them. They don’t care if someone goes to prison because a bill was written in haste and ignorance, as long as they feel like it’s doing something they consider good. Call honest citizens behind bars for such bullshit their version of collateral damage; and since they seem to consider anyone who doesn’t share their bigotry either deserving of prison(for something, details don’t really matter) or actually somewhat subhuman…
And make no mistake: some of them DO see us as subhuman. A lot of the “These people won’t go along with commonsense reforms even to save children” crap is purely trying to shame us into caving. They know damn well we care about kids, but they’re willing to say anything to push their programs on us.
There is a percentage of them who actually believe it. You won’t go along with what they’ve decided is ‘common-sense reforms’, it means you don’t care about murdered children, or whoever/whatever the particular matter in hand is. And if you’re not really human, your thoughts, your beliefs, you lives, don’t concern them. Add that to the socialist mindset a lot of them have, and you have a very dangerous mix.
Connected: this over at Volokh from the EUnuchs:
Remind me: How are German citizens to make democratic decisions about immigration policy (either German policy or European Union policy) if people can’t argue that certain immigrant groups are bad for the country? How can they make democratic decisions about whether to support any proposed EU admission of Turkey? After all, admitting Turkey might well substantially increase Turkish immigration into Germany, so citizens who want to think about the admission question might reasonably want to consider the consequences of such increased immigration.
Indeed, how can German and European citizens even criticize restrictions on these arguments — such as the restriction that the U.N. Committee says the law must impose — if they can’t explain why they think that the arguments being restricted are correct? Or is the point that these decisions are forever supposed to be out of the hands of the citizens, with political debate left to the supervision of U.N. Committees?
Three guesses; if you need more than one you're not paying attention.
They want people tried and jailed because someone is offended/might-be-offended by those words. Which, as noted, is not simply standard PC idiocy; it would make it impossible to even discuss the matter. Which is exactly what the control freaks want: not the caring-face “Why do you want to hurt the feelings of others?” they pretend(being honest, some of the idiots actually feel that way), but Goldberg’s smiley-face fascism. Control of speech, of words, of anything the authorities deem hurtful, harmful. And they’re the only ones who get to decide what fits. Which leads to some really nasty stuff. “How can we make sure children learn the right things if they hear unapproved words/see unapproved thoughts/read unapproved books? There must be proper control of education so they think the right things.” Because serfs who don’t think the right things are harder to control.
Especially in a place where arms are legal.
And if you don’t think this is all connected, well, I do think you’re wrong.
Look at the upset- sometimes nearly hysterical- from both the socialists here and the UN and Eunuchs at our refusal to go along with the Small Arms Treaty. That is intended to give more government- in particular UN- control over what we own, how much we own. And that requires lists. Those tyrants want registration here just as bad as Obama and Schumer, they want anything they can label a ‘assault weapon’ banned just as badly as Feinstein and Obama. And for the same reasons.
Ever read any of the Man-Kzin War books? Very short version: sci-fi, there’s one world government controlled by the UN. And, in order to keep people all peaceful, not only are arms banned but education has been twisted, history rewritten. Being found in possession of an old history book can put you in a camp; being seen in any way a problem to the proper way you should think, will put you in a camp. People have been trained to think of any kind of violence, even in self-defense, as disgusting and criminal. In the first book there are some chapter headings noting some then-current news stories that make this shit seem scarily possible. I can't find my copy right now, when I can I'll add in full wording. Teenagers and 20-somethings with no knowledge of fairly important chunks of history, from not that long ago; the only way to explain it is that they were never taught about it. I wonder why...
Don’t doubt that the UN drools at the thought of carrying out this kind of control, having the power to rewrite history to reinforce that control. And having a US that has lots of people not only objecting to it but who still own arms and have demonstrated a to-them-horrible attitude toward the idea of UN dominance(posters of blue helmets with small round holes in them get the idea across) is both horrifying to them and seen as a problem to be dealt with; the US has too much reach, too much ability to make noise, still too much freedom for them to ignore us. Plus the simple fact that they cannot stand the idea of a nation not being part of their program. And one of the things that they see as essential- they and the willing idiots here- is disarming the US citizen. Not only because of the arms themselves, but because of the attitudes connected with them. You know, the ones that have Biden making snide comments about the ‘black-helicopter crowd’? That has Holder saying snotty things about ‘people actually believing there might be reason to resist the government’. The attitude that the right of self-defense is about the most basic human right; that a government that tries to take that away is worthy only of contempt and resistance. That the right to arms, whether for self-defense*, sport, collecting or to warn the government that there are lines best not approached, let alone crossed, is a basic right of a free people. Those attitudes. The statists denounce them, laugh at them, and I think are scared to death of them.
