Archive for the 'Gun Control' Category

WSJ Law Blog:

The Supreme Court on Wednesday bolstered federal efforts to keep guns away from domestic abusers, ruling that even a misdemeanor conviction involving minimal force can trigger a ban on firearm possession.

A Tennessee man argued that his misdemeanor conviction for causing “bodily injury” to the mother of his child shouldn’t bar him from keeping guns because it wouldn’t qualify as a violent crime under other federal statutes.

The Supreme Court unanimously disagreed. Writing for the majority, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said that the nature of domestic violence justified stricter efforts to prevent conflict between intimate partners from turning deadly.

“’Domestic violence’ is not merely a type of ‘violence’; it is a term of art encompassing acts that one might not characterize as ‘violent’ in a nondomestic context,” she wrote, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan.

Justice Department documents say most forms of domestic violence are “relatively minor and consist of pushing, grabbing, shoving, slapping, and hitting,” Justice Sotomayor wrote. While those might not be serious offenses in other situations, things are different in the home, she continued.

“The accumulation of such acts over time can subject one intimate partner to the other’s control,” Justice Sotomayor wrote. Moreover, she observed, traditionally battery was defined as any “offensive touching,” whether or not it caused physical injury.

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote separately, agreeing with the outcome in Wednesday’s case but calling for a narrower definition of “physical force” that excluded “the slightest unwanted touching” and similarly minor offenses.

Does anyone else consider it rather creepy that the SCOTUS justices are writing things down about “unwanted touching?”  You’d better mind your p’s and q’s in the future if your children go to any of the public communist schools.

One report about a spanking might bring the SWAT teams down on your home.  And I’m sure that no man will feel like he is being targeted just because he is a man.  That certainly won’t happen.  And I’m sure false reports won’t be filed.  And I’m sure the local courts will be more than amenable to vacating bad judgment on the part of the local LEOs.  After all, they’ve always been on our side in the past, no?

Remember when I asked this question?

When will you be adjudicated mentally defective because you believe that being armed is the surest way to ameliorate tyranny in America?

Now we know the answer.  Via Uncle, The Washington Post:

[Plaintiffs allege that, as] of February 3, 2011, Plaintiffs possessed FOID cards, owned firearms, and kept their firearms in their home. At some point before February 3, 2011, David expressed “unpopular political views … about his support of Second Amendment rights” to “a locally elected official.” That official, somebody in that official’s office, or one of the individual defendants falsely construed David’s comments “as evidence that [he] had a mental condition that made him dangerous.” On February 3, 2011, [Illinois State Police] Lieutenant [John] Coffman wrote a letter to David revoking his FOID card under § 8(f) of the Act based on the false and unreasonable assertion that David had a “mental condition” within the meaning of that provision.

On February 5, 2011, with Lieutenant Coffman’s approval, Agents Pryor and Summers entered Plaintiffs’ home without a warrant or consent, conducted a search, and seized Plaintiffs’ firearms, which Plaintiffs used for personal protection, hunting, investment, and enjoyment …

Simply because local LEOs wanted to, the Plaintiffs had their weapons confiscated, and the LEOs ignored constitutional protections regarding illegal search and seizure.  The case has to do with residents of Illinois, but it could be anywhere.

Now someone spend the time and expend the effort to explain to me how mental health checks are going to keep guns out of the hands of “dangerous criminals.”  Go ahead.  I’m listening.

Eugene Volokh:

A gun with a larger than usual capacity magazine is in theory somewhat more lethal than a gun with a 10-round magazine (a common size for most semiautomatic handguns), but in practice nearly all shootings, including criminal ones, use many fewer rounds than that. And mass shootings, in which more rounds are fired, usually progress over the span of several minutes or more. Given that removing a magazine and inserting a new one takes only a few seconds, a mass murderer — especially one armed with a backup gun — would hardly be stymied by the magazine size limit. It’s thus hard to see large magazines as materially more dangerous than magazines of normal size.

[ … ]

Still, these same reasons probably mean that the magazine size cap would not materially interfere with self-defense, if the cap is set at 10 rather than materially lower. First, recall that until recently even police officers would routinely carry revolvers, which tended to hold only six rounds. Those revolvers were generally seen as adequate for officers’ defensive needs, though of course there were times when more rounds are needed.

