On Wealth Redistribution

Because I hate wasting good material at an away game.

To expand on a comment left at this post at The Captain's Journal, to whit, that the reason for big push for wealth redistribution — that invariably guts the middle class — is to burn the generational bridge between the poor and the elite.

All wealth redistribution schemes benefit the elitists, either directly or indirectly. What they don't get from the middle class, they get from the poor when the poor spends what they get from the middle class.

Either way, the rich get richer, the middle class is made poor, the poor get poorer after enjoying a (very) brief windfall, and the path to real wealth is destroyed, effectively turning America into a caste society.

You've heard it said, "Never let anyone tell you nobody wants to take your guns." While true, that's not the whole story; they want your wealth and everything you've earned or made for yourself and your family, too. They want it all.

And as with anything they use the government to get, they'll send men with guns to demand and enforce it.

That is the reality behind wealth redistribution, and why it must be resisted at every step.

Stay safe.

"Compromise": I Don't Think It Means What You Think It Means

Over at Bearing Arms, Jenn Jacques has a post up about "compromise" with Democrats on "gun control".

It's mostly a decent article, but … she closes with this:

So if Democrats want a compromise, here it is: follow every single gun law currently on the book. Punish criminals to the fullest extent of the law. Ensure convicted felons serve their entire sentence. Only give second chances when the guilty have served their debt to society.

Do that, then we’ll talk. [emphasis in original]

While I appreciate the point she's trying to make, my answer to this would be, "No."

I agree that there are already plenty of "gun control" laws on the books, and the government should be enforcing each and every one (otherwise, what's the point of having the law?).

However, the "enforce existing laws" stance is not "compromise". That's just how it should be.

"Compromise" is giving up something to get something in return. If Democrats want to compromise on "gun control" laws, our response should be, "OK, what 'gun control' laws are you offering to repeal in order to get the new laws you want?"

If the answer is "None," then it's not a compromise. If the answer is "None, but maybe we won't go as far as we want," that's not a compromise, either. In neither case are the Democrats required to give up anything.

Give something, get something. That's compromise, and that's where the debate should start.

Sorry, Jenn. You're a bit off the mark on this one.

Herschel Investigates the Malheur County "Standoff"

… and reveals an "interesting" coalition of players leading up to the shooting death of Robert "LaVoy" Finicum.

Full post at The Captain's Journal: Why Did Robert ‘LaVoy’ Finicum Have To Die? The Connection Between Malheur, Putin, The Clinton Foundation, And Big Money

Thought-provoking, to say the least.

Stay safe.

Quote of the Day — J. Kb (Oct. 21, 2015)

"J. Kb", in case any of our readers don't know, is a blogger who fairly recently started contributing to Miguel's site, GunFreeZone.net.

After telling a personal DGU story, he knocked one out of the park with this:

When some pearl-clutcher tells you, you don’t need something, and you will just hurt yourself with it and just leave your self reliance to the professionals. Go out and buy what they tell you not to have. Go out and buy two of them.

Boom.

Never let anyone who doesn't have any skin in your personal business dictate how you run it or what you need (or don't need) to run it.

Stay safe.

Five Little Monkeys — A Parable

We've all heard the children's song, Five Little Monkeys, right?

Five little monkeys, jumping on the bed.
One fell off and bumped his head.
Momma called the doctor and the doctor said,
"No more monkeys jumping on the bed!"

And repeat with four monkeys, then three, etc.

USCCA's Beth Alcazar offers an interesting "gun control" parable in her article, Five Little Monkeys … and Why Their Beds Are Not Banned.

She makes a good point. The doctor's approach is not to engage a "bed control" group to pass "common-sense" legislation to ban beds — y'know, "For the Monkeys Children!!" and "If it saves just one bumped head life!!" — but to discipline the monkeys and keep them from jumping on the furniture.

Heck, the 5½-year-old gets it, it's so simple!

Stay safe.

On the New National Reciprocity Arguments …

Current Supreme Court of the United States
(source: Wikipedia)

There's been some conjecture around the gunnie Interwebs about the SCOTUS decision in Obergefell v. Hodges paving the way to getting nationwide, 50-state-plus-DC recognition of concealed carry licenses. Bob Owens talks about it here, Miguel here, and Massad Ayoob himself polls his readers about it here.

The arguments make sense. You could take the verbiage in the majority opinion and replace any text referring to "marriage license" with equivalent text for "concealed carry license", and it would read the same. Case in point (from Bob Owens' article):

(b) The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex. […]
(1) The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs.

It's no mental stretch to change that text to refer to carrying a defensive firearm in all States. In fact, it's trivially easy to make that edit.

