Cracked: Gun Control's Massively Racist History.

Wow  this is acutally a really good article that points out the whole racist history of gun control with plenty of examples:  The Mulford Act, Slavery, how Gun Control was used by the state to go after minorities, and that Gun Control was selectively enforced just to punish people the state didn't like

I mean when this is in the opening section: 

For starters, much of America's gun control today was precisely informed in response to Black activists arming themselves against white supremacists, like ...

Now it does get a bit... well part of what it says about the NRA's history and dumpsterfire is correct but the way it ends...

It wasn't until 1971 when the feds raided Kenyon Ballew, a lifelong NRA member, on suspicion of hoarding a bunch of illegal guns and shot him, making him paralyzed for life, that the NRA finally decided that this whole "let the government take our guns'' thing maybe wasn't in their best interests after all. Shocker. The proceeding outrage led to a striking change in the group's attitude, helping form the modern "gubbermint tyranny!" NRA that you see to this day.

The funny thing is, the Black Panthers basically said the same thing about needing guns to protect from government brutality, which the NRA cribbed completely, pretending that they had always been pro-gun rights. Seems like the second amendment only matters for white people.

And then the article goes on about how goverment tyranny and gun bans aren't... paranoia.  They are things that have happened.

Now... what keeps current gun control laws from being racist?

Cracked has pointed out numerous times issues with law enforcement in the US.  And we've seen how relatively recent Gun Control policies like "stop and frisk" are basically "walking while black."

Or what about May Issue Laws,  where for a citizen to get a gun permit they have to convince the Police that they have a justifiable need?  Does anyone see how that might be abused for racial ends?

Or what of an  expensive registration plan where say someone has to pay 200 dollars per Assault Weapon to have them registered with the government?  That puts a class basis right in there where guns are priced out of poor people's hands.

Also ironic that this article drops right as Biden is inaugurated.

Cracked: Look to the Wisdom of Tick Tock Teens

 So.... in a violent riot on the Nation's Capit0l where the only person shot was a rioter so by a cop...   And no one else who died got shot... Cracked had to find a way to make it about gun control.

And boy did they.   They went to the Students Demand Action style well by trying to get the Congress folks to think of their fear and how it would be for students.  Of course the difference is Congress had armed security that drove off the rioters, in one case with lethal force.

With their help, they can build a nation where no student, teacher or Congressperson ever experiences this horror again. 

Note the universality. How in a country of 300 million people, and 100 million guns could even the most draconian law ensure that?

Do you want the police, you know the folks Cracked has been rightly pointing out their abuses to have even more power?

Cracked: Ignorant Fear-mongering spawns Racist and Easily-circumvented Weapon Bans

Only for Martial Arts weapons of course.

 
Cracked has an article about how bans on martial arts weapons are  spun up by fear-mongering media,  racism, and other absurdities (like what is the point of banning something that a person could easily make in their garage), and actually don't make any increase in safety....  

And despite talking about how guns and knives are common.  They make no connection... not even to gun laws, but no connection to knife laws either.

Because it's not like gun or knife laws might have a similar racist motivation to passing them or enforcing them.  Wonder why switchblades and butterfly knives are illegal in some areas?

For a bonus about a week ago, Cracked was gushing about how cool flamethrowers were....  after a guy got on a bus and started randomly shooting fire into the air,  and then talked about how it was cool that they were legal, and were only banned in 2 states.  They then proceeded to implore their readers to buy them.


There is no requirement for people to be consistent.

Cracked on the NY AG suit on the NRA

A..... shockingly non vitriolic (other than the standard boilerplate) article from, even more shockingly, the very angry Dan Duddly.

And isn't wrong about the worries of corruption.  If anything the article understates the severity and amount of it.

Though it wouldn't be an anti-gun bent if there wasn't the standard disconnect.

 I mean, this is an organization that was so fervently pro-gun that they lobbed insults at survivors of a school shooting. Could it be that the NRA's true motivations were not necessarily protecting gun-rights, so much as they were to stoke the flames of the gun-rights debate to drive donations to line their pockets and take trips to the Bahamas? It's just a theory, but I don't think it's a bad one.

Sure sure.  The whole Ack-Mac advertising firm is a big example of advertising that is confrontational and tribal and more about "Go Team Red! Hate Team Blue!" than anything gun rights related.

