Category Archives: masters and servants.

reader question: what’s wrong with gun registration?

By Marko Posted in masters and servants., things that go boom. 24 Replies

Commenter “Jarin” has a question regarding gun registration which I answered in the comments thread, but which deserves a blog post response.

Jarin asks:

I don’t understand what the fuss is about registration… (no, really, I don’t get it, someone please explain it). Why should we not have registration for something as easily dangerous as guns? Why should firearms have less regulation than automobiles? Seriously, look at the paperwork around owning and operating a car. And yet, everyone does it. Why not treat firearms similarly?

First of all, registration does not do anything to prevent crime. Don’t believe it? Let me write down the serial number of my gun on these two pieces of paper and hand you one of them. What crime exactly are you going to prevent with that?

Second, registration is pretty much good for nothing except preparatory groundwork for confiscation. (Look at NY for a current-day example.) Canada’s expensive gun registration did not help solve a single crime but carried a $60 million price tag. That’s a lot of money that could have gone to stuff that actually fights crime. Lots of gun owners in this country get justifiably nervous at the idea of a registry of firearms when historically such a registry has only ever served to provide the authorities with a list of addresses for confiscating firearms.

Third, firearms do not have “less regulation than automobiles”. If they did, I’d be able to walk into any gun store and walk out with any gun I want, without having to show anything but a means to pay. I could own whatever I wanted on my own property without license or insurance (you only need those for a car if you plan on operating it on public roads.) My carry license would be valid in all fifty states and most countries abroad.

I wish they’d treat firearms like cars when it comes to regulation. If cars were regulated like guns, you’d need to pass a federal background check for each and every dealer purchase, your driver’s license would only be good in your own state unless some other state had explicitly agreed to reciprocity, and things like the capacity of your gas tank, the spoiler on your trunk lid, or the mode of shifting could be legal in one state but a five-year mandatory felony prison term in a neighboring state.

demonstrably wrong, laughably ignorant, and deliberately deceptive.

By Marko Posted in in the news., masters and servants., this monkey house.

(Note: This post is largely directed at my liberal and progressive friends. Yes, I have those, just like I have Libertarian and conservative friends. If your entire social circle shares one political viewpoint, you don’t live in the real world, you live in an echo chamber. Conservative friends: please refrain from “LIBRULS ARE TEH STOOPID!!!1!!ONE!! type comments.)

When it comes to pushing gun control legislation, heavy-handed propaganda is generally excused or justified by a lot of Progressives because it serves the right cause and goal.

  • Among the many half-truths and outright manipulative falsehoods in Bowling for Columbine, Michael Moore tries to show the extent of redneck gun-nuttery by making it look like he got a rifle at the bank where he opened his account. (The bank had advertised a free rifle with new accounts, but the transaction still had to go through a local gun dealer, background check and all.) In his version, he walks out of the bank with the rifle in hand, as if they handed it to him in there.
  • Colorado Rep. Diana DeGette, lead Democratic sponsor of a bill to introduce a magazine capacity limit, has no idea how ammunition magazines actually work–that they’re not disposable one-time use items, but reusable containers that can be filled with ammunition over and over. She thinks banning them will make shooters “run out of bullets to shoot.”
  • Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, when asked about the “barrel shroud” feature she wants to see banned on rifles, describes it (laughably incorrectly) as a “shoulder thing that goes up”, meaning a collapsible stock on a particular shotgun model.
  • The President of the United States claims that the Newtown shooting was committed with a “fully automatic weapon”, which is simply not the case. (Adam Lanza used a semi-automatic rifle that fires one shot per trigger pull.)
  • Gabby Giffords’ husband is observed buying the same type of weapon he is lobbying to ban, and then claims he recorded the transaction to “show the country how easy it is to pass a background check.” He fails to mention that he was unable to buy a gun on his first try (because he didn’t have a valid Arizona ID), and that the dealer refused to let him take possession of the rifle because he answered a question on the background check form incorrectly (he claimed that he wanted to donate the rifle to the local police department, which means he lied on the “straw sale” question of the federal background check form that asks whether you are the actual buyer of the firearm.) The system not only worked as intended, deliberately lying on the federal form resulted in a refused sale. But showing that would have invalidated Capt. Kelly’s entire argument (which was most likely bogus to begin with, so he either lied to the dealer or the public/media.)
  • The lead gun control advocacy group in the United States muses that the public’s confusion about the difference between fully automatic machine guns and semi-automatic rifles (“anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to work like one”) can only help the support for laws that ban the semi-automatic rifles.
  • The constant invoking of “unlicensed dealers” at gun shows that can sell guns to anyone without background checks. (There’s no such thing as an “unlicensed dealer”–they mean gun show patrons who bring a rifle or pistol of their own to sell to another private party in the parking lot or while wandering the show floor, not the dealers at the show who have to do a federal background check on every buyer.)
  • The claim that guns are “less regulated than teddy bears”, when guns are the only consumer product in the country whose purchase requires a federal background check for every single retail transaction.