[ … ]

… even if bans on magazines with more than 10 rounds are unwise, not all unwise restrictions are unconstitutional. That’s true for speech restrictions. It’s true for abortion restrictions. And I think it’s true for gun restrictions as well.

This is an oddball commentary by Eugene.  I don’t think the issue is whether, as the judges tried to adjudicate, a magazine capacity restriction burdens the second amendment, but whether those who are protected are burdened by the restriction.  It’s not a trivial distinction.

I’m not really sure why he drew on the issue of abortion rights to create the analogue.  It isn’t a very good one.  The wording of the second amendment is clear, including the phrase “shall not be infringed.”  The Supreme Court created a right to abortion ex nihilo.

Even if you believe that such a right exists, the analogous wording isn’t there in the constitution to protect it.  Thus, restrictions on abortion have no equivalency to restrictions on firearms.

Furthermore, there is a case to be made that restrictions on abortion and lack of restrictions on firearms have the same goal, i.e., the preservation of life.  Eugene provides the defeater argument for his own case, and states a contradictory conclusion anyway.  But firearms are used for more than just personal defense.  They are also necessary for the amelioration of tyranny.  Both of these are life preserving things, just as restrictions on abortion are life preserving restrictions.

Why Eugene didn’t choose to work on this angle and why he chose the opposite, is anyone’s guess.  All in all, this isn’t one of Eugene’s better pieces of work.  I think he missed the mark, and widely so.

For magazine capacity and what it may do for you, see also my analysis of Mr. Stephen Bayezes.

Following the pattern set by Ms. Catey Hill writing at WSJ, it seemed prudent to address at least ten things that we’ve tried to tell you.  Whether you’re listening is usually evident by whether you write things like Catey or say stupid things like, say Michael Bloomberg.  At any rate, here are the ten things.

1. Concerning Gun Safety

Catey says of the “gun industry” (whatever that is) that “Owning our product may be hazardous to your health.”  That wasn’t what I was thinking at all.  I was thinking that we’ve tried to tell everyone that guns, like automobiles, like ladders (50% of falls from ladders kill), can be unsafe when treated that way.  Online forums repeat the rules for gun safety to the point that it is almost excruciating, and yet I know them by heart and practice them everywhere I go.  I’ve never had an accident or so-called “negligent discharge” with a gun.  Because, you know, I’m responsible.  I wish I could say the same thing about those idiot kids driving down my road in hot rods, far too fast for neighborhood safety.

2. Concerning Guns and Fear

Catey says of the gun industry, “Fear is good for our bottom line.”  That wasn’t what I was thinking at all.  I was thinking that just like the industry surrounding door locks, being prepared is a good thing.  It usually involves patience, study and a little bit of money.  For some reason I’m reminded of a story.  An older lady is stopped by a Highway Patrol Officer, and like a responsible gun owner she informs him that she has three handguns in the car, a .45 1911, a .357 Magnum S&W revolver and yet another revolver (perhaps it’s another S&W revolver, this time a .38).  The officer asks what she’s so afraid of, and she replies, “Not a damn thing officer.”

3. Guns & The Law

Catey says that “Guns get special treatment under the law.”  That wasn’t what I was thinking at all.  I was thinking that we’ve tried to tell you that guns are in that special category of being specifically mentioned in the constitution, just like free speech and the right not to quarter troops in your home or the right to refuse to testify against yourself.  It’s a fundamental God-given right, and recognized as such in the constitution.  Hence, you must tread carefully on this terrain.

4. Children & Guns

Catey says of the gun industry, “We want your kids to play with guns.”  That wasn’t what I was thinking at all.  I was thinking that we’re tried to tell you our stories of learning to shoot when we were children (I learned on my father’s 10/22 in my back yard), our stories of learning gun safety as youngsters, and learning to listen carefully to our parents and mentors.  For this reason – and others – those lessons are burned into our memories.  What we learn as children is difficult to forget as adults.

