Category: Scratch a Lib-Find a Moron

Be Not Afraid: Fear, Guns, and Gun Policy

here’s something about fear that makes people do very different things, even if their fear is over the same source. It’s why some people stick their heads in the sand while others prepare for disasters. It’s why some people try to change the world and others just dig in and try to survive in it.

And let’s be real here, the subject of fear is a big part of the gun debate, whether we like it or not.

That’s especially true when people let their fears dictate what policies they back, especially when they’re trying to decide what anyone is allowed to do.

This came up because of an op-ed at an independent student publication at Auburn University. I don’t particularly like picking on college students, but sometimes, they offer up tidbits of what others are thinking, and their arguments need to be addressed. This particular op-ed seems to talk a lot about gun control, of course, but there’s a reason I’m talking about fear.

It’s because the author started it.

The heavy emotions I felt receiving my high school diploma this past May came in distinctly differing ways.
I felt a deep sense of accomplishment for myself and my closest friends. I felt as though a suffocating weight was lifted off of my chest, opening a portal for unlimited success. I felt as though I would never return to Huntsville and live the same simple and carefree life. I would never roam the halls of the high school or put my keeper gloves on for soccer practice.   

It was this breakneck speed of time passing that pried my fingers from holding on. An era of childhood was closing in front of my eyes, and I didn’t know how to react to it. As I took in the occasion, feeling gracious for the memories and sentimental for the time I would never get back, for a brief moment, I thought to myself, “I survived.” I survived a part of life that many children and young adults don’t each year.

Now, let’s understand that school shootings are rare. While the current hotness for anti-gunners is that firearms are the leading cause of death in children, it still should be noted that child deaths aren’t super common, either.

In other words, if you’re born in this country, you’ve got a really, really great chance of reaching adulthood. So long as you stay in school, you’ll graduate. There’s really no reason to fear that you won’t survive beyond the media hype trying to convince people that they won’t.

Yet, what I find funny is that this person, who claims they were so relieved to survive to graduate, then had the gall to write this:

What are pro-gun activists so scared about as they leave their house that forces them to conceal carry a life-ending weapon? What does it say about our nation that people feel such a strong need to always protect themselves? Why are people so willing to look past all of this tragedy for their own convenience of owning a gun? Why are we time and time again allowing unstable citizens and children access to buy these guns or access them without stricter security measures?  

American gun violence in schools blows every other first-world nation out of the water in terms of how often they occur and the amount of deaths that result.  

American non-gun violence blows every other first-world nation out of the water in terms of how often it occurs, especially when compared to those nations’ total rates.

And the vast majority of that violence is carried out by people who cannot lawfully access guns, but do so anyway.

I find it funny, though, that the author has decided to question our courage by opting to carry a gun when he was relieved just to survive high school, when there wasn’t really a great chance he wouldn’t.

The truth is that most of us aren’t really afraid. We have concerns that bad things can happen, but we believe that it’s better to be prepared for the unlikely than to simply trust probability to protect us.

Look, I’ve had people in my sights twice. Once because I was afraid for my own life, and once for the life of another. I’m glad I didn’t have to pull the trigger either time. I’m already outside of the probability range for most people, so you’ll excuse me if I go about my day with a gun on me out of concern that the laws of probability aren’t finished screwing with me. I’m not afraid most of the time. The gun is for when there’s a reason to be afraid.

Yet let’s understand that while the author makes a thing about asking what we’re afraid of, his entire approach to the issue of guns is governed my his own fears. He cites fatal shooting statistics around college campuses after lamenting K-12 school shootings, and I get the concern. Colleges are prime targets for bad people, but not because there aren’t enough gun laws. It’s because college campuses are gun-free zones.

Fear governed the creation of gun-free zones. Fear expanded them onto college campuses. Fear governs the calls for gun control throughout the nation, all while anti-gunners ask us what we’re afraid of.

When I’m carrying, the answer is, “Nothing.”

It’s a lot easier to be not afraid when you have the means to meet the threat. It’s a lot easier to have no fear when you’re prepared for whatever dangers you might encounter.

Sure, fear will pop up then, but that’s a different matter. Everyone else is just as afraid. I’m just in a position to do something about it.

I’m not counting on a law that will be ignored to protect me.

Chris Murphy: School Shootings Aren’t Common Enough for Armed Guards

Whenever there’s a high-profile shooting, such as what happened at Annunciation Catholic Schools, we start hearing about how common these have become, with manufactured numbers that drive the total up, all designed to scare people into supporting gun control.

