The Eclectic One

…Because labels are a poor substitute for thinking

Posts Tagged ‘gun control’

We Don’t Let Blind People Drive….

Posted by Bill Nance on February 11, 2010

So why in God’s name do we let anti-gun, hoplophobic people who know nothing about firearms or firearm safety try to mandate safety practices they don’t even understand?

The latest genius effort?   … wait for it…. Childproof guns.

Yep, This is a new meme coming from among other places, the Million Mom March (aka ignorant women with no common sense).  According to these mechanical engineers,firearms experts, idiots, guns can be made as safe as a teddy bear. Sure, hand your kid that 1911 that shoots a 230-grain projectile at 865 fps. It’s ok, because the MMM has passed laws that made guns safe as a teddy bear!

Think I’m joking?

Childproof Handguns make good sense!
Many products are regulated to make them safe to be used around children:

  • Medicine bottles have childproof caps;
  • Toys for young children are made with parts that cannot be swallowed; and
  • Teddy bears and dolls must be made of non-toxic, non-flammable materials

And how, pray tell, does one make a gun safe for 4-year-old johnny to cuddle up with all by his lonesome? According to the Brady Campaign (who sponsors MMM):  Loaded Chamber Indicators.

I kid you not. these idiots insist on trying to mandate a loaded chamber indicator as a child-safety device on firearms.

To those of you who don’t know what a loaded chamber indicator is, it’s a tab, or colored piece of plastic that is supposed to show when the chamber of a semi-auto racking handgun has a cartridge in it. The idea is that rather than checking to see if the gun is actually loaded, you can use the little tab (which is nearly invisible in most cases) to see if you’ve got one in the pipe. Yes, that’s right. Don’t actually CHECK, use the mechanical device (which can FAIL) to save yourself that extra 1 second which it takes to just look for yourself.

Basic safe gun handling indicates that you keep the gun unloaded until ready to fire. That mean’s you’ve removed the magazine, racked the slide to eject any loaded cartridges and re-checked the chamber just to be sure.  IN THAT ORDER. This is the only method of which I’m aware to be SURE a semi-auto handgun is actually unloaded. If there’s another way to be SURE, I don’t know it and I’m a NRA and State Police certified firearms safety instructor.*

So a loaded chamber indicator would do exactly what to keep kids safe from guns?  That’s right, nothing. In fact, a good bit LESS than nothing. In fact, an LCI is an open invitation to use unsafe gun handling techniques which will, absolutely and without question, lead eventually to a tragedy. You can be certain as the sun rising in the east that some jackass will use this to indicate whether or not his gun is unloaded, that it will fail and he will shoot someone. I’d be amazed if this hasn’t already happened.

Of what utility is the device? None. Zero. Nada.

If you want to check for a loaded chamber on a semi-auto handgun, you rack the slide and LOOK. You do NOT trust to a mechanical device (which can fail) to tell you something that 2 seconds and your own eyes can tell you without any possible error.  Why would you use a loaded chamber indicator? I can only think of one possible use for them and it’s a practice you’re a fool to follow:  That is, before you holster your defensive sidearm that you use the device to see if you’re fully loaded.

If you carry a semi-auto and keep a round in the chamber, that means you practice defensive tactics with this in mind. You draw, release the safety if there is one, aim and fire.What happens if the loaded chamber indicator is stuck or otherwise malfunctioning and in fact there is nothing in the chamber?

You get to hear the loudest noise in the world: a click instead of a bang. In a defensive situation that is likely to mean the difference between life and death. Are you SURE you want to bet your life on the LCI?  -Me neither.

So here we have the Million stupid person Mom March and the Brady Bunch calling for a device which actually increases the danger associated with handguns and claiming it’s going to make guns childproof.-Like a TEDDY BEAR.

I have news for the MMM and the Brady bunch: There is no such thing as a child-proof gun.

There are only GUN-SAFE Children.