5. Gun Control

Catey says of the gun industry that “Gun control may work.  We still think it’s a bad idea.”  That wasn’t what I was thinking at all.  Except for willful disobedience to clearly obscene laws (like what is going on in Connecticut right now), gun control absolutely works.  We’ve tried to tell you that it works for its intended purpose, i.e., control of the citizens (gun control is all about control).  We’ve tried to tell you it has nothing whatsoever to do with crime or violence.  We’ve tried to tell you that the proponents of gun control know this as well, and routinely set up a straw man to hide their real intentions.  Let me demonstrate for a moment.  At Daily Kos, this bit of honesty appeared one day.

The only way we can truly be safe and prevent further gun violence is to ban civilian ownership of all guns. That means everything. No pistols, no revolvers, no semiautomatic or automatic rifles. No bolt action. No breaking actions or falling blocks. Nothing. This is the only thing that we can possibly do to keep our children safe from both mass murder and common street violence.

Unfortunately, right now we can’t. The political will is there, but the institutions are not. Honestly, this is a good thing. If we passed a law tomorrow banning all firearms, we would have massive noncompliance. What we need to do is establish the regulatory and informational institutions first. This is how we do it.  The very first thing we need is national registry. We need to know where the guns are, and who has them.

Yea, I know what you’re thinking.  It seems invasive and creepy to me too, sort of like a fat uncle who can’t stop staring at little girls during family reunions.  That’s the way anti-gunners are.

6. Guns & Politics

Catey says of the gun industry, “Politically, we’re practically unbeatable.”  This was exactly what I was thinking, except substitute gun owners for gun industry.  And I don’t know why you’re not listening.  If you were you wouldn’t have enacted those obscene laws in New York and Connecticut.

7. Guns & Obama

Catey says of the gun industry, “Under ‘Gun Ban Obama,’ we’re doing just fine.”  That wasn’t what I was thinking at all.  I was thinking that in spite of gun ban Obama, we’re doing just fine.

8. Guns & Advocacy

Catey says, “Sometimes we aren’t ‘pro-gun’ enough.”  To add insult to injury, she brings up the S&W boycott.  Sheesh!  I do hate to rehearse that bit of pain because I love S&W so much, but I have indeed pointed out that we reward those who are friendly to us and punish those who aren’t.  So this is sort of what I was thinking along with Catey.  I’m glad we could agree on something.

9. Guns and Gun Sales

Catey says of the gun industry, “We sell guns to people you might not want us to.”  That wasn’t what I was thinking at all.  I was thinking that I’ve tried to tell you that I know your real intentions.  I am on this list of people “you might not want” to have guns, along with every other law-abiding citizen.  I know this, and you know this.  Now it’s just a matter of telling everyone else the truth.

10. Ammunition Availability

Catey say of the gun industry, “Ammo is our secret weapon.”  That wasn’t what I was thinking at all.  I was thinking just today that if I didn’t have my truck, I wouldn’t have to buy so much gasoline.

There are many more things, but that covers it for now.

WND:

One person thinks they know the mind of Jesus concerning weapons.  “Guns are only allowed in bars if the person carrying the weapon doesn’t drink. Jesus and the disciples didn’t carry in church because no one else did.”

This is what happens when idiots write letters.  Guns didn’t exist in the time of Jesus, but swords did, and Jesus told his disciples to carry them.  As for church, I think his ninja use of the whip (Matthew 21:12) was enough to convince most people of his seriousness.  And just to emphasize the point concerning people who refuse to consider their role in protecting the little ones, I said:

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.

Those who want to worship hippie Jesus should move to the corner of Haight and Ashbury – and stop writing idiot letters.

Religious Herald:

Nearly 200 interfaith religious leaders — including at least a dozen Baptists — took out a full-page ad in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution Feb. 26 to oppose a bill in the Georgia legislature which would lift restrictions on guns in houses of worship and bars.

So in other words, nearly 200 “pastors” in the Atlanta area believe that God answers to the state.  This is a precursor to a new featured article I have coming (but is not yet ripe).  The totalitarians are among us.  They don’t live inside the beltway, they mooch off of hard workers, they cast their lot with the state, they worship the collective, and they live near and around you.  You know them.

