Recently, I’ve put a fair amount of my time into tracking bump-fire bans, new rulemaking and legislation alike. I’ve noticed thatrelatively few people seem to be speaking about the subject, and the majority of those who bring it up at all indicate that bump-fire stocks (and trigger cranks, etc.) aren’t worth bothering with.
I often agree with Scott Adams. This time, I don’t… quite.
The Fake Gun Control Debate
If you see a gun debate in which both sides claim their preferred laws would save lives, you’re watching a fake debate. A real debate would sound more like this:
Honest Pro-gun argument: “I realize the right to own guns will result in the death of thousands of innocent people. But owning a gun lowers the risk for my family, in my opinion, because of my specific situation, and so I favor gun rights.”
or…
Honest Anti-gun argument: “I realize that some forms of gun control could result in the deaths of people who would otherwise be able to defend themselves, but I’m okay with that because my family’s risk would be lower if there were fewer guns in circulation.”
Well… No. Let’s take the “Honest Pro-gun argument.”
The right to own guns will result in the deaths of thousands? Make that may.
And who are those thousands? Right off the top, historically, nearly two-thirds of them are people who choose to die. My guns have nothing to do with people who want to kill themselves. Comparisons of states with varying degrees of gun control (not mention other countries like Japan) suggest those who want to die, will die. By other means if guns aren’t available.
And my gun isn’t available to them, so what do my rights have to do with it anyway?
Then there are the accidental firearms-related deaths. In 2015 (last CDC WISQARS data available), that was 489. Out of a population of 320+ million. And dropping; in 1999, with a smaller US population, we had 824 accidental firearms-related deaths.
Compared to 3,602 accidental drownings in 2015. Is anyone calling for commonsense pool control?
Guess what; no one has accidentally killed themselves, or anyone else with my gun. So again, what do my rights have to do with it anyway?
In 2016 (the last FBI UCR availbable), that leaves 11,004 murders. Presumabbly, this is what concerns people. It is concerning. And dropping; in 1993, there were 17,075 homicides, out of a much smaller population. Murder is a problem we’re already solving.
Funny things about those murderers: if we assume they were all lawful gun owners, they’d be 0.0085 to 0.0186% of all gun owners; a rather small fragment of a miniscule fraction of the people gun controllers want to regulate. Seems like a tighter focus would be more effective.
Why napalm your backyard to get rid of mosquitos?
But most murderers are prior felons, who can’t lawfully possess firearms. So this is more like napalming your backyard to get your the mosquitos in the swamp outside of town.
Worse yet, some 80-88% of firearms used in murders are stolen (so they aren’t owned by the killers). Now you’re fire-bombing your yard for South American mosquitos.
But the nasty thing we usually aren’t allowed to address is the demographics of the majority of murder victims. Just this once, I’ll be politically correct and not say it. But I will note that Chicago and Los Angeles (among other high crime cities) have programs to identify potential victims… based on their involvement in illegal activities or relationships with those who are so involved. And perpetrator and victim are pretty localized geographically, too.
And that is why the victim disarming gun controllers live for Sandy Hook and Parkland incidents, waiting patiently for those rare, isolated incidents. Suddenly they get to cry over innocent victims and demand those who didn’t do it be punished; because you never know when the innocent might become guilty.
And on to the “Honest Anti-gun argument”:
“I realize that some forms of gun control could result in the deaths of people who would otherwise be able to defend themselves, but I’m okay with that because my family’s risk would be lower if there were fewer guns in circulation.”
Only could, when rights will?
Even the Anti-gun Violence Policy Center admits that there are 338,700 defensive firearms uses in 2007-2011, 11,690/year. Yes, the gun controllers say that (pro-RKBA numbers go as high as 2.5 million per year).
So how many of those 338,700 “could” die if disarmed?
Now here my gun has been involved. I’ve defended myself (nonlethally, thank G-d) on three occasions, and another person once.
My brother was beaten to death in a victim disarmament paradise in California.
Could die?
“…but I’m okay with that because my family’s risk would be lower if there were fewer guns in circulation.”
What does my gun have to do with your family’s risk? Unless you’re planning to do something to me that would force me to defend myself…
But screw this “what if could.” We have gun control.
