Another candidate talking about something she doesn’t understand

Brianna Wu is a crazy person.  I have covered her (arguably him) before and her paranoid fantasy that privatization of space means that CEOs will race to the moon to start the kinetic bombardment of Earth for profit.  Apparently Wu cannot separate reality from the fantasy world of her terrible video games.

(On a side note, that her husband has won Hugo Awards for fan art means to me that the Hugo Award has become a meaningless sham.  Rest in peace, Robert A. Heinlein.)

Brianna Wu is running for Congress for the 8th District of Massachusetts, which included the wealthy, predominantly white, suburbs of Boston.

Wu decided to jump in on the gun issue with this tweet.

I want to know how many NRA members and gun owners she knows in the hyper Liberal enclave of Boston she lives in.

Given her reputation as a scam artist in the gaming community, I’d venture a guess that this is a lie.

She is just another liberal promoting the Große Lüge that the NRA doesn’t represent the interests of it’s members anymore.

So what that the NRA has 5 Million (and growing rapidly) members, the members don’t agree with the leadership and so the NRA members will support our gun control measures even if the leadership doesn’t.  

That is a remarkably stupid and factually inaccurate argument.  People have been joining the NRA in droves precisely because after Parkland, they see that the NRA has been right all along that the Democrats want to take your guns.

What is really infuriating is the idea of mandatory training.  That is nothing but a literacy test for gun rights, because Miguel is right that we are the new Negores.  Exercising a civil right should not require a hurdle to jump.

Who is going to train us?  The same LEOs that failed in Parkland?

These people hate the NRA, so I doubt they would approve any NRA training.

What I can assure you is this, as soon as any Liberal politician passes a mandatory training requirement for gun ownership, what will happen is this:

The state will approve one training facility, it will be open one day a week, it will have one staff member, and the website to sign up for training will be worse than the one for Obamacare.

Training is, of course, a good idea.  I’m just not going to allow my ability to exercise my Constitutional protected civil rights to be gatekept by an impossibly onerous training process developed by people who both know nothing about guns and hate them.

Brianna Wu has done nothing more than advocate for Jim Crow laws to be used against gun owners.  Different group of people, same tactics.

13 Replies to “Another candidate talking about something she doesn’t understand”

  1. Point of order: the actual mandatory SAFETY training that “…responsible gun owners are almost ALWAYS in favor of…” is wholeheartedly, and VOCIFEROUSLY opposed by people like her.

    See also: Eddie Eagle.

  2. I’m not a Wu fan, and I also tend to question how many NRA members she has really talked to, but this post has so much misunderstanding that it really is funny to read the title.

    Since I know you clearly know so much of which you speak when it comes to Massachusetts and it’s gun laws and gun culture, I’m sure you know that the district she’s running to represent has one of the largest and most active gun clubs in the entire state. And since Massachusetts has a very healthy gun club culture, that says something about just how many NRA and GOAL members there are in the area. In fact, there are many active gun clubs in and around that district, many of which have ties to both the NRA and the state association. It’s not nearly as devoid of gun owners as you seem to argue here.

    Secondly, as I’m sure you’re already aware because you’re talking about something you already know, Massachusetts already requires basic firearms safety courses in order to lawfully possess any type of modern firearm. I’m sure what you meant to highlight is that it’s silly that she’s claiming to make a change that’s already required in her state.

    Third, because you’re going to comment only on things you know about, I’m guessing that you meant to argue that the situation could look like that given enough effort by anti-gunners. Because it seems a little strange to present that as what it will look like without question when there are more than two dozen approved courses published on the internet for anyone to look up, including many NRA courses. And the fact that if you just search on Massachusetts firearms training course, tons of websites come up from certified trainers, ranges, and the state association offering such training any day of the week you might want at reasonable prices.

    I clearly spent years fighting this still overly restrictive set of laws, so my challenge to your post isn’t condoning the situation in Massachusetts. However, I think it speaks volumes that you go after her for not understanding laws or culture when your own assessment is about a mile off the mark when it comes to knowing anything about the law or gun culture in the Bay State.

    1. I am well aware of Massachusetts gun laws.

      Your argument that there are several large shooting clubs there is not relevant.

      The 8th District is the Second most densely populated district in the state. Only the 7th which includes the urban center of Boston is more densely populated. Logically having several shooting clubs there is more of a function of population density than that district being pro-gun.

      If you look at the voting stats of that district, it leans heavily Blue. You may have some shooting clubs, but you are a minority of the district.

      In addition, I find your gun laws to be disgusting. I will not hold back on that at all. We ended literacy tests for voting in Alabama back when we ended segregation. Your state still imposes them on people, demanding that they beg permission to exercise a Constitutional right.

