Tuesday, December 8, 2015

Yet Another Gun Bill

Barely noticed, the Democrats in the Senate pushed for a bill that would have banned terror suspects from buying guns. They claimed that over 5,000 terror suspects have legally bought guns in the US. Here are my thoughts on this.

Say What?: My first thought upon hearing this was, “There are 5,000 terror suspects in the US? WTF?!” If this is true, then I think we have a serious scandal that needs to be addressed. Either we are in serious mortal peril and our government is refusing to be straight with us... or the government’s list of “terror suspects” is incredibly out of whack with reality. In other words, either there is an army of ISIS-wannabes floating around in this country ready to kill us all, and I am forced to wonder why these people haven’t been rounded up... or I am forced to conclude that far too many harmless people are being declared terrorists. Neither option is a good one.

Sounds Reasonable: Putting aside that first thought, this bill actually sounds rather reasonable, doesn’t it? In fact, it sounds very much like how our laws should work. Rather than targeting all Americans, our laws should single out as best as possible only those who are likely to cause harm to others. Indeed, banning terror suspects and crazy people from owning guns makes sense. So why hasn’t the GOP jumped on these bills?

Well, therein lies the problem with the whole gun issue. The Democrats cannot be trusted with the details in these bills. In particular, the Democrats have a habit of trying to use exceptions to eat the rule. And giving this inch will allow them to take a mile by simply making the definition of “terrorist” incredibly broad. Don’t believe me? Ok, did you know that the laws passed after 9/11 (like the Patriot Act and its followers) which were meant to stop computer terrorism have largely become means for the recording industry of America to sue tens of thousands of average Americans over downloaded music. So giving them this will become a way for the Democrats to slowly increase the number of Americans banned from owning guns until few are left.

Momentum: The real reason the left is pushing this idea is the try to gain some momentum on an issue that is dead for them. At this point, a massacre barely gets the public thinking about guns, much less moves the needle on gun control. The issue is dead. Pure and simple. No one outside the far left wants to hear about gun control anymore. What the Democrats are hoping is that by getting this, they can make gun control respectable again by using this issue to start to build momentum and bit by bit take this issue off the DOA list and make it something acceptable to talk about again.

Pointless: As no doubt any thoughtful person can appreciate, even if this bill were passed in complete good faith and enforced earnestly, it would change nothing vis-à-vis terrorism. “Terrorism” in the US is largely the purview of fringe environmental groups who use letter bombs and arson as their weapon of choice. The few Islamic terrorist attacks we’ve had have involved bombs and knives. The only guys who have used guns have been the lone whackos who want to shoot up a college, and none of them appeared anywhere on any terrorist list. Put simply, this is a red herring.

Finally, let me repeat again: people who intend to violate our highest laws against cold blooded murder and Treason don’t care about breaking lesser laws in the process.



Kit said...

"Finally, let me repeat again: people who intend to violate our highest laws against cold blooded murder and Treason don’t care about breaking lesser laws in the process."


Critch said...

it's virtually impossible to have a conversation about guns with liberals. Most of them know zilch about guns and don't want to learn. They hate facts and figures; it's all about feelings. This shooting has only caused the people to focus on Muslims...not guns,,which is running the liberals bats*%t crazy.

Critch said...

BTW, I'm headed to St Louis for a week of training, I'm taking my trusty Glock 27 and 3 magazines..better safe than sorry. We're not being housed in a great part of the city.

tryanmax said...

Really quick, don't you mean "Bearly noticed"?

Sorry, it was just hanging there. I'll go read the article now.

tryanmax said...

All good points. Following the last several high-profile shootings, the left has had an absolute tantrum over guns, which really serves to prove that they're desperate just to get attention on the issue. If people were listening, they wouldn't have to scream. The public is starting to shift its attention toward mental health as the real issue. Anyone engaged in that conversation is automatically considered serious and sincere while anyone railing on about guns is starting to look like they're avoiding it.

Critch said...

Another attack in our country by Muslims and it might be the death knell of Moms Demand etc...already the gun shops in SoCal are inundated with people trying to buy guns and how to use them...this is SoCal.