That is, kids trained in basic gun safety, which starts with STOP, DON’T TOUCH, GET A GROWNUP.   You’d think educating kids about gun safety would be something these well-meaning authoritarians do-gooders would love wouldn’t you? But oh no, the antis don’t want the NRA’s award-winning educational program “Eddie Eagle” in schools to teach safety.  Oh noes, not the NRA! (shudder horror) No, they’d rather legislate new “features” which make our kids and everyone else demonstrably LESS safe than they were before.

This is how we got an “Assault Weapons” ban that banned vast numbers of firearms for nothing other than the way they looked. This is how we made felons of anyone from New Hampshire that  that makes the mistake of bringing his perfectly legal 13-round magazine into Mass. when he comes here for a shooting competition.

Only this nonsense is infinitely worse. It actually increases the danger of the firearms that the hoplophobes are so frightened of in the first place.

So I propose a new rule:

No one gets to talk about gun safety, gun handling or gun laws until they can pass a basic firearms knowledge and safety test. The test, which is part of the NRA’s basic home firearms safety course is trivial. Any eight year-old could pass it with thirty minutes instruction. Of course this means that it’s well beyond the comprehension of the average Brady Bunch member.

Gun Safety Training: Because you can’t legislate away ignorance or stupidity.

*Disclaimer: I am not in any way speaking for the NRA. I am speaking strictly as a private person. the opinions expressed in this article are mine alone.

Posted in Creeping Fascism watch, firearms, gun control, Guns Dammit!, hoplophobia, Rants, Stupid people with firearms | Tagged: , , , , , | 5 Comments »

California Police Chiefs Back Off On Gun Control Measure

Posted by Bill Nance on January 13, 2010

Well, they did it. The California hoplophobes, a decades-long majority in the state legislature  has finally managed to come up with a gun control idea so stupid even the notoriously anti-gun California Police Chiefs Association (CPCA) can’t support it: Microstamping.

In case you don’t know what microstamping is, here’s a good description along with California’s iteration of the process:

Firearms microstamping is the process by which firearms manufacturers would have to micro laser-engrave a gun’s make, model and serial number on two distinct parts of each gun, including the firing pin, so that in theory the information would be imprinted on the cartridge casing when the pistol is fired. Legislation mandating microstamping in California was signed into law in 2007 by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-Calif.) and was slated to take effect this New Year’s Day (2010); however, since the technology remains encumbered by patents it cannot be certified by the California Department of Justice and therefore has not been implemented.

Other people have written about this incredibly bizarre idea California is trying to mandate, but I thought I’d add my 2¢, with the excuse of the letter the California Police Chiefs Association (Which has rarely met a people gun control idea it didn’t like) sent to the California AG saying essentially, “woops.

{From the letter: } Publicly available, peer-reviewed studies conducted by independent research organizations conclude that the technology does not function reliably and that criminals can remove the markings easily in mere seconds. We believe that these findings require examination prior to implementation.”

In other words, the technical flaws of the idea without any other argument needing to be made makes this a stupid idea. But the letter itself is a perfect example of the ignorance and hypocrisy inherent in the idea of requiring the microstamp in the first place, much less registering individual gun owners.    In it’s own words the CPCA references the fact that criminals can easily find a way to evade detection via a firearm registration scheme as one of it’s reasons for opposition to the bill.

“Criminals can remove the markings easily in mere seconds.”

The antis can’t manage to come up with even a remotely plausible scenario in which this stuff would solve many crimes, even if they got everything they wanted. But they want it anyway.

To many who don’t know or care much about guns, gun registration doesn’t sound like a big deal. And if you don’t know anything about microstamping, and much more importantly the assumptions that its supposed efectiveness rests upon, it might not sound like a bad thing. I mean, it’s supposed to help the cops solve crimes right?

The only problem is that this simply isn’t the case.

Microstamping guns and registering individual gun owners depends on a large number of things for them to make more than the very slightest difference in catching bad guys. And trust me, I was a crime reporter for years in an area with high gang violence and lots of shootings. I know whereof I speak.

