bearingarms--2020-02-28--Dem Candidates Jump On Milwaukee To Push Gun Control

There ’ s not a single candidate for the Democratic nomination who doesn ’ t have some kind of gun control plan .
In fact , it seems like the more insane the plan , the better their overall shot with the base seems to be .
It really is something to behold .
Unsurprisingly , with a mass shooting taking place as the candidates are on the campaign trail , several have decided the bodies of those killed at the Molson Coors brewer in Milwaukee would sure make a handy soapbox to push their own personal gun-control agendas .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ this week at a televised CNN Town Hall in Charleston , South Carolina , on the day of a mass shooting at the Molson Coors brewery in Milwaukee .
The town hall comes days before the primary vote in South Carolina , as well as the Super Tuesday primary vote March 3 in Colorado .
“ I want to see us do the things that are obvious , ” Sen. Elizabeth Warren , D-Mass.
, said at the event , identifying universal background checks and “ getting assault rifles off the street.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in which a brewery employee killed five people before killing himself , happens all too often in public places like schools and movie theaters , such as the Aurora shooting .
“ We need to treat gun violence like the public health emergency that it is , ” Warren said .
Sen. Amy Klobuchar , D-Minn. , outlined specific policy goals to address gun violence at her town hall , including universal background checks and closing the “ Charleston loophole ” and the “ boyfriend loophole.
” Of course , there ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Milwaukee obtained his firearms without a background check .
In fact , most mass shooters seem to pass background checks .
That means universal background checks would do jack squat to curtail these shootings .
The killer used handguns .
The same is true for the vast majority of mass shooters .
In fact , while police have released the identity of the killer–we will not be sharing it , though , because we refuse to add to the notoriety these turdnuggets get–they haven ’ t released a whole pile of facts about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do know , there ’ s little reason to believe any of those “ loopholes ” contributed to him getting a firearm .
But then again , Warren and Klobuchar don ’ t actually care about any of that .
They don ’ t actually care about what happened in Milwaukee .
Oh , they ’ ll say they do .
They ’ ll say they care so hard and that all they want to do is pass laws to keep people safe , but that ’ s all a lie .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at least wait to see what the hell happened in the first place .
We know still have a lot of unanswered questions .
Meanwhile , we ’ ve got Warren pushing something ( assault weapon ban ) that clearly has no bearing on the shooting in question and even a semi-sentient tree stump should be able to see that .
The fact that Warren apparently can ’ t is particularly telling .
Yet this is what we ’ ve come to expect from the Democratic candidates .
Expect others to try to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

There’s not a single candidate for the Democratic nomination who doesn’t have some kind of gun control plan. In fact, it seems like the more insane the plan, the better their overall shot with the base seems to be. It really is something to behold.
Unsurprisingly, with a mass shooting taking place as the candidates are on the campaign trail, several have decided the bodies of those killed at the Molson Coors brewer in Milwaukee would sure make a handy soapbox to push their own personal gun-control agendas.
Democratic presidential candidates were peppered with questions this week at a televised CNN Town Hall in Charleston, South Carolina, on the day of a mass shooting at the Molson Coors brewery in Milwaukee. The town hall comes days before the primary vote in South Carolina, as well as the Super Tuesday primary vote March 3 in Colorado. “I want to see us do the things that are obvious,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., said at the event, identifying universal background checks and “getting assault rifles off the street.” Warren said the shooting Wednesday in Milwaukee, in which a brewery employee killed five people before killing himself, happens all too often in public places like schools and movie theaters, such as the Aurora shooting. “We need to treat gun violence like the public health emergency that it is,” Warren said. Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., outlined specific policy goals to address gun violence at her town hall, including universal background checks and closing the “Charleston loophole” and the “boyfriend loophole.”
Of course, there’s no indication that the killer in Milwaukee obtained his firearms without a background check. In fact, most mass shooters seem to pass background checks. That means universal background checks would do jack squat to curtail these shootings.
And so-called assault weapons? Honestly?
The killer used handguns. The same is true for the vast majority of mass shooters.
In fact, while police have released the identity of the killer–we will not be sharing it, though, because we refuse to add to the notoriety these turdnuggets get–they haven’t released a whole pile of facts about him. However, from what we do know, there’s little reason to believe any of those “loopholes” contributed to him getting a firearm.
But then again, Warren and Klobuchar don’t actually care about any of that. They don’t actually care about what happened in Milwaukee.
Oh, they’ll say they do. They’ll say they care so hard and that all they want to do is pass laws to keep people safe, but that’s all a lie. If they were serious, they’d at least wait to see what the hell happened in the first place. We know still have a lot of unanswered questions.
Meanwhile, we’ve got Warren pushing something (assault weapon ban) that clearly has no bearing on the shooting in question and even a semi-sentient tree stump should be able to see that. The fact that Warren apparently can’t is particularly telling.
Yet this is what we’ve come to expect from the Democratic candidates. Expect others to try to capitalize on the shooting soon as well.


bearingarms--2020-02-27--No, There Is No Gun Show Loophole

No, There Is No Gun Show Loophole

The phrase “ gun show loophole ” is meant to convey the idea that gun shows are rife with people buying and selling guns without a background check .
The clear implication is that such places are a hotbed of criminals trying to obtain firearms for use in their illegal activities .
Hell , many of the people who use the term even believe that such a loophole exists .
However , writing over at Ammoland , Florida gun rights activist Marion Hammer , notes that a recent Department of Justice study found that to not be the case at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ gun show loophole ” is just another manufactured anti-gun fraud .
There is NO GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE .
PERIOD .
In 2016 The U.S. Department of Justice conducted a study of prison inmates .
Included in that study was the collection of data to show where prisoners get the guns they used in the commission of crimes .
The DOJ Press Release explains how the study was conducted .
The Pie Chart of DOJ Data distills the information and makes the results more clear .
The full DOJ Report gives more detail @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of firearms acquired by criminals , while Underground/Street purchases accounted for 43.2 % Of course , this isn ’ t anything new .
We ’ ve known for quite some time that criminals get their guns on the black market .
In fact , just 10.1 percent obtained theirs from a retail source of any stripe .
Another 17.4 percent of criminals got their guns at the location of a crime , such as stealing it themselves , or from someone else who brought the gun , such as a partner .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ obtain their guns through some form of illegal means .
So , while anti-gunners continue to push for universal background checks to curb the tide of guns , it ’ s important to remember that most guns used by criminals aren ’ t subject to background checks .
Couple that with the 10.1 percent that passes background checks and you end up with almost 71 percent of guns used by criminals not being slowed down in the least by universal checks .
Additionally , the 25.3 percent of guns used by criminals that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a friend or relative .
In fact , 10.8 percent are bought for the prisoners .
In other words , they ’ re straw buys .
The rest usually comes from people who likely know the criminal ’ s status as a felon and sell , trade , or rent the gun anyway .
In other words , there ’ s little reason to believe universal background checks will do anything but make life more difficult for law-abiding citizens .
Either way , though , this does pretty conclusively prove that the “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t exist and even though face-to-face sales happen at gun shows , they ’ re not remotely the reason criminals have guns .
They ’ ve got them because they ’ re criminals and this is just what criminals do .
They get guns so they can break the law .
New laws won ’ t stop them , either .
You need to do something to get them to not want to commit crimes in the first place , and that ’ s not going to be accomplished with gun control laws @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rape control , and robbery control haven ’ t exactly slowed them down , so I don ’ t know what good gun control is ever going to be .

The phrase “gun show loophole” is meant to convey the idea that gun shows are rife with people buying and selling guns without a background check. The clear implication is that such places are a hotbed of criminals trying to obtain firearms for use in their illegal activities. Hell, many of the people who use the term even believe that such a loophole exists.
However, writing over at Ammoland, Florida gun rights activist Marion Hammer, notes that a recent Department of Justice study found that to not be the case at all.
Be aware: the so-called “gun show loophole” is just another manufactured anti-gun fraud. There is NO GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE. PERIOD. In 2016 The U.S. Department of Justice conducted a study of prison inmates. Included in that study was the collection of data to show where prisoners get the guns they used in the commission of crimes. The DOJ Press Release explains how the study was conducted. The Pie Chart of DOJ Data distills the information and makes the results more clear. The full DOJ Report gives more detail. THE BOTTOM LINE: Gun Shows accounted for 0.8% of firearms acquired by criminals, while Underground/Street purchases accounted for 43.2%
Of course, this isn’t anything new. We’ve known for quite some time that criminals get their guns on the black market. In fact, just 10.1 percent obtained theirs from a retail source of any stripe.
Another 17.4 percent of criminals got their guns at the location of a crime, such as stealing it themselves, or from someone else who brought the gun, such as a partner.
That’s more than 60 percent who obtain their guns through some form of illegal means.
So, while anti-gunners continue to push for universal background checks to curb the tide of guns, it’s important to remember that most guns used by criminals aren’t subject to background checks. Couple that with the 10.1 percent that passes background checks and you end up with almost 71 percent of guns used by criminals not being slowed down in the least by universal checks.
Additionally, the 25.3 percent of guns used by criminals that come from an individual are often from a friend or relative. In fact, 10.8 percent are bought for the prisoners. In other words, they’re straw buys. The rest usually comes from people who likely know the criminal’s status as a felon and sell, trade, or rent the gun anyway.
In other words, there’s little reason to believe universal background checks will do anything but make life more difficult for law-abiding citizens.
Either way, though, this does pretty conclusively prove that the “gun show loophole” simply doesn’t exist and even though face-to-face sales happen at gun shows, they’re not remotely the reason criminals have guns. They’ve got them because they’re criminals and this is just what criminals do. They get guns so they can break the law.
New laws won’t stop them, either. You need to do something to get them to not want to commit crimes in the first place, and that’s not going to be accomplished with gun control laws. After all, murder control, rape control, and robbery control haven’t exactly slowed them down, so I don’t know what good gun control is ever going to be.