That’s just federal. At the state and local levels, we’ve got more bans, prohibitive licensing, unconstitutional ERPOs, more gun-free zones, age limits, universal background checks, total registration, moronic microstamping requirements, “smart” gun requirements…
We’ve been letting gun controller run their little experiment for eight decades (Not to mention gun control laws going back to Colonial period ensuring blacks were disarmed. Did I mention the anti-immigrant Sullivan Act?). When is it supposed to start working, or when will they accept that it is stupid?
And honest gun control debate would start with “Since it doesn’t work, why should we continue it?”
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could use the money, what with truck repairs and bills.
Ed. note: This commentary appeared first in TZP’s weekly email alert. If you would like to be among the first to see new commentary (as well as to get notice of new polls and recaps of recent posts), please sign up for our alert list. (See sidebar or, if you’re on a mobile device, scroll down). Be sure to respond when you receive your activation email!
I’ve been chasing bump-fire stock commenting on regulations.gov this morning, because it matters, trying to sort out the issues with commenting. What I’ve found so far:
My layman’s understanding is that new rules (Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, NPRM) have to be announced in the Federal Register, giving people a chance to voice their views on them, before the rules can be implemented. Sure, they can ignore us, but they have to let us yammer.
The only Federal Register announcement for “Bump-Stock-Type Devices” is “A Proposed Rule by the Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau on 03/29/2018.” That is Docket No. 2017R-22, which on federalregister.gov shows 35,709 public comments. Clicking the link to those comments takes you to the comments for December 2017’s proposed rule. (Ditto for the GPO PDF of the Federal Register.)
Regulations.gov is the web site where we — supposedly — get to voice those views.
Regulations.gov shows two dockets, neither of which is “Docket No. 2017R-22”.
ATF-2018-0001:
“Comments Not Accepted”
The comment I made on that, 1k2-92ad-9enm, 3/29/2018, shows “This comment was received in Regulations.gov but is not yet posted. Please contact the agency directly for more information.”
A search for comments on ATF-2018-0001 shows “35,709 results”. But the result displayed are the comments from the December 2017 NPRM, “Comment Period Closed, Jan 25, 2018 11:59 PM ET”.
Docket No. ATF-2018-0002:
This docket shows different comment counts depending on the page you look at.
ATF-2018-0002
Commenting allowed, currently shows “3,673 Comments Received”.
ATF-2018-0002-0001
Commenting allowed, currently shows “1,864 Comments Received”.
But no comments on ATF-2018-002 can be found: “0 results”.
My comment on this docket, 1k2-92b5-589w, 3/30/2018, also shows “This comment was received in Regulations.gov but is not yet posted. Please contact the agency directly for more information.”
Please note: While ATF-2018-0001 was published on 3/29/2018 and could be considered the NPRM referred to in the Federal Register, ATF-2018-002 was not published until 3/30/2018, after comment were closed on the 3/29 docket.
SUMMARY: The “Bump-Stock-Type Devices” is being “tracked” under three different docket numbers. The Federal Register — where rules apparently must be legally published — shows only Docket No. 2017R-22, which you might recall is also the docket number for the December 2017 NPRM.
But regulations.gov shows two dockets, neither published in the Federal Register, with different comment counts. And neither of my comments will display for any docket number.
It’s hard to tell with the ATF, but this might be bureaucratic incompetence rather than deliberate malice. Possibly some idiot did a copy/paste from the 2017 NPRM, and got the old docket number. When they tried to enter a new docket number to keep comments separated, they managed to enter two, screwing up the whole NPRM.
Or it might be deliberate machinations, with bureaucratic bumbling as plausible deniability.
Update, 4/2/2018, 11:55 AM EDT: I have received a response from the ATF. As you can see, it fails to explain why commenting closed on one docket, or why there are two other separate (and not listed in the Federal Register) dockets. Comments are still separated across dockets in counts, yet are not visible.
This is in response to your email to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). In your email, which you inquired why the commenting was closed on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in “Bump-Stock-Type Devices” after one day.
As you may know, ATF is responsible for enforcing the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), as well as other Federal firearms laws. A significant part of the GCA concerns the licensing and recordkeeping requirements pertaining to the manufacture, importation, distribution and sale of firearms.
The direct link to comment on the subject notice is https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=ATF-2018-0002-0001
If you have any further comments or concerns, they may be directed to the Office of Regulatory Affairs (202) 648-7070.
In addition, there may be State laws that pertain to this proposed activity. Contact State Police units or the office of your State Attorney General (www.naag.org) for information on any such requirements. You may also find information in ATF publication 5300.5: State Laws and Published Ordinances – Firearms.