I'm, mystified as to why the GOP/Dems can't figure out Donald Trump....he is saying what is on people's minds...demagoguery or not, people are wondering why we are letting thousands of Syrians in our country and there is no way to check them out..These bastards like Hillary, Harry Reid, Paul Ryan, et al live in gated communities and have guards around them 24/7, their kids go to private schools..they aren't the ones in danger..

tryanmax said...

Critch, too true. I know very little about guns myself, but my head wants to explode each time I hear them misuse, abuse, and make-up gun jargon that even I know is incorrect.

We all know how libs refer to virtually any weapon used in a shooting as an "assault weapon" regardless whether it is or not.

I'm always amused when reporters breathlessly report that the shooter had "hundreds" even "thousands" of rounds in their possession. When I was small enough to show my age on my fingers, I remember asking my dad how many bullets are in a round. Brushing semantics aside, my dad answered, "One." I assume the astonished reporters, Democrat pols, and everyone who believes them never bothered to ask that question and think as I did as a child that a round must be a whole bunch of bullets.

And now I have a new favorite term, I really wish I could credit it, but I didn't catch the name of the idiot who uttered this on the radio: "demi-automatic guns" That's right, with a D. It's impossible to take these people seriously when they have no clue what they're talking about.

tryanmax said...

Just a note on my last comment, for anyone who might not know, it's absolutely insignificant to have hundreds of rounds in ones possession. Even I know that ammo is usually packaged in boxes of 50 - 100. Anyone planning to use a gun in any capacity is going to have plenty of bullets on hand.

Kit said...

Kevin D. Williamson had a good take on the anti-gun push, by comparing it to prohibition, as local laws demanding people register or turn in their firearms have become largely unenforceable:

"Our new prohibitionists are a lot like the old ones. The nice corduroy-clad liberals in places such as Georgetown and the Upper West Side use guns as a stand-in for the sort of people who own guns in much the same way as the old WASP prohibitionists used booze as a stand-in for the sort of people who drank too much: Irish and other Catholics, especially immigrants, and especially especially poor immigrants. The horror at “gun culture” is about the culture — rural, conservative, traditionalist, patriotic, self-reliant or at least aspiring to self-reliance — much more than it is about the guns. It’s the same sort of dynamic that gets people worked up about Confederate flags or poor white people with diabetes who shop at Walmart."

Read more at: LINK

Kit said...


Why are you lumping Paul Ryan w/ Hillary and Reid on guns & Syran refugees considering Speaker Ryan has an A with the NRA and voted for a pause on the Syrian refugee program?

BevfromNYC said...

Re: gun toting panda (which is a bear) - maybe this is why they are having trouble breeding on their own...the guns.

Yeah the whole "demi-automatic" thing was from that Hollywood "Roads Scholar" Debra Messing.

If every single one of these anti-gun celebrities an politicians would publicly pledge and make good on that pledge their gun-toting body guards and gated community/behind the giant secure wall living arrangements, I might listen to what they have to say. But until they do (and that includes Obama and Clintons with their secret service and private planes provided by the taxpayers in perpetuity), I will not take seriously anything they say except to mock them mercilessly.

tryanmax said...

OT, but too hilarious not to share. Wendy Davis penned an article for Politico in which she laments her support of open carry in her failed gubernatorial bid. I didn't have to read more than one sentence to find a lie. Her opening: "I am a lifelong Democrat." One needs only to visit Wikipedia to find that's not true. Her Wikipedia page records that she was once a Republican and has the sources to back it.

Politicians and lies are not surprising, but Davis delivers beyond expectations with how she gets right to it!

Koshcat said...

Is the Gun Tottin' Panda the same panda as Sexual Harassment Panda?

Koshcat said...

I am sick and tired of hearing about innocent people dying from items made only to kill or hurt things. I am also sick of politicians hiding behind the constitution and being paid off by sleazy PACs. We, the people, demand action even if it means profiling and going house to house to remove these weapons of mass destruction. Other countries have much harsher penalties and it is a tragedy this country is so cowardly

Everyone, please join me by calling your congressman and tell them to stop listening to the NPBA! We must do this before another American dies from a Pipe Bomb. PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

BevfromNYC said...