      In the wake of Parkland, as the NRA has become persona non grata, NRA training has become a thing of controversy, and a few states legislators have moved to have NRA training no longer approved for firearms training.

      Do you really give these people the good faith to say “the NRA has blood on their hands” and then allow the NRA to keep training people on gun safety?

      Are you stupid or naive?

      I lived in Illinois where NRA instructors were not allowed to teach IL CCW classes. Almost all the instructors were police officers.

      You may be used to living on bended knee in the Bay State, Impose that here in he Yellowhammer State and you are going to get shot.

      I know all about your laws and situation and my goal is to keep them contained to your Blue hellhole and not spread elsewhere.

      1. How is it not relevant to acknowledge that there are actually large numbers of gun owners in her (hopeful) district? You said it was relevant when you said, “I want to know how many NRA members and gun owners she knows in the hyper Liberal enclave of Boston she lives in.” So either you want to know or you don’t want to know. You don’t get to declare that when someone points out there are actually many NRA members and gun owners in the area that it’s suddenly not relevant.

        At no point did I ever argue that Massachusetts wasn’t a blue state or that the district wasn’t blue. It is, but that has absolutely nothing to do with my refutation of your post’s claims about Massachusetts gun laws or that NRA members have no serious presence in her district. In fact, your response is the first time the issue of blue/red politics has come up, and it does nothing to refute my comment. I never once claimed anything about gun owners being a majority of the district, just merely that some of the state’s most mobilized gun clubs are in the area. Acting like they don’t exist at all just because they haven’t won that single seat is not helpful strategically in the fight there or anywhere else.

        “I find your gun laws to be disgusting”
        What’s so offensive about Pennsylvania’s gun laws? I know there is certainly room for improvement, but I’m sure that since you clicked the link to find out more about your commenter’s context, you know that I don’t live in Massachusetts. In fact, my post is clearly written to use past tense references to Massachusetts, just like I can read in your comment about time spent in Illinois. I can pick up on clues that you now live in Alabama, just like I left you the same type of clues.

        As for what I believe the anti-gunners may or may not do, that’s not what you proposed in your post. You wrote your post clearly from the perspective of Massachusetts not already having extensive training requirements, which has been incorrect for going on 20 years now. I have not seen anything from GOAL about Massachusetts anti-gunners doing anything to knock out NRA training courses. If I do, then such condemnation will come on actions rather than speculation that at some point, someone might want to do something. Now, in Connecticut, that’s a different story. But as overwhelming as the anti-gun majority is in Massachusetts, they actually haven’t gone there or made any noise that I’ve heard. I’m open to being shown a link with a MA lawmaker introducing a bill or declaring their plans to boot all NRA certifications from the training program, then I’ll be happy to stand corrected. But in the meantime, your post is pure speculation on what you think they could do rather than anything based on what they’ve demonstrated they are interested in doing.

        I am neither stupid nor naïve, but rather someone with years of direct experience in the state which you’re commenting on. Even though I’ve been gone for years, I still generally keep up with it and would know many activists still behind fighting the good fight and even the lawmakers who can be brought over to the side of no more gun control even if they themselves are not actually pro gun. I recommend becoming that much of an expert in your own state if you are not yet. Then you’ll start to understand how hard it makes eyes roll when you see someone doing a big long post framed as though your state laws are something that they are not. And you can be just as snarky in response – maybe throw in some useful links for people to click for more information and context.

        FWIW, threatening to shoot fellow gun rights supporters is not the most effective way to build a coalition to fight for the Second Amendment in all areas. At no point did I ever indicate that I condone the laws of Massachusetts, in fact, I made it clear that I fought it at every turn while I was there. I don’t know where you translated that into a threat to export such laws and impose them on other states in such a way that will lead to me justifying being shot, but clearly I would recommend going back and reviewing the details.

        Strategies to fight in all states will be different. They will even differ across small legislative districts. Within Pennsylvania, a single approach doesn’t work well because of vastly different cultures within our borders. I believe it’s helpful to consider such issues before you so quickly turn your guns (literal or figurative) on fellow gun owners. Just make sure you get the facts right before you set your figurative sights on them if you want to pick a fight.

        1. Let me try this again:

          You insinuated – if not directly stated – that I don’t know what I’m talking about. I do, at least when it comes to state gun laws. I put effort into researching my posts.

          My first point is, there may be a substantial number of NRA members in the Boston suburbs. It is clear from the acts carried out by the state legislature and voting patterns of the region that NRA members are a minority. A lot of NRA members diluted into a huge anti-gun population.

          I lived in the suburbs of Chicago. I knew a lot of gun owners. I knew many more people who weren’t.