However, you can virtually guarantee the usual suspects among the States won't see it that way, and very likely neither will the courts. Getting a national reciprocity via the Fourteenth Amendment ruling is still going to be an uphill battle, if it's ever allowed to happen. The Supreme Court receives hundreds or thousands of petitions every year, and has every authority to refuse to hear a particular case, and they're not required to give any reason for such a refusal.

Current reciprocity on an Oregon resident concealed
handgun license. Blue states are fine, red are not.
(source: USA Carry)

In short, all they have to do to maintain the patchwork of carry and reciprocity laws is … nothing.

And when it comes to carry and reciprocity, they've been doing just that for a very long time. It's patently ridiculous to assume — given the legal talents of attorney Alan Gura, the legal teams at the Second Amendment Foundation and the NRA, plus all the various state-level groups — that this avenue hasn't been considered or that petitions haven't been written or submitted to SCOTUS.

Of course they have! But the Court has not accepted any cases. I don't mean to be pessimistic, but I don't believe that will change any time soon.

I don't mean to be even more pessimistic, but if the Court does decide to hear a case pushing carry reciprocity under the Fourteenth Amendment, I believe they will decide the "public safety" concern over firearms carried by private citizens in public spaces is enough to merit upholding the patchwork. "Intermediate scrutiny" (which is also a relatively recent fabrication of the Court), and all that.

It won't be the right decision, but it will be "official". It will be "settled law". Justice Scalia's dissent will become the stuff of legend, but his voice will be in the minority and thus will have no bearing.

(source)

And the Supreme Court will have finally affirmed its complete irrelevance and illegitimacy by creating a "right" that isn't addressed anywhere in the Constitution — which under the Tenth Amendment means it must be "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" — and then turning around and trampling an enumerated Right that is directly protected by that same Constitution when a violation of the enumerated Right is challenged using the same arguments.

Which is why I believe national carry reciprocity must be pushed legislatively. If the bill dies in Congress, we've lost nothing, but we've made the anti-rights crowd expend energy fighting it, and we've put Congress-critters on record supporting or opposing our fundamental rights. We can always try again next year.

If we take a chance before the Supreme Court and lose, we'll have lost for at least our lifetimes.

And that's my two cents on the matter. Please feel free to weigh in in the comments; I'd like to hear your opinions, too.

Have a happy Independence Day! And stay safe.

Yee-ouch!

Some wickedly sharp wit from the Mistress of Snark herself, Tam:

I swear, some people wouldn't know Occam's razor if you slit their throat with it...

— Tamara K. (@TamSlick) June 20, 2015

That cuts deep!

(And yes, the puns are intentional.)

Stay safe.

Happy 1st Blogiversary, NOMGL!

I made this here.
And yes, I just made "gunblog" a verb.
Deal with it.

Today marks the one-year blogiversary of Not One More Gun Law. Charlie Foxtrot published the first post, "Twenty Thousand Gun Laws Later", on June 4, 2014, one year ago today.

I believe congratulations are in order to Charlie, both for starting this blog and keeping it going for a full year. Here's to many more!

Stay safe.

Quote of the Day — Sheila Stokes-Begley (April 15, 2015)

Writing, as she often does, at The Zelman Partisans:

For people to live in freedom, freedom from slavery, from poverty, from annihilation, the first thing we need to do is to quit committing suicide.

She's referring to the Jewish people, in honor of Yom HaShoah — the Holocaust Remembrance Day* — and how Jews and others likely voted for the very politicians and laws that would eventually be used in an attempt to destroy them.

In the modern era, American Jews overwhelmingly vote Democrat and support the same "common sense gun laws" that disarmed their forebears and enabled the lawfully-elected government of the time to exterminate them. The relevant German laws were the 1928 Law on Firearms and Ammunition, which did relax prior restrictions but created a mandatory licensing and registry scheme for all firearms; the March 1938 German Weapons Act, which further relaxed some regulations for some people (mostly government workers), but tightly controlled handguns and completely prohibited issuing firearm manufacturing licenses to Jews; and the November 1938 Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons, which removed all gun rights from all German Jews.

Do I need to say that, because of the 1928 law requiring full licensing and registration, the government workers charged with collecting Jewish-owned firearms knew exactly where to find them?

Or that America's Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA'68) was rooted in the German example and copied nearly verbatim from their March 1938 law?

At this point, I don't think it's hyperbole to say that the Jews of the time (or now, for that matter) were/are assisting in their own suicide.

