The push is on. In a move that surprises absolutely no one who paid any attention since the beginning of the campaign, the houseplant… err, brandon,,, I mean biden administration is on the move to ban guns by executive fiat, since it doesn’t seem to be getting anywhere in congress. Naturally, staggeringly intrusive gun control bills had already passed the democrat controlled house, but were being stymied in the senate. Now, of course, the house is in titular control of brandon’s opposition; but this has little impact on those bills that were already forwarded to the senate. More about what happens next later; we’re here to discuss motivation. The primary goal of the ban advocacy has always been the creation of an entirely disarmed populace. The old operational matrix was the incremental movement; death by a thousand cuts; first this, then that, never losing ground until the final goal is attained. Now, however, the USSC has stepped in and reminded people that the Constitution exists and actually has meaning, even now. This annoys the ban advocates, and brandon is nothing if not one of that flock. Thus, they simply write bans, whether or not it’s “legal” for them to do so.
What we discuss here, then, is their purported cause; the fulcrum they are using as they attempt to lever the 2nd Amendment from its position in the Constitutional framework. That fulcrum? Nothing less will do than using the single most preventable shooting atrocity in living memory: Parkland. [Side note: As Col Cooper reminds us, a tragedy is an unforseen/unavoidable event that ends life prematurely. A planned/deliberate event is something quite different. A plane crash is tragic, 9/11 was an atrocity.]
You will remember that several things about Parkland were remarkable, to say the least. Among other notable items were sheriff’s deputies, responding to an active-shooter call from the school; but following policy and hiding behind a dumpster outside. You may also recall that it was law enforcement officers from another area, who entered the building and ended the scenario. You might even remember the sheriff; who was the architect of the policies his deputies followed on the day, telling people of his ‘amazing leadership’.
How many people, however, remember that this same sheriff: Mr. Amazing Leadership himself; was in charge of a law-enforcement organization that responded to no fewer than 39 calls concerning the shooter; many of them regarding violent events, at least two of which involved the shooter putting his own mother in the hospital? Things get all manner of interesting when you find out that none of these calls resulted in a criminal record for the shooter. The reason? The sheriff admitted (at one point) it was due to not wanting to affect his crime statistics with a youth offender.
The point of all this is that ‘the system’ passed up dozens of opportunities to ‘do something’ about a violent offender…
and law-abiding firearms owners are expected to accept that they should pay the price, because it’s ‘common sense’.
No, it’s not common sense, it’s what comes out of the north end of a southbound male bovine. Besides, I don’t know how the administration plans to effect a confiscation of firearms; everyone I know lost all their guns in a boating accident.
but if biden really does come for your guns, give him your toaster. He’ll never know the difference.
8 replies on “An ounce of prevention”
I’ve never been a gun owner, and had never fired a handgun until a few years ago. Our son and I went shooting at an old gravel pit that allows gun owners to use it for target practice. He’s had a .45 handgun for several years, and has a conceal/carry permit here in Washington state.
We’ve done this a couple of times, and it was fun. It has given me a lot of respect for how much damage a gun can do. He has a friend who was in the Marine Corps. and served several tours overseas. When he left the military, or maybe before, I’m not sure, he was able to legally purchase the .50 caliber sniper rifle that our military has been using for a few years now.
He’s told me a few stories from when they’d taken it out to see what it can do, and it makes me glad that our military has it to use on our enemies.
What the Democrats think they’re trying to do will never work, the genie’s been out of the bottle too long now for them to stop it. They always think that they have the moral high ground on these kinds of issues, but I think they’re all full of shit.
I have nothing but respect for responsible, legal gun owners, and I think the government has no fucking business trying to change or repeal any of the rights that are given in the constitution.
I applaud your strong language. It’s how I respond when some bureaucratic tool claims he’s gonna take my property. No way, Dude!
One quibble though … none of our inalienable rights, including the right to keep and bear arms, are “given in the constitution.” The USA Constitution is defined to constrain government, and its Second Amendment, for good or ill, only itemizes one of the inalienable rights granted us by our Creator.
Amplifying a bit on what David said, the Founders had quite a tiff amongst themselves over adding the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution. I’m glad in hindsight that they did but it was an iffy thing for several years. It was difficult to resolve because both sides of the argument were right.
One side maintained that there was no need for a Bill of Rights because all those rights are already endowed by The Creator and covered under “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” and the first paragraph of the Constitution which states “We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.”
Spelling out specific rights would support the notion that those were the only rights so bestowed and enshrined. Doing so would also allow the argument that the government can give, and thus take away, unalienable rights. Government cannot do that, even with the consent of the governed because those rights do not emanate from government.
