News From Oregon:

As the killer stood before him, Judge Kenneth Walker couldn’t stay silent.

“If I could I would take all the guns in America, put them on big barges and go dump them in the ocean,” the judge told the defendant. “Nobody would have a gun. Not police, not security, not anybody. We should eliminate all of them. We could save 33,000 people a year if we didn’t have guns in this country.”

Marcell Lee Daniel Jr. had unleashed 30 bullets during an afternoon drive-by shooting of an innocent man on a North Portland sidewalk. The man, Andrew Coggins Jr., 24, died.

The judge kept going.

“Australia after a major shooting rounded up all the guns, and they haven’t had near the death that we do here in this country,” he said.

“I just saw last night a statistic that 11,000 people in America are murdered each year and another 20,000 commit suicide with guns,” Walker said, referring to figures from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“They are a scourge of this country and no one should have one as far as I’m concerned,” he said. “There’s no defense to guns. There’s just absolutely no reason to have them. But it is a right of people in this country to own and possess them, and I will not say anything to affect that right.”

Walker, a Multnomah County Circuit Court judge for nearly 10 years and a criminal defense attorney before that for 25 years, sentenced Daniel to 17 1/2 years in prison.

The dead man’s mother, Connie Holmes, said she appreciated the judge’s comments.

Okay.  You first.  Let me know how the police react when you go confiscate their firearms.  What?  You were going to do this, right?  You didn’t expect someone else to do it for you, did you?

But just remember TheAlaskan’s dictum: “Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not.”

I have no reason to doubt the title of the YouTube post.  Holy crap!  Did they leave an M4 or AR-15 leaning up against the garage door while they tried to break into the house?  What was that dude in the truck doing with his time?  Eating doughnuts?

I think it might have been easier and done with greater tactical fidelity if they had gone up to the door and knocked. I hope they didn’t just go in and shoot the dog, leave the door all broken and walk away like most other SWAT raids. Or confiscate an ounce of marijuana and call it a success.

But then again, remember boys and girls, only law enforcement officers are trained and qualified in tactical operations while operating tactically and stress management ninja warrior techniques and are therefore qualified to handle firearms.  So who am I to talk?

LA Times:

Authorities say a federal agent accidentally shot a San Diego County sheriff’s deputy in the leg at the sheriff’s station in Lemon Grove while unloading a handgun that was seized by a joint task force Monday.

The deputy’s injury was not considered life-threatening, sheriff’s spokeswoman Jan Caldwell said.

The names of the deputy and the federal agent were not released.

The agent and other members of the unnamed task force recovered the .22 handgun while serving a search warrant in eastern San Diego County, Caldwell said.

But remember boys and girls.  Only law enforcement officers are trained and qualified in tactical operations while operating tactically and stress management ninja warrior techniques and are therefore qualified to handle firearms.  You aren’t.  No, really.  Don’t argue the point.  You aren’t.

I had missed this in June from Bob Owens:

I’m also perplexed that FN submitted the Five-SeveN, as the gun’s 5.7×28 caliber has been thoroughly trashed by most defensive handgun experts as a niche round that fails to create adequate tissue damage to have significant immediate impact on targets.

The FN 5.7 won’t be the next Army handgun, but it doesn’t perplex me at all, and frankly I wouldn’t pay much attention to defensive handgun “experts” as they trash things.  And this is as good a chance as any to post a related bit of analysis I ran up on a few months ago.

The FN 5.7 pistol is constantly maligned or underestimated in many gun forums and articles, often by people who have never experienced shooting the pistol. Subjective comparisons with the .22 magnum or categorization as a sub-par .223 round create confusion about the effectiveness of the FN 5.7.

Enough time has passed after the terrorist attack at Ft. Hood. The shooter, Nidal Malik Hassan, has been arrested, tried and sentenced. The media has moved on. Now we can begin to analyze the impact of the FN 5.7 and address the question of lethality.

Using SS192 and SS197SR ammunition (common commercial 5.7×28 ammo), several 20-30 round magazines and an FN 5.7 (shooter also had a .357 revolver but did not use it), Hassan killed 13 and wounded 32 people.