We trust the foregoing has been responsive to your inquiry. Should you have additional questions, please contact your local ATF office. A listing of ATF office phone numbers can be found here.
Regards,
K Moore | Senior Industry Operations Investigator
U.S. Department of Justice | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
Firearms Industry Programs Branch
99 New York Avenue NE, Mail Stop 6.N-518
Washington, DC 20226
Update 2, 4/2/2018, 2:55PM EDT:
The inconsistent comment counts are the same, but 431 comments can now be seen. Visible comments include some submitted today. However, neither of my comments submitted last week can be found anywhere. Since my comments have vanished, I have submitted a third attempt to voice my opinion: 1k2-92d6-aj9o, 4/2/2018:
Comment Tracking Number Match
This comment was received in Regulations.gov but is not yet posted. Please contact the agency directly for more information.
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could use the money, what with truck repairs and bills.
Some people wonder why I worry about the Trump administration’s move to ban bump-fire stocks (“Bump-Stock-Type Devices” BSTD). After all, they aren’t really useful for anything practical. They’re inaccurate, unstable. Why we’d be…
“ft”: “Bottom line, our country would be better off without Bump stocks or the really stupid trigger cranks.”
“Better off.”
If this were a move to specifically ban bump-fire stocks or trigger cranks on product safety grounds (unstable, inaccurate, etc.) you’d see a lot less opposition to it. But if you read the language of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking [NPRM] (and every submitted bill I’ve tracked down so far), that isn’t what is being addressed. It is clearly and explicitly a “problem” of “rate of fire,” in that these devices — training wheels — assist the shooter in merely approaching the semiautomatic firearm’s theoretical rate of fire. (In the case of bump-fire, by using recoil to let the trigger reset, for the next manual operation.)
The NC sheriff candidate, who was criticized for his “cold, dead hands” jokeremark (why the assumption that he was joking?), stated earlier in that meeting that he wants to ban anything that allows any firearm to “fire in rapid succession.” That’s what this proposed rule allows, too.
“I think we need to ban the sale of any mechanism that will allow a firearm to fire in rapid succession. And the reason why that’s the terminology that we need to use in our statutes is somebody out there is going to be able to develop some mechanism of some kind that is going to be able to fire in rapid succession.” (emphasis added-cb)
— R. Daryl Fisher, March 7, 2018
Anyone know why paper cartridges for muzzleloaders were invented? Pouring powder, and patching and ramming a ball are slow. Using a cartridge increased “rate of fire.”
Remember the British — Revolutionary War period! — Ferguson rifle? As a self-priming breechloader, it greatly increased… rate of fire.
In short, this NPRM, and the intent of the gun controllers, is a camouflaged ban on semiautomatic firearms. Doubt it? Read the NPRM language, and ask yourself how “President Hillary Clinton” would read and apply the rule.
Still doubt that “rate of fire” criteria is what the victim disarmers have in mind?
Some useful criteria
In the Las Vegas shooting, Stephen Paddock used guns that had a rate of fire of 9 rounds per second and magazines holding 60-100 rounds each. With these weapons, Paddock was able to kill dozens and wound hundreds in minutes. If the devastation Paddock caused with his weapons is equivalent to what he could have caused with M16s or M4s, then the weapons he used should be banned from civilian use. This is why I believe using rate of fire and magazine capacity are the most useful criteria for identifying what weapons are or are not protected by the 2nd Amendment. (emphasis added-cb)
Well, any magazine with a capacity greater than one is going to increase “rate of fire” over a single-shot. Or a musket.
“Rate of fire” is the new tactic from the gun grabber playbook to ban semiautomatic firearms. After all, what duck hunter needs anything but a double-barrel (apparently muzzleloaded) shiotgun> What deer hunter needs more than Granpa’s old bolt-action musket?
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could use the money, what with truck repairs and bills.
ADDED 2: jim notes in comments that the proposed rule can now be found HERE.
That’s nice. Except…
Scroll down. New docket number. Comment count is zero.
Related Dockets: None
Related RINs: None
Related Documents: None
That means this is not tied to the previous notice with existing comments, and those hundreds of comments that were made before are GONE.
Inquiries to the ATF, DOJ, Federal Register, and various congresscritters have gone unanswered. An automated response from the ATF reads, “It is the goal of FIPB to respond to requests from firearms industry members and the general public within 120 days of receipt.”