But then you get the next sentences:

 After all, there was a time where the NRA supported sensible gun legislation and even drafted the legislation requiring permits for concealed weapons. Perhaps people on both sides of the aisle would be a lot closer together on gun control if guys like Wayne LaPierre didn't have a direct financial incentive to drive them apart. 

Ah.  And yes both those articles are of the bent of "Why doesn't the NRA just support gun control!" 

So the important goal that the article ends on is... the NRA needs to protect gun rights by....  supporting gun control.

It is a tell when a guy who would write daily articles (or did before Cracked may have put the editorial boot on him) about how awful Trump and everyone not a Progressive is (this is just to point out that the man is quite happy to write vitriolic screeds)

And cheered  any gun control, and mocked the NRA.... and /his/ reaction to a state AG moving to dissolve the NRA is to the effect of "Well, guess we'll have to wait for the netflix documentary to see the real story?"

Not cheering or high fives?
Interesting.

Then again when the top voted comment, on the article itself, is this:

the NRA is a bloated organization that has bent the knee & outright supported every major gun legislation made in the US. they care more about getting donations & corporate sponsorships than they do about the 2nd.

you wanna take them down, & leave a giant NRA sized hole for competent 2A organizations to step into?

DO IT. FUCKING DO IT.

Cracked: Bored with Gun Control?

Well....  maybe.

Take this rather expected article about "Everyday Stuff America Sucks at Compared to Everybody else"

There are a lot of not-great things about the great U.S. of A. But we're not talking about the big stuff like healthcare or gun control or deciding which handsy uncle gets to become the next de facto Emperor of Planet Earth.

That's an amusing opening.  Both for the two bugaboos that the writers just give up on, and for admitting that Biden is equivalent to Trump.

I mean...  not arguing here.

And the list itself is, pardon the pun, a pretty pedestrian bucket of gripes.

Couple this with that Cracked's only mention of their recent mass killing and sweeping (if... clumsy) gun control up in Canada.  Which was #9 our of 12, so near the very bottom

And there's no mention at all of the killing, just the ban, which even they admit has the whole 2 year amnesty...

And then today... no gun control mentioned... but they do use a picture of a senator they don't like holding a gun while calling him a "trash boy".

The article that also came out today,  see the previous post shows Cracked still has a hostility to gun owners, but for now they're not putting much effort into articulating it.

Cracked: The Media doesn't cover school massacres enough

How can cracked take a school massacre where no one was shot and turn it into a dog whistle for gun control?


This:

"4 Reporters Skipped America's Deadliest School Massacre To Witness Charles Lindbergh's Transatlantic Flight"

"As opposed to facing the gruesome realities of a school massacre, the return of the Lone Eagle was exactly the uplifting story needed during the Great Depression. News organizations pulled journalists covering the Bath disaster and reassigned them to report on Charles Lindbergh's heroic exploits, and the story of 38 murdered students was forgotten within the year. We're sure there's a lesson in there about America needing to take school tragedies more seriously and not get distracted by attention-seeking fascists, but how would that still be relevant today?"

Because school shootings don't get much media coverage in the US?  Note that it's not a plea for gun control, directly.  Just bemoaning how the US doesn't learn and the media isn't... pushing for it enough?

Huh?

And does Cracked really want to get in with Nazis and Gun Control?

Because the last time they tackled that it sounded a bit like an apologia. Including insinuating that Nazi gun control did not go far enough, victim-blaming the Warsaw Uprising, and other creepy pro-fascist statements.


 Such as how it's not "gun policy" when a gun law "strip[s] Jews, communists, union leaders, and other enemies of their guns with the help of the registry" but it is pro-gun  when the law "exempt[s] Nazi Party members from most regulations".

And it's not like Cracked hasn't covered Bath before.

Where they also get in a jab at gun control by ending the other entry on Bath this way.

So, why did he do it? Apparently, he was upset about high taxes, losing the town clerk election, and, oh yeah, he was fucking nuts. Obviously, the U.S. invested heavily in mental health after the disaster, and nothing like this ever happened again.
Related:
How The NRA Lost Its Mind

Gee....

And yest that link does go to an Adam Wears article where he and another person basically rail against the NRA's Cincinnati Revolt. Basically getting angry that the NRA started to actually lobby and organize against gun control.

Gunshows didn't exist before the mid 90's?

Or at least that's what Bloomberg is asserting.

In another false claim, Bloomberg went on during Monday's town hall
to say federal law doesn't apply to internet and gun show sales because
the internet and gun shows did not exist when the federal background
check law was passed in 1993. 