The answer from our side is armed school staff or, at a minimum, armed guards in schools.

Now, there’s no question about which side of this debate Sen. Chris Murphy falls. He’s a noted gun grabber and he’s always looking for a gun control angle. We all know it.

But it seems that even he knows that he’s been running a line of BS for years.

On Wednesday’s broadcast of MSNBC’s “All In,” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) stated that he opposed armed guards in schools because he thinks it creates “irrational” fear in children and “you are still more likely in this country to be killed by a falling object than you are in a mass shooting.” But there is an “underlying story about the easy access of guns. And if we just were more careful about who has access to powerful weapons in this country, we would have less need to board up a lot of our public settings.”

Wait, so these are super rare events that we shouldn’t stress to the point of putting armed guards in schools because it’ll instill fear in children–spoiler: school resource officers are common enough that we’d know if it did, and it doesn’t–but we should totally trample our right to keep and bear arms because of something rarer than being killed by a sack of potatos falling out of the sky and killing someone?

Am I tracking this right?

But the doublespeak continued, with Murphy saying, “As much as this has now become an epidemic, you are still more likely in this country to be killed by a falling object than you are in a mass shooting. There [are] far too many mass shootings.”

It’s not an epidemic if it’s rare. The two things contradict one another, at least as the public sees it.

So either it’s an epidemic and we simply have to do something, or you’re more likely to have something fall on you and kill you than to be shot and die in a mass shooting. It’s one or the other.

Let’s not forget that Murphy argues an armed guard in an elementary school is akin to a boarded-up encampment. Yes, he actually said that, too. People in the United States grow up with armed guards and armed police in a lot of places. There’s a cop at the local movie theater every weekend night, for example. No one blinks. No one feels unsafe. Most of the time, he’s telling loud teenagers to shut up or get out, so that’s what people accept is his purpose, even if they know he’s the guy who will respond if bullets start flying.

Murphy is so terrified of guns that even carefully vetted individuals in a position of security can’t be trusted with them. He talks about being a little more careful about who can get “powerful weapons” in this country, but the truth is that his version of careful would be to prohibit literally everyone.

He can’t even see safety in off-duty cops, after all.

But let’s remember that no matter what Murphy says going forward, he knows these are rare. He knows these make scary headlines, but are the exception rather than the rule.

He’s just trying not to let a good crisis go to waste, all so he can destroy your right to keep and bear arms.

OMG! Gun Rights Absolutists Are Working to Tear Down the NFA! And They’re Making Progress! OMG!

By Dan Zimmerman

With the political winds blowing in its favor, the GOA began drafting language some time last year to remove suppressors and short-barreled long guns from the NFA. After sharing the proposal with a few industry leaders, they worked with sympathetic Republican lawmakers to wedge it into the budget reconciliation bill – Andrew Clyde on the House side, and Roger Marshall, Mike Crapo and Steve Daines in the Senate.

“We had the language and we had key members of Congress to introduce it,” [Luis] Valdes, the GOA spokesman, said. “We’ve been looking at challenging the NFA since GOA first came into existence 50 years ago. The NFA is clearly unconstitutional.”

The move came at a hospitable time, with Trump urging Congress to use the budget reconciliation process to pass his “big, beautiful” bill, spurring a flurry of hasty lawmaking.

Still, the NFA proposal touched off weeks of high-stakes wrangling. The version passed by the House only removed the tax on suppressors – an easy sell to moderate Republicans, but which the GOA viewed as far too watered-down. The Senate version included a full repeal of silencers and short-barreled long guns from the NFA, only for the Senate parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, to find that the proposal violated the “Byrd rule” that bars extraneous measures from consideration during budget reconciliation. The GOA responded with a national alert calling to “fire the anti-gun parliamentarian now!”

The final version of the sweeping budget bill left intact the NFA’s registration requirements, which include some extra paperwork and fingerprint submission, but dropped the tax on suppressors, short-barreled rifles and short-barreled shotguns to $0. The changes left machine gun restrictions untouched.

It was a remarkably swift reversal of key provisions of one of America’s bedrock gun laws. But instead of declaring victory, when Trump signed the budget bill into law on 4 July, the GOA immediately filed what it called a “big, beautiful lawsuit” seeking to overturn the NFA restrictions on suppressors and short-barreled long guns entirely.

Within a month, 15 Republican-led states had joined as plaintiffs. On 1 August, the Firearms Policy Coalition, another gun rights group, filed a similar lawsuit, joined by the NRA. What had seemed like an outlandish position only a few months earlier was suddenly becoming the conservative political consensus.

