Obama’s Gun Control Propaganda

Just read this and had to post. Almost everything the president says in this quote is wrong. My comments bold in brackets:

“The House Republican majority is made up mostly of members who are in sharply gerrymandered districts [no more than Democrats] that are very safely Republican and may not feel compelled to pay attention to broad-based public opinion [the Constitution trumps public opinion], because what they’re really concerned about is the opinions of their specific Republican constituencies,” [yes, that is who they represent and how the system is supposed to work] the president said in an interview with The New Republic.

[…]

The president said he has a profound respect for the traditions of hunting that date back for generations. [Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting]

Wow, this is Propaganda 101, textbook stuff.

Since Obama is supposed to have been a Constitutional lawyer, he knows the Second Amendment is not about hunting. He and Biden have been hammering the “hunting” and “sporting” comments every time they talk about gun control in an attempt to make what they want more reasonable. Just like the left saying Republicans or conservatives are against “immigration,” when in reality it’s “illegal immigration.”

Also noticed how the president framed the issue upfront in this debate a few weeks ago, any “reasonable” person would agree to what he’s calling for. He calls them “commonsense” measures. So if you disagree, you must be “unreasonable” and have no sense. It’s like he has Jedi powers over the dolts on the left.

Secondary, Tertiary Consequences of a Gun Ban

An all-out Feinstein gun ban probably isn’t on the way soon (a string of shootings could change that), but its remains the goal of the Dems long-term. They will use the press to wage a propaganda war to alter public opinion enough to avoid a repeat of the 1996 elections. In the mean time, “The Democrats cannot be trusted with our freedoms, and they will politicize every tragedy to accomplish their ends.”

If a gun ban were put in place that greatly restricted some of the most popular semi-automatic rifles and pistols available today, there would be other affects down the road depending on the details. Here we’ll assume a ban on all new semi-autos, normal capacity magazine, or the transfers of those.

Markets: Drying up the civilian market would obviously cause a lot of current producers to fold their doors, especially the smaller outfits. Unless they could make the change to bolt guns (bound to become better sellers), or get and keep military and police contracts. Then the firearms available to the public would cost more since the volume would be lower (eventually, not counting the current buying frenzy).

Regulations: Paying for all the checks, record keeping, registries, etc. also has costs involved and guess who will pay them; gun owners. If it is anything close to the hoops one has to go through to own a firearm in DC, you’re talking a couple days (or more) of in-person filings at various offices, and hundreds of dollars of fees, on top of the cost of probably mandatory firearms training.

Overall effect: Shrink the market; make legally owning firearms prohibitively expensive for most Americans. Key work there is legally – the bad guys won’t be paying any of those fees, and won’t be limited to whatever the nanny-state allows.

Some Republicans may roll over: See info from the Doc Thompson Show.

Nutnfancy explains a Second Amendment issue: Many for gun control think those who favor owning firearms as a check on the government are delusional since modern militaries are so powerful. Nutn explains that semi-auto rifles can get one a crew-served weapon, etc.

Sturmgewehre goes into detail on the magazine ban: Mac also include a link to contact your elected representatives to tell them you do not want them to vote for more gun regulations.

At Guns.com, see a Marine’s letter to Feinstein, and Ted Nugent’s letter to Biden.

BOYCOTT: Dick’s Sporting Goods for rolling on it’s customers, and Cheaper Than Dirt for attempting to profiteer.

Advice to the National Rifle Association

Probably you’re seeing a massive amount of new memberships, renewals, and donations coming in at the NRA, or at least I hope so. Please do not harass the new members with relentless marketing requests and asking for more donations, it drives them away. It drove me away in the 1990s for several years, and others have noted the same problem and also left the NRA because of it.

I joined again several years ago, and again quickly became frustrated with the endless requests for donation, both email and snail mail, and the waste-of-money junk mail from you. The solution: I called in and got myself removed from those lists. It’s been very nice ever since. I get the American Rifleman each month (last time I chose digital), and a renewal notice once a year, and that’s it. Perfect.

Of course those endless requests for money must pay off and it is of course for a most worth cause, but alienating a lot of would-be members isn’t smart. So I suggest you make it a lot easier to opt out of that massive email/mail harassment. Or tone it down from the start. Either way, that’s my advice to the NRA.

Join the NRA/Renew Membership, $10 off and a gift.

Tragic School Massacre a Mental Health Issue, Not a Gun Control Issue

As a father with children the same age as some that were murdered by Adam Lanza at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut on December 14, I can sympathize with the families of the victims. I’m not going to claim I can truly understand how they feel, almost no one really can. My thoughts and prayers are with them.