bearingarms--2020-02-27--OK Senate Passes Bill Protecting 2A Rights Of Medical Marijuana Users

People who use medical marijuana often face a problem .
They can use this substance that will supposedly help them treat their illnesses , or they can protect their Second Amendment rights .
After all , the courts have ruled that medical marijuana users essentially forfeit their Second Amendment rights by using the controversial treatment .
Protecting those Second Amendment rights requires more than simply passing a medical marijuana law .
It needs something that specifically protects the gun rights of medical marijuana patients .
It requires something like the bill that just passed in the Oklahoma Senate .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Second Amendment rights of medical marijuana cardholders .
Senate Bill 959 , authored by Sen. Nathan Dahm clarifies that anyone authorized to use medical marijuana would also be allowed to have a concealed carry permit .
Even though Oklahoma is a constitutional carry state , some citizens may want a permit if they travel to other states that require them and offer reciprocity .
“ Our Second Amendment rights outlined in the United States Constitution are very clear – the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We can not discriminate against medical marijuana cardholders because of their personal medicinal decisions .
All Oklahomans should have their Second Amendment rights protected , and I ’ m glad my colleagues agree that we must uphold the Constitution.
” Current Oklahoma law precludes citizens from being eligible for a handgun license if they have any violation relating to illegal drug use or possession .
SB 959 would clarify that this prohibition does not apply for applicants or licensees in possession of a medical marijuana card .
The measure would make it illegal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a gun while under the influence of medical marijuana .
It ’ s an important step .
Frankly , I don ’ t even mind that it precludes people carrying or using a weapon while under the influence of medical marijuana , with one important caveat .
If someone uses a gun to defend their life on their own property , that should go out the window if it ’ s an otherwise justified shooting .
Being high and having a day at the range isn ’ t exactly a recipe for good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ While people high on pot aren ’ t usually violent , they are quite frequently stupid .
Stupid and guns don ’ t mix .
But no one should have to die because the law prevents them from acting in self-defense , either .
All in all , though , this measure is a step in the right direction .
If you ’ re going to allow marijuana to be sold , the rights of individuals engaging in such a lawful activity should be protected .
Particularly the Second Amendment rights of those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really need to take a good , long look at doing .
Otherwise , you face the potentiality of something like what happened in Hawaii not all that long ago .
There they demanded anyone with a gun permit and a medical marijuana card turn over their firearms .
That should never happen to anyone following state and local laws .
This bill seeks to prevent that , so let ’ s hope it passes completely and becomes law for the sake of folks in Oklahoma .

People who use medical marijuana often face a problem. They can use this substance that will supposedly help them treat their illnesses, or they can protect their Second Amendment rights. After all, the courts have ruled that medical marijuana users essentially forfeit their Second Amendment rights by using the controversial treatment.
Protecting those Second Amendment rights requires more than simply passing a medical marijuana law. It needs something that specifically protects the gun rights of medical marijuana patients.
It requires something like the bill that just passed in the Oklahoma Senate.
The full Senate voted unanimously Wednesday to protect the Second Amendment rights of medical marijuana cardholders. Senate Bill 959, authored by Sen. Nathan Dahm clarifies that anyone authorized to use medical marijuana would also be allowed to have a concealed carry permit. Even though Oklahoma is a constitutional carry state, some citizens may want a permit if they travel to other states that require them and offer reciprocity. “Our Second Amendment rights outlined in the United States Constitution are very clear – the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed,” Dahm said. “We cannot discriminate against medical marijuana cardholders because of their personal medicinal decisions. All Oklahomans should have their Second Amendment rights protected, and I’m glad my colleagues agree that we must uphold the Constitution.” Current Oklahoma law precludes citizens from being eligible for a handgun license if they have any violation relating to illegal drug use or possession. SB 959 would clarify that this prohibition does not apply for applicants or licensees in possession of a medical marijuana card. The measure would make it illegal for a person to carry or use a gun while under the influence of medical marijuana.
It’s an important step. Frankly, I don’t even mind that it precludes people carrying or using a weapon while under the influence of medical marijuana, with one important caveat. If someone uses a gun to defend their life on their own property, that should go out the window if it’s an otherwise justified shooting.
Being high and having a day at the range isn’t exactly a recipe for good judgment and we all know that. While people high on pot aren’t usually violent, they are quite frequently stupid. Stupid and guns don’t mix.
But no one should have to die because the law prevents them from acting in self-defense, either.
All in all, though, this measure is a step in the right direction. If you’re going to allow marijuana to be sold, the rights of individuals engaging in such a lawful activity should be protected. Particularly the Second Amendment rights of those individuals.
This is something other states really need to take a good, long look at doing. Otherwise, you face the potentiality of something like what happened in Hawaii not all that long ago. There they demanded anyone with a gun permit and a medical marijuana card turn over their firearms. That should never happen to anyone following state and local laws.
This bill seeks to prevent that, so let’s hope it passes completely and becomes law for the sake of folks in Oklahoma.


bearingarms--2020-02-27--Honolulu Police Chief Endorses Magazine Ban And More

Hawaii already has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation , but there ’ s no such thing as too much gun control for some folks .
That would include Honolulu police chief Susan Ballard , who held a press conference to push for the passage of several new anti-gun bills in the state legislature , including a ban on ammunition magazines that can accept more than ten rounds .
According to Hawaii News Now , Hanel may have illegally obtained the firearm used in the killing , but Ballard is pushing for laws that would impact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far more than those prohibited from possessing a firearm .
From NRA-ILA : Senate Bill 2519 SB 1 prohibits the manufacture , possession , sale , barter , trade , gift , transfer , or acquisition of magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds .
Magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds acquired prior to the specified date must be registered with the county , similar to firearms .
The registered magazines will be prohibited from any transfer other than inheritance .
These so called “ high capacity ” magazines are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that many Americans legally and effectively use for an entire range of legitimate purposes , such as self-defense or competition .
The bill recognizes the utility of these magazines by carving out an exemption for law enforcement , but will still violate the rights of ordinary citizens .
Just last year , a 9th Circuit opinion ruled that California ’ s ban on standard capacity magazines was unconstitutional in Duncan v. Becerra , currently under appeal .
Senate Bill 2635 SB 1 restricts ammunition purchases to those with a valid permit to purchase @ @ @ @ @ @ @ affidavit , or hunter education card .
It further restricts possession of ammunition for firearms owned by another and requires licensing for ammunition sellers .
Criminals will , of course , simply sidestep these new regulations , while law-abiding gun owners and business owners will be forced to bear the burden of more regulation .
So not only is are anti-gun lawmakers in the state pushing for a magazine ban , they ’ re pushing for a ban that is likely to be ruled unconstitutional , as California ’ s magazine ban was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case is currently on appeal in the 9th Circuit ) .
The only difference between California ’ s ban and Hawaii ’ s proposed magazine ban is the grandfathering of existing magazines as long as they ’ re registered .
And honestly , I ’ m not sure how you register a magazine , given that they don ’ t have serial numbers on them .
SB2635 , meanwhile , would attempt to put in place an ammunition licensing system of sorts , and the restrictions on possessing ammunition for firearms that aren @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( much like many of Hawaii ’ s other gun control laws ) .
Honolulu has long been one of the most hostile cities to the Second Amendment in the entire country .
It wasn ’ t long ago that the police chief sent out letters to medical marijuana patients who were also registered gun owners telling them that their firearms would be confiscated .
Ultimately , after a backlash , Ballard relented , but the department is still not issuing or renewing firearms licenses to those who use medical marijuana .
So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun controls really isn ’ t a surprise , but it is a real shame .
Instead of standing on the side of the Constitution she swore an oath to protect and defend , she ’ s backing bans on commonly possessed arms and backdoor registration schemes that will weaken their constitutional rights instead of bolstering their personal safety .