Many armchair ballistics expert criticized this result as proof that the FN 5.7 platform is not lethal enough because of the proportion of the fatalities to the wounded. Others have proposed that had Hassan use another type of pistol, 9mm or .45, there would have been more fatalities.

If you look at this Wikipedia link and look at the list of casualties, one can come to a very eye-opening conclusion.
Fort Hood shooting – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1. 11 people were shot center-of-mass (COM), one was shot in the stomach and one was shot in the head. All 13 died. All 11 victims who were shot COM did not survive.
2. 3 of the 13 people who died, tried to charge Hassan, but he stopped them with COM shots.
3. The 32 people who were wounded were hit in the arms, legs, hips and shoulders. None of the wounded survivors were shot COM.

The following conclusions can be drawn:
1. The FN 5.7 is a very lethal round CQB because all 11 victims who were shot COM died. No survivors for those hit COM.
2. The FN 5.7 is a real stopper, because 3 tried to charge Hassan at close range and were stopped by COM shots.
3. One of the fatalities was shot in the stomach, and died. The fragmentation of the SS197R round can create a hail of metal shards that can cause serious internal organ damage and bleeding in the stomach.
4. None of the 32 people who were hit in the extremities, hips and shoulders were able to muster a counter-attack because the FN 5.7 must have shattered or broken bones. The high rate of wounded vicitms to fatalities was the direct result of the shooting ability of Hassan (or lack thereof), and not because the 5.7×28 round is not lethal.
5. Sgt. Kimberly Munley (base civilian police), one of the first responders, was immediately disabled with 5.7×28 bullet shrapnels to her wrist and a second 5.7×28 bullet broke her femur. The light 5.7×28 commercial ammo showed that it can shatter large bones due to its velocity
6. According to medical personnel, there was so much blood in the room that it was difficult to get to the victims because the floor became very slippery. One can conclude that the commercial 5.7×28 rounds can fragment or tumble, causing immense blood loss.
7. It took five bullets (which I assume was a 9 mm) from Sgt Mark Todd to stop Hasan. And he survived his wounds (no available info on where he was hit, except that one of the bullets paralyzed Hasan).

In conclusion:
1. The FN 5.7 is definitely a very lethal round. 100% fatality for COM shots.
2. The FN 5.7 is a man-stopper. Three military men tried to charge Hasan, and all three were stopped.
2. The FN 5.7 is a very incapacitating round, if extremities are hit, because it is powerful enough to break the femur (which is the largest bone in the body)
3. The fragmentation or tumbling effect of commercial ammo can cause a lot of blood loss.

The FN 5.7 is a very effective weapon. It is as effective as, or arguably more effective, than any military or civilian pistols in the market.

It is unfortunate that the jihadist Hassan used this weapon against U.S. soldiers.

And as it pertains to its penetrating capability, you can see these tests for yourself (note that none of these rounds are the steel core rounds, and perhaps for maximum tissue damage one wouldn’t want to use steel core rounds anyway).

The Hill:

Jack is walking down a busy sidewalk carrying a handgun in a holster on his belt. Someone screams, “He’s got a gun!” A nearby police officer sees the firearm, draws his weapon, and orders Jack to stop, show his hands, and lie down on the ground. The officer then handcuffs Jack, takes his firearm, and detains him for questioning about why he is carrying the firearm.

With more states legalizing the open carry of firearms, this kind of scenario has and will occur with greater frequency. Let’s assume the person with the firearm is not carrying in a prohibited place, brandishing the weapon in a threatening manner, refusing to follow police orders, or otherwise acting suspiciously. Does the mere carrying of a firearm openly in public give the police sufficient reason to stop the carrier and seize the firearm?

In an open carry state, in this instance the police have violated the constitution of their respective states (or the body of case law appurtenant to this), and the fourth and fifth amendments to the constitution of the United States.  So says the Supreme Court in Terry v. Ohio.

In such cases, the responsible officer(s) should be charged with violation of the state laws, violation of the fourth and fifth amendments to the constitution of the United States, disturbing the peace, illegal seizure of property, and reckless endangerment due to lack of muzzle discipline when he pointed his weapon at an innocent citizen.  He has absolutely no right to detain the individual, touch his property (including his firearm), or make a public spectacle of the detention.  Such behavior is thuggish and illegal, regardless of whether the courts allow them to get away with it.

