With More “Victories” Like This…

SCENE:  Avery LIBRELLE is switching a regular cucumber label to an organic cuke when he sees Mitch BERG picking out a piece of ginger root.  LIBRELLE walks over to BERG.  

LIBRELLE:  Hey, Merg!

BERG: Huh?  Oh, sh…hi, Avery.  What’s up?

LIBRELLE:  We won a huge victory over the NRA!

MITCH:  Oh yeah?

LIBRELLE:  Yeah!  Now, people won’t be able to kill people in schools!

MITCH:  Er, Avery?  Guns are already illegal on school grounds. It’s federal law.  Of course, the only people it affects are people with carry permits.   It’s already illegal for anyone who doesn’t have a California permit to carry a gun in public, much less on school grounds.

LIBRELLE:  Right!  So they can’t go nuts and shoot up schools!

MITCH:  And your example of a person with a carry permit shooting up a school is…who?

LIBRELLE:  Hundreds!

MITCH:  Name one.

LIBRELLE:  It’s settled science.

MITCH:  OK.  One example?

LIBRELLE:  It’s settled.  That means the information has been sealed.  Anyway – this is a huge win.

MITCH:  Because now, people who carried guns legally, but not on school grounds, and who never have caused any problems at schools much less killed anyone, are double-barred from carrying guns…


MITCH:  While the criminals continue to do as they please.

LIBRELLE:  Hey! Trigger warning!

MITCH:  Huh?

LIBRELLE:  “Criminal” is racist!

(And SCENE).

Keep Guns Out Of The Hands Of Straw Men

Watch Mitch Berg ANNIHILATE More Liberal Hamsters!  Mind Blown!

UPDATE:  A key “source” in the piece I fisk has turned out to be fraud.  See the Update at the bottom of the story.. 

One of my long-time stalkers – who’s been tweenting about me at least ten times a day for the past six years, which may be as perfect a definition of “a wasted life” as I can imagine – has been spamming the Northern Alliance’s hashtag on Twitter and Facebook with…well, random collections of factoids gathered from Googling, apparently.

And in so doing, he introduced me to yet another article in Raw Story – aka “liberal-friendly news even dumber than The Awl.”

This time, it’s entitled (with that usual online news biz subtlety) “‘It’s insane’: Combat veterans shoot down NRA ‘fantasy world’ of ‘good guys with guns’”

Now, we’ve pretty well  shredded Raw Story – whom I suspect just sold a ton of ads to “Everytown” or “MoveOn”or some other group that’s trying to run a PR war against the NRA, given the enthusiasm with which they’re reporting gun issues generating half-informed anti-gun content.

But even by Raw Story’s dubious standards, this is a dumb piece.  So dumb, in fact, that I’m not going to fisk the whole thing (as I did earlier this week).  Because while it’s a deeply stupid piece, it does touch on a key theme you need to know when you try to engage gun-grabbers.

Because like pretty much all aggressive, inflammatory anti-gun “journalism” cribbing fromn other left-leaning news sources today, it’s made up of:

  • Appeals to ridicule
  • Non-sequiturs
  • Strawmen

Har De Har Har:  Officialdom – cops, soldiers, paramedics, bureaucrats – always, always believe that nobody could do their jobs.  Sort of like union teachers believe homeschoolers can’t possibly, y’know, teach kids:

The NRA’s chief spokesman, Wayne LaPierre, infamously claimed following the Sandy Hook child massacre that “the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun” — but Rivera and other combat vets say that’s ridiculous.

“I think they would absolutely panic,” [Sgt. Rafael Noboa y Rivera] told The Nation. [Editor’s note: Rivera served as Raw Story’s associate publisher in 2013.]…“I think there’s this fantasy world of gunplay in the movies, but it doesn’t really happen that way,”…

Well, thanks, Sergeant Obvious.

To be fair (something Raw Story will not), it’s entirely possible there are law-abiding shooters out there who do think it’s like the movies.

But you don’t go through any sort of concealed-carry training with any such illusions – any more than any cop or soldier.

