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.

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?

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.

From Each According to His Ability, To Each According to His Need

Students are asked about redistributing grade point averages (GPA), from the upper 10% to those who may not graduate unless their GPAs are raised. A typical response, “that’s not fair, I worked hard for that.” Same students asked if they favor redistributing wealth, looks like all in the video did. Many tried to deflect this obvious hypocrisy by saying the analogy isn’t good, that it’s an apples to oranges comparison. But is it?

One argument, for example, was that grades are a more accurate measure of performance than income. I say; maybe, maybe not, and so what? Income is a combination of performance and life choices. Natural ability and luck are certainly factors, but probably less so than 1) not making stupid choices and 2) working hard. That’s just the way it is.

The Atlantic picked up on this and offered some of the reasons/excuses some argued, as examples and not the position of the author. I think they all fall flat and agree with the conclusion:

They suggest that most of us just want to redistribute income because, well, we wanna . . . not because we have any particularly good reason.

Class warfare is what we’re up against when it comes to creating a sane federal budget, and the sort of hypocritical and illogical approach by the students in the video above is one reason why I have little hope there will be a solution in time to prevent a collapse.

Cheaper Than Dirt Customer Service Fail

Update: Cheaper Than Dirt read this post and has corrected the issue! I think I feel a six-pack coming my way…

Original Post: Do you think the Glock Field Knife is a dagger? Cheaper Than Dirt (CTD) does, and they won’t ship it to a customer in my area because of this error. Note that the top edge of the knife past the tip is flat, not sharp or even tapered.

Over the years I’ve purchased a lot of good equipment (and some junk) from CTD, including a few knives, with no real issues. But a buddy recently forwarded me a strange email exchange with CTD customer service that has changed my view of the company. Gets into the realm of idiotic incompetence on CTD’s part. I’ll still buy there, but will shop around a lot more first.

Like me, this friend lives in Northern Virginia. When he tried to order the Glock Field Knife from CTD (their item number GLOCK-105), he got this message;

Because of restrictions imposed by local laws, some of the items in your cart can not be sold to you.

There was an icon next to the knife saying, “Can Not Ship.” He emailed customer service asking why. This was the first response;

I do apologize but due to state restrictions, we cannot ship GLOCK-105.

Ok, what state restrictions? Virginia isn’t known for being a nanny state. He emailed again asking what restrictions, “specifically.” The same CTD customer service agent responded;

I apologize but we will not be able to ship the item.

Vibe I’m getting reading the email exchange is that the customer service person is on autopilot and not really paying attention to what the customer is asking. Minimum wage, minimum effort, a little bit too much power for pay grade.

My buddy emails them back, asking again for the “specific Virginia law” that would prevent a Glock Field Knife from being shipped to him. He also did an experiment by adding a KaBar Fighting Knife (Glock blade profile is almost identical, just smaller). Guess what? The KaBar was fine, which he mentioned in the email. CTD response;

Please be advised of the restrictions for the state of Virgina below…

VIRGINIA
- Assisted-Opening Knives
- Daggers
- Throwing Knives
- Throwing Stars/Shuriken
- Starter (Blanks) Pistols
- Fuel Cans

Our system recognizes an issue with shipping the item you requested, so the system will not allow us to ship you the item. Check with your local law enforcement agency or the state legislator as we do not have detailed information on why an item is restricted.

The computer says it, so it must be true. Check the picture of the Glock Fighting Knife above – it’s none of the things on the list. They ignored his question about why the KaBar is ok but the Glock is not.

But thinking progress was being made because he has the list of wrong reasons, my buddy sends response spelling out that the knife is none of those things and asks that the error in the “system” be corrected. Pretty obvious solution. CTD customer service responds;

We apologize, but the item could be classified as a dagger. We create the restrictions based on our interpretation of the laws.

A Glock Field Knife is not a dagger. It seems the minim wage customer service agents are following their script. Buddy sends and email explaining that needs to be reevaluated since it is technically incorrect, suggests a manager get involved. CTD strikes again (bold mine);

I brought this to the attention of upper management and it may be completely legal in your state, but Cheaper Than Dirt made a business decision not to ship this item to you area. I do apologize but we will not be making any exceptions.

My experiment – went to CTD, added several knives, including the Glock Field Knife (w/o saw back, the one blocked), the version with a saw back, a KaBar, and an actual dagger. Keep in mind we live in the same area. My results;

Yeah, that’s right. Cheaper Than Dirt won’t ship a Glock Field Knife w/o saw back because their “business decision” says it’s a dagger. The saw back version is fine, as is an actual dagger.

This is a huge fail for Cheaper Than Dirt, no good excuse. They should be more careful about who they hire to interface with customers – I’d have been a lot less polite with the dolts at their customer service.