Debating PuSH'ers*

Your typical 'hardcore' anti-gunner is a 'true believer' in the most literal sense of the phrase. No amount of facts or logic will penetrate that shell as they repeat talking points like 'bullet hoses', "spray fire from the hip", "high powered", "well-regulated" and other sorts of catch phrases.

Some of the sillier things I've been told or have read over the years:

Shooting an animal w/ an 'assault weapon' destroys it. (no comment when real specs on them were presented)

The NRA put out an advertisement supporting AP ammo because "Some animals are armored". (oh a friend told him about it)

You can make a semi-auto into a machine gun by filing down the FIRING pin. (complete ignorance of firearm operation)

So why bother? Unless you're actually debating publicly some public figure what good does it do?

Well it's not always a complete waste of time.

Depending on the forum, odds are good there are 'fence-sitters' there as well. Countering the misinformation and emotional appeals presented can help either keep them neutral or sway them towards positive. One of the best ways to do this is to stay calm and just keep countering them. In my experience they will invariable resort to ad hominems (usually involving the NRA), character attacks or the ever popular comments on genitalia size.

You can also learn from them. Really, you can. I've gotten some really good sources from anti's who cited a study or some historical document but either partially quoted it, took it out of context or just assumed what it was about w/o reading the whole thing, sometimes getting it completely backwards.

Of course sometimes I just have fun w/ them, seeing how often I can get them to contradict themselves. I had one individual recently attacking sources he cited as 'right wing idiots' because he didn't bother reading past the first couple of lines.

Feel free to add your stories of truly ridiculous lines you've been handed or your own suggestions.

*PSH: Pants Sh!tting Hysterics

Paul Helmke Lying About Gun Laws*

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Ownership is well known for deliberately mis-stating facts and confusing the issues. Here's another example. When discussing their opposition to Utah's Concealed Carry laws, they state this:

This means that prohibited purchasers, such as the mentally ill, domestic violence abusers, and felons, are easily able to illegally get a license to possess a gun.

Um, No. Their law is regards to concealed carry, not purchasing or possession. The Brady Bunch knows this and are trying to conflate the two, just as they try and push stripping people of their rights who are on the "Terrorist Watch List" and actual terrorists.

Note that they don't point to any actual problems caused by this wave of issued permits besides their personal PSH over it.

As the Brady Bunch fights to keep any sort of relevancy, they are reduced from trying to keep states from passing CCW laws to trying to keep states from recognizing other's CCW laws and out of individual stores.


*Redundant, I know.

Next Chicago Lawsuit from NRA & NSSF

NRA Supporting Chicago Residents New Suit Against Mayor Richard Daley and the City of Chicago

Tuesday, July 06, 2010

Fairfax, Va. -- The National Rifle Association is supporting a lawsuit against Mayor Richard Daley and the City of Chicago's newly adopted gun control ordinance, which violates the U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling in McDonald v. City of Chicago. Last Friday, the City Council rushed through passage of this ordinance in response to the Court's June 28th decision rendering Chicago’s draconian handgun ban unconstitutional.

“The Supreme Court has now said the Second Amendment is an individual freedom for all. And that must have meaning,” said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association. “This decision cannot lead to different measures of freedom, depending on what part of the country you live in. City by city, person by person, this decision must be more than a philosophical victory. An individual right is no right at all if individuals can’t access it.”.....

Illinois Association of Firearms Retailers
Launches Lawsuit Against Chicago

NEWTOWN, Conn. -- The Illinois Association of Firearms Retailers (ILAFR), a state affiliate of the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) – the trade association for the firearms industry -- has filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of several recently adopted anti-gun laws designed to circumvent last week's Supreme Court ruling in McDonald v. Chicago. In that landmark decision, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the fundamental right of all law-abiding Americans to keep and bear arms, while outlawing the power of state and local governments to ban firearms.

In a complaint filed yesterday evening in federal Court, the ILAFR challenged a series of Chicago Mayor Richard Daley's anti-gun laws and regulations affecting the commerce of firearms in Chicago. This includes laws forbidding federally licensed firearms retailers from operating within the city, limiting the number of firearms a law-abiding citizen may purchase in a year and banning modern sporting rifles.

The case is Benson v. City of Chicago.

Fence Sitters

One of the ways I use to discuss firearms w/ people who don't necessarily oppose them but aren't enthusiastic about them is to ask them questions.

One of my favorites is to ask them what they thing an "Assault Weapon" is. I have yet to have someone tell me anything other than the usual variations on "High Powered Machineguns" and everyone has been surprised when I inform them of the reality of them and the deliberate attempts to confuse the public on the issue.

Now I've added one more tailored to Illinois residents. I ask them if they think that the Chicago firearm laws are really intended to stop criminals. Then I tell them about Alderman Mell and his Daley approved personal exemption after he forgot to follow the laws.

So how do you discuss the issue w/ those in the middle?

Hell has Frozen Over.

The Daily Koz has published a pro-Second Amendment article;

And I thought I just had the AC turned up to high.

As noted here though, the comments show the typical closed-minded attitude of those who often label themselves as 'progressive'.

Veteran's Benefits

Not through the VA. Through citizens saying thank you to those who serve their country.

Went to a local fireworks seller. One of those little ones that set up in a parking lot. The guy noticed I was wearing a few articles of uniform so he asked if I was in the military. After I replied in the positive, he cut 25% off my purchase.