But while we’re on the topic of cops and soldiers…:

“When I heard gunfire [in Iraq], I didn’t immediately pick up my rifle and react. I first tried to ascertain where the shooting was coming from, where I was in relation to the gunfire and how far away it was. I think most untrained people are either going to freeze up, or just whip out their gun and start firing in that circumstance.”

Right.  In combat, where the situation is fluid and confusing and the adrenaline and stress are overwhelming, lots of training is required to survive, much less make sure you don’t kill the wrong person.   And for police work, where there generally isn’t an “enemy” and situations can be incredibly ambiguous (ambiguous enough that police departments grant cops a lot of qualified immunity for the inevitable, inadvertent, accidental shootings of the wrong people in the line of duty), lots of training is a legal, moral and tactical imperative.


Complete The Thought, Now…:  …self-defense is not combat, and it’s not police work.

As we pointed out in Monday’s piece, there are 3-4 criteria that a civilian – not a soldier in combat, or a cop on duty – must follow for a shooting to be considered legal self-defense [1].  And “hearing a shooting, and running to engage the shooter”, depending on your state and the zeal of the prosecutor, might very well violate two of them (“The Threat Must Be Immediate” and “Duty to Retreat”).

There’s a flip side to that; while hearing gunfire in the distance is chock full of nasty, lethal ambiguities, there are certain situations that are not ambiguous at all:

None of these situations are remotely ambiguous.  You don’t need military training, or police experience, or even to have an IQ above 75, to know exactly what is going on.  You need nothing special in terms of knowledge to know that each of these situations is an immediate threat to your life.  Right now.  

And you don’t need any special training (although practice and drilling and, yes, training certainly help) to respond.

Which brings us to the next non-sequitur:

Stephen Benson first learned during Navy SEAL training that carrying a gun would be more likely to expose him to gun violence.

That lesson directly contradicts the message promoted by the National Rifle Association and increasingly cited by gun owners as their motivation for buying a firearm, reported The Nation [There’s a freaking shock].

“It’s insane,” Benson said, recalling how his military training exposed the lie behind the most persistent pro-gun argument.

“We put on our issue .45s, and our instructor said, ‘Gentlemen, the first and most important thing you’ve done by putting on that weapon is you’ve increased your chances of being in a gunfight by 100 percent,’” he said.

[By the way – this last couple of paragraphs tripped my BS detector.  And as Joe Doakes showed in the comments, my BS detector is better than Raw Story’s, or my stalker’s.  See the UPDATE below]

After which the SEALS (who are not, to the best of my knowledge, “issued” .45s, although it’s entirely possible Mr. Benson went through “SEAL training” before 1985) did what?  Learned de-escalation techniques and put the guns away?

No – they learned how to win gunfights.  It’s their job.

For civilians, it is a non-sequitur; if you carry (concealed, usually – not openly, inviting a pre-emptive strike), it should decrease your chance of ever getting into a fight of any kind, since avoiding fights becomes an imperative.  It also decreases your chance of being defenseless against a lethal threat.  To zero?  No – sometimes it just doesn’t work, But the record is good: hundreds of justifiable homicides a year; tens of thousands of defensive gun uses, mostly with no shots fired; crime rates lowered with no gun use needed at all.

Said No Law Abiding Civilian Gun Owner, Ever:  The rest of the article is more of the same; this sort of thing:

“Unless it’s constantly drilled into you, it’s very hard to maintain discipline in those situations,” [former ATF agent and Vietnam veteran ]  told The Nation. “You’re immediately hit with a massive thump of adrenaline…conscious thought shuts down because you’ve been taken over by your nervous system, and your nervous system is saying, ‘Holy sh*t, things just got really bad.’”…“Someone can always say, ‘If your mother is being raped by 5 people, wouldn’t you want her to have a gun?’ Well, okay, if you put it that way, I’d say yes — but that’s not a likely scenario.”

Well, duh.  It’s not likely to happen to anyone’s given mom on any given day.  But if it’s any given mom, and that mom doesn’t wanna get raped, is Mr. Benson saying that there’s any ambiguity in the situation requiring any special training ?

Any at all?