American conservatives and gun owners, generally, aren't any better. As a group, we're so easy to divide into warring factions too busy fighting each other to mount an effective resistance to lock-step "Progressives" and their collectivist agenda. Libertarians don't trust Republicans, and vice versa, and refuse to work together consistently. "Gun Culture 1.0" (generally older folks, mainly hunters and "sport shooters", shotguns and bolt-action rifles) doesn't stand up to help "Gun Culture 2.0" (generally younger crowd, focused on self-defense, prefer semi-auto pistols and modern rifles) when the gun-grabbers go after "assault weapons". The "concealed carry all the time" crowd doesn't tend to support the "open carry all the time" crowd.

Here's the reality, as stated by Benjamin Franklin: "We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately." We are here to defend our rights. How we choose to exercise our rights is not anywhere near as important as protecting our rights. All of our rights. We must cease the in-fighting; it only serves the "gun control" and "Progressive" agendas by making us easier to defeat politically.

In short, in order to continue to live in freedom, we must quit committing suicide.

Stay safe.
------------
* - I'll be reminding my pastor about this day, too. We're not Jewish, but we do support Israel, and the historical parallels are numerous. As they say, "The more things change, the more they stay the same."

Quote of the Day — Sheila Stokes-Begley (March 19, 2015)

Writing at The Zelman Partisans, which if you weren't aware is the group spun-off from the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, after JPFO got bought out by the SAF/Alan Gottlieb machine.

From her article, "The Watchmen (and Women) on the Wall":

I recently had a very brief discussion with a Rabbi. […] I said I just think Jews should be allowed to pray on the Temple Mount, and I do, and I mean right now yesterday. His comment was “When the Messiah comes back”. Really. Because this attitude of accepting little scraps of freedom, the little bits of the Jewish identity people are allowed to retain, the areas where it is safe to walk or as Y.B. pointed out, worship should all be determined by others? The Southern Cowgirl in me rears up and says “OH HELL NO”!

Because when you see attacks on a persons [sic] religion, on their ethnicity on their belief system when it harms no one else, you can just about bet the farm that not long after follow the physical attacks. WHY does it need to get to that point? (hyperlink added to Y.B.'s article)

Embedded in the article are a couple short videos. I highly recommend both articles and the videos, especially the one with New York City Councilman Daniel Greenfield, who has the nerve to call it like it is.

I know many if not most of our readers are not Jewish. I myself am a Christian. However, in my opinion ALL of God's people are under attack. It's just that the Jewish people and culture are the subjects of open, overt, sometimes even physical hostility, while attacks against Christians are more … subtle.

For now.

I think what we're seeing — and what the Jewish people worldwide, but especially in Europe* are seeing — can be summed up in one word: contempt.

Contempt is born of disagreement and disrespect, and in turn leads to anger, hatred, and eventually hostility and violence. It's a pattern repeated throughout human history. Biblically, it goes all the way back to Cain and Abel. And right now the Jewish communities (and to a lesser extent, Christian communities) are viewed by other cultures with open, naked contempt.

The problem stems from what Sheila said of her conversation with the Rabbi: Many, including nominal leaders of whole communities, are content with whatever scraps of freedom the government deems worthy of allowing. It's almost as if the members of a whole culture have lost respect — and are headed down the path to contempt — for themselves!

Many American Christians, on the other hand, realize that rights are God-given (not government-granted), and hold ourselves in enough esteem to demand more recognition of those rights from our representatives.

I demand more. So should you. And so should we all.

Stay safe.
------
* - Tolerant, sophisticated Europe, which America should strive to emulate, right?

Two Weeks Left: Fight the Ban!

Comments on the proposed ban of SS109/M855 "green tip" surplus 5.56mm/.223 ammunition close on March 16.

That's in two weeks, folks.

If you haven't yet submitted your comments in opposition, sooner is better than later.

And if you're struggling with coming up with a decent argument, you should read GeorgiaCarry.Org's response, as it's both strongly worded and logically sound.

Time's running out. Get your comments in!

Stay safe.

(Hat tip: This post from Herschel over at The Captain's Journal.)

Quote of the Day — Kevin (January 5, 2015)

From a post where he, in turn, is quoting Mike Rowe (yes, THAT Mike Rowe):

As others have observed, "Democracy works for those who show up." Making sure as few as possible show up … is not a coincidence. It's a strategy.

If you're not involving yourself in the political process(es), you're part of the problem. I've been hearing a lot of "I didn't like either candidate so I didn't vote" kinds of excuses. That's all they are: excuses. Staying home as a form of "protest" doesn't work.

It's really very simple: The powers-that-be do not hear your silence as "protest" — they hear your silence as "consent".

And that is why getting involved in the political process is one of my resolutions for the New Year.

Stay safe.