If you support restrictions or outright bans on private arms anyway, stuff like that may not be a big deal to you–after all, it only serves to help restrict gun ownership, and any measure that gets us down the road a bit is a good one, right?

Well, you’re actually harming the rest of the progressive agenda by using or supporting such tactics, because they harm your credibility.

If you push legislation on a social issue with arguments that are demonstrably wrong (as in “provably non-factual”), obviously ignorant, and deliberately deceptive, how are people supposed to believe that your arguments are factual, informed, and objective in any other policy debate?

If you think it’s no big deal to get your facts wrong, be ignorant about the issue at hand, and intentionally deceive people into voting your way when it comes to gun control, why should the fence-sitters and the opposition believe that you don’t play loose with the facts when it comes to climate change, energy policy, social justice, economic policies, or any of the other items on the progressive agenda? How can you be surprised when your efforts on, say, climate change are met with suspicion and outright hostility from the other side, and they accuse you of misrepresenting the data to push an agenda? After all, you’ve already set a precedent for that.

Truth and reality don’t need misinformation. If you misrepresent the facts to achieve a legislative goal, you harm your own agenda and show contempt for the electorate. That goes for both sides, liberal and conservative alike. Liberals would greatly resist legislation on reproductive rights pushed by people who refer to the penis as the “jizz spigot” and describe the act of sex like a kindergartner who has caught bits and snippets from her parents here and there. They can’t be surprised when Conservatives oppose legislation on gun rights pushed by people who know little or nothing about guns (and who actually consider their ignorance on the subject a virtue.)

derputy herpyderp.

By Marko Posted in in the news., masters and servants., things that go boom.

There are a few things I know for sure about Officer Reverse Eotech:

  • He has never been to the range to properly zero his carbine. Probably took it out of the box, loaded it up, mounted the sight improperly, and put the whole thing into the trunk of his cruiser.
  • He went to a hot call with a weapon that has never been zeroed, with a sight that’s non-functional the way it is mounted. Had he been in a situation where he had to use his carbine to stop a threat, he wouldn’t have been able to aim accurately.
  • He did not pay for that sight out of his own pocket. I know hundreds of shooters, and I can guarantee that every last one of them wouldn’t shell out $500 for a holosight without finding out how to properly use it.

But remember, only the cops should be armed, because they’re the ones with the training.

(Never mind the fact that Officer Reverse Eotech is carrying an AR-15 carbine—you know, the kind of gun that’s only good for killing as many people as possible as quickly as possible. Except when a guy with a badge holds one. Then it becomes a patrol carbine and a personal defense weapon.)

the nanny state marches on.

By Marko Posted in in the news., masters and servants.

Tomorrow, New York City’s ban on large sugary drinks goes into effect.

The ban’s purpose is not to reduce the obesity rate like Bloomberg claims. Its purpose is not even symbolic, a sign that the city is seen “doing something”. That ban is a prime example of “Hat on a Stick” legislation.

What’s “Hat on a Stick” legislation?

That’s when the lord of the land puts his hat on a stick, places it in the market square, and decrees that all who pass it must doff their own hats in greeting. Compliance with the law isn’t difficult—it doesn’t take much time to doff your cap briefly, and costs virtually no effort, much like New Yorkers can order two 16-ounce Cokes instead of one 32-ounce one. The purpose, of course, is to establish that the lord has the right to tell you that you must doff your hat, whether there’s a point to it or not.