 “The question is: If you see someone running out of a gas station with a gun in their hand, do you want an untrained person jumping out and opening fire?” the former ATF agent said. “For me, the answer is clearly ‘no.’”

Far be it from me to question the qualifications of an ATF agent – an elite, utterly-qualified federal agency that gave guns to narcotraficantes  but the “answer is clearly no” to any citizen with a carry permit and no badge, too.   Jumping out and firing at people who aren’t a direct threat to you can get you in trouble with the wrong prosecutor – and even, sometimes justifiably, the right ones.

Look – we get it.  If you have a heart attack as you’re walking down the aisle at Target, you’d like the first person to come along to be a cardiologist, not a receptionist with a cell phone and a six-months-old Red Cross first aid card.  If you’re is stranded in a blizzard, you’d like it to happen as you pull up to a Embassy Suites with a trunkful of “Free Evening With Champagne” coupons rather than in the middle of the prairie with a candle, a bag of Snickers bars and a space blanket.  And if you’re stuck in a room at your church when a pasty-faced forty-something loser in a “Minnesota Progressive Project” t-shirt barges in with a .25 automatic, you’d like there to just happen to be an off-duty cop with a service  Glock in the room with you rather than some random guy with a carry permit.

But if the only thing standing between you and personal extinction is that secretary, that candle and those snickers, or tha pudgy projectile-sweating middle-aged guy holding a pistol in his shaky hands, are you going to say “No! I choose death on priciple, you mere pretenders!”

I’m gonna guess not.

Especially since – all the derision from Raw Story The Nation notwithstanding – the regular schlemiel’s record is pretty good, all in all.

UPDATE:  Mr. Benson, the “SEAL”, who gave the spiel about the “Instructor” in “SEAL Training” that “warned him” about the risk of “gunfights” if he”carried a gun” like “SEALs” do, tripped my BS detector even as I quoted him.  I thought Mr. Benson sounded more like Heather Martens than Marcus Luttrell.

And as Joe Doakes pointed out in the comments– my BS detector is pretty darn good after all .  Mr. Benson, the “SEAL”, is a fraud.  He duped The Nation:

The original story identified a source as a combat veteran and former Navy SEAL. A records search has since revealed that he significantly exaggerated his military record. His comments have been removed from the article, and the headline has been changed. We apologize to our readers.

Of course, Raw Story doesn’t favor us with that factoid in their copy and paste job.  And my not-very-smart stalker is probably gonna find it a surprise as well.

Continue reading

A Nation Of Classical Philosophers

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

America was founded on the belief that people were endowed by their Creator with certain rights, including the right to life, which carries with it the right to defend one’s life from those who would take it.  A gun-free zone denies effective self-defense which jeopardizes the right to life; it is an unjust law.

The classical philosophers from St. Augustine and Abraham Lincoln through Thoreau, Martin Luther King and Gandhi agree we have a moral duty to disobey unjust laws.

Turns out, guns are common on that Oregon college campus despite the gun-free policy.   Lots of classical philosophers there.  Good for them!

Wonder how long before someone complains that students who carry on campus make others feel “unsafe” so the school must expel them?

Joe Doakes

Just you watch.

Unclear On The Concept

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo presides over a state that led the nation in attempting to ratchet up gun control after the Sandy Hook massacre.  It also includes New York City, where gun crime is surging in the wake of those restrictions (and, to be fair, Bill DeBlasio’s hapless attitude toward law enforcement, which is rapidly undoing the progress of the Giuliani era).  While the “surge” isn’t close to seventies-era levels (when 2,200 a year were being killed), it’s still shaping up to be much worse than the 300 or so from the Giuliani and Bloomberg eras.

Anyway – Cuomo’s proposed solution:  More gun control.

And to get it, he wants to shut down government to get the GOP to go along:

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo reiterated his call for Democrats to shut down government in order to force Republicans to support gun control.

Cuomo first issued this demand on September 26 while speaking at the funeral of ex-aide Carey Gabay, who was shot and fatally wounded in one of the numerous shootings surrounding the Labor Day J’Ouvert celebration in Brooklyn.