I am angry it happened. But I’m also angry that I can’t just focus on that, I have to immediately worry about my rights being infringed by the emotional and illogical backlash of gun control advocates who are using this tragedy to political advantage.

A few points:

• This is a mental health issue; it is not a gun control issue. An expert goes into and says it better than I could, here.
• The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting; it is about the people having a check on the power of the federal government. The Heller decision lays it out pretty well.
• The majority of shootings are in blue states or blue cities; now those in blue areas are attempting to take away everyone’s rights because they have problems. The Left-Right cultural divide is getting wider, and trying to limit our rights will exacerbate it.

The mother, Nancy Lunza, is also being portrayed as, “paranoid ‘survivalist’ who believed the world was on the verge of violent, economic collapse,” and who, “stockpiled food, water and guns.” That probably described 99% of readers here. The Left will keep hammering that “preppers” or “survivalists” are dangerous. We will be demonized. But it’s a smokescreen.

In my last post I urged readers to get any weapons, ammo, and related gear they might need. That’s even more urgent now. I’ll add to that:

• Follow your gun laws, don’t even bend them. Don’t provide an excuse for them to be taken.
• If not already a member, join the NRA, or another gun rights organization. If already a member, donate some cash now.

Good luck, we’ll all need it.

Update: Three perspective;

• Sturmgewehre
• Nutnfancy (in addition to the Nutn link in main text)
• Sootch00

Also saw this on BBC News. The so-called expert being interviewed was asked why the gun has this special place in America. Her answer was that, “an element in U.S. society” that believes “the citizen needs to be armed in order to counterbalance the power of the state”.” She described this as a “fantasy” and “absurdity” and gave Waco as an example.

Who are those involved in this “fantasy?” That would be those who read and understand he constitution, and know the history of how the Second Amendment came about.

Makes me wonder if Mosin Nagants and ammo will skyrocket in price?

Go Buy Guns, Magazines, and Ammo

To me this election was a choice between the lesser of two evils. Actually the last few have been that way for me. Unfortunately for America, lesser lost. Probably in the future more stupid Americans will vote more of our freedoms away. Maybe it’s just part of the cycle of greatness and decline the empires go through, I don’t know.

As I’ve mentioned before, Obama doesn’t really care about the Second Amendment. Along with the re-election of Obama, consider that a long-time anti-gun senator – Dian Feinstein – is probably planning a gun grab, perhaps like this country has never seen:

- – No pistol grip allowed
- – No [high capacity] Mags
- – No grandfathering
- – No sale permissible if in possession

I don’t see “no grandfathering” as realistic in America. Any such legislation won’t go anywhere for at least two years since the Republicans hold the house and it won’t go through them. The house will be up for grabs again in two years.

Obama might get the opportunity to appoint anti-gun justices to the Supreme Court. A few high profile mass shootings might be all it takes to push the pendulum of popular opinion far enough, long enough to do some real legislative/legal damage. Once those freedoms are lost, I don’t see how we could get them back without bad things happening.

Obama could also use executive orders to limit our Second Amendment freedoms. I’m particularly worried about access to ammunition, including having to have a permit to purchase ammo, limits/rationing, ending cheap imports, etc. It could happen.

Go buy what you need while you can.

Mr. President, I need my AK-47

The recent mass shooting at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado led the president to say this during a speech at the National Urban League:

“I, like most Americans, believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms. I think we recognize the traditions of gun ownership that passed on from generation to generation, that hunting and shooting are part of a national heritage… But I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals; that they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities.” [emphasis mine]

I can almost agree with Obama; why would anyone want an AK-47 when they could pick up one of the newer, more accurate Ruger Mini-14 or Kel-Tec SU-16C…?

I’ll get into the Second Amendment to our Constitution further below, but I want to point out four things from the start. First, the Second Amendment doesn’t have a damn thing to do with hunting. Second, as a former lecturer on Constitutional law at University of Chicago Law School, Obama ought to know that. This is especially true if he believes the first part of his own statement. Third, the bold portion above provides several great examples of logical fallacies (a few are appeal to belief, appeal to common practice, appeal to emotion, appeal to fear, bandwagon, red herring, questionable cause, etc.). Along those lines, how many is “a lot” of gun owners? Five? A hundred? Ten thousand? That sort of statement is crap. Finally, Obama is probably a liar.