Hawaii already has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation, but there’s no such thing as too much gun control for some folks. That would include Honolulu police chief Susan Ballard, who held a press conference to push for the passage of several new anti-gun bills in the state legislature, including a ban on ammunition magazines that can accept more than ten rounds.
“We’re asking them to please, please pass these bills, for law enforcement, for all of our public safety, for the safety of our officers, for the safety of our community,” Ballard said at a press conference Wednesday morning that included Jim Howe, Director of Emergency Services. Both addressed the growing dangers they face entering crime scenes and connected the new measures to the murder of several people on January 19, when Honolulu Police Officers Tiffany Enriquez and Kaulike Kalama were gunned down in a Diamond Head neighborhood. Jerry Hanel killed his landlord, Lois Cain, then ambushed the responding police officers, before setting the home on fire. Hanel, 69, was not supposed to have access to a rifle, because he had temporary restraining orders filed on him by neighbors and police had previously sent him to get a mental health evaluation.
According to Hawaii News Now, Hanel may have illegally obtained the firearm used in the killing, but Ballard is pushing for laws that would impact the state’s legal gun owners far more than those prohibited from possessing a firearm. From NRA-ILA:
Senate Bill 2519 SB 1 prohibits the manufacture, possession, sale, barter, trade, gift, transfer, or acquisition of magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds. Magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds acquired prior to the specified date must be registered with the county, similar to firearms. The registered magazines will be prohibited from any transfer other than inheritance. These so called “high capacity” magazines are in fact standard equipment for commonly-owned firearms that many Americans legally and effectively use for an entire range of legitimate purposes, such as self-defense or competition. The bill recognizes the utility of these magazines by carving out an exemption for law enforcement, but will still violate the rights of ordinary citizens. Just last year, a 9th Circuit opinion ruled that California’s ban on standard capacity magazines was unconstitutional in Duncan v. Becerra, currently under appeal. Senate Bill 2635 SB 1 restricts ammunition purchases to those with a valid permit to purchase a firearm, a handgun safety training affidavit, or hunter education card. It further restricts possession of ammunition for firearms owned by another and requires licensing for ammunition sellers. Criminals will, of course, simply sidestep these new regulations, while law-abiding gun owners and business owners will be forced to bear the burden of more regulation.
So not only is are anti-gun lawmakers in the state pushing for a magazine ban, they’re pushing for a ban that is likely to be ruled unconstitutional, as California’s magazine ban was (though as NRA-ILA notes, the case is currently on appeal in the 9th Circuit). The only difference between California’s ban and Hawaii’s proposed magazine ban is the grandfathering of existing magazines as long as they’re registered. And honestly, I’m not sure how you register a magazine, given that they don’t have serial numbers on them.
SB2635, meanwhile, would attempt to put in place an ammunition licensing system of sorts, and the restrictions on possessing ammunition for firearms that aren’t registered to you is bizarre (much like many of Hawaii’s other gun control laws).
Honolulu has long been one of the most hostile cities to the Second Amendment in the entire country. It wasn’t long ago that the police chief sent out letters to medical marijuana patients who were also registered gun owners telling them that their firearms would be confiscated. Ultimately, after a backlash, Ballard relented, but the department is still not issuing or renewing firearms licenses to those who use medical marijuana.
So, Ballard’s support for these gun controls really isn’t a surprise, but it is a real shame. Instead of standing on the side of the Constitution she swore an oath to protect and defend, she’s backing bans on commonly possessed arms and backdoor registration schemes that will weaken their constitutional rights instead of bolstering their personal safety.


bearingarms--2020-02-27--Kansas Lawmaker Proposes "Privilege" Tax On Guns, Ammo

Kansas is a very pro-gun state .
In fact , they don ’ t really get the credit they deserve for just how pro-gun they really are .
Hell , the entire state is a Second Amendment sanctuary and has been so since before the current sanctuary push .
They ’ re not fans of gun control , by and large .
That doesn ’ t mean some folks aren ’ t , though .
Oh no , the state has its share of anti-gun zealots as well .
In fact , at least one got elected to public office @ @ @ @ @ @ @ push a rather insane measure .
Rep. Jerry Stogsdill ( D-Prairie Village ) introduced a bill in the Kansas legislature that would impose a 5 % privilege tax on the sale of guns and ammunition in the state .
Law enforcement and the military would be exempt .
HB2635 says revenue from the new tax would be used for mental health services : “ There is hereby established the residential mental health treatment fund in the state treasury .
The secretary of the Kansas department for aging and disability services shall administer the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ credited to the residential mental health treatment fund shall only be expended or transferred for providing residential mental health treatment .
Expenditures from such fund shall be made in accordance with appropriation acts upon warrants of the director of accounts and reports issued pursuant to vouchers approved by the secretary of the Kansas department for aging and disability services , or the secretary ’ s designee , ” the bill reads .
So he wants to tax guns and ammo in order to pay for mental health treatment .
Of course , there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doing this .
You see , Stogsdill probably understands that people see taxes on something to pay for something else usually means those things are linked .
Taxes on cigarettes in order to help pay for anti-smoking advertisements , for example , or using a gas tax to help pay for road maintenance .
He ’ s trying to link the idea of guns and mental illness , in part as a way of dissuading people from becoming gun owners .
It wasn ’ t the only anti-gun measure Stogsdill is trying to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ friend Patrick Richardson also notes : Stogsdill introduced another bill , HB2636 , that would make “ possessing , manufacturing , causing to be manufactured , selling , offering for sale , lending , purchasing or giving away any large-capacity ammunition magazine designed for use with a handgun whether the person knows or has reason to know the size of the magazine , ” criminal use of a weapon .
What constitutes a “ large capacity magazine ” is not defined other than , “ ‘ Large capacity ammunition magazine ’ means an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the bottom of the grip of a handgun when fully seated into such handgun.
” Honestly , that ’ s the dumbest definition I ’ ve yet seen .
An extended magazine for a subcompact firearm may only hold seven or eight rounds while a standard capacity magazine for a Glock 19 is 15 rounds , yet guess which one would be banned under Stogsdill ’ s plan ?
There is a silver lining , though .
In Kansas , there ’ s not a hope in hell of either of these measures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much less passing to become law in the state .
Still , it ’ s important to make note of these proposals .
Stogsdill knows they won ’ t pass .
However , he can use these bills as a way to gauge gun control support in the legislature and , by extension , the state .
That ’ s why it ’ s important that these proposals get slapped down and slapped down hard .
Luckily , I don ’ t think that will be a problem .

Kansas is a very pro-gun state. In fact, they don’t really get the credit they deserve for just how pro-gun they really are. Hell, the entire state is a Second Amendment sanctuary and has been so since before the current sanctuary push. They’re not fans of gun control, by and large.
That doesn’t mean some folks aren’t, though. Oh no, the state has its share of anti-gun zealots as well.
In fact, at least one got elected to public office in the state and is trying to push a rather insane measure.
Rep. Jerry Stogsdill (D-Prairie Village) introduced a bill in the Kansas legislature that would impose a 5% privilege tax on the sale of guns and ammunition in the state. Law enforcement and the military would be exempt. HB2635 says revenue from the new tax would be used for mental health services: “There is hereby established the residential mental health treatment fund in the state treasury. The secretary of the Kansas department for aging and disability services shall administer the residential mental health treatment fund. Moneys credited to the residential mental health treatment fund shall only be expended or transferred for providing residential mental health treatment. Expenditures from such fund shall be made in accordance with appropriation acts upon warrants of the director of accounts and reports issued pursuant to vouchers approved by the secretary of the Kansas department for aging and disability services, or the secretary’s designee,” the bill reads.
So he wants to tax guns and ammo in order to pay for mental health treatment.
Of course, there’s a reason he’s doing this. You see, Stogsdill probably understands that people see taxes on something to pay for something else usually means those things are linked. Taxes on cigarettes in order to help pay for anti-smoking advertisements, for example, or using a gas tax to help pay for road maintenance.
He’s trying to link the idea of guns and mental illness, in part as a way of dissuading people from becoming gun owners.
It wasn’t the only anti-gun measure Stogsdill is trying to push, either. As my good friend Patrick Richardson also notes:
Stogsdill introduced another bill, HB2636, that would make “possessing, manufacturing, causing to be manufactured, selling, offering for sale, lending, purchasing or giving away any large-capacity ammunition magazine designed for use with a handgun whether the person knows or has reason to know the size of the magazine,” criminal use of a weapon. What constitutes a “large capacity magazine” is not defined other than, “‘Large capacity ammunition magazine’ means an ammunition feeding device that physically extends below the bottom of the grip of a handgun when fully seated into such handgun.”
Honestly, that’s the dumbest definition I’ve yet seen. An extended magazine for a subcompact firearm may only hold seven or eight rounds while a standard capacity magazine for a Glock 19 is 15 rounds, yet guess which one would be banned under Stogsdill’s plan?
There is a silver lining, though.
In Kansas, there’s not a hope in hell of either of these measures even making it out of committee, much less passing to become law in the state. Still, it’s important to make note of these proposals.
Stogsdill knows they won’t pass. However, he can use these bills as a way to gauge gun control support in the legislature and, by extension, the state. That’s why it’s important that these proposals get slapped down and slapped down hard.
Luckily, I don’t think that will be a problem.


bearingarms--2020-02-27--Media Blasts Florida For Not Being Reactionary

The Parkland Massacre is easily the defining moment for gun control in recent years .
It marked a stark turning point in the battle for our gun rights .
Rather than the string of victories we had been achieving , we suddenly found ourselves on our heels , fighting just to stay alive .
Now , things have settled down a good bit and sanity is slowly returning to the gun debate .
Most people are starting to realize that maybe gun control isn ’ t the solution they ’ re looking for .
Many states didn ’ t wait @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an instant , quickly passing sweeping gun control bills into law and have continued to do so .
One state that initially reacted took a step back and recognized that more gun control wasn ’ t likely to help .
That state happened to be the same state in which Parkland resides .
Now , the media is criticizing Florida for not being reactionary .
For people like Daley , the problem is simply that people didn ’ t stay sad and angry long enough .
They calmed down and remembered that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shooting .
A turdnugget who never should have been in that school in the first place was responsible for that shooting .
They took a step back and figured they ’ d done enough damage to Floridians ’ civil rights and opted not to get stupid .
Further , the laws passed in the aftermath all more or less were inspired by the events of Parkland ; a red flag law because the shooter gave off a lot of red flags , an age limit to buy long guns since the killer was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Once those measures passed , even many of those who stood by those measures probably felt they ’ d addressed what needed to be addressed .
Yet understand that while anti-gun jihadists will routinely argue a mass shooting warrants gun control , they never want to stop at just those handful of measures .
No , they want to keep on going and going .
Keep in mind that Brady , for example , grades states each year and only California has an “ A ” rating , and they only have an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state with horrible gun rights–is a “ B.
” It ’ s never enough .
What they want is more and more restrictions on our right to keep and bear arms .
If it was just about addressing what they say are the causes of mass shootings , Florida should serve as a textbook example to them .
The fact that it ’ s not , that they ’ re blasting Florida for not continuing with reactionary anti-gun measures , proves that they ’ re lying when they claim they just want a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ laws .
No , they want them all .
Meanwhile , I ’ ll continue to maintain that the Florida laws didn ’ t accomplish anything and need to be repealed .
But I try not to let black swan events dictate my politics , either .