What someone who needs their safe space or doesn’t know the applicable law feels concerning this is completely irrelevant.  “He’s got a gun” should be followed by “Ma’am, please be more specific concerning the law you believe to have been violated.”  Open carry isn’t brandishing.  The more we allow police officers to get away with this kind of behavior, the worse it will become.  They need to be reminded of the decision of the fourth circuit in the case of Nathaniel Black.

This is simple.  Teach police officers the law, expect them to obey it, and charge them when they don’t.  The title of the article at The Hill is “Open carry complicates police encounters.”  It only complicates matters when the police do illegal things.  Otherwise, this really is all quite clear and easy to process.

So argues David DeGrazia who is a professor of philosophy at George Washington University.

There is no absolute right to self-defense; the right is qualified or limited. When the limits to this right are in view, the ground beneath gun ownership rights appears shakier.

Suppose I live in a country with useless law enforcement and know that an assassin is trying to kill me. Surely I, an innocent person, may defend myself. But if the only effective means is by blowing up a crowded building, killing not only the assassin but dozens of innocent people, I may not proceed. My act of self-defense would be disproportionately harmful to innocent others and would violate their rights. My right to self-defense is limited by the means I may take in exercising it.

Perhaps, then, people have a right to take effective means to defend themselves so long as these measures don’t wrongly harm or violate the rights of others. Yet this isn’t quite right either.

When others threaten your security or rights, certain measures may be necessary to protect you. But it doesn’t follow that you may take those measures if another party has assumed responsibility for taking them on your behalf. As Thomas Hobbes argued centuries ago, when we leave a “state of nature” and enter civil society — which features the rule of law rather than anarchy and vigilantism — we transfer some rights to a government whose job description includes protecting us from various common threats. For example, the police, an arm of the government, are permitted to pursue criminals, forcibly apprehend them and bring them to justice. As private citizens, we generally lack the authority to perform these actions.

So it is questionable whether we have not only a right to forceful protective measures but also a right to take those measures ourselves. If the right to do so has been delegated to the police and, in case of foreign invasion, to the military, then our right to self-defense is further qualified. We have, in fact, partly delegated the job of protecting our security to the police and military in the interest of a well-ordered society. So the qualified right to self-defense comes to this: a right to defend oneself when doing so (1) does not wrongly harm others or violate their rights and (2) is necessary to protect one’s security and/or rights because such protection isn’t otherwise forthcoming.

Does the qualified right of self-defense support gun ownership? Presumably, this right concerns the freedom to use effective means to defend oneself — subject to the two qualifications just stated. So, it must be asked: Are guns effective means? Are they necessary for one’s protection? And does gun ownership steer clear of harming others and violating their rights?

These questions raise complicated issues in the social sciences, political philosophy and ethics. In this short space, I can only offer a few brief notes of skepticism.

First, in our current American milieu of minimal gun control, gun ownership is associated with an increased likelihood that someone in the household will die a violent death. Assuming the spirit of “self-defense in the home” includes defending not only oneself but other household members, this evidence-based generalization suggests that gun ownership, on average, is not an effective means to personal security; rather, it tends to be self-defeating.

Second, is gun ownership necessary in the event of an attempted break-in? That is uncertain. Some evidence suggests that calling the police and hiding are more frequently sufficient for a good outcome than is brandishing or using a gun.

Third, does gun ownership avoid wrongly harming others or violating their rights? Not if, as I believe evidence suggests, gun ownership more often leads to injuring or killing innocent persons than to appropriate defensive use.

Well, this is a strange set of arguments indeed.  I’ve never seen anything quite like it (at least put together like this in such a disjointed, disconnected set of passages).  Let’s unpack this is a bit.

David displays a childish understanding of Western law, or any law in the world for that matter (Asian, Middle Eastern, etc.).  Let me rehearse the reality where we’ve addressed this sort of argument before.

In the 1981 decision in Warren v. District of Columbia the D.C. Court of Appeals concluded that it is a “fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.”  In Castle Rock v. Gonzales (2005), the Supreme Court declined to expand any requirements for protection and ruled that the police cannot be sued for failure to protect individuals, even when restraining orders were in place.

