Senator Di Fi Lets the Gun Control Cat Out of the Bag

Chuck Todd, of NBC/MSNBC fame asked California Senator Diane Feinstein, long time leader of the gun control crowd, “Let me ask you this: give me the slate of laws that if you could wave your wand and have enacted that could have prevented Vegas?”

Sen. Feinstein, to her credit replied, “I’m not sure there is any set of laws that could have prevented it.”

You've got to hand it to her! After all these years leading the charge for gun control, finally a rare moment of honesty! But that isn't stopping her from increasing the number of laws that will not deter criminals, will not deter mass shootings, but will make it more difficult for law abiding gun owners to keep and bear arms.

Forgive me if you've heard it before, but this is my favorite DI Fi story:

Shortly after Dianne Feinstein became mayor of San Francisco, in the wake of the Milk/Moscone shootings, Ms. Feinstein got a law passed in San Francisco making all handguns illegal within city limits. (This was overturned shortly thereafter by the California Supreme Court.)  I remember sitting in my car, listening to a Bay Area news station, KCBS, when they announced the passage of this law. By some coincidence (or the devious mind of the news director), the very next story was of a gunman who had robbed a liquor store in San Francisco using a sawed off shotgun.

Let's recap: It is illegal to make or possess a sawed off shotgun. It is illegal to use a sawed off shotgun in the commission of a crime: Armed robbery is illegal. If he fired any shots, it is illegal to discharge a firearm within city limits. Despite a number of his actions being illegal, mostly felonious, none of the laws on the books deterred this fellow from making his appointed rounds.

The idea that just one more gun law was going to reduce or eliminate gun crime is a fool's errand. Criminals by definition do not obey the law. That will not stop crusaders like Feinstein from adding to the minefield law abiding gun owners must traverse in the pursuit of maintaining their God given right of self defense.

21 Reasons Liberals Should Oppose Gun Control

1. Prohibition didn't work for drugs, and it won't work for guns for the same reasons.

2. Just like the War on Drugs has racially unfair outcomes, it is likely that gun restrictions will also have racially unfair outcomes.

3. Liberals were just protesting institutionalized gun violence by police, and are now calling for the same government institutions to curtail the rest of our gun ownership.

4. Liberals were against the disproportionate response of creating a massive national security regime and police state in response to Islamic terrorism, because of the danger to individual liberty and violation of constitutional rule of law. Curtailing gun rights in response to domestic terrorism is no different.

5. Imagine a world in which Donald Trump, a Republican controlled congress, and an overwhelming majority of the state governments in the hands of the Republican Party have all the guns and the civilian populace is disarmed.

6. Liberals say the threat of an overreaching police state is a delusional fantasy, but our government has continued to violate rule of law and civil liberties despite the fact that our civilian population is well-armed. Imagine if we weren't.

7. Liberals say that is paranoid, but the last 100 years of human history show that you are far more likely to be shot by the guns in the hands of your own government than by the guns in the hands of individual criminals or foreign governments.

8. In fact, as the Black Lives Matter movement knows all too well, you are 8 times more likely in this country today to be shot and killed by a police officer than killed by a terrorist.

9. And throughout recent history (so recent, people are still alive today who lived through it) governments have committed terrible atrocities against legally disarmed civilians on a far more harrowing scale than any of America's mass shooters.

10. Liberals made a big show of their opposition to the very few, powerless, irrelevant, and eccentric people that are Neo-Nazis in America today, but when actual fascism marches forward, it isn't going to be obvious and wear a swastika. It's going to be a series of government responses to isolated crises, just like the Third Reich and other repressive regimes always gather and consolidate power.

11. When this happened in Germany during the Weimar period that incubated the Nazi Third Reich, the government instituted exactly what liberals are calling for today- mental fitness checks for people to own guns.

12. Unsurprisingly, it was the scapegoat minority of the fascist government, the Jews, that were found mentally unfit to own guns, and they were disarmed as the government hurtled toward the impending mass extermination of the Jews and other scapegoated groups.

13. In America today, liberals have already seen parallels in the ascension of Donald Trump to the presidency, who has viciously attacked Latinos in this country as a minority scapegoat, and has continued the official policies of his predecessors in office (including Obama) of the institutionalized harassment, intimidation, and bullying of Latino immigrants to this country.

14. With a president that has already revived many liberals' fears of 20th century style fascism coming to America in the 21st century, how can they not see (pun intended) the folly of allowing him any leeway at all for the curtailment of the civilian population's right to keep and bear arms?

15. Clearly the idea of fascism wreaking havoc and the loss of human liberty and life on a mass scale is not only a conservative delusional fantasy, but a shared apprehension across partisan lines, and important to keep in mind after so many examples of atrocities last century.

16. The idea that it couldn't happen here because it hasn't before does not take into account the fact that the Washington regime, while it has not murdered Americans en masse in the last hundred years, has callously murdered millions of civilians in other countries in recent times, with no regard for innocent human life and no remorse or apology for the deaths of millions of civilians who were deliberately targeted and killed in North Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq.

17. And the fact that this hasn't happened here, for all we know, may be due to the fact of a well-armed civilian population, which we have never not had in this country, so fundamentally altering the balance of power in our society by chipping away at gun rights may lead us on a path that we will wish we had avoided.

18. Because gun control doesn't eliminate guns, it only eliminates it from a certain class of people. The government will keep its guns, and the government his killed more innocent people with its guns than any terrorist.