The Parkland Massacre is easily the defining moment for gun control in recent years. It marked a stark turning point in the battle for our gun rights. Rather than the string of victories we had been achieving, we suddenly found ourselves on our heels, fighting just to stay alive.
Now, things have settled down a good bit and sanity is slowly returning to the gun debate. Most people are starting to realize that maybe gun control isn’t the solution they’re looking for.
Many states didn’t wait for such sanity. They reacted in an instant, quickly passing sweeping gun control bills into law and have continued to do so.
One state that initially reacted took a step back and recognized that more gun control wasn’t likely to help. That state happened to be the same state in which Parkland resides.
Now, the media is criticizing Florida for not being reactionary.
Florida legislators couldn’t pass through the Capitol rotunda earlier this month without seeing six oversized portraits of grief wrought by gun violence. That’s what state Rep. Dan Daley, Democrat of Coral Springs, wanted when he arranged for the interactive exhibit that was on display Feb. 7-14. It tells personal stories of the Feb. 14, 2018, mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland. Daley is a Douglas graduate. The casualties of that Valentine’s Day impelled him to seek a House seat. Unopposed, he won his special election on Feb. 14, 2019. “I took it as a sign, a pretty powerful sign,” says Daley, formerly a commissioner in Coral Springs, in Broward County. Gun control remains his top priority. Unfortunately for Daley and his cause, the Parkland tragedy already had its biggest day in Tallahassee. The March for Our Lives movement started with impassioned students, led by Parkland survivors, flooding the Capitol; only a few moderately progressive laws emerged from the 2018 session, followed by National Rifle Association-supported legislation. “There was a narrow window,” says Keith Donner, a longtime Florida political consultant. “They passed some measures, which is remarkable,” considering the fraught history of gun control in the state. Now, with Parkland momentum gone and elections looming, “it’s business as usual, and that means there’s zilch appetite on the part of the Republicans to do anything,” Donner says. Republicans control the Senate, House and governor’s mansion.
For people like Daley, the problem is simply that people didn’t stay sad and angry long enough. They calmed down and remembered that the gun wasn’t responsible for the shooting. A turdnugget who never should have been in that school in the first place was responsible for that shooting.
They took a step back and figured they’d done enough damage to Floridians’ civil rights and opted not to get stupid.
Further, the laws passed in the aftermath all more or less were inspired by the events of Parkland; a red flag law because the shooter gave off a lot of red flags, an age limit to buy long guns since the killer was just 19-years-old, things like that. Once those measures passed, even many of those who stood by those measures probably felt they’d addressed what needed to be addressed.
Yet understand that while anti-gun jihadists will routinely argue a mass shooting warrants gun control, they never want to stop at just those handful of measures. No, they want to keep on going and going. Keep in mind that Brady, for example, grades states each year and only California has an “A” rating, and they only have an “A-” while states like Illinois–a state with horrible gun rights–is a “B.”
It’s never enough. What they want is more and more restrictions on our right to keep and bear arms.
If it was just about addressing what they say are the causes of mass shootings, Florida should serve as a textbook example to them. The fact that it’s not, that they’re blasting Florida for not continuing with reactionary anti-gun measures, proves that they’re lying when they claim they just want a few “common sense” gun control laws.
No, they want them all.
Meanwhile, I’ll continue to maintain that the Florida laws didn’t accomplish anything and need to be repealed. But I try not to let black swan events dictate my politics, either.


bearingarms--2020-02-27--What We Know About Milwaukee Shooting

What We Know About Milwaukee Shooting

Wednesday afternoon ’ s shooting at a Molson Coors brewery in Milwaukee , WI is just the latest in a long history of mass shootings .
As it was breaking news , a lot of the information I shared last night was preliminary , which means it ’ s all subject to change .
Situations like mass shootings are very confusing and the facts get misreported all the time .
That seems to , at least , be the case with last night .
The reports I had indicated that at least six people were killed and there were no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That changed overnight .
The inclusion of a single suppressor is odd .
First , if you have two handguns , one isn ’ t suppressed .
The moment you fire that weapon , you ’ ve killed any advantage you gained with having a suppressed weapon .
It just doesn ’ t make a lot of sense .
This will undoubtedly lead to calls to further restrict suppressor ownership .
However , it should be noted that the weapons were handguns , not the assault weapons that some people generally assume @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They ’ re not , of course , and this is another data point that proves that .
While we don ’ t know the identity of the shooter , that ’ s fine .
I don ’ t want to know his name .
What we do know , though , is that he was an employee of the brewery .
We also know that the victims were all found in the same building of the brewery complex .
The company did not identify the 51-year-old shooter , but said he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the sprawling facility .
It did not provide details on a possible motive for the shooting Wednesday or the identities of the victims , pending family notification .
All the people killed are Molson Coors employees , and were found in the same building , police said .
Of course , there will still be a ton of questions to be answered .
We don ’ t know why this person did something like this .
Even if we did , it likely wouldn ’ t make sense to us , but even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this would be useful information .
We also don ’ t know anything about the man ’ s background , something which might provide hints as to what might have led to this kind of an act .
We here at Bearing Arms will be following this story as it develops .

Wednesday afternoon’s shooting at a Molson Coors brewery in Milwaukee, WI is just the latest in a long history of mass shootings. As it was breaking news, a lot of the information I shared last night was preliminary, which means it’s all subject to change. Situations like mass shootings are very confusing and the facts get misreported all the time.
That seems to, at least, be the case with last night.
The reports I had indicated that at least six people were killed and there were no mentions of the gunman’s identity. That changed overnight.
The five victims were all employees of Molson Coors Beverage Co., which was renamed from MillerCoors in 2019. Authorities have not released their names. “There were five individuals who went to work today, just like everybody goes to work, and they thought they were going to go to work, finish their day and return to their families. They didn’t – and tragically they never will,” Barrett said. On Wednesday night, Morales told reporters to respect the privacy of the victims’ families and allow them to grieve for their lost loved ones. “There’s family coming in from out of town,” the police chief said. Who was the gunman? Police have not released his name, saying only that he was a 51-year-old brewery employee. He died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound, Morales said. … What type of gun was used in the attack? The Journal Sentinel, citing a police source, said the shooter was armed with two handguns, including one with a silencer. The make and model of the weapons, however, remained unknown early Thursday. Silencers or suppressors are legal in 42 states, including Wisconsin, but must be registered under the National Firearms Act. According to the latest federal report, more than 29,000 were registered in the Badger State, the Journal Sentinel reported.
The inclusion of a single suppressor is odd. First, if you have two handguns, one isn’t suppressed. The moment you fire that weapon, you’ve killed any advantage you gained with having a suppressed weapon. It just doesn’t make a lot of sense.
This will undoubtedly lead to calls to further restrict suppressor ownership.
However, it should be noted that the weapons were handguns, not the assault weapons that some people generally assume are the preferred choice for mass shooters. They’re not, of course, and this is another data point that proves that.
While we don’t know the identity of the shooter, that’s fine. I don’t want to know his name. What we do know, though, is that he was an employee of the brewery.
We also know that the victims were all found in the same building of the brewery complex.
The company did not identify the 51-year-old shooter, but said he was an “active” employee at the sprawling facility. It did not provide details on a possible motive for the shooting Wednesday or the identities of the victims, pending family notification. All the people killed are Molson Coors employees, and were found in the same building, police said.
Of course, there will still be a ton of questions to be answered. We don’t know why this person did something like this. Even if we did, it likely wouldn’t make sense to us, but even an answer to what triggered something like this would be useful information. We also don’t know anything about the man’s background, something which might provide hints as to what might have led to this kind of an act.
We here at Bearing Arms will be following this story as it develops.