The New York Daily News quoted Cuomo saying:

If the far right is willing to shut down the government because they don’t get a tax cut for the rich, then our people should have the same resolve and threaten to shut down the government if they don’t get a real gun control law to stop killing of their innocents.

Cuomo doubled down on this demand following the heinous October 1 attack on innocents at Umpqua Community College, saying, “I’d love to see the Democrats stand up and say, ‘We’re going to shut down the federal government or threaten to shut down the government if we don’t get real gun control legislation,’”

Opportunity knocks.

The Boogeyman

The NYTimes’ “Room For Debate” feature – which generally gathers a bunch of liberals and a token conservative or two to laboriously discuss issues – currently features the question “Is the NRA Still Invincible”.

This time, the series features a piece by Glenn “Instapundit” Reynolds, who notes, quite correctly, that it’s a matter of trust – and that as people trust government less and less, they are forced to trust themselves more and more.

“But that’s just paranoid!”, the left will respond.  “Government is…all of us”.

No it’s not.  Government is a bureaucracy that serves, primarily, itself.   And its actions, and indeed its statements, are less and less trustworthy as we go.

“Huh? What do you mean?”

As Reynolds points out – in 2008, Barack Obama pointed out that “we’re not coming for your guns”.  Last week, though, he listed as his model for gun control Australia – which carried out a gun confiscation that was incredibly draconian by Western standards.  And even when they stay out of the realm of specific proposals, it doesn’t help that whenever they open their mouths, they’re lying.  Every time.  No exceptions.

Is the NRA invincible?  It’s irrelevant; in many states (Minnesota included) the NRA is a marginal player.  It’s the people that make the Second Amendment human rights movement a juggernaut.  Not invincible, mind you; we came within a cat’s whisker of losing the Second Amendment 40 years ago.  We can’t let our guard down like that ever again.

Watch Mitch Berg DESTROY This Liberal Hamster’s Argument With This One Weird Trick

Check Out Paragraph Nine.  Mind Blown.

The website “Raw Story” is, in general , almost as useless as Buzzfeed; at least Buzzfeed has some really cool recipes, which Raw Story utterly lacks.

Raw Story (henceforth RS) is as useless as “The Awl”.  There.  Got it.

Anyway, they ran a piece last week about the Oregon shooting that claimed that guns were useless for defending against mass shootings because…

…one shooter has a solid sense of physical and legal self-preservation.

But they sure think they’re onto something, as evidenced by their cool-handed, measured, sober headline:

Armed vet destroys gun nuts’ argument on mass shooters by explaining why he didn’t attack Oregon killer

So let’s look at the story and see what gets “destroyed”.

Continue reading

Random Thoughts

Random thoughts after a pretty awful day yesterday:

Incongruity: So if #BlackLivesMatter, why do they only make the news the relatively small percent of the time when there’s a white shooter?

X Marks The Lack Of Spot: Speaking of shooters, MNGOPAC has a little reminder for everyone that’s jabbering about “commonsense gun control”:


They should add a line for “repeal gun free zones”.

It wouldn’t necessarily result in a green check box.  We’d need a third tick mark; a blue question mark labeled “would probably deter killers, give victims a chance“.

We Need More Like This:  Sheriff John Hanlin – the Douglas County Sheriff in whose juridiction the shooting took place – has long sparred with gun control hamsters.

And yesterday, his office refused to name the murderer – doing his best to deny the human roach the infamy and publicity he desired.

Heroism Is Not Enough

I’ll urge prayers, or whatever your worldview calls for, for Chris Mintz, an Army veteran who was shot seven times trying to save others during yesterday’s mass-murder in Oregon.

While the details are still sketchy, it appears Mintz was shot repeatedly trying to either protect others, or to stop the murderer during his killing spree.  He’s still in very serious condition with seven gunshot wounds, in the back, abdomen, hands and apparently legs.

Mintz is, by all indications, a hero.

And hopefully via the grace of God he’ll come out of this a living hero.

But to paraphrase the vacuous suit that 52% of our low-information neighbors put into office, heroism is not enough.