To this article on Chuck Hagel, one commenter says “Hey Chuck, why don’t you have three more scotches and pass out on it, maybe you will change your mind if you can remember what you said yesterday.”  It appears that Chuck is a well known Washington drunk.  Another commenter says “If a grenade happened to be tossed in a room with Chuck Hagel and myself, I would have to do the right thing and push him on top of it.”  It would be a fitting end, no?

Kurt Hofmann:

I’m beginning to wonder whether we have any idea about what’s at stake when we give civilians the right to walk around with a gun.

No, that’s not Kurt.  Kurt is quoting someone who allegedly sells guns, and if he feels this way, he is violating his conscience and sinning against God and man.  On top of that he is a hypocrite and thug trying to make money doing things he thinks is bad.  He is nothing more than a whore.

David Codrea:

In the wake of public unrest where the government used deadly force against protestors, the Ukrainian Gun Owners Association has proposed an amendment to the nation’s constitution …

Finish reading the proposal at David’s place.  And there you have it.  The difference between free men and slaves.

Mike Vanderboegh has crafted an open letter to the tyrants in Connecticut responsible for the obscene gun law, and this is well worth the read.  Mike has also published a list of the names of all legislators who voted for the Connecticut gun law along with their addresses, and Mike has published their list of email addresses here.  Visit Mike’s site, take a few minutes and do what you know needs to be done.

But I have a few words for Mike, and then a few for the communists in Connecticut.  Mike says the following.

Indeed we are all His sons and daughters, and I am grateful for Paul’s prayerful reminder to me of Who I serve. However, you may conclude from my opening that I am struggling with that “diplomacy” part …

It’s okay Mike.  Cease your struggling.  While I do admire and respect you so very much, I disagree profoundly on this point.  We are most certainly not all sons and daughters of God.  The fact that we are all made in His image only heightens their guilt and highlights the distinction.

People tend to remember what they want to hear.  So for example, at Christmas people remember this: “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace …,” and that’s about it.  What the passage really says is this: “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men with whom He is pleased.”  Jesus also said to the Pharisees “You are of your father the devil” (John 8:44).

And God is not pleased with the men and women of Connecticut who voted in favor this this law.  God hates totalitarians of all stripes, all persuasions, in every form and manifestation and at all times in history.  Notice that I didn’t say He hates totalitarianism but loves totalitarians.  He does not.  He hates them both.  Satan is a totalitarian.

Speaking of totalitarians, David tells us once again what it looks like.  It means putting the lives of animals above humans who are made in God’s image.  We’ve seen this before, haven’t we?

So I’m not saying what I would and wouldn’t do to help my brothers in Connecticut, and this post isn’t dedicated to outlining my actions or lack thereof.  That would be stupid.  But here is one thing I can start with.  And this prayer applies to Senator Larry Martin of Pickens, Bobby Timmons of Alabama, and the legislators of Connecticut.

“Oh Lord, the last time I prayed an imprecatory prayer it was against Arlen Specter who was soon diagnosed with cancer, so I do this with much thought and trepidation.  All of the legislators who have voted the recent gun laws into effect in Connecticut have voted to inhibit man’s ability to defend and protect himself and his little ones.

Thus they have offended the Almighty, the most high God, the only sovereign and only potentate.  You have said that it would be better for a millstone to be hung around their necks.  So I pray that you would visit your wrath on them and their families to suffer for the sake of the little ones.

Teach them to obey your laws, teach them the value of human life, teach them that it is their duty both to defend their own little ones and help men and women to do the same.  If they refuse to learn, bring condemnation upon them, bring their means and ends to complete ruination, and inflict them with the reputation forever of being haters of God and haters of children.

Let their progeny remember and think of their lives for generations to come, throughout the lives of the children’s children’s children, and let them remember that their predecessors were evil men and women who would rule with a harsh hand and bitter tongue.

Bring the designs of their lives to naught, bring their aims to nothing, and bring their power down low where it is once again possible in Connecticut to defend families as God designed.

Amen.”

