on background checks

One of the favorite “arguments” circulating amongst anti-rights cultists these days is that the only reason one would oppose “universal background checks” for firearm purchases is because one is concerned about not passing them.  Obviously this is complete and utter nonsense, but let us take a moment an examine how nonsensical that position is. 

I oppose “universal background checks”.  In fact, I oppose any background checks for firearm purchases – having to prove innocence to exercise a right is wrong.  Having to pay to prove innocence (what, you did not think NICS was self-supporting, did you?) is an absolute outrage. 

alisonamartingoebbelsSo, according to “gun sense” “logic”, I should not be able to pass a background check… except…

– I have maintained three separate security clearances with two separate branches of the United States Government. 

– I applied for, received, and renewed by Type 3 Federal Firearms License, and am an FFL in good standing with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. 

– I applied for, received, and updated a tax stamp allowing me to own a National Firearms Act-regulated device, and still lawfully own that device. 

– I applied for and received firearm-carry permits from three separate states, most recently in March of this year. 

– I have purchased numerous firearms from FFLs, including filling out the federally-mandated Form 4473, most recently in April of this year. 

In fact, now that I look at the list, I am quite certain I have passed more background checks than the overwhelming majority of the useful idiots claiming I could not pass background checks. 

Despite being endorsed by the Moms Demand Action New York Chapter Leader, Alison A. Martin (do not bother looking for her Twitter account – she deleted that one, and the one she created after that one, shortly after the screencap to the right), the notion that “if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear” is patently false and a demonstrably dangerous road to go down

The irony, of course, is that those self-same “gun control” supporters who want every firearm transaction background-checked and vetted throw an absolute hissy fit if you in any way suggest that people should have to verify their identity before casting someone else’s vote.  And, in fairness, a large number of them at least superficially speak out against the NSA’s surveillance, but given that “gun control” supporters are statists by dint of that support, I have to wonder how deep that objection actually runs. 

No, I do not oppose “universal background checks” because I cannot pass one – I can, and I have literally more times than I can count.  I oppose them because they are wrong, because they are an unjust limitation on a Constitutionally-protected right, and because they fly in the face of every tradition of jurisprudence in the United States.  Hell, can you imagine the hue and cry if the same restriction were applied to any other right mentioned in the Constitution? 

speaks for itself

In general, the anti-rights cultists have largely abandoned the lie of “only wanting to compromise”, which is just as well; it was always a lie, everyone knew it was always a lie, and it convinced no one. 

But, occasionally, you find a useful idiot who did not receive the memo: 

comebackshaneCompromise@comebackshane: @Soldier1eaODGrn Reasonable should be determined by an equal number of representatives from both sides. Compromise.

@wallsofthecity: The pro-rights community has been "compromising" for over 80 years. It’s time to reclaim our rights. @comebackshane @Soldier1eaODGrn

@comebackshane: @wallsofthecity @soldier1eaodgrn Compromise is a continuous thing. It doesn’t go away. You can’t just go, "Fuck it, I’m done!"

@wallsofthecity: Actually, we can. "Compromise" requires both parties to give something up. #guncontrol never hass. @comebackshane @soldier1eaodgrn

@comebackshane: @wallsofthecity @soldier1eaodgrn OK…you can own a semi-automatic military style weapon…after a proper background check and training.

compromise_v21Yes, that was Shane Ross’ – aka @comebackshane – notion of “compromise”: he will “allow” you to continue owning your “semi-automatic military style weapon” so long as you submit to his demands. 

Now, just so everyone is on the same page, the definition of “compromise” is “an agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions.”  What concession did Shane here make?  Oh, right, he “allowed” you to go on exercising your rights to keep and bear firearms, own private property, and tend to your self-defense.  These mental midgets literally believe that respecting basic human rights is a “concession”. 

As the title says, that speaks for itself. 

Of course, this is the same useful idiot who could not define “assault rifle”, and managed to define “assault weapon” as “semi-automatic firearms with a detachable magazine”… and that was it.  I shit you not.  Yes, this individual wants to restrict, if not outright ban, something he cannot adequately or properly define.  As I am fond of noting, “gun control” supporters seem to exhibit the Dunning-Kruger Effect with… shall-we-say above-average frequency. 

By now, everyone should be familiar with Lawdog’s famous – or, perhaps, infamous – dissertation on “compromise” in the “gun control” arena, but please refresh yourself on how much we have surrendered for absolutely nothing in return. 