Mr. Hubbard knows these decisions, and also knows that even if it was commonly accepted that the police were required to protect individuals, it would be impossible.  They cannot be there all of the time, and they cannot even promise any particular timely response to your calls.  The police can literally eat popcorn and watch while a woman is raped, as long as they effect an arrest after the fact.  They may be fired for failure to follow a department procedure, but they will not be charged with a crime.  “To protect and serve” is a sweet campaign slogan for Sheriffs who are running for office, but it’s a lie – it’s always a lie …  The police are there for stability operations and security of the government.  Understand that.

It may be a sweet bedtime story for all the little collectivists and their children to believe that the government is in some sort of contract to protect them and bring utopia to earth, but it just isn’t true.  No court in America recognizes such a contract.  David is engaged in propagating myths and fairy tales.

Next, he disconnects rights from any mooring or foundation and thus leaves the notion of rights meaningless.  Not once does the author, who is supposedly a professor of philosophy, anchor his “rights” in a larger system of philosophy with the requisite epistemology, cosmology, metaphysics, ethics and so on.  He does throw in a reference to Hobbes (and here I should mention that I consider Hobbes to have been an extremely weak thinker and his philosophy full of problems), but he says too much by using Hobbes as a reference because Hobbes believed in the right of revolt.

Next, he takes an even further turn into the bizarre by becoming a tactical advisor.  He would counsel people under threat call the police and hide.  Hide!  But concealment isn’t cover, and dry wall doesn’t stop any handgun round known to man, much less rifle rounds.  If anyone listens to his counsel, you are risking your life and the lives of your loved ones.

Next, he conflates the damage done by criminals with the good done by innocent victims, regardless of the weapon (and here one can substitute hammers, knives, etc.).  He has divorced volitional intentionality from the use of tools (here substitute cars, truck loads full of fertilizer, and many other things that can be used to harm man but which can also be used for good).  He even throws in a derogatory term for good measure, i.e., “brandishing,” which has nothing whatsoever to do with behavior in one’s own home, and everything to do with threatening or menacing behavior with a weapon in public.  No respected tactical trainer to my knowledge has ever suggested that someone “brandish” or wave around guns at home invaders.  You should shoot them, just like this woman did who recently used a handgun in self defense.

Finally, he is recommending the abdication of individual rights of innocent men because of the damage done by criminals, as if removal of the liberty of peaceable men will affect criminal behavior.  He gives absolutely no justification for the rationality of this belief, or why it should be taken as properly foundational and basic.  It isn’t rational, and it isn’t properly foundational and basic.

Regular readers know the true foundation of the Western principle of self defense, and it extends beyond mere self defense.  The basis for this principle is found in the Decalogue.

I am afraid there have been too many centuries of bad teaching endured by the church, but it makes sense to keep trying.  As I’ve explained before, the simplest and most compelling case for self defense lies in the decalogue.  Thou shall not murder means thou shall protect life.

God’s law requires [us] to be able to defend the children and helpless.  “Relying on Matthew Henry, John Calvin and the Westminster standards, we’ve observed that all Biblical law forbids the contrary of what it enjoins, and enjoins the contrary of what it forbids.”  I’ve tried to put this in the most visceral terms I can find.

God has laid the expectations at the feet of heads of families that they protect, provide for and defend their families and protect and defend their countries.  Little ones cannot do so, and rely solely on those who bore them.  God no more loves the willing neglect of their safety than He loves child abuse.  He no more appreciates the willingness to ignore the sanctity of our own lives than He approves of the abuse of our own bodies and souls.  God hasn’t called us to save the society by sacrificing our children or ourselves to robbers, home invaders, rapists or murderers. Self defense – and defense of the little ones – goes well beyond a right.  It is a duty based on the idea that man is made in God’s image.  It is His expectation that we do the utmost to preserve and defend ourselves when in danger, for it is He who is sovereign and who gives life, and He doesn’t expect us to be dismissive or cavalier about its loss.