"Why? Because those two things came after the law that applies to gun stores was passed," Bloomberg said. "And what I tried to do is just to get every state, because the federal government doesn't seem to want to do it, to just check before they sell anybody a gun to make sure they are not in one of those categories where people really—I think most people would agree—should not have guns."

Huh.

Or... it could be that Bloomberg has no idea what the basic federal laws are about a subject he has spend hundreds of of millions of dollars lobbying.

Or he knows the actual laws, but is happy to lie to get his way. Which is more comforting? It's lying. It's definitely lying.

Bloomberg: Out.

So... to all of you worried that the racist-republican wall street billionaire will buy his way into the Oval office can rest easy.

He's dropped out of the race.

And... endorsed Biden... with a pledge to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to help him win.

Gee, I wonder if that munificence comes with any strings attached.

It's too late to ban Assault Weapons says... the NYT?

From Alex Kingsbury who in his own admission has lobbied for years to ban them.

And from the article is is clearly no friend of these weapons.  And in general fairly hostile to guns and attributes some... odd qualities to them.

But he is right that firearms can last a long time (pointing out that an AR now could work in 2119 easily).  And he rightly points to the extremely low compliance rates whenever "assault weapons" are banned.

And even when drastically low balling the number of these guns in the country (he says 15 million) he points out that appreciably removing them from the country would be nigh impossible.
(The issue of criminal importation and manufacture isn't even mentioned...)

This does not mean he is friendly to gun rights folks or against any real gun control laws.  Merely that Kingsbury is looking at the logistics and effect of such a ban.

However, he misses one thing.


A massive side (or perhaps primary) goal of an AWB is not to get rid of said guns,  but to stigmatize the public usage of them.  If they are reduced to being hidden safe queens then "gun culture" will greatly diminish.

Which makes subsequent bans even easier.


As a bonus with millions of now illegal (and thus more scary) guns all over the country.  They make handy boogieman on the scale of Emmanuel Goldstein that can justify all sorts of confiscations and registrations.

What Politico Gets right about gun culture. What they get wrogn.

This article isn't...  bad  as it gets how gun owners group together and among each other gun ownership is normal and something to talk about.

The first warning signs come early...

The view of guns as neutral tools, a view shared by conservative defenders of gun rights as well as liberal advocates of gun regulation, misses a crucial fact about guns and gun ownership. It wrongly assumes that the distribution of guns and their presence in their owners' lives are totally independent facts that don't shape the opportunities and choices of the people who use them.

Right, because gun control advocates aren't about deodand thinking and "the trigger pulls the finger."

The article does seem to, at some level, get things.

In part because of their danger and allure and in part because they're the center of a sporting culture with deep American roots, guns draw adherents together in contexts like expos, gun ranges, and online chatrooms. At the recreational level, participants can indulge in hobbyist debate and discussion; on a political and cultural level, they can also forge a shared commitment to armed citizenship.
 Gun owners bond over their shared fear of diffuse and unpredictable threats of contemporary life. The Pew survey concluded: “Many, but not all, gun owners exist in a social context where gun ownership is the norm. Roughly half of all gun owners say that all or most of their friends own guns. … In stark contrast, among the non-gun owning public, only one-in-ten say all or most of their friends own guns.”

But the it goes off the rails at the end. Here's the second to last paragraph.

Any real gun law reform is going to need to take this community and value system into account. Liberals need gun owners as allies. Today, in the wake of more mass shootings, good citizenship requires that the millions of gun owners who say they support gun regulation do more than think about their own way of life. They need to turn that support into vocal activism. In so doing, they may help bring about changes necessary to protect the communities that we all share.

Funny how after all the talk about how despite that gun owners "neither trust the government nor believe that it will protect them" now suddenly,  "good citizenship" requires them to do...  exactly what gun control advocates want.

Namely back gun control.  Not just back but become activists in support in.

Funny how that works.

Okay... so what will gun owners get in return? Well here's the last paragraph.

In order for them to be willing to do so, gun owners need assurance that liberal gun reform advocates will  not march down a slippery slope from red-flag laws, regulating semi-automatic weapons and large capacity   magazines and closing the gun-show loophole to intrusive regulations that start to break down a culture that millions of people value greatly—one that enriches their lives and whose  roots go back before America's founding.