Chris Mintz is a big, strong guy – he’s apparently done some cage-fighting – trained to a peak of physical power.  And he was laid low – hopefully temporarily – by a coward with a firearm.

But another hero – a 110 pound woman, a 70 year old man, a handicapped guy in a wheelchair – would have had a decent chance of taking the coward down even with a feeble little pocket .380.

Exactly as happened on December 11, 2012, just 120 miles north of Umpqua Community College, when Nick Meli confronted a man intent on mass-murder at the Clackamas Mall in Portland. Meli and his Glock didn’t even need to fire a shot; the man, intent on mass murder and who’d already killed two innocent people.  The killer saw Meli, realized the jig was up (as happens with most mass-murderers when confronted with unexpected lethal force), and slunk away to kill himself.  Exactly as has happened at many other episodes, where a “good guy or gal with a gun” ended a mass shooting before it became too “mass”.

Victory for the good guys.

But Umpqua is a gun free zone.

How’d that work out?

PS:  Heroism under fire seems to be in the water out there; one of the heroes from last month’s French train episode was from the same area in Oregon.

And Another One

A shooting at Umpqua Community College in southwestern Oregon has apparently claimed 10.

First things first; I’ll urge prayers, or whatever your worldview calls for, for the survivors, and the families of the victims.

And I urge you not to believe anything the media has to say about it for the next couple days.

But it bears noting that Umpqua is – you guessed it…:

The community college is a gun-free campus.

“Possession, use, or threatened use of firearms (including but not limited to BB guns, air guns, water pistols, and paint guns) ammunition, explosives, dangerous chemicals, or any other objects as weapons on college property, except as expressly authorized by law or college regulations, is prohibited,” the college’s security policy states.

How many more innocent lives will be sacrificed to the false god of gun control?

UPDATE: Well, this is kinda interesting:

[Korney Moore, an 18 year old student] said she saw her teacher get shot in the head, apparently after the gunman came into the classroom. At that point, Moore told the newspaper, the shooter ordered everyone to get on the ground. The shooter then asked people to stand up and state their religion and then started firing, Moore said..


If Not You, Who? If Not Now Next Session, When?

As Joe Doakes noted in the comments re yesterday’s story about retiring DFL representative Kim Norton’s plans to push more pointless, time-wasting anti-Second Amendment legislation in the next legislative session, it would be not only funny, but the perfect response, for some member of the House to rise up and propose a kill-all amendment that would repeal the requirement to register kayaks.

Who in the House could make this happen?

While campaign finance laws would no doubt forbid offering a beer to the representative that offered the amendment, I’ll certainly offer a drink to someone else in your honor.

For democracy!


Minnesota’s gun-rights movement has carried out probably the best single grassroots political reformation in recent state history; over the course of 20 years, Minnesota has gone from being an anti-gun state that flirted seriously with Chicago-style gun bans in the eighties, to being a state with a decent shall-issue law and a reasonable chance of debating “Stand your Ground” and even “Constitutional Carry” in coming years, provided some elections break the right way.

More than that?  The pro-Second Amendment human rights movement in Minnesota is a bipartisan front; Republicans throughout the state have joined with DFLers through most of greater Minnesota – who’ve learned, in some cases the hard way, that most of Minnesota outside the 494-694 ring hold their Second Amendment human rights in high regard.

To the point where the DFL apparently has to keep their lobbying to Metrocrats and DFL machine-players who have nothing to lose.

Like Rochester DFL rep Kim Norton, who’s leaving the House after this next session, and wants to go out in a blaze of big-government, criminal-coddling glory, apparently.

Gun rights supporters are none too pleased with Norton’s announcement that she’ll push for stricter gun laws during her final legislative session next year…

Norton, who is not running for re-election in 2016, said she has received about 50 emails so far. The vast majority of those emails are from people who do not live in her legislative district. She said she has no intention of giving up on her plan to introduce a bill tightening gun rights. Among the ideas she plans to push is one prohibiting guns in the Capitol complex saying, “I don’t feel safe at work.”

She added, “Many of my constituents have asked for change.”

Rep. Norton; it’s entirely possible you’re not safe at work.  Same as everyone else in the Rice/University neighborhood, which has become one of Saint Paul’s sketchiest.