The Week:

Or, as one member of the range put it, “When it comes to gun laws, there’s the whole country, and then there’s New York.” While that may be a slight exaggeration, New York is indeed the polar opposite of lax states like Utah, Alaska, and Arizona, and is arguably the toughest in the country to own a gun. Here, no one is actually entitled to possess a firearm, at least not until the police give the go-ahead.

“Your right can never be taken away from you,” continued Leung, “but your privilege can be revoked at any given time. The NYPD is the licensing entity. They can add any kinds of stipulations they want. And they don’t have to explain why.”

It makes sense to keep guns on a short leash, Leung acknowledges, because “you want people to realize this is not a toy …

As we were talking, a middle-aged man in a grey suit who was carrying a black plastic case sat down at the table next to us. He unlocked it, removed a 9mm Beretta and nonchalantly placed the pistol on the table. Then he took out a box of bullets and started loading them into a magazine, one by one.

First a comment about putting a “box of bullets” on the table and filling his magazine.  They weren’t “bullets,” they were cartridges.  Second, this is extremely bad form.  No magazines get loaded until on range, with weapons pointed downrange.  This is true of everywhere I shoot, many places.  They have no concept of range safety.

Second, this range owner is a sad testimony to the mentality of pitiful New Yorkers who unwisely rely on the police for protection they cannot (and have no intention to) provide.  The police have usurped God’s authority, who commands the ability of self defense and defense of the little ones.

If the police have usurped God’s authority, the people have abdicated their responsibility and duty before the Almighty.  They will answer for that one awful day, along with collectivists who put them in that position to begin with.  Evil with the one doesn’t obviate the other.  I’m sorry for my New York readers who are good, honest folk and who don’t live in NYC.  But if you’re like this range owner, you deserve everything you get.

Hell will freeze over before I ever abdicate my God-given rights to own guns to a cop or judge.  Oh, and since I haven’t mentioned it in a few weeks, to Remington, Kimber and any other gun manufacturer in the empire state: why are you still there?

What will it take with you?  My most recent rifle purchase was a Winchester Model 70 rather than a Remington 700.  My Model 70 will be made right down the road from me in Columbia, S.C.

In Idaho, “Republicans resurrected a measure to punish Idaho law enforcement officers who help confiscate federally banned firearms, fearing President Barack Obama’s administration could try to take their guns … Hagedorn says this year’s measure is “much friendlier” to law enforcement, though it calls for a civil penalty of $1,000 for those found guilty.”  A fine is “weak tea” for a true nullification law.

Attention in Kansas is focused down the food chain rather than the other direction.  “A Kansas House committee is taking up legislation stripping cities and counties of any power to regulate guns or block the open carrying of firearms.”

Finally, a bill has made its way through the Senate in Missouri (again) on nullification.  “Missouri senators endorsed legislation on Tuesday that seeks to nullify U.S. gun restrictions and send federal agents to jail for enforcing such laws, though the measure would likely face a court challenge if it gets approved in the state.”

This is just as I’ve recommended (State prison time for federal agents), although if it goes to federal court and is overturned (as it would certainly be in federal court), then it was never really a nullification law at all.  Federal court rulings would have to be ignored in order to meet the definition of a nullification law.

But now from the factual to the comical.  If you live in one of these states or if you endorse such an idea, Adam Weinstein thinks you’re a redneck.

Since the time of John Calhoun in South Carolina, nullification doctrine—the fancy-bred, college-educated stepbrother of those mental deficients, the militia and sovereign citizen movements—has held that America’s several states have the right to nullify federal laws that infringe on their constitutional liberties. Unless we’re talking about the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendment rights of minorities in these nullificationist states, in which case their freedom is totally treading on our freedom, dude.

But no matter. Liberty-loving bears of small brain have found a five-syllable word, and it must necessarily lead to their promised land. Kansas and Alaska have already passed gun nullification laws, while Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Missouri have been pushing. Nine states, led by Montana, have passed laws asserting that gunmakers in their states are exempt from federal regulations, and so they can make all the full-auto machine guns and assault weapons they want.

The real fun comes when local politicians and law enforcement officers get in the nullification game: Nearly 250 sheriffs from Oregon to California to Arizona to Minnesota have written open letters defying federal gun laws and threatening to arrest U.S. government officials working in their jurisdictions. One rural Florida sheriff even beat prosecution last fall for releasing (and destroying evidence related to) a suspect who’d illegally held a concealed weapon.