First, and most easily shown to be false, is the required assumption that guns used by criminals are legally owned and obtained by said criminals. Otherwise having the murder weapon (or shell casing in the case of microstamping is useless.- There’s no connection to the shooter. Microstamping, or even posession of the weapon used will only provide a connection to the gun shop that originally sold the gun or if there is registration of guns as well, a connection in some cases to a previous owner of the firearm.

That won’t help.

We have actual numbers on this stuff. They are released by the FBI and most states every single year, and wide-ranging reports, even those submitted by Clinton Administration appointees and staff in the justice department have concluded that the vast majority of crimes are committed by people with previously existing criminal records, which bars any legal purchase of a firearm, people under age to posesss a firearm legally, and in a staggeringly large percentage of cases, where the gun is stolen or obtained from an illegal black market, so far removed from the original source that tracing is virtually impossible.

Essentially, their excuse for logic is that the thing they want to use for crime solving is the one thing they are absolutely certain to not have, even with the most stringent of registration/microstamping provisions.

First, there are a grand total of about 500-600 unsolved homicides in California each year. About 2/3 of those (following national statistics) are committed with a firearm. Many of these are caught the following year, so the real number of cases where absent more information on the gun could possibly help solve otherwise unsolved cases is already very small. Knowing who used to have the gun legally is of very little help in most cases.

Microstamping, even if it were trivial to do and worked every time rests upon the idea that there are lots of cases where:

  1. A registered gun is used in a crime by a legal gun owner or someone to whom he knowingly gave the gun
  2. Which isn’t a revolver
  3. The perpetrator doesn’t pick up his brass
  4. The perpetrator keeps the gun after committing a crime with it instead of reporting it lost/stolen
  5. The perpetrator is not otherwise tied to the crime
  6. The perpetrator hasn’t altered the gun to defeat registration/microstamping requirements

Is this true for more than a handful of cases? For this they want to spend millions, make ammunition AND firearms prohibitively expensive for all but the well-to-do and cost the state yet more jobs as anyone who is in the firearms business or cares about their human right of self defense, rapidly flees the Golden State.  Like the famous “assault weapon” ban, where the Justice department noted that fewer than .75% of gun crimes were committed by “assault weapons” and that hi-capacity magazines seemed to make no difference in terms of numbers of people injured or in rounds fired, this is another solution to a problem that doesn’t exist outside Sarah Brady’s fantasies.

I gave up on Democrat politicians showing any common sense on gun control a long time ago, but this is enough to make my jaded opinions sit back in awe.  This is beyond stupid. As a matter of fact:

Posted in Crime, firearms, gun control, Guns Dammit!, hoplophobia, Left-Wing Nut-Jobery, Politics, Prison and Justice, Stupid Idea Watch | Tagged: , , , , , | 12 Comments »

With “Friends” Like These…

Posted by Bill Nance on July 15, 2009

A blogger calling himself “Dr. Omed” has a post encouraging stricter gun control on his blog that is frankly so wrong-headed I won’t even try to give a blow-by-blow rebuttal. I will try, however, to give some answers to his questions and poke holes in some of his assumptions about human beings.

First, here’s a sample of how he views human beings:

In my humble opinion, people who buy guns for self defense want to shoot people, want an excuse to shoot people, and want a gun handy to shoot the people should the proper occasion arise and the excuse provided. As recent events have demonstrated, the excuse threshold is lower for some than others. Most gun owners under most circumstances are Walter Mitty shooters and only dream of shooting someone.

…I bear the Mark of Cain the same as the assorted wingers I accused in my previous post. My point is that every human being on Earth has murder in their hearts, myself included. We are complicated creatures and we have a lot of things in our hearts, but murder is part of the mix. Anyone who denies this darkness in their hearts I personally would not trust within grabbing distance of a firearm.

Omed says he’s a gun owner. All I can say is I kind of wish he weren’t. Not that I think he shouldn’t be able to be one, I just think anyone with that view of guns would be best served not having one.