— Roque Planas in Inside the gun absolutists’ bold plot to repeal one of America’s strongest firearms laws

*cough* Declaration of Independence *cough*

Image

This moron is the type of domestic enemy we swear oaths to defend the nation against. And he’s a Senator.
Since he doesn’t agree with the quotation, even though he may reside in the U.S. and even have been born here, he is not an American since these are some of the fundamental first principles the nation was founded on.

Well, he’s got several things wrong from the start. (pretty much standard for those with a Harvard education)  The most egregious about the 2nd amendment. It ‘allows’, or ‘gives’  nothing. The people already had RKBA before the U.S. was the U.S. The whole of the Bill of Rights are restrictions on government powers as written by the very authors in its own preamble

Democrats need to drop calling for gun bans and ask these two questions

Another day, another mass shooting — and yet another instance of our politicians failing to keep us safe from gun violence. We see pictures of mothers running barefoot to schools trying to get to their kids. We are told to give “thoughts and prayers” for children who were shot while literally praying. We are told there needs to be bans on guns in a country where there are more privately-owned guns than there are people.

As a liberal, I have lost complete faith that even the most caring Republican will do anything of value to stop gun violence in this country. The Republican (read gun lobby) position is that the more guns that are on the streets, the less safe it is, then we can bilk taxpayers for police budgets while getting people to buy more guns because it’s less safe.

We can see that in the “solution” that President Trump has for crime. But Trump’s use of the National Guard and federal agents walking around major cities won’t do anything to take guns off the street. That would not be profitable for the gun lobby.

But also, as a liberal, I have watched Democrats do the same song and dance over “common sense” gun laws that seem to lack common sense and are about as likely as Kanye West and Taylor Swift recording a duet together. As a gun owner myself, I often scoff or shake my head in confusion over the fact that Democrats could easily get the upper hand on the gun control debate by dropping the insistence on gun bans. They should instead be solely focused on gun trafficking and restrictions based on criminal convictions and mental health issues.

When you go out to the general public and say you want to ban guns you are destined to not get any traction.

Let’s put the whole Second Amendment aside for a moment. Owning a gun is a different experience in different parts of this massive country. I have lived in two Republican counties. When I lived in Waco, Texas you definitely needed a gun, especially when you went out into the boondocks. The police were far away and you could deal with anything from a criminal to a wild animal, so a gun would come in handy.

I now live in Orange County, Calif., where I feel no need to have a gun when I leave the house. There just isn’t a need (for me anyways).

When you scream about gun bans, that message will not resonate at all in either place. I may feel safe in California, but others don’t live in the nice community that I do. And going out into rural areas outside of Waco, you would be dumb not to have protection. Although people in both Texas and California want mass shootings to stop, we know that screaming for gun bans is a non-starter all over the country. And yet, Democrats will continue to scream for them.

It is time for a different approach. Democrats need to ask just two questions in order to get the legislation needed to bring down gun deaths.

First, does the Second Amendment give you the right to sell guns to a criminal?

Second, should a person diagnosed with schizophrenia be allowed to purchase a gun?

The Second Amendment clearly allows citizens the right to bear arms. Every single gun ban proposal runs face-first into that pesky part of the Bill of Rights, which is why many proposals to ban firearms fail.

Democrats need to get rid of this pie-in-the-sky notion that one day the Second Amendment will be repealed, or that Americans will wake up and turn in hundreds of millions of firearms. Instead of challenging gun ownership, they should challenge specific types of sales.

This is not a revelation. There have been calls to end gun show loopholes and private sales for a while. However, thanks to Trump’s insistence that federal law enforcement and National Guard get involved in local law enforcement, there is now an opportunity for Democrats as well. The NRA’s most hated federal entity is the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Democratic governors should all invite ATF agents to come to their cities and insist that they go after gun traffickers, giving them a lot of latitude to do so.

The argument is sound. You have the right to bear arms, but you don’t have the right to sell arms to a felon, a drug dealer, a cartel member, a gang member, a terrorist, a foreign entity or other any other nefarious individual. Take that on the campaign trail and see Republicans try to explain that they are against that logic.

The best Republicans have come up with is “there is nothing you can do,” which is about as lazy as one can get. Especially since most firearms used in homicides are illegal or started off as legal and are somehow trafficked into criminals’ hands.

The second question is also politically incorrect but should be asked anyway. We know that the vast majority of gun deaths are suicides and that some mass shooters exhibit signs of mental illness. Again, the idea of red flag laws have been floated before, but the fear is that it is a gun ban as opposed to a question of safety. So, Democrats need to stop worrying about offending and be specific about whom they want to ban gun sales to.