Should I “compromise” with someone looking to murder me?  No?  Then why should I waste my time “compromising” with someone trying to deprive me of other rights, especially when the “compromise” itself is naught but a bald-faced lie? 

quote of the day – me

Hey, it is my site, so I can claim I said something worthy of note.

Regular readers will know that I generally try my best to eschew logical fallacies, not just because they are fallacies, but also because they are so often – and so ineffectively – wielded against us and our rights. With that in mind, the following quote may surprise people in that, superficially, it appears to be nothing more than a rank stereotype; however, the more I think about it, the less fault I find in it:

The only people who would have a problem with me defending myself are those who wish to do me harm.

In fairness, there are those unfortunate souls who genuinely believe that any and all violence is a Very Bad Thing (TM) to be avoided at any and all costs, in which case this: "… are those who do not care about harm happening to me," should be added to the end of the quote, but, realistically, given the fact that violent people do exist in this world and the fact that they do prey on other people, is such a lack of caring any better, morally or logically, than actively wishing ill upon another person? I contend "not really", but, then, I was raised at the knees of Asimov and Heinlein.

In any case, look askance upon any and all who argue that self-defense is wrong, or that the ownership of the means to effect your own defense is wrong; they do not have your best interests at heart, which raises the question of whom they are helping…

a welcome breath of fresh air

Any long-time participant in the ongoing debate surrounding "gun control" and the unjust abrogations of our basic, Constitutionally-protected human rights will be familiar with the phrase Reasoned Discourse, but for those newcomers to the field, allow me to give you a short-and-sweet summation of the idea.

Of late, and in the past, "gun control" supporters have been crying that they want to have a "debate" / "conversation" / "discussion" about the future of "gun control" and the best way to proceed with it. Looking past the simple truth that we pro-rights activists have next to nothing to gain from such discussions, and a great deal to lose, those claims of wanting a debate are, in general, false. In truth, and on average, when those who support "gun control" are confronted with dissenting opinions, they resort to blatant censorship, threats and intimidation, "Memory Hole"-ing those threats when called on them, baseless misrepresentations of those dissenting positions (misrepresentations conveniently unfalsifiable by way of deleting the original material), attacking us through our families, and, when they cannot delete our material, deleting their material that started the actual discussion.

In other words, and in general, those cries for a "discussion" invariably resulted in "Reasoned Discourse" – a situation where only if you agree with those who support "gun control" are you allowed to speak your piece, which is hardly a "discussion" at all. If you want to read more about this particular behavior trend, feel free to dig through my archives.

To be fair, those of us who actively defend our rights – myself included – can be rather confrontational and brusque at times, but answer me this simple question: would you or would you not be "confrontational" with someone who wanted to have a discussion about enslaving you? Freedom from slavery and freedom to defend yourself are both basic human rights and Constitutionally-protected to boot; if a bit of an aggressively protective attitude is acceptable, if not encouraged, for one, why not the other?

Now, you will note that in the above paragraphs, I have been adding qualifiers like "in general", and "on average", and so forth. Why is that? Because I recently stumbled across this tweet linking back to this article at the Ruminator. Giving the article a quick skim at the time, I fired off a response tweet indicating that America is, in fact, not a democracy, was specifically designed not to be, and the rest of the article only goes downhill from there. This prompted a surprisingly reasonable conversation between myself and the man behind the twitter account (who, for clarification, is not the man behind the article; that site appears to have quite a few authors), and an invitation to write a guest post rebutting theirs.

At the time I declined, and they invited me to write a comment addressing the post, which I did… and the predictable happened. I got long-winded, the comment got verbose, and it ended up being a guest post anywise.

Take a moment and let that percolate a bit. I am certainly not going to say that the staff at The Ruminator are universally for "gun control" (though given it is a New Zealand-based site and most of the authors hail from there, Australia, or once-Great Britain, it is probably not incorrect to assume some/most of them do support it), much less rabidly so, but rather than nuke the comment from orbit – as other weblogs espousing "gun control" have done in the past – they went and made it a guest post.

Huh. It is almost like they actually want an actual discussion. How bizarre.

And speaking of, given that the author of the original post as well as one of their seemingly-regular commenters have continued that discussion (albeit misconstruing one of my main points), feel free to head on over and offer up your own two cents (though be advised that their system automatically moderates comments if they have too many links, just like mine does; this is not Reasoned Discourse, just good weblog management). However, I would request that you maintain whatever level of decorum you can and try to dial back the attitude a touch, as I did; these are not folks wishing for a missile strike on the NRA Annual Meetings, so please do not treat them like they are.

quote of the day – archer

We all know that "gun control" does not work at its professed purpose – reducing crime and making people "safer". History has taught us this time and time again, and continues to teach it to us to this very day, but the invariable question is, "Why does ‘gun control’ not work?"