I’ve been thinking this last few days about the attitudes I’ve run into in a couple of threads:
“You people are being fooled by the NRA and their bosses in the gun industry, nobody wants to take your guns!”
“You’re being manipulated, why else would you be against simple common-sense reforms?”
And the real killer: “If we pass THIS law, then it will take some time but it will improve things greatly; reduce gun crime, reduce accidents; THIS one will do it!”
The first two… point out that the NRA(they NEVER want to talk about other groups, or about people who don’t belong to a group, just pay attention and yell at politicians when needed) gets most of its funding from members, doesn’t matter. They point to Busch whining about ‘what’s wrong with background checks’ to ‘prove’ we’re being unreasonable; when the attitude toward Busch is “Don’t let the doorknob hit you in the ass on the way out”, that does not go over well. Point out all the holes and traps in Toomey-Manchin, and the crap Schumer wanted to shove in, doesn’t matter.
Point out the words of Feinstein, Schumer, Obama, Biden and a host of others; doesn’t matter, they’ll still parrot “Nobody is actually wanting to take your guns!” Point out what’s happened in Californicated, and New York, Maryland, on and on, they either dismiss it, ignore it or- the more honest ones- “They’re only banning assault weapons, and nobody should have those anyway.”
No, I haven’t figured out how they combine, ‘nobody is after your guns’ with ‘except those’, either.
Magazine bans? “Nobody needs more than 7-8-10(whatever the current decision from their lords is) bullets anyway.” Listing something as a assault weapon because of a cosmetic feature? “Why does anyone need that on a gun?” “It makes it more deadly.” Etc. Both ignorance and evasion dance around in herds because they either cannot or will not deal with the basic fact that none of those things make a gun ‘more lethal’.
Few days ago I wrote a bit about an argument in which I was informed that ‘by the 2nd Amendment you’re granted the right to a musket or blunderbuss, nothing more.’
Ah, you could walk into the store and buy a rifle that in range and accuracy was superior to anything issued to any army in the world. That was ignored.
‘You should have to get X level of training to own a rifle, X level for a shotgun, X level for a handgun; no training? You get a musket.’
Who sets the standards? Who carries the testing out? I’m expected to pay for this to be allowed to exercise a basic enumerated right? ‘Yes!’ on the last, not a word on the former two.
‘Why should people harmed by gun violence have to pay? There must be insurance on all guns!”
How’re you going to make the bad guys buy insurance?
‘Every uninsured gun goes into the grinder; after a while uninsured guns will be too rare and valuable for them to be used by criminals.’
I should be forced to buy insurance for a basic right? ‘YES!’
Assuming you could actually start destroying private property for not paying this danegeld, what makes you think the bad guys won’t smuggle in guns? Like Britain, it’s a bloody ISLAND and they can’t keep the bad guys from getting everything from pistols to hand grenades!
She went back to the ‘any uninsured gun goes in the grinder, and they’ll become too rare to use’. NO response to the smuggling question, just that blind worship at the altar of “Just ONE MORE LAW and there will be peace and happiness.”
No, I did not point out homemade firearms, what can be made in a garage with basic tools. Let alone point out the black market she’s talking about creating for anyone with machining skills and some tooling. Some people… YOU JUST CANNOT TALK TO.
Right now the forces of evil are arguing about their next step. Obama has been demonizing and insulting anyone who disagrees with him since Sandy Hook; that he didn’t get what he wanted, oh boy did that piss him off. Thus causing more insults and belittling and lies, which didn’t exactly help convince anyone on the other side to change their minds(don’t know about you, but when someone calls me evil and/or stupid and uncaring, it doesn’t incline me to charitable thoughts toward them). Biden practically broke into tears and then went into threatening. Feinstein just about crapped her panties on the Senate floor even BEFORE the vote at the very idea she might not get what she wanted.
About that: I realize that they’ve gotten into the bad habit of voting on bills when they don’t have any idea what’s in them(which ought to be cause for firing), but to whine for a vote on a PROSPECTIVE ban? Really? That’s so effing stupid its….
And that's ignoring something else: the reason they needed 60 votes on Toomey-Manchin was to try to hide what was in it until after the vote:
But under Senate rules, a simple majority vote would have opened the
measure to up to 30 hours of debate, which would have meant inspecting
the details. The White House demanded, and Mr. Reid agreed, that
Congress should try to pass the amendment without such a debate.
There is something truly disgusting about a President and President of the Senate wanting so badly to hide what's in a bill before a vote; the dishonesty is... 'disturbing' isn't the right word, but it'll do for now.