Nice trick. If comments aren’t going your way, kill the proposal, reissue it without telling anyone, and do over until you get the results you want to justify violating human/civil rights.
I have two comment receipts now, so I can check if the first is permanently evaporated, or if they’ll… restore it.
Original post (and update) follows:
Something is up with the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on “Bump-Stock Type Devices.” I was there earlier this morning checking on comment totals: 941.
I thought of something else I wanted to see again a few minutes ago. I found this.
“Comments Not Accepted”
So I cleared cache/cookies/history/et al and attempted a new comment.
“Document ATF_FRDOC_0001-0036 is no longer open for comment.”
That was supposed to be open for 90 days, until June 29, 2018.
Very odd. Anyone know what’s going on?
Added: I also did a search on the comments submitted before it was closed (remember: there had been at least 941):
Inquiries have been made to DOJ and the Federal Register. No responses yet.
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could use the money, what with truck repairs and bills.
Memes comparing the Parkland students to Nazis have circulated at the fringes for days, but on Tuesday seemed to find a wider audience.
I wonder what gives people that impression.
Hijacking “Never Again” to promote victim disarmament as the Nazis did with the Weapons Law of 1938 (which has its own odd connection to previous US legislation)? I keep expecting to Hogg to froth at the mouth and bring up a “final solution.”
Or their use of the “Big Lie” that they’re the “mass shooting generation” (then stop doing that, kids).
Mr. Rosenberg, I think you’re complaining to the wrong people about the Nazi references.
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could use the money, what with truck repairs and bills.
The Department of Justice (Department) proposes to amend the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives regulations to clarify that “bump fire” stocks, slide-fire devices, and devices with certain similar characteristics (bump-stock-type devices) are “machineguns” as defined by the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) and the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), because such devices allow a shooter of a semiautomatic firearm to initiate a continuous firing cycle with a single pull of the trigger. Specifically, these devices convert an otherwise semiautomatic firearm into a machinegun by functioning as a self-acting or self-regulating mechanism that harnesses the recoil energy of the semiautomatic firearm in a manner that allows the trigger to reset and continue firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter. Hence, a semiautomatic firearm to which a bump-stock-type device is attached is able to produce automatic fire with a single pull of the trigger. With limited exceptions, primarily as to government agencies, the GCA makes it unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun unless it was lawfully possessed prior to the effective date of the statute. The bump-stock-type devices covered by this proposed rule were not in existence prior to the GCA’s effective date, and therefore would fall within the prohibition on machineguns if this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) is implemented. Consequently, current possessors of these devices would be required to surrender them, destroy them, or otherwise render them permanently inoperable upon the effective date of the final rule.
The NPRM falsely states: “Specifically, these devices convert an otherwise semiautomatic firearm into a machinegun by functioning as a self-acting or self-regulating mechanism that harnesses the recoil energy of the semiautomatic firearm in a manner that allows the trigger to reset and continue firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter. Hence, a semiautomatic firearm to which a bump-stock-type device is attached is able to produce automatic fire with a single pull of the trigger.”
That is factually incorrect, and inconsistent with objective physical reality. Firing still requires the trigger finger to engage and operate the trigger individually for each shot fired, after the firearm is MANUALLY pulled forward again with the shooter’s off hand.
Bump-fire stocks do not increase the “rate of fire.” The rate of fire from a “single trigger pull” is still 1. Each round discharged still requires an individual manual operation of the trigger IN THIS UNIVERSE. The firearm’s cyclic rate of fire is determined by the physics of the firearm’s internal parts: Mass, resistance, inertia, mechanical engagement, force of discharging cartridge. If anything, a bump-stock-type device would bleed recoil energy and cause a reduction in the theoretical maximum.
Bump-fire stocks do not “accelerate the firearm’s cyclic firing rate to mimic automatic fire.” Again, that rate is determined by the internal action of the firearm, not an external stock.
A bump-stock-type device merely aids the untrained shooter in achieving something closer to the firearm’s inherent theoretical rate of fire. (Again, since some recoil energy is bled off to assist in manual trigger operation, it probably prevents the shooter ever reaching the actual theoretical maximum.) Bump-fire stocks are training wheels.
The ATF previously ruled that the Akins Accelerator differed from modern bump-stock-type devices in that the spring in the stock acted as an active component to force the firearm into the ready-to-fire position trigger against the shooter’s finger, without additional action by the shooter. With a modern bump-stock-type device, the shooter must MANUALLY return the firearm to the ready-to-fire position, at which time the shooter MANUALLY operates the trigger again.