But it’s not because of the people who were covered by the Capitol carry restriction (carry permittees had to notify the Capitol Police if they planned to carry in the Capitol complex) – who are absolutely no danger to anyone, legislator or not.  It’s because of the same, common criminals who threaten all the rest of us, and who don’t bother getting permits or notifying Capitol police, any more here than they do in Chicago.

In other words, your proposal is as useless as any other gun control measure – and utterly pointless as well.

Speaking of which:

Norton said she is fed up with gun violence and wants to sponsor a bill with “common sense” changes to the state’s gun laws. Among the changes she’d like to see is a system making it easier to track gun ownerships. She compared it to how if she sells her kayak, she has to register who she sold it to.

I agree.  It’s high time we deregulated kayaks.

The good guys have responded:

The Minnesota Gun Owners Political Action Committee sent out an email urging its supporters to email the Rochester DFLer and tell her they oppose her efforts. In an interview with the Post-Bulletin earlier this month, The gun rights group’s email begins, “Just when you think anti-gun politicians in Minnesota have gotten a clue, one pops up and proposes what they call ‘common sense gun law changes.'”

In an interview, the group’s political director Rob Doar said his organization has serious concerns with the idea of establishing any sort of gun registration system…He said the idea also raises privacy rights concerns, with there being a potential for the data to be hacked. He noted that Canada decided to scrap its firearms registry because it proved to be expensive and ineffective.

With emphasis on expensive.

And ineffective.

So, DFLers; are any of you outside the 494-694 loop who are planning to run for re-election planning on signing on to this?

Sound off!

…Expecting A Different Result 

Minnesota’s gun grabbing DFL legislators have been beaten senseless, session after session after session, for well over a decade and a half now.Apparently they don’t get the hint.  From MNGOPAC:

Norton is still working on crafting the bill but said her legislation will focus on making it easier to keep track of gun ownership. She noted that if she sells her kayak to someone, she has to register who she gave it to and questions why the same laws don’t always apply in the case of firearms.”

Dear Representative Norton: you’re retiring from office after the session. It’s probably a good thing.

It’ll be interesting to know how the person the DFL endorses to try and hold your seat stands on this.

Doakes Sunday: Win Some, Lose Some

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

Stillwater turned down a gun range – it would have taken up too much of the land set aside for an office park – but Oakdale approved one, soon to the largest in the state.

Hopeful signs in a time of increasingly shrill demands for gun control.

joe doakes

The demands are indeed getting shrill – which is much better than 25 years ago, when they were confident and self-assured.

They’re shrill because they’re losing.


Societal Castor Oil

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

My cousin constantly posts to Facebook how upset she’s become about gun violence. She insists we must Do Something by which she means Universal Background Checks. My response: moral problems do not have technological solutions.

The solution to the problem of alcoholism is not prohibition, but sobriety.

The solution to the problem of teenage pregnancy is not abortion, but abstinence.

The solution to the problem of murder is not universal background checks, but the Sixth Commandment.

Liberals are terrified of morality because it’s judgmental so they resort to ineffectual alternatives then complain when they fail. I fear I lack sympathy for intelligent people acting like idiots.   

Joe Doakes

That is the difference, of course, The difference between liberals and conservatives; conservatism offers relatively simple answers to most problems – but those simple answers require a lot of work.  Morality is easy to understand, and hard to achieve. 

Liberalism offers a byzantine array of “easy answers” – Heck, let’s just have everyone pay for everyone else’s health care!  – that really don’t work as answers. But boy, they sure seem simple upfront!

A Bad Idea Whose Time Will Never Come

Joe Doakes, of Como Park, emails:

Gun control proposals never die, they just rest a while. Mandatory insurance has staggered back to life. 

The notion is that guns cause injuries which require medical attention which the public must pay for; therefore, gun owners should have insurance policies to pay the cost of treating those injuries. It’s like car insurance, see?

Of course, unlike car insurance, the real hope is that such insurance would be so expensive, nobody would buy guns and if nobody has a gun, gun violence ends. 

Two things:

First, unlike driving, gun ownership is a Fundamental Right protected by the Constitution. We don’t require journalists to buy insurance in case an inaccurate, misleading article ruins someone’s life. On the contrary, under the New York Times v. Sullivan standard, the more likely the harm, the harder we make it for victims to recover. Remedies for problems caused by privileges don’t apply to problems caused by rights.

Second, I am forced to buy uninsured motorist coverage to subsidize law-breakers who drive without insurance. I am forced to buy Obama-care compliant health insurance to subsidize scoff-laws who lack health insurance. Neither of those schemes eliminated the uninsured, they simply shifted the cost to me. Similarly, forcing gun purchasers to subsidize criminals using guns to commit violence won’t eliminate gun violence. 

It’s wrong and it won’t work. So naturally, Democrats are all over it.


Joe Doakes


Voluntary gun insurance, driven by the free market, makes  sense.

Mandatory gun insirance is nothing but back door gun control.

The left must be counting on the idea that Second Amendment advocates turn over every couple of years, so all of these ideas sound new.

Betting Long On Ignorance

Like most of the Real Americans that support the Second Amendment, I am agog at the gullibility and willful illiteracy of most American gun control advocates, up to and including many of their leadership.

For years, I’ve thought “this just has to be part of a strategy to rope in the gullible, the badly-informed, the fear-driven, and the intellectual-legends-in-their-own-minds”.

And as with most of my flippant observations about human behavior that start out as sarcastic jokes and almost invariably turn out to be ironclad truths, it turns out I’m exactly,l precisely correct.

The “Violence Policy Center” – a “think tank” supported by liberals with deep pockets, that’s short on the “think” and long on the “in the tank” – did a report on gun control tactics in 1988.   While I was pro-Second-Amendment back then, I didn’t spend a lot of time reading the opposition on the subject.

And if I had, I’d have spent the past 27 years beating on this coming quote like John Bonham playing “Moby Dick”:

“The semi-automatic weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons — anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun — can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.”

In other words, the past three decades of the gun control movement have been predicated on exploiting technical ignorance, fear and gullibility.

It extends to all areas of their agenda, of course – stats, policy, history – but rarely do you find a grabber putting it in as many words.


Joe Doakes from Como Park writes in re the Minnesota police union’s lawsuit against the NFL for barring off-duty officers from carrying their firearms at games:

The NFL says only on-duty peace officers can carry during football games.  An off-duty officer was relieved of his weapon at TCF Stadium.

The trial court held the NFL cannot exclude him from carrying his weapon because the Minnesota permit-to-carry law doesn’t give property owners that right.

The Court of Appeals punted.  It says the permit-to-carry law doesn’t apply to cops, on duty or off, so that particular law doesn’t determine whether the property owner must admit them, or can refuse to admit them.

Other laws may apply so the case was sent back for a do-over.

Personally, it seems to me that an off-duty cop should be in the same category as a permitted carrier –  trusted to carry a weapon by society, but maybe not trusted by the property owner, so if it wants to turn us both away, that’s its right.   It’s also possible the legislature could have intended off-duty cops to be treated differently from permitted carriers, so I think the appeals court decided correctly when it sent the case back.

Joe Doakes

It’s a dilemma for a judge; how to serve both political correctness and the state’s monopoly on force.

The Wheel Of Justice Turns Slowly, But It Turns Toward Freedom

North Dakota finally recognizes Minnesota carry permits.

They didn’t, of course, because Minnesota didn’t grant reciprocity to North Dakota permits, because of a decade of pissy DFL and bureaucratic (but I repeat myself) stonewalling on carry permit reciprocity.  The GOP-controlled legislature changed that, finally, in the past session.

This is, of course, of hypothetical importance to people utterly unknown to me, who now have no reason whatsoever to stop in Moorhead anymore.

A Pajama Boy Night Out

SCENE:  Mitch BERG is at National Night Out, in Saint Paul, this past Tuesday.   While walking through the crowd at one of the neighborhood block parties, he notices Avery LIBRELLE, wandering from person to person,  accosting them.  BERG listens in. 

LIBRELLE ( reading off a sheet of paper, to a woman pushing a stroller):  Hey, maam!  Do you know what percentage of gun deaths in Minnesota are suicides?

WOMAN PUSHING STROLLER:  Er…(looks uncomfortable – then looks at her phone).  Oops, sorry – I think I have a call…(holds phone to ear) Yes?  Hi!  Oh, really…(makes international “sorry, I’m on the phone” signal to LIBRELLE as she quickly pushes stroller away).

(Undeterred, LIBRELLE walks to another bystander – an African-American man holding a beer and talking with his neighbors)

LIBRELLE:  Heh.  Hey!  (Man turns to LIBRELLE, looking mildly annoyed.  LIBRELLE reads off sheet of paper)  Do you believe that anyone buying a gun should first have to pass a background check to show they are not prohibited by law from owning a gun?

MAN:  Every time I’ve ever bought a gun, I had to take a background check.  It’s the criminals who don’t take the background checks, mis…er…si…er… (MAN stops talking)

LIBRELLE (reading off sheet)  I”m sorry you disagree with three-quarters of gun owners.  Have a good night”.  (LIBRELLE abruptly walks away – then notices BERG).  

LIBRELLE:  Hey, Merg!  I’m out changing hearts and minds about guns!

BERG:  Er, yeah.  Do tell.

LIBRELLE:  I’m reading from the “conversation starters” Heather Martens and “Protect Minnesota” sent to start conversations with the public on National Night Out.

BERG:  And how’s that going?

LIBRELLE:  About as well as my conversations with my family about Obamacare at our Festivus celebrations a couple of years ago.

BERG:  Naturally.

And SCENE.  

Bend Over, Citizen: Part I – Our Ignorant Priests Of Knowledge

Having been one level of activist on the Second Amendment or another for thirty years now, and having seen how far the issue has moved since the mid-eighties – when the Second Amendment seems to be on the ropes – it’s almost tempting to fall into a bit of complacent triumphalism.  This past twenty years has been one of the most impressive grass roots political campaigns in American history.  It’s also given us the class war that the left has always been predicting – in inverted form; the gun grabbers are overwhelmingly drawn from society’s lotus-eating NPR-listening Subaru-driving patricians; the bulk of the Human Rights camp is mainstreet, blue-collar and middle-class Real America.

But the temptation can’t be indulged too long; the bad guys are still out there, and they still have the media for their mouthpiece.   There were two notable calls for more gun control in the big media last week, ranging from the historically ignorant to the hysterically demented.

Continue reading

Protection For We, But Not For Ye

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

Some local folks lost their home for non-payment of real estate taxes.  Their son allegedly showed up at the county offices, threatened some staff, broke a window.  A restraining order was issued but staff wasn’t satisfied.

“A piece of paper won’t keep him away, he might come back with a gun. We need protection,” they told the County Manager.

Like what?  A guy with a badge?  We have that, the private security guard at the door.

No, he’s just a rent-a-cop.  We are a unit of County government, we want a Deputy Sheriff.

Pull a deputy off patrol to babysit an office building?  How about a Reserve Deputy?  Wears the same uniform and badge, is that okay?

No, Reserve Deputies don’t carry a gun.  We want a real deputy.

So what you want is a Good Guy with a Gun to defend you from the possible Bad Guy with a Gun?

Not necessarily, it could be a female deputy; but basically, yes.

So we got one, she’s been sitting in the squad in the parking lot.  With her gun.

Amazing how being personally targeted clarifies one’s thinking.

Heather Martens would be appalled.

Joe Doakes

Well, I for one think Heather would looooove a police state.

The Improper Wiring That Dare Not Speak It’s Name

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

Guy who’s nuts shoots up his own apartment and sets fire to it.

Another guy who can legally own guns because he wasn’t committed.  The judge let him go.

The problem isn’t guns.  The problem is nuts.  The civil commitment laws make it nearly impossible to put away nuts where they’re unable to obtain guns.  If it were easier to obtain civil commitment, there’d be fewer of these incidents and less work for ACLU lawyers . . . a win-win!

Joe doakes


Which is why it’ll never happen.