Koshcat - What are you thinking?? Pipe bombs were not used in the recent attack in CA. They only had 12 and the makings for many more, but they didn't USE them, so it doesn't count. Please ignore this for the bigger issue. And they are not in the Constitution, so pipes, nails, C-4, e-switches, and all of those other common materials are perfectly legal to own forever especially if you are on the "I won't really use them, they are just coincidentally stuffed together in pipes in my garage" List. Or "Hey, I am Islamic, so leave me alone, you bigot" List.

Anthony said...

Guns are like drugs, plentiful and cheap, and if someone wants it they will get it no matter what the law says so control is utterly pointless. No amount of shootings will make gun control any less pointless or change the public's realization that gun control is futile.

Just as importantly, the Supreme Court has turned against gun control and now has struck down a lot of the stricter local gun control ordinances for infringing on the Second Amendment.

BevfromNYC said...

Anthony - Someone compared any 2nd Amendment repeal effort to Prohibition Amd/repeal and I think that it may be apt. The point is there are 300million legal guns and those are the ones that will be effected. Barring a house to house searh and seizure, this will have little to no effect on illegal guns in this country. Just like drug laws have little effect on people who die every day by overdoses and violence related to illegal drugs which includes illegal guns. Or illegal drinking by underage alcohol use.

We need to change our addiction to violent images in everything we create- film, videogames, music. I doubt anyone would notice if the entertainment industry dialed down on the violence they create every day.

Well, and then there's our entrenched idea that the diagnosed violent mentally ill should have the right to refuse treatment or supervision.

But that is just me.

BevfromNYC said...

FYI - I have a huge party tomorrow that I am doing, so I am not going to be able to prepare a post for tomorrow. BUT keep in going here.

Hey, what about Trump, huh?

Critch said...

I feel like Paul Ryan is getting watered down or something..I'm not sure....it's like they're taking over his mind..Anyway, I wasn't so much lumping him in on guns as much as I was on immigration.

Kit said...

"Anyway, I wasn't so much lumping him in on guns as much as I was on immigration."

Oh, ok.

re being watered down. I think this is the result of not having a strong plan in place, a list of clear-cut items to accomplish, as Gingrich did in 1995. Having a set of clear-cut goals was very important, I don't think he accomplished much more than half but having those benchmarks gave them a set destination and some sense of accomplishment when they were did achieve one.

Anthony said...


Trump's popularity among Republicans proves my longstanding theory that neither side has much of a commitment to the Constitution, they are both willing to interpret it very creatively or ignore it when it suits their ends.

Its pretty weird to see talking heads embracing comparisons to France's National Front and/or celebrating whatever half baked idea Trump pulls out of his butt.

While I'm not thrilled by the direction, its hard to argue its political effectiveness. As I observed to Andrew some time ago (one or two months?), the Republican party didn't really become popular until it became populist, abandoning Reagan and embracing Buchanan.

It will be interesting to see how Trump vs. Hillary goes. In the past I thought such a contest favored Hillary, but now I'm leaning towards a Trump victory.

The Democrats' tendency to worry more about the implications of terrorist attacks for Muslims rather than for national security is going to cost them.

Anthony said...

As for violent images, I don't think they are the problem. Well grounded people don't see a violent movie and go out and commit mayhem. Nutjobs looking for a reason to kill people will invariably find one.

On a related note, I doubt mental health will become a big public issue. Its too messy. Lock up dangerous insane people is easy to say, but hard to do. The system tends to punish people more for actions (often) or intentions (infrequent, but it happens sometimes, for aspiring terrorists/murders) but rarely for disposition.

The system as it current stands has its plate full tracking down more concrete criminals. Also, the haziness would cause public consensus to collapse quickly and each party would turn against it when one of their fashionable extremists was detained.

Let me give you two scenarios.

Scenario 1:

"This activist states anyone who works in the abortion industry is a murderer and deserves death. His statements indicate that he is dangerous and needs to be locked up!".

The left would cheer, the right would be incensed.

Scenario 2:

"This activist thinks that all cops are killers and that blacks should kill all cops before they kill them. His statements indicate that he is dangerous and needs to be locked up!".

The right would cheer, the left would be incensed.

The internet's tendency towards hyperbole and the fringes' love of said hyperbole would muddy the waters even more.

Critch said...

My state, Missouri has a little less than 6 million people, we spend 1.6 billion dollars a year on mental health, most of it is wasted on ineffective feel good treatments, overpriced drugs and crumbling facilities.

Post a Comment