bearingarms--2020-02-26--Breaking: Six Killed In Milwaukee Mass Shooting

Mass shootings may not be the everyday occurrence some like to paint them as , but they ’ re still tragically common .
Even one in a given year is way too many .
Further , the list of cities impacted is surprisingly diverse .
From Dayton , Ohio to El Paso , Texas , cities of all stripe have played host to these grizzly events .
Now , unfortunately , we have to add Milwaukee , Wisconsin to the list .
In one of the worst shootings in Wisconsin history , six people were killed during a shooting rampage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Wednesday afternoon , according to multiple sources who spoke to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel .
The gunman also was killed , bringing the total of known dead so far to seven .
It ’ s unclear whether more may have been injured or killed .
“ There are multiple people who have died , I believe including the shooter , ” Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett told reporters in a short briefing before 5 p.m. Barrett said the situation is “ fluid ” but that law enforcement had “ pinpointed a building ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the building .
“ The vile and heinous deadly violence that was perpetrated at the brewery complex today has no place in our society and makes no sense , ” Ald .
Russell Stamper said in a statement .
“ The cold disregard for human lives and the lack of value for human life that was shown must be categorically denounced across Milwaukee , across Wisconsin and throughout our nation.
” Employees were notified by email that an active shooter was in or near the second-floor stairwell of the sprawling factory ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2:11 p.m. Milwaukee police said in a Tweet at 4:37 p.m. that there was “ no active threat.
” As is usual in situations like this , the information we ’ re getting is fluid .
The death toll may well increase over the next several hours as new information comes in .
At this point , we know nothing about the killer or the kind of weapon he used .
Undoubtedly , we ’ ll be learning more about that as more information becomes available in the days to come .
What @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , is the motive .
Far too often , shootings like this happen and we have no idea why ; no inkling of what possessed someone to take a firearm and kill people indiscriminately .
We generally don ’ t know what kind of thing sets someone off like this .
It ’ s just not something we routinely get to understand .
Not that you can really understand something like this .
Something like this isn ’ t really comprehensible for most of us .
Nothing in the world really helps make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at Bearing Arms , we will be keeping an eye on updates as they become available .
Especially since history tells us that what happened today will play a factor in Wisconsin politics in the near future .
Now ’ s not really the time for that , though .
Right now , six families are reeling from the loss of their loved one while another tried to deal with grief while also wondering just what happened to their family member to make them want to do something like this .

Mass shootings may not be the everyday occurrence some like to paint them as, but they’re still tragically common. Even one in a given year is way too many.
Further, the list of cities impacted is surprisingly diverse. From Dayton, Ohio to El Paso, Texas, cities of all stripe have played host to these grizzly events.
Now, unfortunately, we have to add Milwaukee, Wisconsin to the list.
In one of the worst shootings in Wisconsin history, six people were killed during a shooting rampage on the Milwaukee campus of Molson Coors on Wednesday afternoon, according to multiple sources who spoke to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. The gunman also was killed, bringing the total of known dead so far to seven. It’s unclear whether more may have been injured or killed. “There are multiple people who have died, I believe including the shooter,” Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett told reporters in a short briefing before 5 p.m. Barrett said the situation is “fluid” but that law enforcement had “pinpointed a building” of interest and were performing a sweep of the building. “The vile and heinous deadly violence that was perpetrated at the brewery complex today has no place in our society and makes no sense,” Ald. Russell Stamper said in a statement. “The cold disregard for human lives and the lack of value for human life that was shown must be categorically denounced across Milwaukee, across Wisconsin and throughout our nation.” Employees were notified by email that an active shooter was in or near the second-floor stairwell of the sprawling factory’s Building 4. Police responded at 2:11 p.m. Milwaukee police said in a Tweet at 4:37 p.m. that there was “no active threat.”
As is usual in situations like this, the information we’re getting is fluid. The death toll may well increase over the next several hours as new information comes in.
At this point, we know nothing about the killer or the kind of weapon he used. Undoubtedly, we’ll be learning more about that as more information becomes available in the days to come.
What we may not learn about, unfortunately, is the motive. Far too often, shootings like this happen and we have no idea why; no inkling of what possessed someone to take a firearm and kill people indiscriminately. We generally don’t know what kind of thing sets someone off like this. It’s just not something we routinely get to understand.
Not that you can really understand something like this. Something like this isn’t really comprehensible for most of us. Nothing in the world really helps make sense of something like this.
Here at Bearing Arms, we will be keeping an eye on updates as they become available. Especially since history tells us that what happened today will play a factor in Wisconsin politics in the near future. Now’s not really the time for that, though. Right now, six families are reeling from the loss of their loved one while another tried to deal with grief while also wondering just what happened to their family member to make them want to do something like this.


bearingarms--2020-02-26--Second Man Sentenced In Boston Guns-For-Drugs Case

One artifact of the American system of government is how different laws can be from one state to another .
In most other countries , the laws at least seem to be somewhat universal .
We , however , don ’ t like the federal government stepping in if we can help it .
Instead , we tend to have broad disparities in what ’ s permitted and what isn ’ t from state to state .
Because of that disparity , there will always be some who take guns from one state and into another where there are more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ low spots , ” after all .
Yet if gun control worked as advertised , that wouldn ’ t be the case .
Too bad for anti-gun jihadists that it doesn ’ t , though .
Criminals will always find a way to get guns .
Under a plea deal , Darwin “ Weezy ” Medina , 35 , pleaded guilty to conspiring to sell drugs and possess weapons .
In exchange , prosecutors dropped additional charges of possessing firearms in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime and interstate transportation of firearms with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ avoiding a potential life sentence .
Officials say from at least September 2017 through March 2018 , Medina and another man , John Guerrero , who said they were part of the Latin Kings street gang , were part of a drugs for guns pipeline into Franklin County , Vermont .
Investigators say Medina brought crack cocaine to Vermont and then sold it to Franklin County customers in exchange for guns intended for use in a “ war ” in Boston .
They say at least 30 guns were exchanged .
Medina was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Yet the important thing to understand is that they were buying guns in Vermont , which had fewer restrictions and then transporting them into Massachusetts where there are more regulations .
“ Stronger federal gun laws would have prevented this , ” someone will likely say .
However , I ’ d like to point out that these turdnuggets were being paid in drugs .
I hate to break it to you , but we already have a total ban on cocaine here in the United States .
If laws worked so well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ d work equally well to keep out drugs .
How has that worked out for the United States over the decades ?
Criminals , by definition , break the law .
It ’ s what they do .
Breaking another law isn ’ t really a big deal for them , in and of itself .
They probably don ’ t even care all that much except in how it can impact their bottom lines .
If gun control worked as advertised , though , there wouldn ’ t be guns coming in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gun trafficking is illegal , after all .
It ’ s already against the law .
Yet here we are , looking at how it happened in Boston , one of the more gun controlled cities in the nation .
It ’ s like those laws don ’ t really even matter .
Really , though , they do .
They keep law-abiding people from being able to conduct certain actions that would be legal with pretty much any other lawful product .
Trading a car in Boston for some cans of vegetables @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Not an issue .
Trading a car from drugs would only be an issue because you were getting an unlawful product .
Yet buy guns and take them somewhere else for trade and you ’ ve now committed a felony .
Good job .
I ’ m not saying these were choir boys or anything .
Far from it .
I ’ m just saying that clearly , the laws didn ’ t accomplish a damn thing , otherwise we wouldn ’ t have this example .

One artifact of the American system of government is how different laws can be from one state to another. In most other countries, the laws at least seem to be somewhat universal. We, however, don’t like the federal government stepping in if we can help it. Instead, we tend to have broad disparities in what’s permitted and what isn’t from state to state.
Because of that disparity, there will always be some who take guns from one state and into another where there are more restrictions. Guns always find the “low spots,” after all.
Yet if gun control worked as advertised, that wouldn’t be the case. Too bad for anti-gun jihadists that it doesn’t, though. Criminals will always find a way to get guns.
Under a plea deal, Darwin “Weezy” Medina, 35, pleaded guilty to conspiring to sell drugs and possess weapons. In exchange, prosecutors dropped additional charges of possessing firearms in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime and interstate transportation of firearms with altered or obliterated serial numbers, thereby avoiding a potential life sentence. … Officials say from at least September 2017 through March 2018, Medina and another man, John Guerrero, who said they were part of the Latin Kings street gang, were part of a drugs for guns pipeline into Franklin County, Vermont. Investigators say Medina brought crack cocaine to Vermont and then sold it to Franklin County customers in exchange for guns intended for use in a “war” in Boston. They say at least 30 guns were exchanged.
Medina was sentenced to 11 years in prison.
Yet the important thing to understand is that they were buying guns in Vermont, which had fewer restrictions and then transporting them into Massachusetts where there are more regulations.
“Stronger federal gun laws would have prevented this,” someone will likely say. However, I’d like to point out that these turdnuggets were being paid in drugs. I hate to break it to you, but we already have a total ban on cocaine here in the United States. If laws worked so well to keep out guns, they’d work equally well to keep out drugs.
How has that worked out for the United States over the decades?
Criminals, by definition, break the law. It’s what they do. Breaking another law isn’t really a big deal for them, in and of itself. They probably don’t even care all that much except in how it can impact their bottom lines.
If gun control worked as advertised, though, there wouldn’t be guns coming in from Vermont in the first place. Gun trafficking is illegal, after all. It’s already against the law. Yet here we are, looking at how it happened in Boston, one of the more gun controlled cities in the nation. It’s like those laws don’t really even matter.
Really, though, they do. They keep law-abiding people from being able to conduct certain actions that would be legal with pretty much any other lawful product. Trading a car in Boston for some cans of vegetables to sell to folks in Vermont? Not an issue. Trading a car from drugs would only be an issue because you were getting an unlawful product.
Yet buy guns and take them somewhere else for trade and you’ve now committed a felony. Good job.
I’m not saying these were choir boys or anything. Far from it.
I’m just saying that clearly, the laws didn’t accomplish a damn thing, otherwise we wouldn’t have this example.