“Should someone who is schizophrenic be able to buy a gun?” carries a lot more weight than: “We need red flag laws.” Identifying mental illnesses associated with suicides and mass shootings will force Republicans to answer why they want someone with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder from owning a gun. Is this politically correct for Democrats? No. But politicians who are committed to reducing gun violence should not worry about offending people.

The Democrats have a huge opportunity to save lives, while not infringing on people’s right to bear arms. They need to stop focusing on gun bans and instead get aggressive on trafficking and mental illness restrictions. They should force Republicans to answer the following two questions: Why are you okay with gun trafficking? And why are you okay with mentally ill people buying guns?

Sticking with those two questions might finally break the political deadlock and this ridiculous cycle of shooting, thoughts and prayers, speeches, no action, and then dealing with another shooting.

The Irony of Attacking Prayer in Wake of Minneapolis Shooting

People offer thoughts and prayers after any tragedy. It’s the first thing they do, mostly because doing more requires more time and organization. And, in most cases, people understand that. They understand it perfectly well, and no one bats an eye.

After the shooting at Annunciation Catholic School, though, we got a reminder that it’s only acceptable in the wake of some tragedies.

See, while some have mocked “thoughts and prayers” for some time, it got particularly ugly in the aftermath.

As if the slaughter of children amid screams and shattered stained glass wasn’t cause enough for grief, American opinion makers were convulsed once again this week in a debate over the role of prayer in the wake of a mass shooting, this time at Annunciation Catholic School in Minneapolis.

Those who support some legal restrictions on guns, often Democrats, say that Republican politicians who appeal to prayer are trying to distract from their own inaction on such things as red flag laws or stricter background checks on gun purchases.

“Don’t just say this is about thoughts and prayers right now. These kids were literally praying,” Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey told a news conference after the shooting, in which an assailant killed two Annunciation students and wounded 18 other people attending Mass.

Of course, it’s not like Frey didn’t catch criticism for his comments.

Critics, especially on the right, chided the Democratic mayor.

“It is shocking to me that so many left wing politicians attack the idea of prayer in response to a tragedy,” Republican Vice President JD Vance, a Catholic, posted on X. “Literally no one thinks prayer is a substitute for action. We pray because our hearts are broken and we believe that God is listening.”

The problem here isn’t that Democrats have a problem with thoughts and prayers specifically–oh, many do, but that’s not what this is about–it’s that they have a problem that our thoughts and prayers won’t force us to embrace their so-called solutions.

The preferred policies of many anti-gun lawmakers, mostly Democrats, tend to be soft on criminals and hard on law-abiding citizens. They’ve resulted in orders of magnitude more deaths than from all the mass shootings in this country’s history combined, but those aren’t relevant in their mind. Those are just good policies, and shame on you for bringing them up in the wake of some awful tragedy.

But they’ll politicize anything and everything when they get a chance, including the fact that pro-gun folks offer their thoughts and their prayers in the aftermath.

Look, my prayers are for the comfort of those who lost people they care about in the attack, because I’ve been there and I know it hurts. I offer prayers for those injured to heal quickly and completely. I offer prayers that those who were there can find peace in the wake of something indescribable.

And I’m not going to stop because some jackwagon thinks that my refusing to give up my rights because some other jackwagon did something terrible is something that should shame me into silence.

It won’t.

They think that our refusal to embrace the things they claim are solutions is some admission that we don’t care about anything, but where the hell was Frey telling us how the red flag law Minnesota passed failed to stop this horrific incident? Where was the admission that the killer sought out a gun-free zone where he could kill the innocent? Where was his acknowledgement of gun control’s complete and utter failure here?

There’s an irony here in people like Frey attacking prayer in the wake of a shooting that took place while the victims were literally praying. It’s a sick irony, but it’s still irony.

Especially since his policies failed, but he’s mad that we pray for the fallen but won’t back those same policies.

Minneapolis Mayor Who Attacked Prayer Now Moves To The Next Amendment Of The Bill Of Rights

Democratic Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey attacked gun ownership and the Second Amendment during an MSNBC appearance on Wednesday in which he doubled down on dismissing prayer.

Frey’s initial comments criticizing those who prayed came during a Wednesday morning press conference after an active shooter opened fire during an all-school mass held by the Annunciation Catholic School on Wednesday morning, killing two children and wounding at least 17 other people. Frey praised “other countries” that passed sweeping gun control after shootings while appearing on “The Briefing with Jen Psaki.”