This is very easy to test, three ways, each using a bump-stock-type device:
1. Pull the trigger a single time and immediately move your finger forward off of the “ledge” (or “finger rest”). If the firearm continues to fire without further operation of the trigger, it is a machinegun. If it does not continue to fire, it is not a machinegun.
2. Should this not be clear enough, fire again; this time keeping your trigger finger off of the “ledge” so that your finger holds the trigger down, preventing it from resetting. If the firearm continues to fire without further operation of the trigger, it is a machinegun. If it does not continue to fire, it is not a machinegun.
3. If you are still unclear on the concept, pull the trigger, but keep the rifle pressed back in a conventional non-bump-fire mode (i.e.- don’t pull the rifle forward). If the firearm continues to fire without further operation of the trigger, it is a machinegun. If it does not continue to fire, it is not a machinegun.
If one cannot understand this, then that person is mentally incompetent and should be adjudicated as such under 18 U.S. Code § 922(d)(4), and should be removed from office.
If one will not understand this, then that person is guilty of malfeasance and should be removed.
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could use the money, what with truck repairs and bills.
I live in the area, so I’ve been hearing these guys’ radio ads for years. They’re personal injury lawyers; I have no idea if they have any criminal law experience (as lawyers) at all. They certainly don’t seem to have any firearms experience.
Attorneys with Barnes & Cohen told News4Jax that they don’t care if the trio of ads cost them business, because the message the commercials convey is too important.
[…]
Gun rights attorney Eric Friday said he believes the premise of the Barnes & Cohen ads is wrong, saying the AR-15 is not a weapon used by the military.
He argued the ads are politically motivated.
“Personal injury lawyers, as a general rule, vote Democrat,” Friday said. “I see this as nothing more than a campaign ad for the Democratic party to oppose a particular Republican senator.”
I strongly suspect their real motivation is monetary, that this is an appeal to Parkland students “traumatized” by being somewhere on campus during the shooting.
But you know me. I had to send them an email.
“Enough is enough. Assault weapons are weapons of war. A hunter needs a rifle, a shotgun, not an AR- 15,” Barnes says in the ad.
I would like to note a few points.
1. There is no such thing as an “assault weapon” in the state of Florida. You’ll need to define it before you can ban it.
2. There is a no nation in the world which generally issues semiautomatic rifles to its regular troops, because they are NOT considered suitable for general combat operations. Most nations phased them out in the 1950s and ’60s. A couple of impoverished third world nations finally scraped up the money to shift to assault rifles (not “assault weapons”) in the 1990s.
3.
“The AR-15 is designed for one purpose — to deliver maximum killing power to our military in harm’s way,” Cohen says in the ad. “I don’t need one, and neither do you.”
Then why do the police carry them? Is it their job to kill the maximum number of citizens?
I think you need to learn alittle more about the subject. I reccommend this “Gun Culture Primer” as a starting point: http://zelmanpartisans.com/?page_id=2710
I would be happy to answer questions.
And I got an answer from Glenn Cohen.
Hi carl
Read your email with interest and respect
the AR 15 is the same as a M16
it was named that way for obvious reasons
my nephew is a swat team member and carries one
he refers to it as a weapon of war
however I will read up on the subject
tks
do you own one??
Glenn
Judges must find his legal briefs a joy to read, with that lack of capitalization and punctuation.
But that beg another response.
On 03/28/2018 06:58 PM, G COHEN wrote:
> Hi carl
>
> Read your email with interest and respect
>
> the AR 15 is the same as a M16
As a military veteran who carried an M-16 for several years, former peace officer, private security officer, and informed citizen, I can assure you that the AR-15 IS NOT the same.
> it was named that way for obvious reasons
“Armalite Rifle”? That’s what “AR” stands for, you know. After the original company’s name.
> my nephew is a swat team member and carries one
Carries one what? Is it a semiautomatic AR-15, or a select-fire M-16?
> he refers to it as a weapon of war
Sounds like he has the select-fire military rifle. Not an AR-15.
> do you own one??
Do you own any valuables you’d like to tell me about?
Why would I tell a stranger what valuables I might have?