If people accept that their government has the right to dictate to them under threat of force what size containers they may consume sugar water out of, what other edicts will they accept?

a thought on the LAPD manhunt.

By Marko Posted in in the news., masters and servants.

torrance

Only the police should have guns. Because with qualified immunity, they’re not personally liable for turning uninvolved trucks into Swiss cheese in the middle of a residential neighborhood.

If you think that the LAPD shooting up random pickup trucks in pursuit of a single threatening suspect is almost comically excessive, think about what would happen if DiFi gets her “assault weapons” ban through Congress, just a half dozen of those retrograde gun nuts decide that they won’t give up their property without a fight, and a few of L.A.’s Finest get injured or killed. The resulting mobilization and Fourth Amendment Gang Rape Party would make the L.A. riots and the Katrina aftermath look like a post-lunch corporate PowerPoint presentation.

Then multiply that kind of mayhem times, say, the number of large metropolitan areas with heavily geared and militarized police departments. Sounds like a recipe for kicking off a peaceful and violence-free America, doesn’t it?

a suggestion.

By Marko Posted in in the news., masters and servants.

“Assault weapons”. “High-capacity magazines.” “Military-style rifles”.

The Department of Homeland Security buys 1.6 billion rounds of small-arms ammunition in just a little over a year, and 7,000 fully automatic machine guns for “personal protection”. Police departments all over the country have tanks and drones, and you can’t tell the difference between a police SWAT team and a Marine infantry section at first glance anymore. One guy threatens the LAPD personally and kills a cop, and they piss all over the Fourth Amendment and make the whole city a free-fire zone in search of the suspect.

I suggest we just call them “police-style weapons” instead.

a left argument for gun rights.

By Marko Posted in intertubes flotsam., masters and servants.

I’ve had an essay in the works for weeks now. It’s mostly for my liberal and left-leaning friends and lays out in great detail why opposition to civilian gun ownership is fundamentally un-progressive, historically and philosophically speaking.

And out comes The Polemicist with an article that precisely lays out the argument for gun ownership from a left-socialist perspective, thereby blowing all my work away.

It’s a very good and thorough read, and immensely thought-provoking.

he didn’t see the “no violence” sign.

By Marko Posted in asshole of the month., in the news., masters and servants.

Rachel Lucas wins at Internets again, this time for her spot-on assessment of the effectiveness of restraining orders.

Of course, if the woman in the video gets a gun and a carry permit to protect herself from a violent psycho who thinks nothing of beating the shit out of her in the middle of a courthouse, nothing good can come from it, because he’s only going to take the gun away and use it against her. Because 240-pound males have no way to kill a woman if they don’t have access to guns. Or something.

Now imagine that assault in the woman’s kitchen at 2 in the morning, and her with nothing but a cell phone in her hand. There was a cop within shouting distance of that fracas, and Violent Psycho still had enough time to hurt or kill her. What chance would she have had in her kitchen at 2AM, armed with nothing but a cell phone?

Oh, she got the restraining order. A temporary one. And he got a $25,000 bond, which means he has to put up the princely sum of $2,000 before he can walk the streets again until his trial. But I’m sure it will be fine. He doesn’t seem like the type to hold a grudge, or violently lose control of himself.

the amazing morphing definition.

By Marko Posted in masters and servants., things that go boom.

When you or I have them, they’re called “assault weapons”, and they’re made for nothing but killing large numbers of people rapidly, and totally useless for self-defense besides.

When law enforcement officers have them, they’re called “patrol rifles”, and they’re the best tool for protecting innocent citizens from violent criminals.

When the government orders 7,000 of them, they’re called “personal defense weapons”, and the DHS wants them because they are “suitable for self-defense in close quarters.”

Which is it? Are they only made for killing lots of people rapidly, or “suitable for self-defense in close quarters”? If they’re only good for rapid indiscriminate killing, why would cops and DHS agents need them? And if they have a legit self-defense function, why should they be banned for civilian use? The Federal government seems to think that these kinds of rifles are ideal for personal protection, otherwise they’d be ordering something else to fit the “personal defense” role. They can, after all, order whatever they want.

(And the versions ordered by the DHS are fully automatic machine guns, unlike the semi-automatic rifles available to Joe and Jane Citizen.)