Back to the forces of evil in general. The major media had aneurisms all over their newsrooms over the loss. If anyone still them honest reporters of information, that should have disabused them of the notion; it was just amazing
By the way, has that asshat Morgan bought his ticket back to Britain yet?
A lot of politicians are seriously nervous right now. Obama was threatening, but it’s the people back home who cast the votes, and(to the eternal fury of the Obamites) they made it quite clear that if Sen. Foghorn voted for that, his ass would be out of that taxpayer-supplied office as soon as conditions allowed, and enough listened to them to kill the amendment.
Notice how many people passed bricks because elected representatives actually listened to the voters? That’s called ‘cowardice’ by the hoplophobes when it prevents their getting what they want.
Bloomberg is a dangerous bastard: a control freak with lots of money to spend.
(ever notice how people who howl about the Koch brothers don’t want to talk about him?) He blew a gasket; my personal translation was “Don’t you know how much money I spent to buy this? Why didn’t I get what I demanded?”
I'll throw in something from Ace that rings true:
Go watch Obama's statement again - the utter contempt he displayed for those who have the audacity to claim a right protected by the constitution is breathtaking in its nakedness. It's tempting to believe liberal lawmakers don't like us having the ability to own guns because they don't think we can be trusted with them. That is part of it, but based on what we saw yesterday, that might be giving them too much credit.
When the left talks about gun owners, one of their favorite tactics is to make them seem like a strange species - an 'other.' Well, Obama 'otherized' the hell out of gun owners and second amendment advocates yesterday, refusing to even acknowledge their ability to make an argument in good faith and sneering at members of Congress for the earnest belief in the second amendment that influenced their votes against the gun control amendments.
Still, the president wasn't just angry because he lost. He was angry because he lost to people who hold an opinion he's unable and unwilling to understand and who he seems to regard as beneath him. Last night, Obama showed us the anger that lurks under the no-drama exterior and revealed what we on the right have known for years - he's thoroughly a man of the left, and shares the left's contempt for those who believe that the second amendment is not a collective right, but an individual right for a collective purpose - ultimately, the preservation of a "free state."
Sounds about right.
So we’re still in a fight, will be for some time to come. That miserable little bastard Lautenberg now wants background checks/lists/ whatever all he can stuff into the bill for anyone buying black powder or smokeless propellant, for one(great, reloading stuff gets even harder to find). Plus Obama’s undoubtedly trying to get someone to tell him he can use a executive order to cancel part of the Constitution. Feinstein and Schumer and McCarthy are standing around their cauldron chanting curses, and Clinton is trying to figure how to make her flying monkeys throw flaming crap at us.
Toomey and Manchin had their ass handed to them, and I think they’re worried about their future; along with the background-check morass they tried to push through, I doubt the information about the parties on Manchins’ yacht did him much good back home. A lot of Democrats caught hell from the voters; I think a lot of those who voted for T-M are going to keep catching hell for some time to come. Especially since a lot of them also voted for Obamacare, and the bite from that is really starting to hit a lot of people, and they are NOT happy about it.
About those two; I don’t know if they were actually shocked they lost the vote and their support from CCRKBA or were just playing the words to back up Obama. I’m certain losing the support wasn’t surprise, not when Schumer jumped in at the last minute and screwed at least one of the particular points CCRKBA had been trumpeting; I doubt they’re actually stupid enough to think they’d keep the support after that. Especially with the crapstorm landing on that group for playing ball in the first place.
The Stupid Party leadership… well, we don’t call them that for nothing. And some of them really are on the other side on this. But they were caught out in a serious shitstorm, too; I know of a lot of people telling that party flatly that if they betrayed us on this, ‘You can kiss my ass forevermore.’ Said with great feeling, and every damn word meant. The RINOs who voted for T-M are catching hell, too, I don’t doubt; we’ll see how much good it does.
Add to that that a bunch of people are apparently forcing Boehner’s hand on Benghazi; he doesn’t really want to investigate, but a bunch of people are NOT backing off on demanding it; how much more does he want to piss people off?
The idiots who actually believe we’re manipulated by the NRA? They’re hopeless, barring a Road to Damascus moment they’ll never believe we’re standing on principles we truly believe in. The others? Some can be reached, reasoned with, others are like the insurance idiot: trying to argue with them is like trying to argue with a fundamentalist muslim about their god, which brings to mind the ‘teaching a pig to whistle’ line(is mentioning a pig in that context offensive? Good.)
So, for what it's worth, that's some of what's been running in circles through my brain the last few days.