“We have more guns in America than people. Say that again. We have more guns in America than people. Why? Why is it so easy to get a gun? Why is it so easy to get a whole heap ton of guns? Why is it that you can buy a gun virtually every month if you wanted to? What good is that?” Frey ranted to host Jen Psaki. “We’re not talking about your father’s hunting rifle. We’re talking about people that have gotten guns that seemingly — in this case, legally — that obviously have a whole ton of mental health issues.”

WATCH:

“You’re not right in the head if you’re going to a church to shoot it up. You’re not right in the head. But the fact that you have guns, in fact, many, many guns, why is that okay?” Frey continued. “You know, this has gone down in other countries and they say, ‘You know what, we’re not going to allow this anymore. We don’t want this to happen anymore. We’re going to do something about it.’”

Australia carried out a mandatory “buy back” of semi-automatic rifles and shotguns after a 1996 mass shooting in Port Arthur. Canada passed legislation banning over 1,500 types of firearms in the wake of an April 2020 mass shooting in Nova Scotia that killed 23 people.

Other Democrats, including Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut and Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota also called for gun laws, including a ban on so-called “assault weapons,” in the wake of the shooting. Frey’s comments drew praise from Klobuchar and CNN host Dana Bash during a Wednesday afternoon segment on the network, during which Klobuchar called for the ban on so-called “assault weapons.”

“Assault weapons” is a euphemism that gun-control advocates use to gain support for banning certain semi-automatic firearms with features that provide a cosmetic similarity to firearms capable of fully-automatic operation.

“What has incorrectly been termed an ‘assault weapon’ is a semi-automatic firearm that fires just one bullet with each pull of the trigger (versus a fully automatic firearm — machine gun — which continues to shoot until the trigger is released),” the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) said in a fact sheet. The NSSF estimated that over 24 million “modern sporting rifles,” which include the AR-15, are “in circulation” in a July 2022 release.

Ilhan Omar Loses the Plot with Anti-Gun Fear Mongering

As I’ve said a fair bit throughout the day, I know that the aftermath of mass shootings results in calls for gun control. What happened in Minneapolis doesn’t even really rise to the typical standard of a mass shooting, but two kids are dead and 17 other people were wounded, which means it’s bad enough that I won’t get into semantics right now.

But it would be nice for there to be something approaching sensibility in the calls for gun control. There’s no such thing as “common sense” gun-grabbing, as I noted earlier today, but there should be at least some attempt that looks like addressing the shooting.

Or, you could be Ilhan Omar and go in a completely different direction.

Democratic Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar cited today’s school shooting— committed by a Minnesota resident — and used it to demand federal gun control, even though the facts contradict her warning about outsiders bringing guns into the state.

A shooter opened fire during morning Mass at Annunciation Catholic School in Minneapolis on Wednesday while kindergarten through eighth-grade students attended, officials and news reports said. During an appearance on ” The Weeknight,” Omar used the tragedy to argue that Minnesota’s strict gun laws mean little without federal action, warning that residents from neighboring states could bring firearms across state lines and endanger her constituents.

“In Minnesota, we have strong gun laws, but Indiana is not that far away from us. And so we have to recognize as, you know, people who live in the United States, you know, a community like Minneapolis or just the state of Minnesota taking action does not prevent our neighbor from coming and harming one of our community members,” Omar said.

That’s right. It doesn’t really matter what Minnesota does because Indiana won’t do what Minnesota wants it to do.

These are the same people who tend to claim that the issue with preemption is that it doesn’t let local governments decide what works for them, yet here they are saying that every state needs to conform, regardless of what works for them.

Yeah, my days of taking Omar seriously are…well, they’re not even close to reaching a middle, actually.

The killer in this case didn’t come from out of state. He lived there. His mother worked for that school, for crying out loud. He was raised right there in Minnesota, from what we can tell as of this writing.

To make the claim that we need federal legislation because of something that happened exclusively within the borders of Minnesota, which showed that Minnesota’s current gun laws failed to stop a mass shooting, is especially stupid of her.

And that’s saying something.

Even if you did somehow pass national gun control laws, the truth is that criminals will bypass them because they’re criminals. Luigi Mangione is accused of building a gun and a suppressor and killing a guy. He could have bought a gun legally before his arrest, but he didn’t, because criminals don’t.

Plus, there are tons of massacres that have happened over the years that didn’t involve firearms at all, and that always gets missed or willfully ignored. With Omar, it could go either way.

This is the dumbest argument I’ve seen from an anti-gunner, and we’ll see it again. That’s the truly stupid thing here.