Wednesday, December 19, 2018

Guess who is unhappy that NY's nunchuck ban was overturned?

Given it's my blog and most all of my content is about Cracked....

Yeah you can guess.

Sure they mocked people who would want to own nunchucks as "pony tailed" wannabees but the article admits "blanket ban of them in an entire state seems pointless, if not downright hypocritical".

So what's their problem?

The Judge striking down the ban cited McDonald vs Chicago.

Until recently, states had a lot more say when it came to standing their ground on weapon bans and telling federal laws to stay off their property. But in the 2010 landmark case, McDonald v. Chicago, gun nuts managed to clinch a vital victory when the Supreme Court narrowly decided that the 2nd Amendment is to be extended to state and local laws without exception. This has led to an onslaught of NRA-backed lawsuits targeting local gun control. But hey, some people got their nunchucks back. Yay?

Here's the thing  Cracked should only be worried about "2nd Amendment...  extended to state and local laws  without exception" if they think the gun control they want is unconstitutional.

If, as they maintain,  the gun laws they advocate for are constitutional... then wouldn't retain said laws?  Hell,  the ironic part here is that post McDonald many Circuit Courts have ruled that  AWBs, mag bans, and the like are constitutional.

And for a bonus.... Cracked admits that they're still okay with nunchuck bans with their ending paragraph

Fortunately, if you want to escape the capricious violence of America's most dangerous tool of carnage, there's now still one place that will protect you from it: Massachusetts. Oh, and it's also the last state that's still banning nunchucks.

Note the link goes to a Vox piece that brags about how Mass' gun laws allow police to deny permits to own guns for any reason and favorably quotes people talking about how the entire point of Mass' gun control laws is to make it so fewer people bother to own guns and thus cause a chilling effect.

Monday, September 17, 2018

Cracked: How dare the media never talk about the realities of Gun ownership!

Yes... that's seriously today's article: 5 Realities Of Owning A Gun (The Media Never Talks About)
(And for once the url is close to the title.)

The article does present itself as a "both sides are wrong".  Except it doesn't mention anything that gun control advocates get... wrong.

Other than the dubious claim that blue states don't pass gun control in the wake of mass shootings.  Which...  is hilariously false.  Given New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, California  all passed gun control measures and do so regularly.   Even Vermont and Florida passed gun control.

For all the talk of "gun fanatics" and how some states have "no licenses for dealers" (nevermind that dealers are federally licensed...),  the iron pipeline paranoia, and that  gun ownership is at an all time low...

There is this bit,  which comes after talking about how the NRA is all extremist

So maybe it's finally time to start paying attention to all the other gun rights advocacy groups out there. Like the left-leaning Liberal Gun Club, for liberals who love Berettas and background checks. Or the Pink Pistols, a group that thinks strappin' up is a great way to protect yourself from hate crimes. And there are other, even more conservative groups, like the Gun Owners of America, which regularly butts heads with the NRA for being too compromising. Truth be told, gun culture is much more diverse than it seems. Really, the only thing they all agree on is "Guns are pretty rad."

Okay...   (And it's nice that they're talking about other organizations but it's funny how the NRA's 5 million members can be dismissed as an exaggeration and a small fraction of gun owners, but these other groups that are much smaller are...  )

Still by the standards of Crack's recent gun control articles,  including one which read like an apologia for Nazi gun laws this is more... sane.

Heck it reads a bit like this one that came out two years ago 5 Reasons Gun Control In The United States Is A Lost Cause  with the url of:

Which, coincidentally is mentioned at the end to the article along with this also bit of relative sanity (from 2013) 5 Mind-Blowing Facts Nobody Told You About Guns

Saturday, August 25, 2018

So.... Cracked doesn't think Nazi gun control was "real" gun control"

Yeah..... they try to go after the Nazis s on gun control.

Guns can help stop a tyrannical dictator, and since every president gets compared to Hitler, it wouldn't be a bad idea to stock up, right?

Gee Cracked, which publications help push that narrative?

Truth: Gun Laws Became More Lenient Leading Up To The Holocaust
All German gun ownership was banned after World War I, but in 1928, Germany passed the Law on Firearms and Ammunition. It loosened gun regulations, but permits were needed, and all new gun purchases had to be registered. However, plenty of Germans, including Jewish citizens, just held onto their guns from World War I, so those went unregistered.

So... total civilian ownership ban to....  some ownership with full registration.  But... people would illegally ignore the registry?  (Note, that this myth isn't about Nazi gun control, but about the Jews being able to overthrow the Nazis)

It is true that when the Nazis came to power, they sought to strip Jews, communists, union leaders, and other enemies of their guns with the help of the registry, but that registry was so incomplete that many Jews held onto their guns well into the late 1930s. In 1938, Hitler further deregulated guns with the German Weapons Act, which exempted Nazi Party members from most regulations and lowered the legal age to own a gun from 20 to 18. At this point, they were essentially handing out firearms to whoever looked the least "exotic."

So... the registry wasn't effective because people, for some reason, didn't register their guns. The article also makes it seem like the registry being incomplete means that it's not "real gun control", somehow.  And the Nazis were giving guns.. only to party members and  people who weren't minorities. That's still some really nasty gun control.

