NYC man who fatally shot would-be mugger had arsenal of 30 guns, cops say. An arsenal? JHFC. I own more handguns than that. Stop clutching your pearls. I thought New Yorkers were supposed to be tough.
Antigun
Winning
Now that the Second Amendment is a winning issue in court, the left is getting desperate. Gavin Newsom is proposing a 28th Amendment that would add the left’s wish lists to the Constitution. There is precisely zero chance of getting 3/4 of the states to approve such an amendment, at least not in my lifetime.
Others on the left are proposing some pretty wild stuff:
a better proposal would be to repeal and replace the 2nd Amendment through Congress and the states.
By replacing the convoluted language of the 2nd Amendment with a list of specific rules for gun ownership, gun violence can be reduced.
This has the same chances of success as Newsome’s 28th Amendment, and for the same reasons. There is also:
Instead of taking decades to secure approval of two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of the states, I believe a gun summit at Camp David — with gun-rights advocates, law enforcement and survivors — could hammer out new, commonsense gun safety measures in a matter of days.
I don’t see this being Constitutional. Gun rights organizations are done compromising with the left. Compromise to the left means “We want to take all of your rights. You don’t want to give them up. How about we compromise and only take half of them? Then next year, we can do this again.” No. Just no. The gun control side doesn’t deal in good faith. How about this proposal?
The 2nd Amendment begins with “a well-regulated militia” — not just a militia, but a a well-regulated one. An honest interpretation would be that as long as restrictions do not impede the formation of a regulated state militia, they could be deemed permissible.
My suggestion to Newsom: Allow widespread ownership of firearms, but all such arms (some types of small arms might be exempted) would be held by the California National Guard and could be accessed and used only through the Guard.
This hot take was destroyed in the Heller decision. Apparently, the anti-gun idiots haven’t read it.
Antigun
Owning the Cops
This video of a pro se litigant grilling an asshole of a cop during a deposition is worth a watch. It’s 33 minutes long, but worth it.
Anti American left
No, Just No
They tell us that we are paranoid because no one wants to take our guns.
Jane Fonda says that we need to kill all of the white men in order to save the planet. You see, according to her and the climate change religion, we only have eight years to cut our greenhouse gas emissions in half, or the world is doomed. Of course, they were saying we only had eight years last year. They also said it the year before that. They also said we only had eight years in 2007, sixteen years ago.
She should have been arrested and sentenced to death for treason when she went to North Vietnam and sat on that anti-aircraft gun for a photo opportunity. I am sick of the anti-American left telling me how they are going to come after me to have me killed, fired, deplatformed, or whatever, then telling me that I am paranoid for not wanting to give up my guns.
I am not giving up my guns, I am not getting into the rail car, and if you try, my only hope is that I make the trade an expensive one.
Antigun
They Did It
Chicago is sending unarmed, yellow vested peacekeepers in to violent scenes, instead of police officers. The idea is that they will deescalate instead of use force.
If there’s unrest downtown or mass shootings elsewhere in Chicago this Memorial Day holiday — often among the year’s most violent weekends — a special team of 30 “Peacekeepers” wearing yellow vests will be mobilized to help calm things down, state officials said Tuesday.
Antigun
FPC members
It appears that the ATF rule against pistol braces that is due to go into effect on June 1 does not apply to members of the FPC. I am not sure if this is a nationwide injunction, or just in the Fifth circuit. Read more here.
Antigun
Book Bans
Stories abound on so-called “book bans.” The right is pulling books from school libraries because they instruct children on how to perform sex acts upon other children or on adults. It’s a disingenuous argument. Librarians are acting all offended because a school is choosing not to carry books that are inappropriate for children. The books can still be purchased by those who choose to do so. They can still be read, are still being published. They haven’t been banned at all.
Not so with other books. It was just five years ago that the left cheered as Amazon pulled a book from its store. That book, published by Defense Distributed, was the text version of the step files required to 3D print the Liberator pistol. That book was subsequently banned by a US judge. It is no longer published. It can’t be bought. No one can read it, unless they find a bootleg copy from a site like Pirate Bay.