And as I typed this, another email from Cohen.
how right you are!! should not have inquired
We can disagree with respect
thanks for your respect
I was polite; not the same thing as respect. I find it difficult to gin up much respect for a personal injury lawyer who calls for the mass violation of human/civil rights, based on admitted ignorance. Note that he didn’t answer any of my questions, nor did I expect him to do so.
Yes, we disagree. But my position that AR-15s are not the same as M-16s is based on objective physical reality. As best I can tell, his is based on rainbow unicorn farts. Politics aside, this is not a lawyer I’d want representing me in court.
I felt the need to send one more email, but not to Cohen. That inquiry about whether I own an AR — “do you own one??” — bothered me. Was he hoping to pretend I told him I have a gun in a threatening manner so he could sic the cops on me, or sue? So I forwarded Cohen’s email to the Florida Bar Center for Professionalism with a simple question of my own.
To: jhaston@floridabar.org Subject: Why is a Florida attorney asking me this?
Why is Glenn Cohen of Barnes & Cohen, with whom I have no legal relationship of any kind, asking what expensive property I might own?
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could use the money, what with truck repairs and bills.
There is a semi-known NRA apologist who has been advocating for the NRA position of preemptive surrender on bump-fire stocks. I’m going to quote him, but I’m not about to give him free traffic with a link. Nor will I name him, as he seeks his little moments of fame. I only use his words at all because he’s the perfect example of poor thinking on the subject. (You can copy/paste the quotes into a search engine to find the blogger and post to which I refer.)
“I’m very sorry our great-grandparents abandoned Machine Gun Hill in the 1930s. None of us alive today were there. A lot of people seem to want to die on Bump Stock Hill. It’s not that I don’t want to fight, it’s that I’m not going to fight for something I can’t win or can’t defend successfully. I’m going to strengthen my lines against attacks on my flanks and leave that indefensible position to those foolish enough to fight for it.”
“The overriding goal is to save semi-automatic firearms as an entire class (i.e. they don’t get to just ban scary looking semi-autos) . We have to fight that with everything we got.”
But that is exactly what he’s giving up.
Every bump-fire ban bill in DC has specifically addressed rate of fire. Every state and local bill I looked at did the same.
In every case, bump-fire stocks (and trigger cranks and “Multi-burst Trigger Activators”) are bad merely because they assist the shooter in approaching the firearm’s inherent theoretical maximum rate of fire. The semiautomatic rate of fire is the problem.
Take away the bump-fire stock, crank, or multi-burp shoulder thingy, and the evil — to the gun ban bunnies — rate of fire remains.
Does anyone reading this honestly doubt that establishing the precedent of the theoretical rate of fire being the problem is exactly what they want?
The NPRM would make bump-fire stocks (“bump-stock-type devices” -snerk-) “machineguns” because the rifles fire fast. “Oh, look; it still fires fast, without the BSTD. Still a machingun, folks. Turn ’em in.”
All the proposed rules and legislation ban anything that assists in approaching the theoretical maximum rate of fire. It was never sloppy language in Feinstein’s proposal that would include aftermarket springs and triggers. They can assist in approaching that theoretical max.
So do quick-change detachable magazines. And fixed auto-feeding magazines.
The “problem” is that semiautos fire quickly, therefore they will be classed as machineguns, too. Eventually. That’s the slippery slope that Pelosi advocated, and that spoiled brat Tarr.
Mr. Forget-that-hill-follow-me-to-this-one is giving away the sloped hillside they need. Congratulations, NRA-boy.
“I believe in our current political situation, the ATF classification is the path of least damage to the overall gun rights movement.”
In fact, it’s worse than the legislation, for two reasons.
1) Legislation requires at least two votes and the President’s signature, which would give us someone to fight.
2) The ATF rule proposal is based on an outright lie about how bump-fire stocks work (continuous fire with a single operation of the trigger). That sets a second precedent, that they can lie with impunity. As Michael Z. Williamson noted, “this opens the floodgates for ANY bureaucrat to declare ANYTHING illegal.” By bureaucratic fiat. No vote. No “throw the bastards out” in midterms. With no recourse but to the Supreme Court which has been refusing to hear any RKBA appeal.
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could use the money, what with truck repairs and bills.
I’ve been intending to do another column on the reaction to the school shooting because there is just so much there that feels, well, off. But then, well, I’ll get to that.
There were of course the things that tell you how very important ending violence is to some of these respectful teenagers.
And these kids are trying to convince us we don’t need guns to protect ourselves, huh. Notice, they were only suppose to be out of class for 17 minutes. A lot can happen very fast in a short period of time, especially when there is a large group committed to mayhem.