And concerning John Calvin’s comments on this subject:

We do not need to prove that when a good thing is commanded, the evil thing that conflicts with it is forbidden.  There is no one who doesn’t concede this.  That the opposite duties are enjoined when evil things are forbidden will also be willingly admitted in common judgment.  Indeed, it is commonplace that when virtues are commended, their opposing vices are condemned.  But we demand something more than what these phrases commonly signify.  For by the virtue of contrary to the vice, men usually mean abstinence from that vice.  We say that the virtue goes beyond this to contrary duties and deeds.  Therefore in this commandment, “You shall not kill,” men’s common sense will see only that we must abstain from wronging anyone or desiring to do so.  Besides this, it contains, I say, the requirement that we give our neighbor’s life all the help we can … the purpose of the commandment always discloses to us whatever it there enjoins or forbids us to do” (Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. 1, Book 2, Chapter viii, Part 9).

I have further observed that “If you’re willing to sacrifice the safety and health of your wife or children to the evils of abuse, kidnapping, sexual predation or death, God isn’t impressed with your fake morality.  Capable of stopping it and choosing not to, you’re no better than a child molester, and I wouldn’t allow you even to be around my grandchildren.”

You’re the equivalent of the child predator if you reject your duty of self defense and defense of the little ones.  I haven’t one ounce of respect for you.  Mr. DeGrazia has done a pitiful job of arguing against the principle of self defense.  And with his unseemly deference to the state, he has also given us no reason to conclude that he would have been willing or able (or armed) to save Christian lives in the Armenian genocide or Jews in the Holocaust (both of which were predicated on gun control).  Mr. DeGrazia is in bad company.

Listen, I think Twitter is worthless.  I actually have an account, but I rarely update it and find no use in it at all.  The only reason it still exists is because I’m too lazy to go close it out.  Perhaps I should.  Professor Glenn Reynolds of The University of Tennessee school of law is fairly active on twitter as best as I can tell, or at least he was up until now.  His account was suspected because of a “controversial” tweet.  Regarding the riots in Charlotte where rioters were stopping vehicles on I-277 and surrounding the vehicles, Glenn tweeted “Run them down.”

For this, Glenn is under investigation by Melanie D. Wilson, University of Tennessee College of Law Dean.

I am aware of the remarks made last night on Twitter by Professor Glenn Reynolds and of the serious and legitimate concerns expressed by members of the UT Law family and the University of Tennessee community, as well as concerned citizens across the country. Professor Reynolds’ comments do not reflect my views and opinions, nor do they reflect the values of the college and university.

University administrators, college faculty, and I are investigating this matter.

The university is committed to academic freedom, freedom of speech, and diverse viewpoints, all of which are important for an institution of higher education and the free exchange of ideas. My colleagues and I in the university’s leadership support peaceful civil disobedience and all forms of free speech, but we do not support violence or language that encourages violence.

Professor Reynolds has built a significant platform to discuss his viewpoints, but his remarks on Twitter are an irresponsible use of his platform.

The College of Law is committed to ensuring our students learn in a welcoming, open, and inclusive community in which they can successfully pursue their law degrees and become not only responsible lawyers, but also responsible global citizens who are able to competently represent people of all backgrounds.

Get thee to thy fainting couch!  “Irresponsible!”  So if we can get over the vapors, let’s unpack this just a bit.  Glenn responded of his tweet, “sorry, blocking the interstate is dangerous, and trapping people in their cars is a threat. Driving on is self-preservation, especially when we’ve had mobs destroying property and injuring and killing people. But if Twitter doesn’t like me, I’m happy to stop providing them with free content.”

If you don’t live in Charlotte, you have no idea what this highway looks like.  I don’t live in Charlotte, but I work there every day.  I-277 is the loop around the inner city.  Much of it is elevated.  It has concrete sides in the clockwise and counterclockwise directions.  It may as well be an aqueduct or weir.  Once on, it’s difficult to get off, and in the event of a wreck or stalled car, traffic comes to a complete halt for quite a long time.  You’re stuck.  There’s nothing you can do about it.  You can’t decide to get off.  That option has been taken away by circumstances.  Many inner cities are like this, but I-277 is a particularly difficult and risky navigation.