First, having murder in our hearts is a nice rhetorical flourish, but it doesn’t equate with the will, desire or practice of actually committing murder. People who do this are in a tiny minority measured in hundredths or thousandths of one percent.

Secondly, the idea that people who have guns for self-defense are just looking for an excuse to kill someone legally is so far from reality I can hardly begin to imagine where Omed is getting his information.

I don’t know if Omed carries his gun or not. But as someone who’s carried for many years I can assure you that the last thing on earth I want to do is shoot someone. Of course something I want to do even less is be victimized by a criminal.

Now I have some experience about what it’s like to shoot someone. Granted it’s second hand, but let me give you the juice in a nutshell: I have yet to meet a police officer who’s shot someone in the line of duty who doesn’t second-guess the shooting and wish there had been some way- any way, to avoid it, for the rest of their lives. These were totally righteous shootings. And the consequences to the shooter were life-changing.

Thanks, I really don’t want to have to live with having killed someone. BUT…I’d rather live with that than not live at all. And I think that’s where Omed gets it wrong.

Personally I think he’s been spending too much time on gun forums. It’s the internet and like all places where people can anonymously post, you get a large number of internet tough-guys, most of whom know nothing and when asked in person are actually a lot more tame than their internet postings.

He poses this question:

Now, I’ve already confessed that I find the death-dealing beauty of firearms seductive. I admitted I have murder in my heart. I’ve as much as said I’d like to shoot someone, give the right set of circumstances. Did I mention that I’m a Manic Depressive who drinks a bit?

The question you want to ask yourself is, do you want a person like me to be able to buy, with untracable cash in hand, a military grade assault rifle and all the ammo I can carry–as easily as I can buy a Mars Bar and a six pack at the corner Quikie Mart? Well, do ya–Punk?

That is my personal argument for stricter gun control.

Omed is clearly calling for a ban on private sales of firearms. I think this idea is as wrongheaded as one can get.

We need better criminal control, not better gun-control.  I’d like to see violent felons locked up for a very long time. Similarly I think people with such serious mental illnesses they are dangerous should be locked up, possibly forever.

But once you’ve served your time, I don’t think you should be walking around with a scarlet letter for the rest of your life. If you’re walking around you have paid your debt. The fact that we let violent felons go with relative slaps on the wrist or let them out on parole is the problem here, not the firearm or the “murder in our hearts.”

I don’t want ANY checks on firearms. I DO want to see a serious re-thinking of our criminal justice system. The idea that someone convicted of drug possession will be denied the fundamental human right of self defense long after they’ve served their sentence is obscene.

As the title says: with “friends” like Omed, gun owners don’t need any more enemies.

Posted in firearms, Guns Dammit!, Left-Wing Nut-Jobery, Politics, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

They Discourage Self Help…Except For Themselves

Posted by Bill Nance on May 29, 2009

Here in the National Socialist Republik of Massachusetts our esteemed Attorney General has stated: “all I’m saying is that, you know, we, we really try and discourage people from self help.” This was in response to a father being arrested when his four-year-old was groped in a public restroom for punching the assaulter.

As usual with gun-control advocates, when their own skin is on the line, all their ideals about waiting for the police to protect them go out the window.  Of course anyone who’s bothered to look at it knows that Senator Diane Feinstein, D-Calif has had a concealed weapons permit since the 70s. A privilege she would deny all the rest of us.

But now another prominent gun-control advocate has also been outed as a lying, cowardly hypocrite.

Don Perata, D-Oakland has been outed as the scumbag he is by applying for the very permit he would deny all law abiding citizens.  If this degenerate POS doesn’t illustrate the cowardice and hypocrisy of the gun-control movement, nothing does.

Tell me one more time about how only law enforcement can be trusted with guns…When the primary architects of this argument have private security protection or concealed weapons permits.

Color me disgusted.