19. And the government has already shown a lack of regard for human lives in America in the last century, as in the Tuskegee experiments, or the internment of innocent Japanese civilians in camps during World War II on the basis of nationality, for no crime, without due process.

20. Liberals should be wary too, of allowing the government to define mental illness, a power which the majority could use to oppress a marginalized group, and deny them their right to have guns to protect themselves as well as many other rights on the basis of their "mental illness." An official category of mentally ill people might expand to include all kinds of people who aren't, and it will be an easy way to dismiss and marginalize minority groups.

21. Guns also create gender equality that was unprecedented in the era before guns. One aspect of the sexual dimorphism in the human species is the significantly greater upper body strength and bigger size of an overwhelming majority of males when compared to an overwhelming majority of females of the species. This puts women at an inherent physical disadvantage and makes them inherently vulnerable to men who are willing to take advantage of this strength and size disparity to abuse women. Knowing any given woman may be carrying a gun, helps to neutralize this gender inequality.

Wesley Messamore has been writing in favor
of more freedom and less government
since 2008 at The Humble Libertarian.

Hillary Clinton Fans Break Glass Ceiling for Being a Sore Loser

Hillary Clinton's candidacy proved to America that women have just as much right as men to aspire to the highest office in U.S. politics on a campaign of deceit and cynicism.

Her defeat is proving that women have just as much a right as men to be insufferably sore losers and grudge holders, and unable to gracefully exit the stage.

The Jimmy Fallon show piles on:

Here's another video with actual footage of Hillary Clinton's supporters nearly a year after learning she had lost the election:

Wes Messamore blogs at The Humble Libertarian

The Ghouls of Gun Control Rear Their Ugly Heads Once Again

Editor's note: I'm reposting this, in part because of the anti-gun noise and nonsense in the wake of the Las Vegas shooting, and because the liberal anti-gun crowd still can't get their facts straight.I wrote this piece in response to a column by Michael Fitzgerald, of the Stockton Record, late in Oct '15. I responded with a long letter to the Editor, which, to their credit, they published almost in its entirety. (Like I said, it was long!) Afterwards, there were a spate of shootings which made the national news, and I felt it might be inappropriate to respond, in the light of unfolding events. For those of you who just read The Ghouls of Gun Control, this is the columnist and the column that I was referring to. This last draft contained a lot of material I felt wouldn't fit in the letter.

Michael Fitzgerald, a columnist for my local dead tree paper, decided that my fair city has too many guns. In reality, what he wants to eliminate is too many shootings. Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to know the difference.

You can't hardly blame him. Well, yes you can. He's regurgitating statistics that he got from the Brady Campaign to Stop Gun Violence. Getting reliable and accurate statistics from them is like getting information from our last Commander-in-Chief on keeping your doctor if you liked your doctor. He quotes the "reality" that
"A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used to kill or injure in a domestic homicide, suicide, or unintentional shooting, than to be used in self-defense..."
So I read that and immediately I asked myself, where did they get that number from? A curiosity apparently not shared by our columnist, so I Googled it, and the top two entries were one from the Brady organization and the second was from the NRA-ILA, Institute for Legislative Action.

It listed the source of the study, "Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home," Journal of Trauma, Injury, Infection and Critical Care, Aug. 1998, and then proceeded to list the flaws of that study. This analysis was in 2001. For upwards to seventeen years, Brady has been repeating the results of this extremely flawed study, because it knows that columnists like Fitzgerald will accept it without question and then spread the lies even farther. Perhaps the greatest flaw in the study which "proves" 'A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used...yada yada yada", except in all but 14.2% of the subjects of the study, they were shot with some other gun!

"only 14.2% of criminal gun-related homicides and assaults he surveyed involved guns kept in the homes where the crimes occurred."

Let me break that down for you. Let's say you are a drug dealing gang banger and you keep a gun in your house for protection. Which is probably pretty smart, since all your other drug dealing, gang banger associates have guns and would shoot you in a New York minute if there was a buck in it for them. So, if you leave your house and get killed by someone else's gun, outside your house, the study says, See? He kept a gun in the house and he got shot! Mind you, the gun you kept in the house didn't kill you, but it counts in our study!

The Ghost of Trayvon Martin Takes a Knee

Halloween is approaching and the stores are filling with candy, skeletons, and not a few ghosts. One specter once again raising its ugly head, is the ghost of Trayvon Martin.
In addition to the Take a Knee controversy, or complementary to it, four NFL players have submitted a ten page memo...manifesto, if you will, to Roger Goodell, NFL Commissioner. to address
the silence following our individual and collective demonstrations around the national anthem to raise awareness to racial inequality and issues surrounding criminal justice reform has been met with inconsistencies in press coverage and perceived lack of support.
(emphasis mine) "Criminal justice reform"?  Are they suggesting better communication between NFL players and their parole officers? There most certainly is racial inequality in the NFL. The percentage of black players far surpasses the percentage of blacks in the general population.

But, let's examine the basis for their call for a month dedicated to their particular vision of social justice awareness..."like breast cancer"! Oh, and pony up some dough to make this kabuki theater work.
You have to admire the chutzpah of a bunch of millionaires going hat in hand to NFL management to finance those things they feel deeply enough, just not deeply enough to pay for it out of their own pockets.
But, what sparked the outrage?