The mayor of Baltimore is receiving much-deserved criticism after she allocated $100,000 to bus students to a gun control rally in Washington D.C. later this month. The reason for the criticism is founded in the fact that students froze all winter long because the mayor says they have no money to fix the slew of broken heaters.
…….
Fast forward to March, and all of the sudden—in spite of claiming they have no money—the mayor has miraculously pulled $100,000 out of nowhere to bus thousands of students to a gun control rally in Washington D.C.
“America needs to hear the voices of the young people of Baltimore,” Pugh told the students before announcing the city’s plan to fund the trip to the “March for Our Lives” rally in Washington, D.C., on March 24.
The $100,000 will pay for 60 buses, free t-shirts, boxed lunches and other amenities for a few thousand students who signed up to go to the rally.
Huh, the heck ya say?
But that Baltimore mayor has some interesting idea of how city funds should be spent, and to whom they should be allocated. So parents with frozen kids? Just realize that your frozen kid isn’t really that important except as a political pawn. Baltimore mayor announces taxpayer-funded defense fund for illegal immigrants
Judicial Watch reported last week that the city panel approved spending $200,000 for the month of March as a way to pay for lawyers representing illegal immigrants with deportation orders. Pugh said in a local news report that the goal is for everyone to receive due process.
$100,000 here, $200,000 there and pretty soon you’re talking some real money.
Now some schools in Pennsylvania realize that perhaps the horrible will happen there, and the kids and teachers should have something they could do to maybe save their lives.
So what’s up with all of this? Well, yesterday I was peacefully eating my cheese and jalapeño omelet and perusing a copy of March 2018 Israel Today. And there it was. The answer. In a article written by Dr. Tsvi Sadan (TS). Am I name dropping if I say I’ve met him? It’s an article on Psychological Warfare. Psy Ops. Do you think I’m being melodramatic? Let me plug in some of Dr. Tsvi’s questions to Ron Schleifer (RS). He is a teacher of psychological warfare at Ariel University and is one of Israel’s foremost experts in the field. He founded the Ariel Research Center for Defense and Communications.
Beautiful Ariel
Guesses where this was taken?
So let’s get to it shall we? First, a note, I am not typing it out verbatim. But rather the cliff notes version. Nor am I giving you all the questions, just the ones I think relevant to the topic.
TS: Define psychological warfare.
RS: The enemies use of non-violent methods against it’s rival during war time or armed conflict to achieve it’s own objectives. This definition excludes domestic and other civil disputes from the psychological operations (PO).
TS: It seems Israel is shying away from PO and propaganda in general.
RS: It is, the government is preoccupied with public diplomacy, and the idea of conscience-changing, a wonderful invention of Karl Marx. Rather than argue based on facts and reason, Marx sought to change the conscience with aggressive sermonizing. The tactic is to shout first, and shout loudest, and thereby gain the upper hand.
TS: How does PO work in the social arena?
RS: Unlike espionage, which seeks to collect information, PO exploits human weakness to disperse information. It abuses peace, democracy and morality for political ends. It’s very clever, because who wants to oppose peace or morality? The question, of course, is what morality means. And here is where the shouting and money come into play. You will win the day if you are the first to finance a shouting campaign that defines what morality is.
Ok, let me start throwing things in here.
And here is where he shouting and money come into play
How did all the marches get coordinated so fast? And who is footing the bill? The ever wonderful Daniel Greenfield has done quite a lot of digging, Daniel has. Who Runs March for Our Lives?
This is truly a follow the money article, here’s a niblet, but reading the whole article is well worth it.
Who are those people? A leaked document reveals that the March for Our Lives Action Fund is actually overseen by six directors and is incorporated in Delaware.
So far we have Los Angeles, New York and Delaware, but not Florida.
And the next bit?
It abuses peace, democracy and morality for political ends.
What could possibly be gained from all these fired up political pawns, and all these supportive adults? Alluded to in the Victory Girls blog article above.
Yep, it’s bad for a Constitutional Republic. A big part of the March for our lives was the massive Demoncratic voter drive going on. It seems you couldn’t swing a dead possum without hitting a mess of Demoncratic voter registration people set up registering the future Demoncrats. Teachers were tweeting about taking students to the “march” and getting them registered to vote Demoncrat. Crowd photos and Twitter screen shots are in the article.