Hell... that paragraph admits a "no guns for you".

But again...  so far the article is admitting that the Nazis specifically tried to disarm the Jews.  Which... isn't really the point.

The 1938 law did strip Jewish citizens of their guns, but that's an indictment of targeting specific demographics, not gun policy. Even for Jewish citizens who held onto their guns, a couple rifles wouldn't do much good when an entire army came to their doors. Remember, lax gun laws mean that the people who hate you have easy access to guns too. 
Well...  given in this case the  Nazis had the laws so Jews couldn't have them but their party members could. And it's not... about gun policy?  Oh,  okay.  That's literally the law setup making it so your enemies could get guns while you could not.

And finally one gets to "how much could armed Jews do".  Instead of the article's creepy tone of "Oh sure the Nazis tried to disarm Jews but that wasn't gun policy and Jews could ignore the law anyway!"

Again, it's... funny as all of the above paragraphs are... superfluous because the myth the writer is bashing was not "Did the Nazis disarm Jews" but "Would armed Jews have been a able to stop the Nazis?"

And that kinda takes just one paragraph

The French alone had 900,000 soldiers and 5 million reservists, but who'da thunk it, it's tough to stop an entire army bent on ethnic cleansing. Some Jews staged effective resistance efforts, but expecting them to have stopped the Nazis in their tracks would be like expecting a dozen guys at your local shooting range to stand a chance against a marine battalion. Regardless of your stance on guns, saying that Jews could have stopped the Holocaust if only they'd had more firepower is sleazy victim-blaming that historians have dismissed as "preposterous."

Victim-blaming?  That's ironic because that's proceed by this image caption:  "Plus there was one notable time Jews got their hands on a bunch of weapons. It didn't go well."
That sounds pretty victim blaming to me.

Let's never-mind the amount of forces the Nazis committed to he Warsaw Uprising . And that if there were a dozen of them the Nazis would have been in a worse spot.

Annnd let's ignore the question of if they knew the Nazis were going to kill them anyway, which way would they want to go out?

Maybe instead of spending time writing an... apologia for Nazi gun control laws,  Cracked would have spent more time wondering why the Nazis focused on seeking"to strip Jews, communists, union leaders, and other enemies of their guns with the help of the registry" while making it easier for Nazi party members to get guns.

Or at least admitting that a full and complete registry of guns does make it easier for a dictator to round up gun owners from groups he doesn't like.  And that incompleteness of said registry can stymie the dictator's efforts.

Or that a registry of guns  can and will be abused by an upcoming dictator?


But we can see why the cracked writing staff can, by and large, support two ideas.  The first that Trump is a massive danger, out of line with traditional presidential norms, and willing to give support to his racist, corrupt supporters while punishing his enemies,  and the second that there should be a lot more gun control at the federal level, even if Trump is the one administering it.

Unfortunately, Cracked went about this by taking the above attitude towards Nazi gun control.
Namely that yes, it was specifically confiscatory towards "enemies of the state" and Party Members were lavished with guns. 

But since the registry was incomplete and the confiscation missed people, and more importantly, the upcoming fascist stat was so powerful, it didn't matter what the Resistance did and thus the Gun Control efforts weren't a bad thing in as much as they were pointless.

That's...  not the best way to square that circle. 

But gives some real gallows humor whenever Cracked advocates for the current #Resistance against Trump.

Wednesday, August 15, 2018


Let's say someone, Person 1 is an advocate against the evils of X.

And said person been writing about the prevalence of X and people who are doing it.

Then it comes out that a friend, associate, or even another writer our Person 1 is a fan of (we'll term him/her as Person 2), has been accused of doing X.  And there's evidence of it.  X isn't criminal but it is a major social faux-pas.

Now there is a tendency for Person 1 to go "Well that's different!" "That was satire!"  "Person 2 doesn't think that way!" "That wasn't /really/ X!"     A lot of it doesn't even have to be naked partisan/tribal/whatever bias.

A lot can simply be "I know Person 2, thus I can make a better judgment on the totality of their actions".  Then add in that if Person 1 is predisposed to thinking favorably of Person 2....

Or that while Person 1 is an advocate against X but they think the punishment being demanded of Person 2 is inappropriate.  

There's a lot of subtleties that can be put into a how someone can react in a way that can seem like "It's different when /we/ do it!"

Now add in that Person 1 makes a point of "General internet people don't get to demand what I write about, who I debate and what issues I deal with."

Which is completely fair.

Though it still makes one wonder if Person 1 has.... blind spots about Issue X.

But then comes along Person 3.  

Person 3 (another writer and advocate) makes a debate challenge (on the subject of Y) to Person 4 (a politician).   Person 4 declines.   Person 3 has a snarky response.

And Person 1 jumps in with "Why are you going after Person 4!  You should be debating these other politicians about the evils of X!"

Which is....  delicious in its way.

Such a chain of events would make one wonder if Person 1 is having some deflection issues.  And while they may be sincere about their advocacy against X,  they may also be more than willing to use it as a bludgeon against rivals (who are not advocating X), while excusing the behavior of allies (who may be advocating X).

In short:  "It's different when we do it."

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."


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.