Well, we could go into to the sociopolitical ramifications of disarming the law-abiding segment of your population, the reality that criminals prefer defenseless prey, the amusement over fetishism being alive and well, the cold reality that, oddly enough, criminals do not obey laws, and countless other things… or I could just steal this comment from Archer:

The philosophy of “gun control” revolves around two primary assumptions:
a) That “average”, good, law-abiding people can’t be trusted to obey laws (therefore, they must be disarmed for their own safety); and
b) That criminals and the mentally ill can (the whole “Just One More Law” thing).
“Gun control” fails in practice because its primary assumptions are completely and utterly ridiculous.

*blink* That pretty much says it all, does it not?

And, unfortunately, it succinctly explains why anti-rights cultists and pro-rights activists will never see eye-to-eye. On the one hand, we are more than willing to allow law-abiding citizens to go throughout their days and lives with the absolute bare minimum of government intrusion or control because we trust those people, and we want criminals locked up appropriately because they have demonstrated they are not trustworthy. On the other hand, "gun control" extremists seem to believe that the entirety of the human race is untrustworthy on account of the misbehavior of a miniscule fraction of the whole, but subvert – or perhaps perpetuate – that belief by supporting and implementing policies that only serve to facilitate and encourage that aforementioned miniscule fraction.

With starting positions like that, there will likely never be common ground to reach… not that "compromising" with those who militantly desire to strip us of our Constitutionally-protected human rights is terribly high on my priority list to begin with.

he might know a thing or two about totalitarian governments

Those who would unjustly deprive us of our Constitutionally-protected individual rights to self-defense, self-preservation, and the peaceful ownership of private property make a big deal about the number of "gun violence" victims they have on their side, as if being shot at by a criminal somehow makes you an expert on all things firearm- and rights-related (note: it does not). Unfortunately, once you start pulling back the layers of publicity polish and bluster, you start discovering that those "victims" are liars, prevaricators, and not actually victims at all.

Just as ostensibly being a victim of a crime does not make you an expert on that crime, it also does not excuse fabricating nonsense to support your authoritarian agenda.

But given the moral authority "gun control" extremists automatically bestow upon anyone who might, possibly, maybe be a victim of firearm-related violence no matter how tenuous or suspect the connection, I wonder what they think of a Tiananmen Square protester telling Americans in Boston just how important the Second Amendment and the private ownership of arms are:

On the one hand, I can hear anti-rights cultists’ heads exploding as you read this. On the other hand, given the CSGV‘s comments in the past regarding "insurrectionists", I have absolutely no doubt they would gleefully toss this now-American under the treads of the tanks that rolled through Tiananmen Square on 04JUN89.

When it comes to the two sides of that debate – "students" and "tanks" – I know which one I want to win.

lou gagliardi wants to kidnap your children

But she wants someone else to do it for her, so that is ok. 

Unfortunately, the following Twitter conversation will be somewhat disjointed and I will be unable to adequately link to all of the various tweets.  Why?  Because Lou Gagliardi is a spineless coward who, upon realizing what she said, Memory Hole’d the tweets I managed to keep screen captures of. 

Why did she delete these tweets?  Why do you think – because she knows just how reprehensible and disgusting they really are. 

In any case, we are jumping in mid-conversation, with: 

Linoge_WOTC:  According to #guncontrol #extremist @lougagliardi, I’m a terrorist for standing up for my human rights. If that’s not insanity…

lougagliardikidnapper1Lou Gagliardi:  #gunowner #terrorist @linoge_wotc thinks owning military grade weapon is a “human right” If he has children, they should be taken off him

Read that again, just to let it sink in.  Check out the screen capture if you do not believe my reprinting of it.  For the heinous “crime” of standing up for my human rights of self-preservation, self-defense, the ownership of private property, and simply being left alone to live my life in peace, Lou Gagliardi wants some nameless, faceless entity (otherwise known as “the federal government”, no doubt) to unjustly relieve me of my (non-existent) children without due process, a trial, or any other Constitutionally-protected rights observed. 

Wow.  Just.  Plain.  Wow. 

To begin with, as we pro-rights advocates have always maintained, if you cannot respect one Constitutionally-protected right, you cannot respect any of them.  As much as Lou Gagliardi absolutely despises the rights protected by the Second Amendment (which, by the way, does include the right to own “military grade weapons” – after all, the Founding Fathers had no problems with their citizenry owning cannon and warships, for heaven’s sake), she likewise hates the rights protected by the First and Fourth Amendments, and arguably the Ninth and Tenth as well. 