The other side felt that it would be wise to spell out specific rights that the government should never be allowed to infringe upon. Rights that are intrinsic to all humanity and cannot be nullified because they are not within the power of government to grant or withhold. Thus setting clear boundaries that the government may not under any circumstances trespass beyond. So as to provide a foundation for and illuminate the most basic innate, irrepressible, God given rights of human beings and set them in stone so to speak.
Sorry for the history lesson but David has a vital point. A point that should never be overlooked even if the way you said it was unintended to do that. The U.S. Constitution does not grant those rights and it cannot rightly be used as a mechanism to infringe upon those rights. Nor are those rights subject to the whims of government including the Democrat Left.
As for the .50 BMG caliber sniper rifle the Marines use today, that’s the Barrett M82. It is the military version of the Barrett Light 50 which is expensive but can be bought over-the-counter the same as the AR15 and variants. Whereas the current issue M40A6 sniper rifle chambered in 7.62 NATO (and soon to be replaced with the Mk22 Modification 0 ASR) is deemed an anti-personnel weapon the M82 is considered an anti-material weapon. While the .50 BMG round will certainly kill any land animal on planet Earth it is more suitable for lightly armored enemy vehicles and aircraft.
I’m a big fan of the wisdom of Jeff Cooper myself too.
This is is a purely empty political move by the Potato Garden. Like student loan forgiveness it will be blocked by the court. Eventually. Lower courts that ignore SCOTUS precedents for political reasons are easily nullified on appeal.
I’m not saying we shouldn’t worry about this kind of thing. When one of two major political parties pulls stunts, and they are stunts, like this it is perforce a point of extreme concern. The real concern here is not what they say they want, it’s what they’re doing to get what they really want.
The Democrat Left led by the unelected committee pulling Brandon’s strings do this sort of thing so that they can tell their base …
“See!? We tried to help you with common sense gun measures but those filthy Right Wingers blocked us. This is why we need to do something about the illegitimate Right Wing Supreme Court and the threats to our Democracy posed by our political opposition! Vote for us!”
That doesn’t work directly because as you point out there are laws and the Constitution is still relevant whether those people like it or not. They don’t like it a whole bunch because their voting base thinks they can vote for anything they want, laws be damned. That’s what they mean by “our Democracy”
This sort of thing is less an assault on gun ownership, or relief of student loan debts, than it is an attempt to dismantle the Rule of Law, nullify by stealth and craft the U.S. Constitution and gain votes. The United States of America will never be safe for ‘their Democracy’ as long as the Constitution and Rule of Law holds sway. They need a lot of voters to get where they want to be.
For example: In the case of student loan debt relief over 16 million people had applied for relief by the time the whole shebang was blocked by a court in Texas. The SCOTUS is scheduled to hear an appeal on behalf of debt relief this year but … It’s not much of a stretch of the imagination to think that every one of those 16 million people will become Democrat voters if they are not already when SCOTUS most likely upholds that block.
The Democrat Left will be just as happy either way. If the block is lifted, they bought a pile of votes pandering to some of the people who have student loan debts. If the block stays in place those people who applied for student loan debt relief will most likely vote Democrat. It’s a win-win for our political adversaries and while it’s sneaky and underhanded, sneaky and underhanded is a fair description of their politics anyway. This is a strategy that would be admirable if it were not so dastardly.
That’s the real point of this sort of political strategy. The Democrats don’t give a flying rat’s distal alimentary exhaust orifice about student debt. If they did they’d work on laws to limit the massive cash harvest by educational institutions that incurs those debts. They care about votes and how to get them. This is one way they try to get those votes.
“ their voting base thinks they can vote for anything they want, laws be damned.”
This, in particular, is why this nation is not and was never intended to be, a democracy. The goal was that essetial liberty and the rule of law should never be subject to the fickle whims of populist whimsy. It’s why the process of changing the Constitution is so tedious; it shouldn’t happen just because something tranded for a moment.
As for the dems gaining voters from the student loan bribe; there may be some, but that number is mitigated pretty heavily by the fact that a good number of people in those institutes of single-viewpoint idea exchange are already conditioned leftward. Life hasn’t had time to beat the stupid out of them yet.
Thus, gentle readers, is what comes of visiting the blog before coffee… I looked in the wrong place, remembered the wrong event, and thought my last attempt to upload this, didn’t work. Sorry.
‘S alright. Stuff happens. I never do anything before my first cup of coffee in the morning because I get the same results.
I’m not a coffee drinker. If it tasted like it smelled…. Well, i would have to do decaf. Which begs the question : why?
Decaf because caffeine can promote kidney stones. Don’t want to go there again. My last two were too big to pass.
That said, I’ve heard one coffee drinker ask: “Is there life before coffee?”
What do I do to wake up in the morning?
I have 4 indoor dogs. One with an annoying (understatement) bark.
“Hey! I need to go out! Now!!”