I Am The Second Amendment

Brigid, proprietress of the Home On The Range blog, is a rare gem in the gravel pit of the intrawez. She writes an eclectic daily blog tinted with firearms, family, friends, dogs, philosophy, history, food, scotch, beer, aircraft, flying, military, fellowship, duty, and bacon.

It may seem to be a bit of dog's breakfast, but she writes about all these subjects with an unmatched, effortless brilliance. Words and thoughts flow together as if someone else was playing Tetras. It's said that she writes in Technicolor, but that's probably too bland a description. I think she writes with a Kodachrome pen dipped in bacon grease.

Brigid has the rare ability to bring focus and clarity to a subject; like a sudden, deft adjustment of a telescope. The latest example is her piece I am the Second Amendment. Stop reading this drivel; go there - Now!

Highly recommended. 
 
Pix from the Home on the Range blog




 

Quote of the Day — Jennifer Hast (November 25, 2014)

Talking about (what else?) the "civil disturbance" in Ferguson, Missouri:

[T]ruly, if your grievance is that the powers that be treat you like you are just thugs bent on crime and disorder, you aren't bolstering your cause by proving them right. The person climbing out of the broken window on the front of the local electronics store carrying a brand new flat screen doesn't exactly look like the victim here. It’s hard to argue that the police don’t need riot gear by staging a riot.

Bingo! If you want to be treated like upstanding citizens instead of thugs, start acting like upstanding citizens instead of thugs. Behaving in the manner the status quo predicts you will behave does not help change the status quo; it reinforces it. This is not a difficult concept, people!

Bonus quote: "Be the change you wish to see in the world." — Mahatma Gandhi

Stay safe.

[Please note: The above message is directed at the rioters/looters/arsonists specifically, and not the community in general.]

Seen Elsewhere in the Gun Blogosphere...

Or, as The Tam says, "because I hate wasting good material at an away game."

Herschel over at The Captain's Journal offered up some discussion, "Will Democrats Control the Legislative Agenda on Guns?"

Naturally, this drew a ... dissenting opinion, this time in the spectre of commentator "Kaiser Derden":

seriously ? they think the lame duck Senate can pass gun control ? so far the GOP House has stopped everything ... quit crying wolf ... this is just a fundraising stunt ...

... to which people responded appropriately (actually rather kindly and patiently, in my opinion).

I had this to say in reply:

As has been implied, the GOP - while in power - doesn't have to push "gun control" for us to get "gun control". Or "immigration reform", or single-payer healthcare, or any other "Progressive" policy change.

They just have to not actively oppose it.

Don't underestimate how painfully easy it is to convince a lazy or spineless individual to do nothing.

Emphasis added on that last line; it's the important one.

So the Senate has changed hands and will be controlled by the GOP? Big deal. That will mean absolutely nothing if the Democrats can convince a just few RINOs to cross the aisle and most of the rest to simply not vote against The Agenda.

Also, click over to David Codrea's piece about the upcoming "continuing resolution" vote that inspired Herschel's post. It's a stark display on how a little "go along to get along" can produce massive setbacks and unintended (or intended?) consequences.

The GOP, starting in January, will control both chambers of Congress. Let me be clear(er than the President, who misuses/abuses the phrase): It's not over, and this is not the time to grow complacent. We won big, no doubt, but we have to keep the GOP lawmakers' feet to the fire, or all that we have gained will be just as quickly lost. The GOP Congress must cede no ground — not on gun rights, not on "immigration reform", not on healthcare, not on the budget, not on anything the Executive Branch doesn't have the explicit Constitutional power to control. Keep the pressure on.

And please, stay safe.

"The Gun Wire" is Back!

Good news, everyone! (Yes, I shamelessly ripped that off from "Futurama".)

Via Dave Workman, I'm pleased to report that as of this morning, "The Gun Wire" is back after a six-week hiatus.

(image links to source)

As Mr. Workman notes, The Gun Wire is "the equivalent of the Drudge Report for gun-related stories". Founder Todd Bergin posts dozens — sometimes hundreds — of links and videos every day, updated as they happen.

Stay safe. Stay informed. Enjoy!

Quote of the Day — Lyle (October 30, 2014)

Derived from his comment to Joe's Quote of the Day post:

To say that restrictions or encumbrances on gun ownership have “no effect” on crime is to defend those restrictions and encumbrances. … It is somewhat like saying that slavery has no effect on the general welfare of the slaves, being that good slave masters see to it that their (rather expensive) slaves are housed, fed, trained, cared for, and so on.

[…]

When Progressives claim “no effect” on crime, what they should be saying is that their gun restrictions failed to reduce crime rates. Failing to reduce is very different from having “no effect”, and it’s a way of letting them off the hook for their role in encouraging violent crime through their wholesale violation of a human right.