Posted in Creeping Fascism watch, firearms, Guns Dammit!, Left-Wing Nut-Jobery, Politics | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Stupid Idea Watch -Gun Registration

Posted by Bill Nance on April 10, 2009

Recently Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi stated that she wants guns to be “registered.”

This is typical of the complete stupidity of the gun-grabbing agenda. It’s not stupid because Bill doesn’t agree with it, it’s stupid because it serves no possible purpose whatsoever except to add layers of government spending and be a stumbling block and intentional legal  “gotcha” for lawful gun-owners.

Under most registration schemes (And I live in a state where there is one in place) New firearms purchases must be registered with a government agency. The registration generally include the model and the serial number of the gun and the name and address of the seller and buyer -oh, and lets not forget a tax in most places.

Now here’s the question: How would this ever prevent a crime from occurring?

  1. If the owner of the firearm purchased it legally and kills someone with it, registration won’t prevent that. As for tracing the gun, that’s easily done through existing ATF records, since all firearms transactions are already recorded by that agency.
  2. If a criminal obtains a gun, well, obviously they won’t register it. -Duh
  3. The vast majority of guns used in crimes are stolen. the only way to fix that would be a wholesale confiscation of all firearms, something that would both start a revolution in this country and would violate existing supreme court rulings.  -And criminals would still get guns, they’d just be a bit more expensive due to temporary scarcity. Registration wil not help that situation.

However… there IS one reason to have mandatory gun registration -If you’re a gun grabber.  If they are all registered then it’s easy enough to ban certain types of guns that gun-phobes think look scary and confiscate those under the canard of “reasonable restrictions.”

So the next time you hear someone talking about registration of firearms, remind yourself that this doesn’t prevent crime in any way, shape or form. It would add yet another layer of government bureaucracy and expense in keeping up with the additional paperwork and would be used as a tool to selectively prosecute lawful gun owners who simply don’t like being required to register their private property with the government.

Before you go along with this “reasonable” plan to accomplish nothing, cost a lot of money  and add yet more ridiculous laws to the books, ask yourself and your legislator why they’re even talking about it. Two wars, an economic crisis, an already bitterly divided polity and the Democrats want to waste time on this foolishness?

-Gimme a break

Posted in Crime, firearms, Guns Dammit!, Stupid Idea Watch | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Dissenting Opinion -No, Not All Gun-Rights Advocates Voted For Palin/MCain

Posted by Bill Nance on April 8, 2009

Deep breath….

Well, I had the temerity to (again) admit that I campaigned and voted for Barack Obama in November – Something I’ve never been in the slightest bit bashful about.  But when you admit these things on a decidedly right-wing gun forum, you’d better get ready for the fireworks. I admit I didn’t expect the animosity I received.

A few comments resulting from that post: (all anonymous by the way):

  • obama? thanks a fuckin lot
  • You Socialist scumbag.
  • A socalist is a socalist, they are all bad. You’re no [sic] excemption.
  • Burn those flags, brother!

These were actually, some of the tamest things said.

So how can someone who loves their guns, is an absolutist on the Human Right of self-defense (and the means to that defense) vote for a guy like Barack Obama? Easy enough to answer.

First and foremost, the country faces enormous challenges, politically, internationally and of course economically. The McCain/Palin ticket seemed to me to have virtually no answers on any of those issues. They promised what was, in all substance, a third Bush term.

Second, John McCain did two things for which I will forgive no politician, ever.

One: He voted against making the CIA hold itself to the same standards as the U.S. military’s Field Manual on Interrogations. In other words, torture is fine as long as the CIA does it.

Two: His pick of Sarah Palin, the buffoon from Wasilla, with major ties to a secessionist movement, not a shred of understanding of ANY issue of national importance and a religious fanatic to boot, was frankly the most horrendously cynical and irresponsible move by a major party presidential candidate in history. As I said at the time, Palin makes Dan Quayle look like Winston Churchill. -And I wasn’t alone. Many Republicans came to the same conclusion.

Finally, I liked lots of what Barack Obama was talking about.