bearingarms--2020-02-26--Muddling Of Facts On Destroying NH Guns Might Be Intentional

Used guns are a good thing for people who want or need a firearm but have a limited budget .
After all , you can often get a quality firearm for a very reasonable price .
Plus , unlike cars , guns don ’ t tend to get a lot of wear and tear from one owner to the next .
Many used guns come from people selling unwanted firearms or trading in for something they want more .
However , many other used guns come from law enforcement .
Either they ’ re confiscated from criminals or they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t want them anymore .
It ’ s a good way to supplement a department ’ s budget and provides guns for the economically disadvantaged .
In fact , some places require many of these guns to be sold back to the public .
A New Hampshire bill , however , wants to make it so departments can destroy firearms instead .
In particular , those voluntarily turned in and that were never used in any crime .
Surrounding the measure , however , is a bit of confusion .
New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to destroy weapons voluntarily surrendered by the public .
Rep. Renny Cushing told a House committee Tuesday he wants to repeal that law to prevent the sale of guns used in homicides .
But the law in question only pertains to voluntarily surrendered weapons .
So there seems to be a bit of a misunderstanding .
Or is there ?
Normally , I tend to try and assume good intentions on most people ’ s part .
I ’ d normally assume Cushing just misunderstood what the bill dealt with or misunderstood current @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t do that anymore .
No , I suspect that Cushing knows damn good and well what the bill pertains to , he just wanted to misrepresent it so the public would think that ’ s what ’ s being discussed .
While a gun is nothing more than a tool , few people are going to be comfortable with a murder weapon being sold and put back on the streets .
So , Cushing may well have misrepresented what the bill is in hopes of muddying the waters and garnering support for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ something completely different .
Yes , it ’ s a disgusting tactic , but do you really expect different in this day and age ?
I sure as hell don ’ t .
This is how politics works and seeing a politician essentially lie about what a bill does and doesn ’ t do would hardly be new .
Of course , that might well be giving Cushing too much credit .
After all , maybe he is stupid and doesn ’ t understand what he ’ s voting for .
A friend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lawmakers about a tax hike the representative was backing only to find out the guy thought he was co-sponsoring a completely different bill , so it ’ s possible .
Politicians aren ’ t necessarily intelligent ( see also : Anything said this year by Joe Biden ) .
Regardless , though , I think it ’ s better to assume maliciousness in a case like this rather than stupidity .
Stupid can be fixed , at least in theory .
Maliciousness , not so much .
But the waters are muddied by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pays the price if he gets his way ?
Poor folks looking for affordable means of self-defense .
The loss of those guns on the market will drive up the cost of others , making it harder for the poor to buy firearms .
It doesn ’ t really matter if he ’ s willfully misrepresenting the bill or just an idiot .
If he gets his way , the effect on New Hampshire ’ s poor wold be the same .

Used guns are a good thing for people who want or need a firearm but have a limited budget. After all, you can often get a quality firearm for a very reasonable price. Plus, unlike cars, guns don’t tend to get a lot of wear and tear from one owner to the next.
Many used guns come from people selling unwanted firearms or trading in for something they want more. However, many other used guns come from law enforcement. Either they’re confiscated from criminals or they’re turned in by people who just don’t want them anymore. It’s a good way to supplement a department’s budget and provides guns for the economically disadvantaged.
In fact, some places require many of these guns to be sold back to the public.
A New Hampshire bill, however, wants to make it so departments can destroy firearms instead. In particular, those voluntarily turned in and that were never used in any crime.
Surrounding the measure, however, is a bit of confusion.
New Hampshire lawmakers are considering allowing state agencies to destroy weapons voluntarily surrendered by the public. … Rep. Renny Cushing told a House committee Tuesday he wants to repeal that law to prevent the sale of guns used in homicides. But the law in question only pertains to voluntarily surrendered weapons.
So there seems to be a bit of a misunderstanding.
Or is there?
Normally, I tend to try and assume good intentions on most people’s part. I’d normally assume Cushing just misunderstood what the bill dealt with or misunderstood current law.
But I just can’t do that anymore.
No, I suspect that Cushing knows damn good and well what the bill pertains to, he just wanted to misrepresent it so the public would think that’s what’s being discussed. While a gun is nothing more than a tool, few people are going to be comfortable with a murder weapon being sold and put back on the streets.
So, Cushing may well have misrepresented what the bill is in hopes of muddying the waters and garnering support for people who think they’re backing something completely different.
Yes, it’s a disgusting tactic, but do you really expect different in this day and age? I sure as hell don’t. This is how politics works and seeing a politician essentially lie about what a bill does and doesn’t do would hardly be new.
Of course, that might well be giving Cushing too much credit. After all, maybe he is stupid and doesn’t understand what he’s voting for. A friend of mine talked to one of his lawmakers about a tax hike the representative was backing only to find out the guy thought he was co-sponsoring a completely different bill, so it’s possible. Politicians aren’t necessarily intelligent (see also: Anything said this year by Joe Biden).
Regardless, though, I think it’s better to assume maliciousness in a case like this rather than stupidity. Stupid can be fixed, at least in theory. Maliciousness, not so much.
But the waters are muddied by Cushing’s comments, but who pays the price if he gets his way? Poor folks looking for affordable means of self-defense. The loss of those guns on the market will drive up the cost of others, making it harder for the poor to buy firearms.
It doesn’t really matter if he’s willfully misrepresenting the bill or just an idiot. If he gets his way, the effect on New Hampshire’s poor wold be the same.


bearingarms--2020-02-26--Universal Background Check, Other Gun Bills Pass VA Senate

The Virginia Senate approved several gun control bills , including universal background checks and measures weakening the state ’ s firearm preemption laws Wednesday afternoon , bringing the bills one step closer to Gov .
Ralph Northam ’ s desk for his expected signature .
Here ’ s a rundown of what passed , and where we stand .
HB2 , a universal background check bill , passed 23-17 with two Republicans joining every Democrat in support of the bill .
The legislation was amended in a Senate committee to apply only to sales of firearms instead of sales and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1st degree misdemeanor charge .
HB9 , a lost and stolen firearms bill , was amended to extend the time gun owners have to report lost or stolen firearms to police from 24 to 48 hours .
The bill actually tied 20-20 , but Lt. Gov Justin Fairfax cast a tie breaking vote and it passed 21-20 .
HB264 , which removes the ability for online training for Virginia concealed carry licenses , passed 21-19 .
The bill was amended in the state Senate Judiciary Committee to re-insert language about NRA-approved training courses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Delegates .
HB421 , which would allow local governments to ban lawfully carried firearms in government owned buildings , parks , and several other areas , passed the state Senate by a 22-18 margin , with Republican Senator Tommy Norment voting for the measure .
HB1083 passed the Senate with a Republican crossover as well .
This bill would make it a class 1 misdemeanor to “ recklessly ” allow a minor 14-years or younger access to a firearm .
The Senate version of this bill actually died on the floor of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the measure , but the House version was amended to lower the age from 18 to 14 , and to lower the penalty as well , which was enough to bring Democrats like Chap Petersen and Lynwood Lewis on board , as well as Republican Siobhan Dunnavant .
The Senate also agreed to go to a conference committee with the House on two other bills ; SB263 and SB593 .
The first bill is the Senate version of HB264 , mentioned above , and the House and Senate members are ultimately going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deal regarding the language mentioning NRA-approved training courses as evidence of competency for a concealed handgun license .
Del .
Dan Helmer , who also introduced a bill that would have shut down the NRA ’ s range , is insisting that NRA-approved courses not be allowed , but so far the state Senate hasn ’ t budged on the issue .
If the language is removed , it ’ s going to become a lot harder to find instructors who can conduct the necessary training , and that in turn will have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ carry in the state .
SB593 is a bill dealing storage of firearms in daycares .
The House version incorporated unlicensed daycares in its legislation , while the Senate version only deals with licensed daycares .
The two sides will try to hammer out an agreement behind closed doors before bringing the bills out for votes on the House and Senate floors .
The Senate also set aside two bills for the day ; HB812 , which imposes a one-gun-a-month ration on handgun purchases and HB674 , a “ red flag ” firearms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disagreement between the House and Senate over whether or not concealed carry holders should be exempt from the one-gun-a-month law ( Senate says yes , the House says no ) , so I ’ m not particularly surprised to see that bill carried over for the day while negotiations continue .
It is , however , surprising to see that the red flag bill wasn ’ t voted on , given that Democrats said they had reached a deal a couple of days ago .
I ’ m not sure why the bill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote today , but I expect it will ultimately pass out of the Senate on Thursday or Friday .
None of these measures are going to do anything to actually improve public safety , prevent violent crimes , address our mental health crisis , or protect children .
What they ’ ll do is restrict and infringe on the constitutional rights of Virginians .
They ’ ll also allow anti-gun politicians to claim they did “ something ” about gun violence .
Oh , and Bloomberg can brag about buying another legislative body @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like Ralph Northam , meanwhile , is going to get to sign almost every piece of his gun control agenda , minus his gun , magazine , and suppressor ban .
The legislative fight over Virginia ’ s gun control laws is almost over for this session , but the legal fight is just beginning .
Expect the battle to turn to the courts before the ink is even dry on Northam ’ s signatures on these bills .