To add: "no effect" implies a "no-harm-no-foul" on violations of fundamental civil rights. That's not how this works. If you're going to restrict the free exercise of an enumerated right - especially via a prior restraint - there must be some definitive, measurable, and overwhelming benefit to doing so.

"No effect" fails to meet that burden. The somewhat more honest* "fails to reduce violent crime" fails even harder, and the strong possibility that "gun control" laws actually increase crime undermines it completely.

When we let the anti-rights people claim "no effect" without qualification, we're letting them claim that a given law has no effect on either violent crime rates OR gun ownership. That might be true for the former**, but is absolutely not true for the latter. And yet, they will shriek like banshees if you try to repeal a law that restricts a fundamental right by creating an entire class of victimless crimes (and "criminals"), but at best provides zero net public safety benefits.

The question we need to be asking — and demanding a response to — is, "Why?" But we already know the answer.
------------
* - But who really expects statists and collectivists to be honest, anyway?
** - Again, the numbers show a negative correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, meaning "no effect on crime" is statistically the BEST result the antis can hope for.

Quote of the Day — Robb Allen (October 23, 2014)

In response to Linoge's "Graphics Matter" series updates (part one and part two), which I discussed the other day.

We have numbers, charts, references, open discussions, facts and history.

They have dick jokes.

I have nothing to add. :)

"Graphics Matter" — Five Years and Counting

Linoge, who runs the excellent Walls of the City blog, just posted up the latest in his annual "Graphics Matter" series:

• graphics matter, year the fifth (part one, comparing U.S. population, firearms ownership, and firearm-related homicide [a.k.a. "gun deaths"])
• graphics matter, year the fifth, part two (comparing U.S. population, firearms ownership, and firearm-related crime [a.k.a. "gun crime"])

To anyone who's kept track of these things, his conclusions are no surprise. However, unlike the anti-rights crowd, Linoge publishes his numbers and sources, and welcomes people to go over them checking for errors.

Spoiler alert (highlight the text between the brackets to read): [The negative correlation between U.S. gun ownership and "gun death"/"gun crime" is even stronger than in previous "graphics matter" posts, once again utterly disproving the "more guns == more 'gun deaths'" and "more guns == more 'gun crime'" hypotheses.]

Now, personally, I don't buy the statistical arguments against gun ownership to begin with. Rights are rights, and are therefore not subject to popular opinion or statistical references. If they were, they would be privileges, to be revoked at any time if the popular opinion (fickle and arbitrary thing that it is) goes against them — and good luck getting them back once gone.

That said, Linoge once again shows (using delightfully-colored and easily-readable charts and graphs) that the anti-rights folks don't even have the statistical analyses on their side. The science is becoming increasingly settled, and not in their favor.

Previous installments of the "Graphics Matter" series can be found here.

Because This Came Up Elsewhere

And like Tam says, there's no sense throwing away good material at an away game. Besides, this is important.

So Miguel posted up this article, and a good discussion was had in the comments...

...which led me to seek out and find this article from January at the Volokh Conspiracy.

It's worth looking at because it gives a unique glimpse into the Leftist/"Progressive"/Collectivist mind. As it happens, conservatives and libertarians (both big 'L' and small 'l' varieties) -- hereafter referred to as "The Right" -- really do resolve moral dilemmas differently from Leftists. Psychologist Jonathan Haidt identified five (or six) "vectors of morality" people use to decide the "correct" position, and noted that while the Right tends to weigh all five (or six) more-or-less equally, the Left places value in only two, essentially ignoring the rest.

Perhaps most interestingly (and perhaps as a direct result), while the Left is unable to accurately determine or predict what the Right thinks and does, the Right has no trouble at all figuring out the Left's positions.

Where the Left can seem to justify anything based on their values, the Right can only "universally" justify a few things and seems confused or conflicted on others. According to Haidt, this happens when the five (or six) factors conflict. The Left, using only two factors -- the most highly subjective two at that, in my opinion -- rarely experiences this dilemma. On the other hand, where all the values align and agree, the Right has a much stronger moral position and a "thicker", more layered justification for holding that position.

I believe this is also why the Left relies so heavily on straw-man arguments, projection, and other logical fallacies; they really don't understand the conservative mind or value system, so they have to fill in the gaps somehow. Their conclusions are technically logically sound, but their initial assumptions are way off-base. Garbage in, garbage out, as it were.

The take-away is this: We really can't reason with the Left on issues of right/wrong; their moral compasses are calibrated to a different value of North.

Just thought I would share. Enjoy!