Over lunch today I asked my wife, who was headed into South Charlotte for business (bypassing I-277 thankfully), what would happen to her if she were stopped by rioters.  She knows that she cannot leave the confines of her automobile, she may be dragged to a ditch somewhere and beaten to death.  She knows I-277.  She cannot back up and get away.  She cannot swerve to the shoulder of the highway to avoid the rioters because there is no shoulder.  She knows she cannot simply stay in the car since a crowbar or baseball bat will punch through the glass easily and then it’s just like leaving the car and trying to run from the threat.

Her answer?  “I have to run over them.  I’m sorry.  They are a threat to me at that point.”  If you think otherwise, you’re a naïve simpleton.  You’re not going to hug them into submission, you’re not going to talk to them and tell them you love them and agree with them.  You’ll get the hell beaten out of you.  You’re not going to walk away, or at least, you cannot trust that this option is available to you.  Such trust may get you killed.

I carry weapons and so I’m not quite as concerned for me as I am for my wife who thinks God is going to protect her from threats.  But she gets the point here.  God gave her a foot and accelerator pedal.  If you are put into a position where you have to use them to protect your life, the fault is not your own.  This isn’t about coming together, expressing viewpoints, talking to each other or healing the community.

If Melanie Wilson had ever been in such a position she might think twice about being such a hypocrite with her social justice.

Concerning this article, I sent the authors a short note as follows.

Gentlemen,

So here is an important question about your coverage of the happenings in Charlotte.  I follow this sort of thing and have ascertained that more often than not, when the NG is deployed, they aren’t under “arming orders.”  This was true of the NG deployed to the Mexican border (they mostly sat in offices and aided with paperwork as they had no ammunition given to them for their weapons), and was true of the NG deployed in Ferguson.  Issuing arming orders is a big deal, involving training, requalification by the riflemen, issuing “rules for the use of force” that have been reviewed by the lawyers, etc., etc.

But they rarely listen to a blogger, so you might ask the question of the officials.  You might catch them flat footed and they will likely refuse to answer you because it might show the world that deploying the NG is just window dressing and none of them have ammunition.

If you ask and they answer, I’d appreciate attribution please.

This incredible paragraph appeared at Jacobin:

A few things are clear: guns are a murderous problem; the NRA is racist and reactionary; and liberals are deluded if they believe that sentencing more black men to prison for gun crimes will do anything other than send more black men to prison. Government must disarm America, including NRA members, including the police. And it is government too that must end the war on guns.

Daniel Denvir, the writer of this pitiful piece, is so confused one wonders if they have any editors at this web site and how they let such a paragraph slip through.  A good editor might have thought to ask the writer, “So how are we going to disarm America is we disarm ourselves, and who will do the disarming, since, if government disarms itself they won’t have the necessary arms to disarm anyone?  And as for that matter, how does creating such a war end a war?”

But they apparently don’t have good editors.  At least you can give this to the author.  He’s honest about his confusion, to the point that he is willing to embarrass himself writing about it to the world.  The folks at Bloomberg – not so much.

The NRA is not suggesting that every aspiring gunslinger become an expert. Quite the contrary. The organization talks a lot about gun safety and runs training programs. But its priorities lie elsewhere — such as its demand that virtually every American have immediate access to firearms, without training or qualification or cause or background check, and that they be authorized to carry those firearms in public no matter how unskilled or reckless they may be. That’s one reason that there are countless cases of accidental shootings, rage-induced homicides and alcohol-fueled attacks for every rare instance of a good guy with a gun stopping a killing.

It’s always dangerous to read too much into a slogan, even a catchy one. Still, it bears repeating: A guy with a gun and good intentions is not enough to stop a bad guy with a gun. As Jason Falconer showed, it also takes a guy who’s good with a gun.

The writer is being dishonest, and he knows it.  The catalog (even at this web site) of the awful muzzle and trigger discipline and behavior with guns is staggering: wrong home raids, pulling shotguns on a ten year old, pointing a pistol at a seven year old, being known as dog butchers, abusive treatment of innocent victims during a botched raid, dangerous gun play with other cops, lack of knowledge of the state of their weapons, negligent discharges, negligent discharges in an airport, killing dogs for sport, negligent discharges in police precincts, shooting each other while cleaning their weapons, hitting people on the head with guns, 600 rounds discharged in a rolling gun battle through the inner city, mistakenly shooting a gun instead of a taser, killing a man, firing a gun on a junior high campus, more negligent discharges in police stations, accidentally killing each other, shooting men in the back during raids, killing innocent men because of negligent discharges, throwing flash-bangs into baby cribs, pointing guns at city councilmen during meetings, firing rifles in court, negligent discharge of an AR-15, losing guns, 23 police officers firing 377 rounds at two men with no guns, losing machine guns, shooting each other while trying to kill dogs, and in the author’s own city, shooting 84 rounds at a man, missing with 83 of them.