Back to Dr. Tsvi and Ron.
TS: Are pro-Palestinian Israeli NGOs being manipulated?
RS: Of course. Take for example Jibril Rajoub, former head of Palestinian security forces an current head of the Palestinian Football Association. This is a man who mercilessly tortured untold numbers of fellow Palestinians, but who is now sought out by peace seeking Israelis. Under the guise of his new benign position……Not everyone can detect the cynicism, and if you are a kindred spirit, you will be converted. This is a honey trap few can resist.
Ok, we have politicians saying guns have no place in schools. We have idiot dumber than dog crap Republicans who think female teachers are “scared” of firearms and so shouldn’t be given the choice. And then there are those precious little political pawns being used in the demoncrats of the future round up. They just can’t see law abiding citizens divested of their Constitutional rights, and G-d given rights to self defense stripped away fast enough to suit them. They wouldn’t be caught within 5 miles of a gun! Evil machines of death, the only purpose is to kill, right Little Hogg? He’s the son of Boss Hogg, right?
Not everyone can detect the cynicism, and if you are a kindred spirit, you will be converted. This is a honey trap few can resist
Does anyone remember hearing about a school called Sidwell Friends?
Described as “the Harvard of Washington’s private schools”,the school has educated children of notable politicians, including those of several presidents. Both of former United States President Barack Obama’s daughters, Sasha and Malia, and former Vice President Joe Biden’s grandchildren attend the school. President Theodore Roosevelt’s son Archibald, Richard Nixon’s daughter Tricia, Bill Clinton’s daughter Chelsea Clinton, and Vice President Al Gore’s son, Albert Gore III, graduated from Sidwell Friends.
You know, that’s a lot of very anti-self-defense politicians kids that went there. There have been comments made down through the years, that Sidwell friends has armed guards. There is quite a interesting article on that Does the Sidwell Friends School Have Armed Guards? So, the children of anti-self-defense politicians are worth something, their lives are worth protecting. Your kids? Meh, not so much. The little liberty thieves might want to chew that one over.
The march was held in D.C. which is basically big gun free zone, so at least the political pawns and future Demoncrat voters didn’t have to worry a gun might just “go off” like the news media convinces them guns do. Um, well, apparently as political pawns, and when big ticket people are there, they are worthy of protection. NARRATIVE FAIL: Tons Of ‘Good Guys With Guns’ Protecting #MarchForOurLives Gun Control Rally
Again.
Not everyone can detect the cynicism, and if you are a kindred spirit, you will be converted. This is a honey trap few can resist
So, let’s just call this what it probably is, shall we? This is Psychological Warfare, I believe, straight from Marx and Alinsky. They define moral as disarmed and defenseless. Waiting for the government to come and save them from a threat. Like the school in Florida did. There was a tweet sent to TZP by someone who appeared to be a young girl by her profile picture that informed us it was inconceivable that a Jew in the 21st Century would need to “prove” themselves by owning a gun. I replied she had confused “proving” with “protecting”.
At the end of the interview Dr. Tsvi states Israeli society can be driven to civil war, and it’s our government’s responsibility to avert this threat.
Israel is not America, I will not even attempt to speak for Israeli society, but will merely say I believe in America, it is OUR, as in U.S. the citizens responsibility. Because most assuredly, I do believe this is what they are after, a civil war. It may bother them that we have guns, because they intend at some near future point to be in control of the government and perhaps they then plan to turn it’s guns on us.
Some wag commented since these children are so brilliant when they get done solving this, we need to ask them what to do about North Korea.
These children have been failed on a lot of levels. Their parents didn’t teach them you don’t always get your way. So they think public displays of temper tantrums are an expression of their “brilliance”. They have been failed by a fawning media eager to advance their own objectives and are using these pawns as props in their narrative. Few even handed journalists have talked to them. They are failed by politicians with taxpayer-funded security, who’s children perhaps go or went to a protected school. They have been failed by their indoctrinators who didn’t really teach them. They didn’t teach them history, or to think. They used the impressionable children to indoctrinate them.
And the result? When you virtue signal Lil Boss Hogg, you may be signaling more than you realize. But then you wouldn’t know anything about that, would you?
Virtue Signal
We DO.
You see, we remember very well, and we will stayed armed. We do it for our children.
Jews. Guns. No compromise. No surrender.
Password Reset
Please enter your e-mail address. You will receive a new password via e-mail.