Moving on, Lou Gagliardi has, to put it simply, been losing her gos-se over my comment that she wants to kidnap the children of people who own AR-15s, and whatever-the-hell else she thinks qualifies as a “military grade weapon” (even though, obviously, AR-15s are not even used by the military).  Unfortunately for her, that is simply the way our representative-style government works.  If you call for the government to do X, and it actually does X, you share in the responsibility of that action being executed.  If you elect a representative who says he does X, and he actually goes and does X, you share in the responsibility of that action being executed.  This is part of the reason I am becoming a more and more staunch independent, and why I am having a harder and harder time voting for any incumbents whatsoever – I refuse to share in the dirt they have on their hands. 

Having armed men do something on your behalf simply does not keep your hands clean; this is actually one of the largest disconnects we rational pro-rights activists have with “gun control” extremists like Lou Gagliardi here.  They absolutely cannot tolerate the notion of private citizens keeping firearms for their own personal defense, but they have absolutely no problems calling… armed citizens who happen to have badges to come and use their firearms to defend them.  Helpful Hint: violence by proxy does not keep your hands clean. 

Addendum to Helpful Hint:  neither does kidnapping by proxy. 

Unfortunately, Lou Gagliardi was not content to simply leave it at that: 

Gun Rights Alert@linoge_wotc They’d have to go through me first. And the kids can take care of themselves, too. @lougagliardi pic.twitter.com/3iy2sncX

lougagliardikidnapper2Lou Gagliardi:  @GunRightsAlert @linoge_wotc this is exactly why they should be taking off of you. thank you for the evidence to prove my point. 

Incomprehensible grammar aside, Lou Gagliardi’s position is pretty clear – if you own “military grade weapon(s)” (which basically means whatever this ignorant imbecile says it means), your children should be forcibly removed from your protection. 

But Lou Gagliardi herself is not going to be doing the kidnapping… oh, no, she could not dream of getting her pretty little hands dirty like that.  Instead, she wants other people – other armed people, ironically enough – to do her dirty work for her… as if that will somehow keep those hands of hers clean. 

Newsflash: it will not. 

Secondary Newsflash:  attempting to forcibly relieve firearm-owning, responsible, willing-to-defend-themselves-and-their-families adults of their children is not going to end well. 

But, after all, that is exactly why Lou Gagliardi wants someone else to execute her totalitarian pipe dreams – she is too much of a coward to go door-to-door herself, and face those armed parents while attempting to unjustly and unethically strip them of their children.  She would rather hide in whatever hovel she calls a home, and demand, plead, scream for men – armed men, despite her hatred of firearms – to go and kidnap law-abiding citizens’ children for no good reason except she does not like something you said. 

And, tell me, what will those armed men do when you say, “No”?  What will those armed men do when you attempt to defend your children – your family – from unjust and illegal attempts at kidnapping them? 

If you follow Lou Gagliardi’s demands to their logical conclusion, she wants people – other people, of course (you, federal agents, your children, etc.) – to die simply because she does not like you owning firearms and peacefully expressing that you support the right to continue owning them. 

How disgusting is that

Some folks following me questioned why I was toying with Lou Gagliardi for as long as I did, especially once she sunk into the inescapable morass of endless logical fallacies.  This is why.  It is important for we pro-rights activists to fully grasp some anti-rights cultists’ deep-seated, irrational, visceral, and obscene hatred for us, for our families, for our lives.  Certainly not all “gun control” fetishists believe as Lou Gagliardi does, but this theme of attacking pro-rights activists through their children is becoming distressingly common

Bear that murderous hatred in mind when you question the need to contact your senators and representatives and let them know that your support depends on their support of freedom and our individual rights. 

[Update]  Holy crap on an everloving crutch.  Immediately after writing this post and finally tired of Lou Gagliardi’s incessant lies and harassment, I went to block her Twitter account, only to be confronted with this tweet: 

lougagliardikidnapper3Lou Gagliardihotair.com/archives/2013/01/06/mom-shoots-intruder-saves-kids/ … this mother needs to have her kids taken off of her by children’s bureau for having guns in the house #guncontrol

Take a look at the article she links to – a woman defends her family from a known felon breaking into her house, and yet Lou Gagliardi wants this woman’s children stolen from her?  “Disgusting” does not even begin to cover that position.  [/Update]