So...  gun control advocates get...  just about everything they want. 
And gun owners get "assurances" that gun control advocates won't ask for more.

Except  banning the most common  guns and IS breaking down the culture. 
(Also... Assault Weapon Bans are now semi-auto "regulation"? Which is all pistols and the majority of rifles...)

And if the writer doesn't think destroying the culture isn't the goal of gun control advocates then he's more of a sucker than those gun owners who bought into those "assurances" of those "gun reform advocates".

Look at the states that have passed the laws the writer so clearly wants. What's the worth of any "assurances" to gun owners living in California or New Jersey?

Cracked: Banning weapons due to a moral panic is stupid...

Unless it's guns!

So, Arizona might repeal their nunchuck ban.  And Cracked is there to fret about it.

Now unlike an earlier article where they fretted about at Judge in New York daring to cite McDonald vs Chicago to overturn a weapon ban.

This time they complain that prole are less influenced by movies and moral panics saying "Huh, weird to think there was once a time in this country when movies could get a weapon banned, but now multiple school shootings every year somehow don't."

But nobody wants to ban guns.

This also shows that Cracked can't even write an article laughing about the banning of literal sticks with a chain, without having to go on about gun control.

And for more amusement, the article asserts "nunchucks have been on the same ban list as sawed-off shotguns and silencers,"... except those are legal to own in Arizona.

Whoops.

Indy Councilman accuses Jewish deli owner of supporting Nazis

By unwelcoming NRA attendees during a convention. For reference this is the same Councileman Zach Adamson (D-17) who last year was part of a push to get the city-council to pass a law that amounted to demanding the state legislature ban all sorts of guns in Indianapolis.

From my notes when I attended last year....

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.

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"

Now last year this did not even get out of committee (because 2 committee members of Zach's party did not bother to show up and thus when it went to a party-line vote it failed.

Still... the guy is very angry about Hoosiers having guns so this is not surprising at all.

Wired: "Guns are like free speech! Which is why the state should ban speech in a crisis!"

Welp. Now the advocates of Government Control are directly saying "we should regulate free speech like guns." Via Wired which is being especially totalitarian.

I remember when pointing out if someone were hostile to the Second Amendment they were likely to be hostile to the First was something only paranoid gun-nuts would say.

We need social network control—sensible rules about where, when, and what kinds of platforms should be free to operate, much the way nearly all governments in the world impose comprehensive regulations about where, when, and what kinds of guns should be allowed in communities. To fail to rein in social networks because of appeals to “freedom” would be like allowing vague words written 250 years ago to get in the way of controlling guns.

This is not written by someone parodying gun control talking points. This is written by someone who is praising a country banning social media after a terrorist attack. A country that the writer openly admits "has a relatively unfree press".

Note the writer is explicitly using the "The founders would never have intended X!"

An attack where guns were not even used.

But by focusing on those individuals’ shortcomings, wasn’t I buying into the argument that there was a good way for these social networks to operate, even during a time of crisis or during divisive elections? If only they had the right leaders! In essence, I was replicating the tired defense of unrestrained gun ownership—social networks don’t kill people, people kill people. In point of fact, guns magnify the violence of their users, as do social networks.

And this scary bit? Note how "decisive elections" are slipped in there.when talking about a media and clamp down after a terrorist attack. A terrorist attack done by an organized cell, not some lone person or group of social media trolls. But like how gun control advocates will use an attack where the killer murdered to get his guns to blame the manufacture's advertising or attacks where the killer passed a background check due to governmental incompetence to demand expanding the existing background checks. The facts simply don't matter.

I recommend reading the whole article. Its is a frightful example of how the folks who soothingly say they only want "common sense gun control" and then turn around and demand speech control.

Another scary part is that the author out and out lists several defenses /against/ the totalitarian controls he dreams of framed explicitly using firearms analogies:

* People should be able to defend themselves, good guy with a gun / users should be able to make their own speech to counter speech they disagree with

* Social media bans have can result in more violence / cities with more gun control have higher gun violence 

* So what if other people use free speech for bad purposes, I did not. IE "I don't care if every other person in the world murdered someone with a gun, I did not. 

* Social media can allow people to communicate in a crisis, firearms can allow people to defend themselves in a crisis.

Annnnnd... the writer's response to all that? Ignoring it. Except for the first which was dismissed as " every-person-for-themself anarchy" (which is really scary because if someone were to make an analogy that only the state should have guns to free speech...) and a conclusion that says that people *not* demanding for free speech controls are like people saying "Thoughts and Prayers" instead of offering real solutions...