Anyone who thinks the current healthcare system is actually working is not aware of the facts of the matter -it’s plain willful ignorance.

The notion that zero government intervention or yet MORE tax breaks for the already wealthy is the proper response when the market has imploded in an unprecedented way is a position firmly opposed to reality.

And finally, anyone who thinks more bellicose language and a refusal to deal with Realpolitik is a good idea hasn’t paid attention for the last 8 years. This is not even mentioning the Republicans’ complete capitulation on any semblance of fiscal discipline or intellectual honesty since 2001.

All that having been said, there was one guy with whom I agreed on lots of things and bitterly opposed on a few others (mostly guns and the sheer level of government growth) The other person running stood for absolutely nothing I believed in, had not a shred of credibility and had chosen someone as a running-mate who wasn’t qualified to be a decent mayor a a mid-sized town, much less Vice President of the United States.The ONLY thing I liked about the McCain/Palin ticket was their stance on gun control.

Given those choices, it was obvious to me who the right man was among the two serious candidates. I thought at the time and still believe that a McCain/Palin administration would have been utter disaster for this country. I think Obama will, overall, do a vastly better job. Gun control is ONE issue. A very important one, but not the ONLY one.

For those who can’t figure this out, let me ask you to join me in a quick thought experiment.

Suppose Ted Kennedy were running for office vs. an Anti-gun Republican with otherwise solid “conservative” credentials.

Now pretend for a moment that Kennedy had been an ardent supporter of the Second Amendment for his entire career, but that all his other positions were identical to what we all know and despise.

By you’re logic, given the above facts, you’d all vote for TED KENNEDY based on guns alone? -Gimme a Freakin break.

That’s the same choice you’d have me make in voting for the McCain Palin ticket. I won’t do it, I didn’t do it, and no, I don’t regret it for a second.

Posted in Barack Obama, firearms, Guns Dammit!, John McCain, Politics, Sarah Palin, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | 2 Comments »

Gun Grabbers At It Again

Posted by Bill Nance on April 8, 2009

Well, sure enough, a few high-profile shootings have occurred and the gun-grabbers are out for new gun control, even though the “assault weapons ban” didn’t cover and won’t cover the pistols used by the shooter in Binghamton, even though the shooting in Oakland was committed by a felon, who was already prohibited from possessing a firearm of any type, and in spite of clear statistics from the U.S. Justice Department  which said in 2004:

Should it [The Assault Weapons Ban] be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. AWs [Assault Weapons defined by the AWB]were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban. LCMs [Large Capacity Magazines] are involved in a more substantial share of gun crimes, but it is not clear how often the outcomes of gun attacks depend on the ability of offenders to fire more than ten shots (the current magazine capacity limit) without reloading.

Gun control laws are are based on the logically fallacious idea that if you make it more difficult or impossible for law abiding citizens to buy new arms of a certain description (usually based on how “scary” the gun looks) that you will deter criminals already bound and determined to break the law. –Say what?

A simple statistic just to put everything in perspective.  Mass shootings are rare.  They get lots of press coverage, whereas guns being used in self defense are very rarely reported in the media at all.  So as much as deaths from mass shootings shock and sadden all of us, they remain, in terms of the numbers, rare events.

The worst mass shooting recently is the one which occurred in Binghamton, New York just a few days ago.  In an exceptionally rare event, it appears someone technically able to own a firearm went on a spree. (The vast majority of these shooters are people already prohibited from owning firearms).  The death toll: 13.

On that same day, approximately 44 people died as a result of alcohol-related traffic accidents, about 11 people were murdered by knife, bludgeoning or other non-firearms methods and 1787 people died from eating too many Big Macs (heart disease).

What happened in Binhamton last week was a tragedy. But please folks, these events are rare.  And based on the numbers I mentioned above, even if this happened every single day, your chances of being involved in a massacre are 13 out of about 300,000,000.  Hardly a cause for a nation-wide assault on civil liberties.