Thank you.

Happy Independence day everyone.

Gura on New Chicago Gun Ordinances

From ChicagoGunCase.com:

Chicago’s new ordinance demands careful review, and many questions still need to be answered about its implementation. But some things are readily apparent...

We applaud Chicago for not adopting the unconstitutional insurance and gun-rationing schemes. Of course, Chicago adopted other measures, not all of which we can approve. This is not a definitive and complete overview, but a sense of where we are.

The bottom line so far: this is far from perfect, but could have been worse, and the city seems to understand its ability to regulate is not unlimited. We may be close to achieving our litigation objectives in this case, but that doesn’t mean that we’ll ignore other problematic laws or practices. There are natural, practical limits on the scope of any particular lawsuit. Most importantly, we are well on our way to achieving a state of affairs in Chicago where law abiding people can exercise their right to keep and bear arms without major unconstitutional obstacles. The new law, some problems notwithstanding, appears vastly better than the old one. We hope to make it better still.

In other words. McDonald II is coming.

If your not a member of the ISRA, SAF,NRA or whatever your preferred organization, now is the time.

Chicago's New Gun Control Plans

Via 'Clout Street'.

*Under Daley's ordinances, handgun owners would need to register all their guns with the city so police know how many weapons are in each home, and would also be required to have a valid Firearm Owner's ID card.

*It requires firearms training, both in a classroom and a firing range.

*Chicago residents would be able to register no more than one handgun per month for each adult in a home. The ordinance "generally prohibits the possession of a handgun by any person except in the person's home," according to a city news release.

*Only one firearm can be kept in immediately operable condition in each home. Other guns must be broken down or have trigger locks in place.

*Assault weapons are banned, as is the possession of ammunition by anyone who does not have a valid FOID card and registration for a gun of the same caliber.

*Applicants must be at least 21 years old, unless a parent signs for a child age 18 or older.

*To protect the city against costs for a lawsuit in case a police officer shoots an armed person while responding to a home, Daley also said the city will pursue legislation at the state and federal levels granting liability immunity for first responders and the city.

*The ordinance bars anyone from possessing a handgun outside a home, which excludes garages, outdoor areas, hotel rooms and group-living quarters.

*Would-be gun owners must take a training course with a minimum of one hour on the range and four hours in the classroom before obtaining a permit to a keep a weapon in the home.

*The ordinance prohibits sawed-off shotguns, assault weapons and “unsafe” handguns.

*It also requires guns kept in homes with minors under age 18 to be secured when they are not in the possession of the owner.

*Penalties for not complying with the proposed law range from $1,000 to 90 days in jail.

*And, as proposed by powerful Ald. Edward Burke, 14th, the new ordinance would create a gun-offender registry to be posted on line by the police department. Anyone convicted of unlawful use or illegal possession of a weapon would be required to register with the police for a four-year period.

*Each individual is entitled to have one “firearm assembled and operable in the home. All other firearms kept or possessed by that person in his home shall be broken down in a non-functioning state or shall have a trigger lock or other mechanism, other than the firearm safety mechanism, designed to render the firearm temporarily inoperable.”

*If there is someone in home under age 18 who “is likely to gain access to the firearm,” a gun must be in the owner’s possession, fitted with a safety mechanism rendering it inoperable or unloaded with the ammunition in a securely locked container.

*To register handguns, a resident must first get a “Chicago Firearm Permit” from the police department. A permit would cost $100 every three years.

*People who have been convicted of a violent crime, two or more driving-under-the-influence charges or unlawful use of a firearm could not get a permit.

*Once obtained, residents must then register each weapon. That would cost $15 every three years per weapon.

These are similar to the registration already in place for long guns plus training and the "Only one serviceable gun" part which is what I see as the most vulnerable part. 'Assault Weapons' are already illegal in the county. As long as the licenses from the CPD arn't arbitrary, I can see most of these standing in the courts.

Obama: That Was Then, This Is Now...

Obama on local laws during the campaigning:

I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne.

Obama on local laws now:

We cannot have immigration reform passed individually by each state through a patchwork of laws.

More Wailing and Gnashing of Teeth on McDonald

Besides the usual suspects trying to salvage their jobs, The real loonballs are starting to come out of the woodwork.

First up we have Pam Adams of the Peoria (IL) Star Journal. Her opinion is the recent ruling is meant to disarm blacks because it maintains its restrictions on prohibited persons:

The process by which this decision was reached, however, harbors the most cynical uses of race.

..there is evidence to suggest that expanding gun rights will once again limit the right of disproportionate numbers of black citizens to bear arms.

Yes, that was the reasoning of the court. Keep a prohibition on felons so we can disarm blacks.

Then we have the Socialists. Their defense of the 'collective rights' theory ignores the majority of historical scholarship on the subject but they even contradict themselves.

The original purpose of the amendment was to prevent Congress from disarming the state militias, which would eliminate the militias as a bulwark against national tyranny.

These attacks cannot be combated through individual “self-defense,” but require collective political and social struggle, based on the mass mobilization of the working class.

So they're going to combat attacks by 'mobilizing' a disarmed working class? I'm sure a tyrannical gov't would be impressed. According to basic socialist/communist theory, you're not supposed to disarm the populace until AFTER the revolution.