          That said, Brianna Wu is a radical Progressive. Like most radical Progressives she didn’t engage in dialog, at least in her role in the gamer controversy. This may be stereotyping, but I don’t think she actually has meaningful conversations with NRA members or knows anything about federal or state gun laws. I believe she is pushing the lie that “the NRA management doesn’t represent the wishes of the NRA members.” This is a tactic to delegitimize the NRA.

          On the other hand, I could be wrong. There could be NRA members who have told her that they are in favor of mandatory safety training and permits to own guns. If that is the case, they are fucking Quislings. I will not walk that back.

          Ultimately, Brianna Wu is running for Congress of the United States, not MA state rep. Any law or idea that she is proposing is not going to be implemented at the state level but the national level.

          It is clear that you do not understand – truly grok – how we in the South are about guns. You lived in a state that has an AWB and banned suppressors by law and local LEO’s won’t sign off on NFA paper work. I live in a state where all of my friends have NFA items and suppressor hunting is legal.

          MA is a may issue, with justification and training, state. Alabama is shall issue while you wait. Go to the Sheriff, hand over your drivers license, Pay $10 for every year you want your permit, up to five years. If your background check passes, you get your permit right there and then. They print it out like a drivers license for you.

          So have I made myself clear that Alabama will not roll over and accept MA gun laws.

          I’m curious as to what gun laws about Alabama you think I am unaware of. I don’t even have to go through a NICS check because I have a Alabama CCW. Betcha didn’t know that.

          You may not have seen where MA wants to take accreditation away from the NRA. You are right, I haven’t seen that debate in MA. Other states, yes. But that is besides the point. Once a state says “to own a gun you have to have a permit and you have to have training to get the permit” you have crossed the Rubicon with me. I should not have to seek the permission of the authorities to own something guaranteed to me in the Bill of Rights. It should not have gotten that far in the first place.

          My revulsion with your comments is that you seem to have the attitude “that after 20 years of living under the MA system, it’s not so bad, you’ll get used to it.”

          Let me be clear about that: “Fuck no!”

          I will and have turned down job offers from NYC and MA. I told Boston Scientific that I wasn’t going to work in their Boston or California offices. If the position wasn’t available in Florida (which it said it was in the description), I was going to turn down the job.

          I started this post with the belief that a radical Social Justice Progressive was lying about the NRA using a common Left Wing talking point used to delegitimize the NRA and push a federal law which takes gun ownership from shall to may.

          You seemed to come to her defense and accuse me of being ignorant.

          I’m telling you, I know MA gun laws. They are oppressive. Once you have to get permission for a right, that permission can be denied at any time. I will not accept them imposed on Alabama at the federal level. There will be a fight if they try.

          Clear enough?

          1. Let me be clear. I called the Massachusetts regime overly restrictive in the very first post. What I objected to is that you presented the Massachusetts situation as not at all what it is – and now you acknowledge that you haven’t seen any talk at all in the Bay State about removing NRA courses as accreditation, much less any of the other extreme examples you presented. If you really did know that much detail about the exact courses required for each level of licensing in Massachusetts, then you willfully misrepresented the situation. If you didn’t, well, you’re attacking her for not knowing the local gun situation without actually knowing any yourself.

            And let me also be clear that since you’re in the habit of making up things I’ve never said, I never once claimed to live in Massachusetts for 20 years. That’s not even possible with my age and documented background on the blog. You’re pulling excuses out of your hat for why you want to insult gun owners fighting for Second Amendment when they call you out for being wrong on this area of law relevant to the speaker; in doing so, you’re fabricating a history that doesn’t exist.

            I know you’ll really hate this – I’m from the South. I’ve given up a great deal of opportunity – not a single job – to fight for gun rights in anti-gun states because I’m that dedicated to it. It’s not a pissing match because people do what the can with their resources, but you don’t get to make up false backgrounds for people and assume the very worst motives without knowing your facts.

            I’ll stick by initial assertion – I have zero doubt that Brianna Wu is full of shit when it comes to her tweet claims. I especially know that because I know many of the NRA members in that district! Bullshit they would stand for their system applied nationwide. However, the way to refute her false claims isn’t by misrepresenting the state of Massachusetts gun laws.

            1. I never misrepresented anything.

              To own a gun in Massachusetts you have to have a FID (Firearms ID) not unlike the FOID (Firearms Owner ID) I had in Illinois. Unlike the FOID, MA residents must have training to obtain a FID. All I had to do with fill out a 4473 with the Illinois State Police.

              Both are bad, MA is worse.

              In MA, there are certified private trainers, Fish & Wildlife trainers, and Local PD can train as well.