Like using a terrorist bombing attack to try to ban free speech... or ban guns.

And there's the race (or is it?)

So the PM of New Zealand is strutting about with how "they did something" And she's oh so proud to announce that in a week (Take that Australia!) she's made her gun control. And is demanding the proles turn in their guns. So far 37 (which is weak for a neighborhood buyback level)
And all the gun control advocates are cheering. Except... the bans aren't even before parliament yet. And they'll be introduced on in "the first week of April".
So... maybe 20 days. Huh. Though the scary part is that despite there not being a law (yet) the PM is already demanding guns be turned in and rounded up. As someone noted "Gotta keep up appearances against Australia."

Race to "Do SOMEthing!"

Interesting.

Not just the explicit "We must pass X before anyone can debate or question it!" That's expected.

One doesn’t have to be opposed to strict gun control — as I am — to
find this both dangerous and a little creepy. Indeed, I am struggling to
imagine to many other circumstances in which the suggestion would be as
uncritically repeated. Some of the worst legislation in all of history
has been passed in the middle of crises or in the immediate aftermath of
tragedies that engendered extreme emotional responses. Invariably,
“don’t listen to the naysayers” is bad, bad advice. So, too, is “If the
government is swift, it can do exactly what it wants to do.” And as for
“don’t let the dissenters show you they are good people” . . . well,
I’ll let you decide whether you want to live any country that heeds that

counsel.

But for the point of how Philip Alpers appears a lot in these articles.

Go over the gun control articles being pushed and you'll find that particular name cropping up again, and again, and again. Also note the PM of New Zealand has pledged gun control in 10 days. Ten. And by pure coincidence Australia had their giant gun confiscation 12 days after their atrocity. Yes... it is that much of a tit-for-tat.

Using the "Standard Model"

The standard model is after a mass atrocity like NZ is for those who already wanted X to be banned to use the fear, panic, high emotions, and demands of "we must do something" to well... do something.

Both advocates of gun control and advocates of gun rights know this mechanism.

But now we have yet more evidence that these murderous losers are also aware of this dynamic.

That is that their horrific actions are used as justification for trying to change law, to change government policy.

Ponder that, you have losers who, by and large are acting out of a need to validate themselves, to make themselves (in)famous. To have their bile read around the world, to become the most famous person in the world...

And they're realizing they can also change governments.

Don't think this will stay to just weapon policy. As long as these murders advocate for something tangentially related to their horror, and push for something that those in power already wanted but did not have a pretext for...

(There's clamoring for all sorts of free speech restrictions about too)

Well, the urge to do something is strong. 

(And yes... the dynamic of State actors doing X because of the horrific actions of a terrorist.... when the terrorist also had interest in the state doing X....)

To use an example. What if an eco terrorist planted incendiary devices in an oil refinery / storage area / transportation. And caused a massive fire. And wrote a manifesto that said the hope was to cause people to get afraid of the damage petrochemicals do.

And then a Green-friendly government used that attack to... clamp down on petrochemicals.

Note the dynamic at work

Maybe bans on streaming video or social media he NZ government is also looking to do that. And has arrested people for sharing videos.

Yes... .they're calling for real-time monitoring of everyone's activity online with instant ability to silence anyone for any reason...

So wait...   they want a Chinese style control of the net?

And recall... that the killer in NZ thought China was best government.

Giving the terrorist what he wants.

Well... Well... Well...

Wow.... there's a segment of the Dem House caucus that reaaaalllyy hates the idea of a universal background check being.... universal in that it would apply to citizens, non citizens, and non citizens here illegally.

That's um.... an interesting take.

Though much of their ire could be because there /were/ enough members of said caucus to vote with the other party to add that provision to HR8.

Though I suppose it is consistent given how /infrequent/ people who fail a background check due to felonious convictions are actually /prosecuted/ for the crime of lying on said check.

A Senator gets cornered by "Think of the Children!" tactics.

A bit of irony,   Feinstein's the one hit with the "think of the children!" unthinking sloganeering and demands to go with legislation she thinks would be ineffective.

It's presented so her attempts to explain things aren't as simple are shouted down by people thinking she's uncaring.

And as a bonus it's all edited down to make her look uncaring and out of touch.
(I mean...  yes but...)

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?

Nah.



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.

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.