It’s unclear why Obama singled out the AK-47, since the Aurora shooter that likely promoted Obama to speak about firearms used an AR-15. The shooting and the president’s statement prompted some opinion pieces (like this one at CNN) that no doubt got and will get wide readership among America’s left, and probably caused more to read articles (like this one in the New Yorker) that also are part of the lefts smoke-and-mirrors treatment of the Second Amendment.

The New Yorker article in particular basically makes the claim that the Second Amendment was ignored for over a century and only lately has the individual right been brought up. It ignores the context of the language from the time it was written, and appeals to emotion and attempts to muddy the waters by making various claims (true or not) about the NRA. It stands as a modern example of yellow journalism – but those leaning to the left will accept it as Gospel.

Let’s look at the text of the Second Amendment, and some legal and historical information on the context and meaning of the language:

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.

A simplistic view, and favorable to those who want to take away our right to bear arms, would be to read this amendment as allowing firearms ownership restricted only to a very regulated militia. However, putting the words in the context of who was writing it, when, word usage at the time, and the background (e.g. The Federalist Papers), shows this was in fact not the meaning.

According to this site dedicated to our Constitution, the phrase “well-regulated” at that time and for about a century after that time referred to something being in proper working order. That is, something that was “well-regulated” if it was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected, and so on. “Establishing government oversight of the people’s arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.”

The case summary brief for the Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller provides an excellent legal/historical explanation of the actual meaning of the Second Amendment. Paraphrased and in bullet format:

• “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” is a prepatory clause that announces a purpose of the amendment and does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause.
• The operative clause, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,” connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.
• The militia consisted of all males capable of acting together for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable citizen militias, thereby enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The Antifederalists therefore sought to preserve the citizens’ militia by denying Congress the power to abridge the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. (this part a direct quote from the brief)
• This interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights adopted in state constitutions immediately preceding and following the Second Amendment. Furthermore, the drafting history reveals three proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts, and legislators from ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s interpretation. (this part a direct quote from the brief)

Although this is lawyer-speak and subject to change should Obama get a second term and thereby have the opportunity to appoint leftist Supreme Court justices, this interpretation is consistent with the historical information I have read. Again, the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting or sporting. In the context of the Constitution and those who wrote it, it clearly is meant as for the defense of the nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

While I’m not crazy about Romney, the current president does not have our best interests in mind, is probably a liar, and cannot be trusted.

Still a Suburban Survivalist

Although my family and I escaped the DC area and are now located somewhere in middle-America (the fly over states!), turns out I’m still a suburban survivalist. I’d dreamed of getting a few acres off the beaten path, but reality struck. While we’re now far from the eastern hordes and well west of the Mississippi, my job is still tied to an area with a fairly good-sized metropolitan area.

In my current situation, I believe the lessons of Fer Fal (Surviving in Argentina) fully apply. In a nutshell, Fer Fal has demonstrated that rural areas near cities = worst place to be during collapse, even the partial one that Argentina went through. Where I grew up in truly rural Nebraska, not so much; America is a big place, “rural” areas are not equal, and Fer Fal’s observations/generalizations just won’t apply in remote rural areas that are less accessible.

I won’t get into specific details for OPSEC reasons, but the greater metro area I’m now in is many hundreds of thousand of folks. Even though I work on the fringes of that, 20-30 minutes further out just isn’t going to be safe if times go from the current hard to harder.

Anecdotal stories from some of my new co-workers living in nearby rural areas confirm frequent trespassing even now (usually city types trying their hand at hunting, but sometimes other idiots). If times get really bad it would be hard to defend, and impossible to watch over my family while at work. I could find a place an hour or more out that would be more remote and safer, but commuting that much is not something I’m willing to do.

So we’ve settled into a large, newer suburban home with much more than enough space for our three kids and plenty of storage for current and future preps, and very affordable relative to the east coast. It takes 20 minutes from door to desk. The yard is big enough for a large garden for experimenting with heritage seeds. If/when TSHTF we’ll be bugging out the MUCH shorter distance to my parents’ place in rural Nebraska. If we had to go on food, no need to worry about going through areas of dense population. Conversely, if that area is hit by some localized disaster, we’ll have enough space, food, etc. to welcome all of them here.

Living in the suburbs is not how I grew up and now how I imagined this move would go. But it’s not the end of the world and there are a few benefits.

I’ll keep posting here (another coming soon), but much less than before. Getting into a new home, a new job, and with the kids getting older just takes up more time. If I have to choose between doing and writing, do will win just about every time.