              “As for what I believe the anti-gunners may or may not do, that’s not what you proposed in your post. You wrote your post clearly from the perspective of Massachusetts not already having extensive training requirements, which has been incorrect for going on 20 years now. I have not seen anything from GOAL about Massachusetts anti-gunners doing anything to knock out NRA training courses.”

              I’m saying I don’t care about you saying that there hasn’t been any fuckery with the training for the last 20 years. That doesn’t mean there won’t be fuckery in the future.

              One state to the south of MA is CT. The Governor of CT, Dan Malloy called the NRA “a terrorist organization.” If Malloy was the Governor of MA, with MA laws, all he would have to do is make it so private training wasn’t good for a FID. That would severely reduce the number of new FID. By reducing the number of F&W officers available for training, he could reduce it even more.

              In my original post, I wasn’t talking about MA gun laws specifically. I was talking about a hypothetical situation in which mandatory training becomes federal law. So, maybe MA law as federal law.

              Do you really think in today’s climate that NY, CA, NJ, CT, MA, MD, or any other Left Wing politicians would allow private trainers, especially private trainers associated with the NRA to train people to the federal standard?

              I don’t think so. I believe that every anti-gun politician would try to choke the flow of gun ownership by making training impossibly difficult to obtain.

              How do I know this? The Illinois Democrats said exactly this when Illinois adopted CCW. This was also the tactic used in the segregated south to stop blacks from voting by requiring literacy tests.

              Just because MA let certified private trainers be part of the FID system 20 years ago doesn’t mean anything to me today if some politician tries to do this now.

              And I stand by my comment, that if there are gun owning or worse, NRA Fudds who have told Brianna Wu that mandatory training is great and should be the law, they are quislings.

              Alabamans won’t stand to have some politicians from NY and CA decided which bureaucrats can sign off on a permit for us to own guns.

      2. “Are you stupid or naive? ”

        Really? You wrote that to Bitter? ‘Not Cool’ does not even begin to express my reaction to that.

        1. I have read Bitter’s comment over and over again and this how I am reading it.

          Comment: I don’t know what I’m talking about.
          Response: That just pissed me off.

          C: There is a large number of gun owners/NRA members/shooting clubs in that area, and a strong gun culture.
          R: I never said there weren’t NRA members in MA, but that I doubt Wu talks to them. The Brady and Giffords groups give MA an “A-” rating for gun control. The NRA ranks it at the 49th state for gun rights (only NY is lower). There may be a strong gun culture or many NRA members, but they have zero political weight in the state so if they are there they are ineffectual in politics.

          C: Wu was talking about MA state law.
          R: Maybe, maybe not. But as a Congresswoman she would me making new Federal law and when starting fresh there is no way of telling what she would do.

          C: For 20 years MA hasn’t increased restrictions on training.
          R: Again, irrelevant. I lived in Illinois and watched Dem Sate Rep after Dem State Rep say in the IL Capitol that they wanted training to be as onerous as possible to make it difficult for people to get CCW permits. It had nothing to do with safety and everything with trying to make the hurdle so high few people would try and jump it. That was five years ago. I firmly believe that any new law which required mandatory training would be drafted that way (onerous requirements).

          C: I don’t know Alabama gun laws.
          R: I do and I’m not sure what I said that makes him thing that I don’t.

          C: I want to shoot gun owners.
          R: No, I want to fight those who impose a literacy test on gun rights. If that includes a few quisling Fudds, they chose their side.

          Ultimately, I felt that his post was apologetic for MA gun laws, “you don’t know what they are talking about, they are not so bad, there is lots of training available.”

          I stand firm on my position. Permits to own, I believe, are unconstitutional. Training requirements are literacy tests designed to make it harder for people to exercise rights. Just because 20 years ago MA let the NRA train people doesn’t mean federal law would be that lenient.

          If he puts that much faith in our legislators to make training requirements fair – which again, is the way I am interpreting his comment because I was talking about a hypothetical future law drafted by Brianna Wu – that is stupid and naive.

          I do not trust anybody who wants to put a bureaucratic hurdle in front of my right to exercise a right. I do not expect them to draft laws in good faith. I do not expect SCOTUS to act in good faith on my behalf.

          The ONLY option I see is to fight these proposals tooth and nail so that they don’t go anywhere in the first place.

          Maybe he meant none of that, but it sure as shit felt like he was saying “if you lived there you’d realize it’s not so bad.”

  3. When a liberal says they support the Second Amendment because they own a shotgun, I tell them I support vegetarianism because I like lettuce on my bacon cheeseburgers.

    If she’s supporting the mandatory training be held in school, I will endorse her. But we both know that’s not the point, don’t we?

    Also: Are there any Democrats left who aren’t attention whores?

Feel free to express your opinions. Trolling, overly cussing and Internet Commandos will not be tolerated .

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.