The author isn’t calling for the disarming of cops, just others.  That’s how you know he’s lying.  He is advocating the collectivist belief in monopoly of force.  He just doesn’t want you to have a gun.  I did quite well the last time I was at the range, and I’ll put my ability with weapons up against most cops any day.  Either way, it’s a lie to say that people who haven’t been trained in stress management can’t defend themselves.  The author knows it.  The author of the editorial just isn’t being as honest as the Daniel Denvir, who admitted to us that he has no idea what he’s talking about.

Here’s something else about which the author(s) should be honest.  Attempting to confiscate guns or even place further controls on them risks bloody civil war.  If they didn’t know that before, they do now.  They’ve been told.

Uncle gives us his usual quick take on what Rubio’s proposal.  Go and read it for yourself.  TCJ reader Fred comments on this, but I want to focus on one comment in particular from Sean Sorrentino who is himself a blogger.

Sorry, Uncle, but you’re wrong on this one. This is a great move on his part. It offers the lying shitweasel Dems everything they *say* they want without giving them anything they *actually* want.

They say they want to ban terrorists from buying guns. This would do it. It gives the AG the power to prove, in court, that a person is a terrorist, and stop him from buying a gun. I’m totally cool with this. Who wouldn’t be? And they only get three days to get the paperwork in. And if they fail in court, they have to pay ALL reasonable attorney fees and costs. So you know that every ambulance chasing dickhead in the nation will show up to defend the little terrorist jerk. Or me, if it’s me.

But the shitweasel Dems can’t just randomly declare that every person who buys a “Don’t Step on Snek” flag is a terrorist and make them fight to get their rights back.

This is why Rubio’s opponent is screaming about this like someone just raped him with a running chainsaw. He realized that they just got outmaneuvered. They just got fucked over.

“Oh, you want to ban terrorists? Here you go. ACLU would buy in on this process. Why are you angry? It’s everything you SAID you wanted?”

But gun owners are too busy screaming “MUH RAHTS!” instead of finding new and interesting ways to screw over our enemies …

Horrible.  Just horrible.  Who wouldn’t be okay with your option, Sean?  I wouldn’t be.  You give far too much deference to the corrupt court and the corrupt officers of the court for my tastes, and you’ll be sorry for this approach one day if they seek a declaratory judgment for folks who believe in second amendment remedy for tyranny to be right wing terrorists.  They’re either there already or not far away.

Hey, I have a much better idea, Sean.  How about if they can prove to a jury of our peers (even here I’m skeptical given the idiots that make up juries these days) that a person is a terrorist – you know, has actually perpetrated some act of terror – they jail him or deport him?  Or put him to death?  In fact, if a person isn’t a citizen and believes in the application of Sharia law in America, they should deport him too!  I can give you all kinds of suggestions for how to close the border.  I’ve thought about this a good bit.  For example, let’s deploy the U.S. Marines along the Southern border to shoot “mules” who transport people across.  See?  I have lot’s of worthy ideas.

If a person is really a terrorist, we should do a lot more than prevent him from purchasing a gun.  He can get a car and kill far more people, or a truck load full of fertilizer and kill even more.  You see Sean, you’re chasing after Red Herrings and misdirects.  It’s how they want their underlings to behave.

That’s what the progs want us to do.  As for Rubio, he is an open borders freak.  I’m not surprised he wants to help folks chase after misdirects rather than focus on closing the borders.  It took Ted Cruz, Louie Gohmert, Dave Brat, Mike Lee and Jeff Duncan to shut that crap down when he tried to do it as part of the gang of eight bill before.  Don’t help the little weasel keep the borders open by chasing after this misdirect.  Be smarter than that.

UPDATE: Ken Blanchard has a very good analysis of this.