See updates below. This is getting serious.
Maybe even the week. We’ll see.
Andrea Chamblee wants her some gun control, and she ‘s mad that State Sen. Bobby Zirkin “slow-walked” a universal preemptively-prove-your-innocence bill. But the funny part is why she wanted that passed.
…the bill that would make it illegal for already disqualified people to obtain rifles and shotguns at gun shows and other transfers. (emphasis added)
She thinks it’s legal for prohibited persons (“disqualified people”) to obtain rifles and shotguns.
So I tweeted to her that it’s been unlawful for prohibited persons to obtain firearms for decades Try to keep up. And that’s where it started getting funny.
From the NRA website:
“Maryland does NOT regulate the sale of rifles or shotguns and no permit is required to purchase a rifle or shotgun that is not an “assault weapon.” Nov 12, 2014
Keep up. Dumazz? Liar? Both!
Yes, in a discussion of prohibited persons, she’s citing the VNRA on Maryland state laws on long gun regulation. I cited 18 U.S. Code § 922(g), Gun Control Act of 1968. And laughed at her carefully considered and mature use of language.
Her response:
So the NRA webpage is lying? Whine to Putin.
Ok, Boomer?
-face palm- She still doesn’t grasp that she’s looking at the wrong reference. And I’ve got no clue what Putin has to do with this. Maybe she thinks 18 U.S. Code § 922 is a Russian law. Does that “§” look Cyrillic to you?
The “OK, Boomer” is great. That’s the first time anyone has pulled that on me. And this time seems a little… odd.
Unless she’s led a particularly hard life, I’d say she could easily be older than I. Somehow, I thought I’d first hear it from a Millennial or whatever they’re tagging younger folks as.
If Andrea wants to be a gun control activist, she really should learn something about gun control. I referred her to our Gun Culture Primer.
I needed those laughs. Gun People controlling victim disarmers aren’t usually so entertaining in their ignorance.
UPDATE: Holy Moley. Andrea Chamblee thinks MD Crim Law Code § 5-622(b) & 18 U.S. Code § 922(g) are a Russian conspiracy pushed by Putin, and that it’s actually lawful to sell rifles & shotguns to prohibited persons.
Is that really her, and she’s that fugbuck nuts? Or has someone hacked her Twitter account?
You know it’s legal to sell it to him. You’re just spreading Russian propaganda on behalf of Putin. Putin has figured out how to murder Americans. He just has other Americans do it. Other Americans who spread hate and conspiracy theories like you
If that’s Chamblee, and not some prankster trying to make her look bad, she’s in need of some serious professional help.
UPDATE 2: I’m heartbroken. </sarc>
I guess that was the real Chamblee. Hopefully someone will get her some help.
[Permission to republish this article is granted so long as it is not edited, and the author and The Zelman Partisans are credited.]
(More Tip Jar Options) |
You can’t fix stupid.
No, you can’t. You should check out that on-going twitter thread. Aside from her obsession with Russia and Putin, she’s become fixated on my books.
With all the “dumazz,” “liar,” “Ok, boomer,” “crackpot,” and “hillbilly” remarks I don’t know if I’m actually conversing with Chamblee, or an ignorant seventh-grader.
Just my unsolicited $0.02 or less. I think her argument is more insidious and nuanced than credit is given for.
I recently read elsewhere that the swamp denizens and their ilk are masters of “semantics,” and believe that to be a clean hit in the 10-ring.
In this instance, I believe that she’s not concerned with the illegality of “possession by a prohibited person,” as was aptly pointed out by Mr. Bussjaeger. Her, “You know it’s legal to sell it to him” quip indicates such. I read it as though she’s going after the SELLER and seeking to impose restrictions since they’re not running a NICS on the purchaser like a sporting goods store, range/pro shop would.
While conjecture (and likely will be derided as tin foil hat territory), in my view, it’s another semantically veiled attempt to restrict the sales of firearms, particularly in the long term. Here’s how: If it could be proved in a murder case that a weapon was illegally sold, based on her criteria, that opens up the seller to a portion of the culpability. It’d also open the doors as “proof” of one of their nauseating talking points about gun shows and private sale/transfers… Putting that kind of pressure on manufacturers and sales/transfers would do much to curtail our RKBA.
Logically, I could see attempting to legislate ammo next and if that fails, well, I don’t want to give them any help, so I’ll remain mum.
As to the Boomer comment, I don’t think she gets what it means, at all. Honestly, I think her use of it is a sort of clickbait. Kids are searching for “OK, Boomer” videos and memes, inclusion is a potential method of propagating her message to a wider audience.
After re-reading my comments, they’re definitely worth less than 2¢.
I see what you mean, but again, 18 USC 922: It’s already unlawful to knowingly sell to a prohibited person. And I’d have to go search it again, bit I think MD has a similar state statute.
And all this started (and continued on Twitter) with “the bill that would make it illegal for already disqualified people to obtain rifles and shotguns”. For the prohibited person to obtain; not — until her final tweet — to sell to one.
I still suspect she’s a schizophrenic conspiracy nut. The ranting about Putin and Russian conspiracies. And the NRA… to a guy whose Twitter page reads “Vichy NRA delenda est.”
One in the same? (“Chamblee, or an ignorant seventh-grader”).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQCU36pkH7c