B.L.U.F a derailed train of thought regarding gun infringers. BORING.
The anti-gun battle is difficult to understand because it requires us to acknowledge that there are different classes of people out there advocating for gun infringements.
I was at a client’s office shortly after the Boston Bombing. The owner of the company and I were talking. I mentioned that the media was talking about how the suspects were heading towards New York, or Canada, or a dozen other places. What they didn’t mention was a concern that they might be heading into NH.
As my lady put it “The people of New Hampshire are out in their front yards in their lawn chairs with rifle at hand hoping to bag their limit of bombers.”
The owner went was very surprised at that statement. He didn’t know that just about anybody could get a license to carry in NH. NH is now a constitutional carry state.
He asked me “Do you think there have been any guns in our office?”
I replied with “Have we had customers in the office?”
“Then it is likely we have had guns in the office.” I replied.
I didn’t bother to tell him that there was a pistol on my hip and another in my EDC bag.
“Oh… I don’t like guns. My brother was killed in a gun accident when we were kids.”
My client had a reason to be fearful of guns. He had never learned safe gun handling and his strongest memory of a gun was his brother dying from a gunshot. His children were like wise anti-gun people.
But they didn’t do anything about it. Guns were not part of their culture. They didn’t want to be around guns and they didn’t think it was safe have guns. They didn’t try and push their wants on others.
There is another type of anti-gun person. This is the person that firmly believes that certain firearms are just to much for you to own. They have bought into all of the anti-gun propaganda. They are true believers. What they believe is that we would all be better off if there were no more “bad” guns.
They don’t really know what a “bad” gun is. They just know it when they see it. This is the person that has no problems with a mini-14 but freaks at an AR-15. That thinks an AR-15 platform like rifle that shoots .22LR is horrible and should be banned but doesn’t think anything is wrong with an M1.
A person they believe that “weapons of war” and “military style” weapons should be banned but have no issues with people owning weapons that were actually carried in war being owned and wanting to ban rifles that have never been carried in war.
These people are obnoxious but can be reached. They just need one little bit of gunshine in order to understand that maybe they haven’t been told the truth.
For these people I’ve used the “Which round sound be banned?” while showing them all sorts of rounds. They pick things like 7.62x54r, 30-06, 7.62×51 NATO, 30-30 Win, .303 British, and other rounds of that style. They almost never pick 5.56×45.
With a little bit of verbal manipulation I’ve been able to get them to pick .45 Colt over 5.56×45. I’m looking forward to having them decide between 45-70 and 5.56×45.
I had a guest ask to see my firearms when visiting. I did a small show and tell. He was from LI, NY. We were going through different things when I handed him a loaded magazine.
He started to take it and I yanked it back. “You’re from New York. Your governor says that having a magazine with more than 8 rounds (I don’t remember what it was that year) will make you a killing mass murder.” I stripped off some rounds to bring it into “S.A.F.E.” standards and handed it back to him.
“There you go, it is now safe for you to handle.”
He looked at me like I had gone crazy. “What are you talking about?”
I explained to him what the law was in his state and how having one too many rounds in a magazine was a violation of law but having the “right” number of rounds was perfectly ok.
He got it. He didn’t turn into a gun person, he stopped being anti-gun.
Another friend of mine is what I call a “thinking leftist”. She leans so far left that she’d fall over if there was a strong wind. We were having lunch together, talking about compromises in gun laws. I told her that what she was calling a compromise was just me giving up less.
I then used as my counter “If they were to offer us national reperprocity, that would be a compromise.” After I explained what reperprocity meant she was shocked to learn that it wasn’t. Explaining that carrying a shell casing into Mass could get me arrested and charged with a felony was even more shocking to her.
She is no longer a slave to the media propaganda.
Then we have the gun infringing busy bodies. These are those that know that the best thing for society is to remove guns from your hands. They believe this so firmly that they will lie, cheat, and steal in order to bring this about.
These are the day to day drones that buzz around Everytown, Mom’s Demands, Giffards, and the like. They believe it is their duty to take your guns away from you.
They can attend events where their organization is paying for armed guards and think “that’s ok” because the armed guards are “better” than those gun nuts. These people believe all of the propaganda and work diligently to make society “safer” by removing guns from you.
I believe that my representatives and senators fall into this category. To attribute more to them would require they be sharper than they’ve shown themselves to be.
The next level is the liar and cheat. These are the people that are knowingly creating lies in order to modify society. These are the people that will intentionally conflate a suicide in a school parking lot by a 40yo man with a “school shooting”.
These are the liars that claim there have been more mass shootings this year than days. They actually claim there is more than one per day.
They get there by using bad data and bad definitions. They talk about the real mass shootings with lots of victims and then in the very next breath talk about a “mass shooting” where 10 gang bangers were exchanging fire with each other, no deaths and one injured.
Not the video I was looking for. The video in question shows an incident where gang members are running to cars to grab weapons. Lots and lots of rounds fired at each other. No signs that anybody was hit. When you hear the sirens start to approach they ditch guns in cars. Lock the cars and calmly walk away.
These people lie using statistics. “The ATF reports that there has been over a 1000% increase in ghost gun traces.”. They never tell us if these were home manufactured firearms or if they are firearms whose serial numbers have been removed. They also don’t tell us why a gun with no serial number is being sent to the ATF for a trace.
And finally, they don’t tell us that the reason for the vast increase in traces of ghost guns is that they are now asking law enforcement to send in trace requests for “ghost” guns. The intent to be to drive up the numbers.
So we don’t know if 1000% means that there was 10 traces in 2018 and there were 100 traces in 2022 or if there were 10,000 traces in 2018 and 100,000 in 2023. When people want to lie with statistics they use the method that gets the results they want.
If the numbers are small they will list percentages. Using percentages small changes in the absolute number make for large changes in percentages. If the percentage change is small but the number is large, they use the absolute number because people don’t have good feel for raw numbers.
The entire goal of this group of people is to create a narrative that paints gun owners and people that want to defend themselves as “evil” and bad.
At the top are the manipulators. I attribute true evil to them. They don’t want you to have guns for deeply personal reasons. Often they think it is an obstacle to their goals.
I talk about “polite police” from time to time. The less likely a populace is to be armed, the less polite the police are. The more likely the citizens are armed, the more likely the police will be polite.
I stopped in at the local cop shop the other day to speak with the chief. It took only a few minutes to get in to see him. I had my EDC on me. Did he see it? I don’t know. Did it matter?
It didn’t matter because my ability to act didn’t mean I was going to act.
There is a joke about a game warden coming up on a woman and her young son fishing on the lake. She was sitting there reading a book while her son fished. There were a couple of poles in the boat but only the son was actually fishing. The warden asked to see their licenses.
The woman got out her son’s license and showed it to the game warden.
“I don’t have one. I don’t fish and I haven’t been fishing.”
“Well I see you have the equipment to fish so I’m going to write you up for fishing without a license.”
She argued a little bit but gave in at last.
“Just to let you know warden, when I get back to shore I’m going to file rape charges against you.”
“You have the equipment so you must have done it….”
The point being what we all know. It isn’t the equipment that does evil, it is the evil that lurks in the hearts of men.
The manipulators at the top are evil. These are the ones that are fighting not only to disarm us but to make self-defense and defense of others impossible.
These are the people that are fighting to change the meaning of our Constitution in order to remove the protections it guarantees to use.
These are the people that make the claim that the second only applies to Militias and holds that line in court for decades. When that is overturned they switch to “But we have a good and laudable reason for this infringement.” They convince the courts to balance our rights away.
These are the people that change rules, ordinances and laws in order to moot cases to keep them from the Supreme Court.
Today I read their words in court filings and my blood boils.
“Magazines aren’t arms” because why? The Supreme Court has already given their opinion that things like magazines, ammunition, reloading supplies and such are all “arms” within the scope of the Second Amendment.
“It doesn’t matter if it is in common use, it is unusually dangerous”. No, the Supreme Court has said that in order for an arm to be outside of the scope of the Second Amendment it has to be both unusually dangerous and uncommon.
“The laws of Merry Old England in the 1600’s are part of the history and tradition of the Second Amendment.” Again, no. The Supreme Court has stated that history and tradition around the founding. This is 1791 when the Second was ratified along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. The end of the founding era is 1826 when the last of the founding fathers died. Laws from around the time of the ratification of the 14th amendment, 1868, can be used to support laws from 1791.
“A sensitive place is anywhere we say it is.” The Supreme Court has commented on this. After reading Bruen for the first time I read “sensitive place” and predicted that it would be come an attack vector. It has.
At every step of the way, these manipulators have used every trick they have. They have bent language to mean what it doesn’t mean. One they recently used in Duncan v. Bonta is that by analyzing the written documents of a time period they can assign a numerical value to the “normal” usage of a word.
In this they analyze “bear” and “to bear” in the context of arms. From the statistical analysis they claim that the term “to bear arms” is most commonly used in the context of the military. Since that is the most common usage that must be the one meant in the Second Amendment which means that you don’t have the right to bear arms, only the militia.