Antigun
Bad Takes
Today, I wanted to take a look at this article from the Washington Post. They are attempting to make the case that the Second Amendment allows for the banning of the AR-15, because it isn’t a weapon “that ordinary people carry on an ordinary basis for self-defense.” This article is as dishonest as usual when discussing the Second Amendment. What they have done here is said that the Second Amendment applies to weapons that the militia would carry, then twisted it to say that the modern interpretation doesn’t apply to any gun that you can’t carry concealed, meaning that you can’t carry hand grenades and rocket launchers, or AR-15s.
Logically, it should also exclude AR-15s, which are not commonly carried for self-defense.
Washington Post
Of course, the Heller decision never said that “common use” was restricted only to weapons that were carried for individual defense. It said used for common defense. That decision also glossed over what we are supposed to do when a law creates its own “common use” restriction. That is, what if a weapon isn’t in common use because an otherwise unconstitutional law has eliminated that weapon from being in common use? For example, machine guns might very well be in common use, if it weren’t for the fact that they have been restricted for a century, and outright banned for the past 37 years. It’s this sort of circular argument that the Bruen decision is addressing: Would the founding fathers have banned machine guns? I don’t think that they would have. After all, there were cannons and even entire warships that were in private hands at the time of ratification.
What’s really interesting about the Post article is that it signals a shift in anti-gunner philosophy. It looks as though they are finally giving in to the SCOTUS decisions. Sure, they take the time to trash talk the decision:
Modern gun rights jurisprudence began in 2008, when Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a Supreme Court opinion called District of Columbia v. Heller. That opinion featured the astonishing act (astonishing for an originalist, at least) of reinterpreting the original meaning of the Second Amendment. This took some jurisprudential jiu-jitsu. Scalia discounted the introductory clause that explains the purpose of amendment as ensuring a well-regulated militia. He shifted the meaning of the right to bear arms to personal self-defense.
Along the way, Scalia made up a new limitation for the newly created right.
Washington Post
The point here is that they are beginning to recognize that they have lost this part of the fight. What’s funny is that they go on to claim that the right doesn’t apply to hand grenades or tanks. I beg to differ. The law permits the private ownership of armored vehicles. We see them every day: they deliver money to your local grocery store. Granted, those are not armed with cannons and belt fed coaxial machine, guns, but they are currently owned.
I would argue that hand grenades would be permissible to own. I could easily see that using a hand grenade in a crowded subway would be just as illegal as emptying an entire handgun into a crowd. After all, indiscriminate weapon use that strikes six innocent people in order to hit one mugger is a bit ridiculous. However, using that same tactic against four armed men in your downstairs living room that are waiting to ambush you as you come down the stairs could easily be justified.
Similar cases can be made for owning a Javelin AT missile. There aren’t many cases where one would be useful to use in self defense, but that is a different story than simply owning one. It is important that we not conflate owning a weapon and actually firing it. Just as there is a difference between owning a 1911 and firing one at someone, a similar distinction exists for nearly any weapon, whether that weapon is a single shot .22, a missile launcher, or a hand grenade.
I would argue that the Second Amendment as it is written also permits nuclear weapons. If only there was a way that we could rewrite the Constitution to account for new technology… Perhaps a way to modify it. We could call it an Amendment. Perhaps we could, say, get a 2/3 majority of both houses of Congress and 3/4 of the state legislatures, and we could amend the Second Amendment to say: “shall not be infringed, but in no case will this permit the private ownership of nuclear weapons.”
But then, several decades from now, the left will be arguing that the AR-15 is actually the same as a nuclear weapon.
Antigun
Compromise?
The left wants us to work with them on gun control. Leaving aside the fact that their definition of compromise is for us to give up some of our gun rights this year, so they can come back next year to take more of them in yet another compromise, why would I want to work with them when they are saying this about me?
These anti-Americans chucklefucks support murdering kids. Dead kids aren’t deal-breakers for compromising on gun reform. If dead kids aren’t deal-breakers to improve gun laws, that means guns are more important to them than the lives of children. Ergo, they support dead kids.
How about no.
Your move.