The Virginia Senate approved several gun control bills, including universal background checks and measures weakening the state’s firearm preemption laws Wednesday afternoon, bringing the bills one step closer to Gov. Ralph Northam’s desk for his expected signature.
Here’s a rundown of what passed, and where we stand.
HB2, a universal background check bill, passed 23-17 with two Republicans joining every Democrat in support of the bill. The legislation was amended in a Senate committee to apply only to sales of firearms instead of sales and transfers, and violators would face a 1st degree misdemeanor charge.
HB9, a lost and stolen firearms bill, was amended to extend the time gun owners have to report lost or stolen firearms to police from 24 to 48 hours. The bill actually tied 20-20, but Lt. Gov Justin Fairfax cast a tie breaking vote and it passed 21-20.
HB264, which removes the ability for online training for Virginia concealed carry licenses, passed 21-19. The bill was amended in the state Senate Judiciary Committee to re-insert language about NRA-approved training courses that had been stripped by the House of Delegates.
HB421, which would allow local governments to ban lawfully carried firearms in government owned buildings, parks, and several other areas, passed the state Senate by a 22-18 margin, with Republican Senator Tommy Norment voting for the measure.
HB1083 passed the Senate with a Republican crossover as well. This bill would make it a class 1 misdemeanor to “recklessly” allow a minor 14-years or younger access to a firearm. The Senate version of this bill actually died on the floor of the Senate when two Democrats voted against the measure, but the House version was amended to lower the age from 18 to 14, and to lower the penalty as well, which was enough to bring Democrats like Chap Petersen and Lynwood Lewis on board, as well as Republican Siobhan Dunnavant.
The Senate also agreed to go to a conference committee with the House on two other bills; SB263 and SB593. The first bill is the Senate version of HB264, mentioned above, and the House and Senate members are ultimately going to have to come to some sort of deal regarding the language mentioning NRA-approved training courses as evidence of competency for a concealed handgun license. Del. Dan Helmer, who also introduced a bill that would have shut down the NRA’s range, is insisting that NRA-approved courses not be allowed, but so far the state Senate hasn’t budged on the issue. If the language is removed, it’s going to become a lot harder to find instructors who can conduct the necessary training, and that in turn will have a huge impact on the right to carry in the state.
SB593 is a bill dealing storage of firearms in daycares. The House version incorporated unlicensed daycares in its legislation, while the Senate version only deals with licensed daycares. The two sides will try to hammer out an agreement behind closed doors before bringing the bills out for votes on the House and Senate floors.
The Senate also set aside two bills for the day; HB812, which imposes a one-gun-a-month ration on handgun purchases and HB674, a “red flag” firearms seizure bill. There’s still disagreement between the House and Senate over whether or not concealed carry holders should be exempt from the one-gun-a-month law (Senate says yes, the House says no), so I’m not particularly surprised to see that bill carried over for the day while negotiations continue.
It is, however, surprising to see that the red flag bill wasn’t voted on, given that Democrats said they had reached a deal a couple of days ago. I’m not sure why the bill didn’t come up for a vote today, but I expect it will ultimately pass out of the Senate on Thursday or Friday.
None of these measures are going to do anything to actually improve public safety, prevent violent crimes, address our mental health crisis, or protect children. What they’ll do is restrict and infringe on the constitutional rights of Virginians. They’ll also allow anti-gun politicians to claim they did “something” about gun violence. Oh, and Bloomberg can brag about buying another legislative body to get his way.
It looks like Ralph Northam, meanwhile, is going to get to sign almost every piece of his gun control agenda, minus his gun, magazine, and suppressor ban. The legislative fight over Virginia’s gun control laws is almost over for this session, but the legal fight is just beginning. Expect the battle to turn to the courts before the ink is even dry on Northam’s signatures on these bills.


bearingarms--2020-02-26--Bloomberg Got It Right The First Time- He Does Buy Elections

One of the most viral moments of Tuesday ’ s night ’ s Democratic debate in South Carolina came courtesy of anti-gun billionaire Michael Bloomberg , who accidentally told the truth when he said that his money had bought the House of Representatives for Democrats in the 2018 elections .
Yeah , I don ’ t think he caught himself in time .
It ’ s clear what Bloomberg was going to say before he realized that he probably shouldn ’ t come right out and say what he believes to be true ; his money purchased the House of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election cycle .
“ Let ’ s just go on the record , they talk about 40 Democrats .
Twenty-one of those were people that I spent $ 100 million to help elect .
All of the new Democrats that came in and put Nancy Pelosi in charge and gave the Congress the ability to control this president , I bough — I got them.
” Honestly , even “ I got them ” isn ’ t much of an improvement .
Bloomberg is taking credit for the blue wave in 2018 either @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” those candidates ?
Well , he bought them .
But Bloomberg isn ’ t just buying Democratic majorities in Congress .
He spent millions in the state of Virginia in 2019 buying up House and Senate seats , and he ’ s planning on doing the same in Texas in 2020 .
On today ’ s Bearing Arms ’ Cam & Co , Dave Adams of the Virginia Shooting Sports Association joins me with a warning to gun owners across the country ; don ’ t let Bloomberg buy your next election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recently the guest of honor at gala hosted by Virginia Democrats , who were just as eager to praise the billionaire for his campaign largesse as they were to vote for his anti-gun agenda .
The candidates who benefited from an influx of Bloomberg Bucks in 2019 are hoping he ’ ll write even more checks for their re-election campaigns next year , but I suspect that being bought by Bloomberg may prove to be a liability in a lot of these races .
Adams also gets us caught up on the latest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the Virginia legislature , including which bills are likely to go to a conference committee , and one gun control bill that may yet be killed before it gets to Governor Ralph Northam ’ s desk .
Be sure to check out the entire interview above , and tune in tomorrow when we ’ ll be talking with former NYPD officer Rob O ’ Donnell from CPAC 2020 outside of Washington , D.C .

One of the most viral moments of Tuesday’s night’s Democratic debate in South Carolina came courtesy of anti-gun billionaire Michael Bloomberg, who accidentally told the truth when he said that his money had bought the House of Representatives for Democrats in the 2018 elections.
Bloomberg came within a hair's breadth of saying he *bought* the Democratic majority in the House and caught himself as it came out of his mouth pic.twitter.com/DG0keVMo2J — Brandon Wall (@Walldo) February 26, 2020
Yeah, I don’t think he caught himself in time. It’s clear what Bloomberg was going to say before he realized that he probably shouldn’t come right out and say what he believes to be true; his money purchased the House of Representatives for Nancy Pelosi in the last election cycle.
“Let’s just go on the record, they talk about 40 Democrats. Twenty-one of those were people that I spent $100 million to help elect. All of the new Democrats that came in and put Nancy Pelosi in charge and gave the Congress the ability to control this president, I bough — I got them.”
Honestly, even “I got them” isn’t much of an improvement. Bloomberg is taking credit for the blue wave in 2018 either way. How did he “get” those candidates? Well, he bought them.
But Bloomberg isn’t just buying Democratic majorities in Congress. He spent millions in the state of Virginia in 2019 buying up House and Senate seats, and he’s planning on doing the same in Texas in 2020.
On today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co, Dave Adams of the Virginia Shooting Sports Association joins me with a warning to gun owners across the country; don’t let Bloomberg buy your next election. As Adams notes, Bloomberg was recently the guest of honor at gala hosted by Virginia Democrats, who were just as eager to praise the billionaire for his campaign largesse as they were to vote for his anti-gun agenda. The candidates who benefited from an influx of Bloomberg Bucks in 2019 are hoping he’ll write even more checks for their re-election campaigns next year, but I suspect that being bought by Bloomberg may prove to be a liability in a lot of these races.
Adams also gets us caught up on the latest with all of the gun control bills in the Virginia legislature, including which bills are likely to go to a conference committee, and one gun control bill that may yet be killed before it gets to Governor Ralph Northam’s desk.
Be sure to check out the entire interview above, and tune in tomorrow when we’ll be talking with former NYPD officer Rob O’Donnell from CPAC 2020 outside of Washington, D.C.