Update: Another excellent article on this subject:

Money quote: (non-bolded fr0m Snowflakes in Hell

“Right now, we have the debate in Congress over the District of Columbia wanting a vote on the floor of the House, something we all want. That’s a civil rights issue,” she said, pledging to find “middle ground” on the issue. “And, yet, they want to put a gun…bill, attach that to that. I don’t — I don’t think that that should be the price to pay to have a vote on the floor of the House.” -House Speaker Nancy Pelosi

The gun issue is a civil rights issue too, Madam Speaker, no matter how much you wish it weren’t so.  If you wish to remain Speaker, you’ll learn to accept that.  Your predecessor, Tom Foley, didn’t think it was a civil rights issue either, and I doubt very much he expected to pass the gavel to Newt Gingrich in short order.  Don’t make the same mistake he did.

Heh.

Posted in Crime, firearms, Guns Dammit!, Left-Wing Nut-Jobery | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

A sad truth

Posted by Bill Nance on October 20, 2008

No matter who wins the Presidential election, one thing is almost certain: More gun control.

It’s all but guaranteed that the Democrats will have at least 58 seats in the U.S. Senate and it’s looking increasingly likely they will manage a  full 60-seat, filibuster-proof majority.

That means there they only have to pick up four Senate Republican votes to override a veto. The two independent votes, Lieberman I -CT and Sanders I -VT  will almost certainly vote for a Brady-like gun ban given the chance.

There are plenty of Republican Senators from mostly urban states who would vote for more gun control, so I see virtually no situation that will avoid the issue.

There are two possibilities:

  1. The law we get will be slightly less arbitrary and stupid (Only relatively, the whole idea of more laws when there’s thousands on the books that never get enforced is just stupid).
  2. The law will be as restrictive or more so than the first Brady bill (Gun confiscation is not going to happen, 5th Amendment + Heller, I’m going for it. That’s a paranoid fantasy).

On the face of it, I’d say a McCain victory would seem more likely to avoid more gun laws, but I think a veto would just get an override, and could result in worse legislation than we’d get with Obama.

Obama could actually do a better job on this issue, though I have more than a few doubts. Here’s why:

Aside from the ideologues like Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein, Democrats remember the results of the Brady bill. It was one of the signature issues that lost the Dems control of the congress in ’94. Barack Obama may be many things, but stupid is not one of them. I think he’s well aware of the screwups of 1993. He may well be able to substantially moderate the gun-phobes inclination for making gun-owner’s lives miserable. It has not been a signature issue for him and I think he’s bright enough not to mess with side-issues when there are much bigger fish to fry.

There’s no guarantee. His legislative career does not speak well for him on this issue at all. On the other hand, he represented a highly unfriendly-to-gun State. Like any politician, he may have largely gone with popular sentiment.

The other issue that’s different from 1992 is Heller vs District of Columbia. However much some people may like to call attention to it’s limited ruling, it was very clearly and specifically not the end of the issue. The court left the possibilities for more challenges to restrictive gun laws wide open. Obama, (And I think plenty of Democrats in congress) cannot lightly ignore that ruling

McCain would almost certainly veto any new attempts at a Brady bill. But he would just as likely be overridden by an emboldened congress generally pissed-off over the election results. Obama on the other hand, might be able to successfully ride herd on the members of his own party. (One hopes, though I’m deeply skeptical).

As someone who is very excited to get back into my hobby of shooting (Including the nasty scary “assault weapons,”) I’m deeply troubled by the gun-control issue. I have not drunk the Obama Kool-Aid™. I’m voting Obama with eyes wide-open, just as some McCain supporters are pro-choice. But on the other hand, I honestly see little hope of avoiding more Federal meddling with my Second Amendment rights no matter who wins the White House.

Ironically, the guy in the race who has the worst record on gun-control may have the best chances of stopping at least the most egregious attempts by urbanites in Congress to criminalize millions of law-abiding citizens.

Posted in Barack Obama, Election 08, Guns Dammit!, John McCain, Politics | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »