Thursday, July 19, 2018

If you want to know what Gun Control the ACLU does support...

You can find it here.

As oddball of Guns Cars Tech says: "They're for AWBs, capacity limits, "red flag" laws, universal checks, smart guns, requiring FOIDs that require you to pass a test..."

And yes that was written by their "Deputy Legal Director and Director of Center for Liberty"

Center for Liberty eh?

Said.... they're for red flag laws?  Didn't yesterdays article use the existence of red flag laws to say "see!  A Lack of gun control is why Civil Liberties are endangered"?

Why yes they did!

Their position paper does try to parse which gun control laws might be problematic, and which are okay,  though the analysis isn't exactly... deep.

Many of the options now being considered raise no civil liberties concerns. That includes bans on assault weapons, high-capacity magazines, and bump stocks. Raising the minimum age for all gun ownership to 21, currently the legal age for purchasing a handgun, also raises no civil liberties issues, as research on brain development shows that young people’s impulse control differs from that of adults.

Oh!  Glad to know it's that easy!

And yes it is that easy.

First are laws that regulate or restrict particular types of guns or ammunition, regardless of the purchaser. These sorts of regulations generally raise few, if any, civil liberties issues. Second are proposals that regulate how people acquire guns, again regardless of the identity of the purchaser. These sorts of regulations may raise due process and privacy concerns, but can, if carefully crafted, respect civil liberties. Third are measures that restrict categories of purchasers — such as immigrants or people with mental disabilities — from owning or buying a gun. These sorts of provisions too often are not evidence-based, reinforce negative stereotypes, and raise significant equal protection, due process, and privacy issues.

From earlier in the article, emphasis added.
In other words.  The ACLU is pretty okay with any gun ban as long the ban applies to everyone, and they can be convinced that any hurdles to buy a gun are fine as long as they apply to everyone as well.  But when some people are specifically blocked?  Then they'll have a problem.

Thus they see no Civil Liberties issue if all immigrants and citizens were banned from owning X,  but if just immigrants were bared from X  then there'd be a problem.

Okay,  Kind of odd they don't take a stance against May Issue.  Given that it empowers the police to pick and chose who can and cannot carry guns.

So, yes the ACLU hasn't been pro gun rights.  But yesterday's piece was particularly laughable in how they tried to justify their position.

Wednesday, July 18, 2018

The ACLU begs the Alligator to Eat it Last

That's the way to take this article published on their own blog. A Pro-Liberty Case for Gun Restrictions

Jay Stanley one of the org's Senior Policy Analysts makes the case.

That is if Governments don't pass Gun Control Laws they'll instead pass other laws such as:
  •  More physical searches
  •  More Surveillance
  •  More databases and watch lists 
  •  More armed police in more situations
  •  More police shootings

And their solution is to push for gun control?
Nevermind that the War On Guns would make the War On Drugs look like a picnic.
But what Gun control is the ACLU looking for?
I mean Stop and Frisk was largely about checking people for /guns/, in a jurisdiction where Legal carry was defacto banned.
As for watchlsits, the ACLU was against the whole "No Fly No Buy" which is using secret blacklists to ban people from owning guns.
And do they really think that if the police are more suspect that someone has an illegal gun that they would be less inclined to wrongly use violence?
Meanwhile the ACLU in this /very article/ talks down Red Flag Laws and Extreme Protective Orders?
So... what gun control exactly do they think is okay?

But the last paragraph shows what it's really about:


As we as a society consider the issue of gun violence, these implications for American freedom also need to become part of the conversation. In particular, those who support expansive gun rights as a protection against excessive government power should strongly consider how much government intrusion and expanded power they’re willing to trade for those rights.

In other words:  Stop defending your gun rights you icky gun nuts!  The state's going to go after stuff I like instead!

Turn that around, the article is literally saying "Hey, how many of the rights I like can I get in exchange for agreeing to some gun control?"

Of course given Gun Control would result in less privacy (data bases watch-lists, ect), less due process (red flag laws and other bans), and more police interference....

It seems like a rather sucky trade.

Also... does the ACLU really want to take the argument "Because there are a lot of X in the country, the State may overreact and infringe on unrelated rights, therefore we should support restrictions on X!"

Then add in this stance where the ACLU has said this in an internal memo:  "Our defense of speech may have a greater or lesser harmful impact on the equality and justice work to which we are also committed."


Yeah.




Sunday, July 15, 2018

Cracked Takes on Derpy Self Defense tools

And in this case they actually do more than one thing!
(As opposed to when their resident angry man with a shotgun mocked derpy martial arts and the first four items, on a list of five, were all the exact same thing.)

This time, a different writer talks about the silliness of stun canes,  blade coins, furniture that "converts" into clubs, a dress that has spider legs that stab out, high heeled shoes that can be used as knuckle dusters or stabbing,  and phone cases that hold pepper spray,  electric stunners,  blades, or even a gun.

So yes,  congratulations on a list of absurd, bad idea weapons that are invented by people without a real plan on using them but sell to people who like the idea of having a weapon... as an accessory.

Not for nothing 1/3 of the items in the list are from fashion designers.

And the article isn't overt in it's mocking of the idea of self defense.  Though it is blatantly ageist in thinking the elderly can't handle it.

Thursday, June 14, 2018

And here's Cracked being... lucid on self defense.

Specifically woman's self defense.

With 5 things about self defense women should know.

Basically:

  • Pretending you're  Wolverine with your keys is a bad idea
  • Groin kicks may not always work
  • Planning on your attacker getting closer is not always a good plan
  • Don't avoid eye contact
  • Guns should be carried in a way that is accessible and training is very useful.
Specifically:

People like the sense of security that comes with a gun, but a false sense of security is your enemy when we're talking about self-defense. Carrying a gun doesn't save you the trouble of learning this other stuff; it brings with it the responsibility to learn a whole other round of lessons, lest you wind up shooting yourself, a stranger, or just gifting a mugger a free gun. The more dangerous the weapon, the more responsibility you have to learn how to use it right.

And earlier are mentions that knives and other weapons are handy but can have similar limitations.  The Tueller drill is also mentioned. As is the need for observation (the point about eye contact).

There is a bit of a disconnect with the mention of the weakness of self defense weapons that aren't ranged and that guns have a risk because a bad guy can still close in before you can draw.  But... that's honestly the truth given how quickly a person can close the gap.

So all in all, a pretty good article.

Course that's what happened when you have a sober self-defense trainer writing a piece instead of a chest-thumping misogynist like their previous articles on self-defense training.

Wednesday, June 13, 2018

Indianapolis Anti-gun measure goes down in committee


What measure you might ask?  Given Indiana has strong preemption.

Well... if passed by the City-Council  this measure would...   tell the Statehouse (the reps specifically) and others via memo that the City-Council wants gun control.

And the gun control that one man Zach Adamson  (D-17)  is pushing is a real moon-shot.
Proposal 112 would ask for all sorts of AWB, private sale, and magazine bans.

And today the Community Affairs Committee met to talk about Proposal 112

Which is as I said is pretty much: "Guns are bad, and the Indiana state house should ban assault weapons, hi cap magazines, ban private sales, and not support national reciprocity

And this evening.... the council debated, took in public statements, and voted on it.

It started with Zach Adamson  (D-17) a grandstanding fellow who  read his resolution and bragged about being in DC for a "die-in"

He did the standard litany of "weapons of war" and "designed to kill"  and went with how assault weapons are specifically to mow down lots of people.  But would not define /what/ caused it.


Maybe about 40% of the seats were full and there was at least a dozen gun control supporters there. They were mostly white, almost entirely female.  Meanwhile it turns out there were at last three pro gun people in attendance (and in fairness we were all white bearded 30's to 40's)

There was a lot of finger snapping and murmuring in support on their part.

Zach Adamson  was joined by two councilmen who were not on the commit and thus I did not get their names.  Both were vocal supporters of the resolution.  The older fellow who was African American was very much on background checks and having mental health component to a screening.  His statements did not indicate he was as hard core anti-gun as the others.

The other fellow, a younger white man who lounged back in a stance that made it look like he wanted to put a foot on the table was more bellicose.  He was the biggest one going "We need to do Something!"  He was particularly angry at comments about how to define an Assault Weapon. 

He would going on about how debate would bog down on "defining what an assault weapon is"  and nothing would pass.  Nevermind that to tell the police what is and isn't illegal to own it has to be defined.

Rather quickly it went to public comments.  Forgive me as I was taking notes by hands and wasn't able to names and good notes.  (Each speaker had 2 minutes)

Surprisingly despite the anti-gun folks having a large number of people  they only had 6 speakers.

And this includes that the first three were high school students.  They did the bit about that their movement won't stop, and their needing to feel safe and so on.

Then it came to a nurse who also gave an anti gun position and talked about the trauma she saw.


Next was a pro-gun fellow.  A vet, he was passionate and  maybe not as smooth as he could have been and he pushed pass time.  But he did point out how assault weapons are defined. How much rifles of any type are used in crimes.  That the overall crime rate had been doing down, that the Clinton AWB was ineffective, and that the UK was now going after knives.


Next game another pro-gun person that pointed out about violence and that the resolution did not define anything and the myth of the "high capacity" gun and the arbitrary nation.

Then...  well I talked.  I pointed out the illogic of how Zach was against national reciprocity despite Indiana already having universal reciprocity (we will accept any state or country's permit). So I asked if he was against Hoosiers being able to carry in other states or if he wanted to amend that part of Indiana state law.

I also pointed out that despite him listing Santa Fe in his list of atrocities, that killing took place with a shotgun and a revolver and killed 10Despite him including that incident and him stating that assault rifles are uniquely evil.  

I then went into how the resolution is unhelpful because it doesn't /define/ what it wants to ban.  And that previous bans focused on cosmetic and ergonomic features and that even from the gun control standpoint if their goal was to focus on the lethality...

Then came an anti-gun person and her argument was about background checks being stronger and pointed out how she is a prohibited person because she sees a therapist.  Which... isn't quite right.  She also said that her children come home every day crying and scared for their lives afraid they'll get shot.

Last was an older woman who was in the Air force and had a marksmanship badge. And all about the guns she had in 4H teaching her kids on hunting.   And her thing was "military style" and how the 223 (not that she named the caliber) was too powerful and caused so much extra death.

Then it went back to the council committee.

Again was the "spray of gunfire"
And Zach went on about how the ergonomics of an assault weapon aren't "just cosmetic"   and that how slower fire was more accurate and thus more lethal.

There was no more public comment but one can see that he's making the argument that would cover even more guns...


Again was a "Why do this?" rhetorical question with them going on about a demand to "Do something" push.

The non-voting  white councilman  waved the bloody shirt by talking about a teenage girl that was shot about 12 times and how "she doesn't care how an assault rifle is defined", and went on against "arguing over semantics" and "can't do anything over than bicker over what an AR is".

The black non voting councilman did the  "we pass laws to regulate human behavior" and used the analogy of "gun laws aren't pointless even though people violate them, because we have traffic laws and people violate those."
and his example was speed limits.
Edit:  Interestingly I think he's William Oliver D-9 the sponsor of the bill. So goes to show as he was far calmer about this than Zach was)

Where heck it's a form of  /protest/ when a large group of cars do the speedlimit on a highway.  Especially one with the double nickel.

But he went back to his zone on how he wanted background checks, and bemoaned about how whenever there's a murder people spot warning signs in retrospect.
Which...  given that many of the recent killers have been people who /should/ have failed their NCIS check if not for government incompetence.

There was also a comment about people buying guns in the parking lot of the Indy 15000 gun show.


It turns out that Zach  /hates/  preemption.   He railed against the statehouse taking power for itself  and limited what the municipality could do.

He also went on about how congress made it legal to own "tools that can only kill mass amounts of people"

And on the "fetish with guns is out of control"


Then came one councilman who had been silent until now.
Brian Mowers (R-25) actually gave a pro-gun speech about how pointless this was and described how the NFA process was to get actual machine guns.  (he was a bit incorrect in that the ATF doesn't have to be informed what room you store the gun in, but you /do/ have to tell the ATF if you plan to cross state lines with it).

He also pointed out that if we go with "weapons of violence" then golf clubs would count as would knives  and that a resolution that can't even define what it wants to make illegal is pointless.

Marilyn Pfisterer (R-15)  then spoke and was cagy.  She also said this was pointless saying it was a "waste of paper"  but encourage "both sides" to go to their state reps and congress and lobby them and put their "passion to them"

And then....  the chair of the committee  Frank Mascari (D-21) literally pulled out his pink carry permit and explained what it was.   And did a bit of a "gun ower but"  and pointed out that many other people on the committee had permits as did people in the audience.  And then went onto the "do something" bandwagon. 

Then came the vote.

Shockingly.  The proposal failed 3-2.

Key reason?   Well....
here's the list of people on the committee:

Chair: Frank Mascari (D-21)
Zach Adamson (D-17)
Jason Holliday (R-20)
Blake Johnson (D-12)
Brian Mowery (R-25)
Marilyn Pfisterer (R-15)
Christine Scales (D-3)


Neither Christine Scales (D-3) nor Blake Johnson (D-12) attended.

And it was a party-line vote.

Zach Adamson (D-17) and Frank Mascari (D-21) voted for it.
Jason Holliday (R-20), Brian Mowery (R-25), and Marilyn Pfisterer (R-15) voted against.

So I'm pretty sure that Zach is not happy with Scales or  Johnson

Interestingly immediately after the vote about 80% of the anti gun folks picked up their signs (which they only waved a bit at the start)  and marched out.

What makes that /especially/ interesting  is that the order was goofed There were two proposals to be talked about in this session, one the gun control, and another about " a study commission on gaps and disparities in providing social services in Marion County".

It looked like the gun control one was going to be first on the schedule but for some reason the  social services one was first.   And at least 6 of the gun control folks were taking pictures of the rather wonkish presentation on the social services and cross program efficiencies and they did this for like the full half hour that very nitty-gritty presentation (which had no public questions) took.
(It also passed 4-1)

And yet...  the minute it turned out that the gun control proposal went down.
They left.  One even screamed and obscenity in the hall I think it was a "Fuck guns!"

Zach was also not happy, but took in stride and pledged that he would write memos on his own if he didn't get it but that he'd be back with another resolution.


Which was really cross purpose for them because for one Jason Holliday (R-20) who had also been largely silent explained why he voted no.

He wanted something that was comprehensive and would have mental health and background check work,  but he did not support anything that would  have "punitive action"

Zach went onto this and said that he was going to schedule a meeting with Holliday to see if he could get something,   even if it was a piecemeal approach of having like a dozen of these resolutions in little bits.

There were other bits of like Pfisterer and Mascari talking of their votes and city-council strategy that really... hurt the gun control folks to just leave.  Meanwhile the gun rights folks (all three of us) stayed.

Then it adjourned.

And it turns out that the gaggle of gun control advocates were just... down the hall talking with each other.  And then some did leave and there was a "well we know who the NRA buys, and they don't care about the children!"

So...  it's a bit surprising that this went down.
Probably a bit of a fluke given 2 of the 7 members of the Community Affairs Committee didn't show up.

Zach Adamson  will be back and push this again.   And I'm sure next time he'll try to twist more arms to make sure he has the votes.

(Though that he didn't do this given this resolution has been his baby since April)

Still, that he couldn't even get his symbolic resolution out of committee  has to hurt.

So for now I'm quite amused.

And tomorrow I'll write to Pfisterer,  Holliday, and  Mowery
You might want too as well. 

Monday, May 21, 2018

Cracked: A lot of firearms "training' is crappy.

That's at least the actual thrust of this article (by a different writer this time).

The article is about how "gun nuts refute their own arguments."

But the first two in the list are a really bad DVD and a really bad book. How bad? The book is "My parents open carry."

The first, somehow, refutes that firearms can be used for self defense, and the latter, similarly, somehow, debunks that firearms can protect one's family.

Those are pretty pedestrian.  The confusing one is #2  "Men Are Monsters, So Women Need Guns!"
Um... this is the same publication that goes in on #MeToo and the problems of abusive men.

But the confusion grows:

About 38 percent of gun owners are women, but they don't seem to be interested in shooting those guns for murder or self-defense. In 2014, only 15 ladies gunned down a man in self-defense. That obviously doesn't include the women who defended themselves at sea and told no one but the sharks what they had done, but 15 seems low, doesn't it? That's the number of women out of 16 who probably had every right to kill a man in 2014.