bearingarms--2020-02-26--Steyer Believes Term Limits Key To Passing Gun Control

For all the anti-billionaire rhetoric we typically hear from Democrats these days , they have two running for the presidential nomination from their party right now .
One , of course , is already well-known to most political watchers .
The other , Tom Steyer , is the guy who people tend to forget is even running in the first place .
However , a comment from him last night during the debate tells you all you need to know about why literally no one is taking him seriously .
Democratic presidential candidate Tom Steyer is calling for Senate term @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ If we want real change , we need new and different people in charge .
We need it , ” Steyer said Monday during a CNN town hall late Monday .
“ And , you know , look , the six-word argument for term limits : Mitch McConnell , Lindsey Graham , Ted Cruz , ” he added , referring the to Republican Senate majority leader from Kentucky and Republican senators from South Carolina and Texas , respectively .
“ So in order for us to pass this legislation , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , because the Senate of the United States under Mitch McConnell won ’ t consider any of those things , even though 90 percent of Americans want some of them , ” Steyer said .
In other words , Steyer thinks the states that sent these three to the Senate time and time again would…what ?
That they ’ d suddenly elect anti-gun senators ?
They ’ d suddenly flip parties simply because the long-time senator is gone ?
Well , with answers like that , is it any wonder that he ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an also-ran in the future histories of the 2020 primary season ?
Honestly , this is one of the most idiotic concepts I ’ ve ever heard .
Don ’ t get me wrong , I have no issues with term limits .
I like the idea of ending the idea of career politicians in general .
Yet just as I don ’ t expect California to elect a Republican as a result of those limits , only a complete fool would think those states who elected them would suddenly decide to elect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I hate to break it to Steyer , but Cruz is only on his second term .
Unless the limit is just one term , it ’ s unlikely Cruz would have been gone . )
Oh , it might happen here or there , but you ’ d also see Democrats being replaced by Republicans here or there , enough so that it ’ s mostly a wash .
I get that he thinks by removing people like Graham , Cruz , and McConnell then the power they wield will go to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the Senate ’ s makeup .
It ’ s Republican .
The GOP gained seats in 2018 .
How would that power have shifted ?
Steyer ’ s argument is beyond dumb .
If there ’ s any consolation , though , it ’ s likely that Democratic voters are likely to reject the argument just like they ’ re rejecting Steyer .
After all , he ’ s polling at a whopping 2.4 percent per Real Clear Politics polling average as of this writing and no poll since December has had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ words , he ’ s not exactly wowing anyone with this level of stupid .
Maybe he should offer the voters their own money back instead .
That seems to be working on really well for Bernie Sanders , after all .
Might be worth a try for Steyer as well .

For all the anti-billionaire rhetoric we typically hear from Democrats these days, they have two running for the presidential nomination from their party right now. One, of course, is already well-known to most political watchers. The other, Tom Steyer, is the guy who people tend to forget is even running in the first place.
However, a comment from him last night during the debate tells you all you need to know about why literally no one is taking him seriously.
Democratic presidential candidate Tom Steyer is calling for Senate term limits to help pass gun control legislation. “If we want real change, we need new and different people in charge. We need it,” Steyer said Monday during a CNN town hall late Monday. “And, you know, look, the six-word argument for term limits: Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham, Ted Cruz,” he added, referring the to Republican Senate majority leader from Kentucky and Republican senators from South Carolina and Texas, respectively. … “So in order for us to pass this legislation, we actually have to take back this government, because the Senate of the United States under Mitch McConnell won’t consider any of those things, even though 90 percent of Americans want some of them,” Steyer said.
In other words, Steyer thinks the states that sent these three to the Senate time and time again would…what? That they’d suddenly elect anti-gun senators? They’d suddenly flip parties simply because the long-time senator is gone?
Well, with answers like that, is it any wonder that he’s destined to perhaps be listed as an also-ran in the future histories of the 2020 primary season?
Honestly, this is one of the most idiotic concepts I’ve ever heard.
Don’t get me wrong, I have no issues with term limits. I like the idea of ending the idea of career politicians in general. Yet just as I don’t expect California to elect a Republican as a result of those limits, only a complete fool would think those states who elected them would suddenly decide to elect a Democrat instead. (Plus, I hate to break it to Steyer, but Cruz is only on his second term. Unless the limit is just one term, it’s unlikely Cruz would have been gone.)
Oh, it might happen here or there, but you’d also see Democrats being replaced by Republicans here or there, enough so that it’s mostly a wash.
I get that he thinks by removing people like Graham, Cruz, and McConnell then the power they wield will go to other people, but take a look at the Senate’s makeup. It’s Republican. The GOP gained seats in 2018. How would that power have shifted?
Steyer’s argument is beyond dumb. If there’s any consolation, though, it’s likely that Democratic voters are likely to reject the argument just like they’re rejecting Steyer. After all, he’s polling at a whopping 2.4 percent per Real Clear Politics polling average as of this writing and no poll since December has had him above 4 percent.
In other words, he’s not exactly wowing anyone with this level of stupid.
Maybe he should offer the voters their own money back instead. That seems to be working on really well for Bernie Sanders, after all. Might be worth a try for Steyer as well.


bearingarms--2020-02-26--Gun-Grabber: Push To Defend Gun Rights Because They're Dumb

It ’ s not unusual to look at your political opposition and not understand how anyone could rationally decide to support the other side of a discussion .
After all , when you study the issue and come to a conclusion , it ’ s difficult to believe someone could come to a different conclusion .
Sometimes , it ’ s because they don ’ t understand all the facts , but sometimes it ’ s because they did .
However , it ’ s a grave mistake to assume people disagree with you because they don ’ t understand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rights arises .
Yet that ’ s precisely what one gun-control activist alleges is driving the push to defend our Second Amendment rights .
Linda Brundage , the executive director of the Michigan Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence , told Stateside that she thinks much of the outrage about gun control legislation stems from a misunderstanding about what those laws would do .
“ I think it ’ s really unfortunate that it ’ s so divisive .
And what that suggests to me is people are not talking to one another , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ industry is selling fear so that people believe they must be armed .
Again , nobody wants to take away guns.
” Brundage argues that red flag laws aren ’ t about taking away people ’ s guns but about “ safety.
” So , basically , Brundage thinks we only oppose these laws because we ’ re too damn stupid to understand what it ’ s really about .
The problem is , Brundage doesn ’ t understand where our opposition comes from in the case of red flag laws .
First @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guns from people .
Such laws are explicitly about taking guns from people .
In particular , people who haven ’ t broken any laws .
A red flag law allows anyone from a list of folks–a list that can be gamed , as we ’ ve seen before–to petition for someone to lose their guns before a judge who has never laid eyes on the individual in question , knows nothing about them but what ’ s being told to them by the petitioner , and then reaches a decision to disarm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defend themselves until well after the fact .
Oh , we understand these laws quite well .
Brundage , however , doesn ’ t seem to understand these laws or our opposition to them .
Based on her comments about these laws and the gun industry supposedly pushing people to think they must be armed , it ’ s clear that the only one operating in ignorance is Linda Brundage .
She ’ s ignorant of how red flags can be abused and , as already noted , how they already have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ despite claims that they ’ ll reduce suicides , they seem to be having the opposite effect .
She ’ s ignorant of the fact that there are already mechanisms available for those who represent a threat to themselves or others .
All of this she ’ s apparently ignorant of .
So much so , in fact , that she thinks she has a complete handle on the issue and assumes everyone who disagrees with her is too stupid to understand the truth .
Well , Linda , we do .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t comprehend .
You can ’ t seem to comprehend that telling people they ’ re stupid and don ’ t understand the issue isn ’ t exactly an effective way to change minds .
Then again , gun-grabbers generally seem to run off emotion rather than facts anyway .
Now we see why .

It’s not unusual to look at your political opposition and not understand how anyone could rationally decide to support the other side of a discussion. After all, when you study the issue and come to a conclusion, it’s difficult to believe someone could come to a different conclusion. Sometimes, it’s because they don’t understand all the facts, but sometimes it’s because they did.
However, it’s a grave mistake to assume people disagree with you because they don’t understand, especially when the subject of gun rights arises.
Yet that’s precisely what one gun-control activist alleges is driving the push to defend our Second Amendment rights.
Linda Brundage, the executive director of the Michigan Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence, told Stateside that she thinks much of the outrage about gun control legislation stems from a misunderstanding about what those laws would do. “I think it’s really unfortunate that it’s so divisive. And what that suggests to me is people are not talking to one another,” she said. “The gun industry is selling fear so that people believe they must be armed. Again, nobody wants to take away guns.”
Brundage argues that red flag laws aren’t about taking away people’s guns but about “safety.”
“And it seems like, you know, this effort in Michigan, at this present time, is designed to prevent the passage of this legislation, these kinds of legislations. And from our perspective, that’s unfortunate because we know they will save lives.”
So, basically, Brundage thinks we only oppose these laws because we’re too damn stupid to understand what it’s really about.
The problem is, Brundage doesn’t understand where our opposition comes from in the case of red flag laws. First, yes, they are about taking guns from people. Such laws are explicitly about taking guns from people. In particular, people who haven’t broken any laws. A red flag law allows anyone from a list of folks–a list that can be gamed, as we’ve seen before–to petition for someone to lose their guns before a judge who has never laid eyes on the individual in question, knows nothing about them but what’s being told to them by the petitioner, and then reaches a decision to disarm someone who doesn’t get to defend themselves until well after the fact.
Oh, we understand these laws quite well.
Brundage, however, doesn’t seem to understand these laws or our opposition to them. Based on her comments about these laws and the gun industry supposedly pushing people to think they must be armed, it’s clear that the only one operating in ignorance is Linda Brundage.
She’s ignorant of how red flags can be abused and, as already noted, how they already have been.
She’s ignorant of how despite claims that they’ll reduce suicides, they seem to be having the opposite effect.
She’s ignorant of the fact that there are already mechanisms available for those who represent a threat to themselves or others.
All of this she’s apparently ignorant of. So much so, in fact, that she thinks she has a complete handle on the issue and assumes everyone who disagrees with her is too stupid to understand the truth.
Well, Linda, we do. We grasp it in ways you can’t comprehend.
You can’t seem to comprehend that telling people they’re stupid and don’t understand the issue isn’t exactly an effective way to change minds. Then again, gun-grabbers generally seem to run off emotion rather than facts anyway. Now we see why.