That seems... low.  Oddly enough that's the one time the article has no citation, and why 2014?  Why not a decade? Weirdly, in the same paragraph the writer then admits that it seems very low.  Okay.

Moreso the writer notes that women aren't abusing their guns.

And right after this the article goes on about the Detroit case where a woman was put in prison for using a gun to defend her family.  Um... so guns are bad because the police and prosecutors are railroading people?

Women obviously don't want to solve their problems with guns, so why are we pushing them so hard to do so?

Parse that.  So women being law-abiding with their guns (nearly 40 percent of women are gun owners by his own admission...), and the writer thinks that women don't have the agency to make their own decision to by them? That they're somehow being tricked?  That's rather sexist.

Though this is the same guy who then goes on to proudly put in a tweet where he goes all macho chest thumping and uses a term for female genitalia as an insult.

So.... yeah sexist.


And how does he prove gun owners are the real sexist folks?  By citing a 30 year old VHS.  Okay... there's a lot more recent stuff to show that gun owners still have some massive problems with appealing to women (Hey let's make guns pink!)

And how is the video?

It's crushingly boring, which is unexpected. Gun videos for men feature corner-pieing drills and quick draw techniques to eliminate multiple ninjas. Ralph Mroz showed me how to talk an outlet mall shopper into carrying a loaded firearm and then kill him by diving under an SUV and shooting his feet. This lady video is almost un-American in how it treats guns like exhausting responsibilities no one should ever touch without expert training. Lee learns about holsters, eye and ear protection, trigger guards, and firing pins from two creeps who talk like they only teach firearm classes because their hypnotism careers never took off. They seem to truly want to keep the viewer alive.


What?  The writer had the whole of the bad "ladies training" to pick and he went with the dull one that actually tried to be responsible and do it by the numbers.

Note the double standard.  A video that is all  "ninja-skills" is mocked for being a power fantasy, and one that's nuts and bolts is mocked for being boring.

Nevermind the writer's intention was to mock the video for being sexist.

As I said: confusing.

And last is the old "Guns are to overthrow the goverment"

Which....   well becomes revealing.  The article goes from the confused muddle of before to angry ranting.

There's repeated calls of gun owners as stupid, mentally-ill racists with small penis.  The writer bragging about the illegal weapons he proudly owns.  Him fantasizing about the US military killing civilians.  Him actually encouraging gun owners to join said militant repression on the  side of the army.

He goes into the all gun owners are mentally ill right after talking about how gun owners are all about making it so mentally-ill people can buy guns. (Someone who knows the transitive law can figure out tat one)

And he advocates that gun owners resist any confiscation by illegally hiding their guns.

He then once again points out an abuse of police against a lawful gun owner and uses it as evidence that...  gun owners are racist because they didn't have the revolution that the writer seems to be fantasizing about.

The telling part is that the article doesn't really mention any specific laws, guns, or accessories that he has a problem with.

And it ends with a photo of him pumping a shotgun while angrily, glaring at the camera.

Which is... problematic.

But the article seems to be more of a rage-filled form of venting than anything else.   Given the comments are by and large a similar bout of cathartic release...



Monday, April 16, 2018

Cracked: Letters of Marque are Scary!

Yes,  Cracked has an article about 5 Crazy Scenarios You Didn't Know the Constitution Allows

It's a funny list,  given there's fretting over  a "dictatorship loophole",  which no one is sure how it would work, other than maybe the shocker that constitutional amendments can amend the whole of the constitution and thus can do any dictatorial thing, including change how the Constitution is amended...

Fretting over Texas being able to split up, that the President can devolve his powers to the VP,  and that people can still be put into slavery and bondage if it's "punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted."  Which given the vast, vast number of people incarcerated in the US, shouldn't be a surprise.

But the one that tickled my fancy was the "The Constitution Could Make Us All Pirates".  That is freaking out about the Letters of Marque part.  (As a side note, it's a bit funny as some Cracked writers would go all fanboy about pirate hunting).

Which goes to what made me amused.  See this is Adam Wears' work.    Right, the same guy who is stating in this article that the Founders Intended to be able to give average citizens the power to hunt pirates, with actual warships,  thinks the Founders never wanted average citizens to have firearms.  And thinks this to the level that it was NRA insanity that got the idea of an individual right tricking the courts.