It’s fun times in America when libertarians and John Birchers are openly praising law enforcement officers for picking and choosing which laws they’ll enforce, you know, to protect the good, law-abiding folk from federal interference. What could go wrong?

Right after that are pictures of blacks being brutalized over civil rights protests.  What else would you expect out of Gawker, right?  A false analogy between civil rights and a supposed right to take weapons away from the citizens, eh, so what?

To Adam, it’s all about invoking emotion rather than making any kind of rational argument.  It’s okay if the argument is self defeating because Adam happened to ignore the fact that gun owners are fighting for their rights too.  As long as Adam can hurl an insult, it was a good day.

One commenter makes the following remark:

Yes, they’ve been trying this on every law they don’t like

They should all be informed that the FBI will be paying them a visit, with swat (sic) teams if necessary should they pull this.

It’s reall (sic) time we joined the civilized world and eliminated state government. They’re always howling that were one nation under god. Well, one nation has one set of laws. At the same time we remove gerrymandering. Put in place huge restrictions with huge penalties to, (sic) prevent it happening again. And add additional senators to strip the power of the rednecks to obstruct and abuse.

The south (sic) was never punished for the civil war. Hardly a man even was out on probation for their treason, and that’s why we have the problems we have today. It’s a good tine to start. And it’s a better time to stop,folimf (sic) lawsuits, and arrest, arrest, arrest.

Another commenter remarks:

I guarantee you that these are the same knuckleheads that also vote for laws that allow teachers to lead prayers in schools under the guise of “freedom from religious persecution.”

Concerning the second commenter, not necessarily.  For instance, I strongly advocate home schooling (partially) in order to avoid indoctrination into statist, collectivist thinking like yours.  You never got the chance to decide on prayer in my school and I didn’t have to convince your ilk of anything.  I had my own school.

Concerning the first commenter, this is a bit more serious.  He is unabashedly advocating open, unmitigated war.  I never did and still do not believe that firearms owners or patriots will fire the first shot.  But if the second is fired in self defense, it won’t be just one shot by one person.

And it won’t come from just one gun.  The commenter may want to reconsider armchair generalship, and think hard about issuing orders he wouldn’t obey himself because he is a coward, while he sends tens of thousands of men to their deaths.  To be sure, it would be a bloody war.  The collectivists are advised to consider the costs.

ABC News:

In 1996 the NRA successfully lobbied Congress to pull millions of dollars out of government-funded firearms research. This has resulted in essentially a 17 year moratorium on major studies about gun injuries, which claim the lives of more than 1,000 children a year in the United States.

This is a candidate for the dumbest paragraph I’ve ever seen written in the Main Stream Media.  Note it’s obviously progressive position.

The fact that the government isn’t funding silly studies with liberal university professors or the CDC isn’t simply the market deciding what it will sustain and what it won’t.  It isn’t simply letting people and their dollars and cents sort out what is worth something and what isn’t.

No, lobbying Congress to stop funding ridiculous studies amounts to a “moratorium” on major studies.  That’s right.  It’s now somehow prohibited, illegal, or banned.

I don’t know of any particular subject that is banned, and certainly not guns or gun statistics.  But to the progressive, pulling funding dollars from our tax money is justification enough to throw around a word that means something is banned, or in other words, it’s justification enough to lie.

Caitlin Dickson at The Daily Beast:

“Gun control has never been about guns. It’s about control,” declared Jan Morgan, gun rights activist and head of a group called Armed American Women. At a South Carolina Tea Party convention earlier this month, Morgan promoted the thoroughly debunked theory that gun control allowed Hitler’s rise to power. “In the twentieth century folks, 170 million people have been annihilated by their own governments after being disarmed,” she claimed. “So, don’t let anybody tell you that disarming America is going to make us a safer place.”

We’ve discussed this before, and no one to my knowledge has ever alleged that gun control generally had anything to do with Hitler’s rise to power or the Nazi machine within Germany.  It had to do with gun control specifically.  Or in other words, it wasn’t gun control that was the problem.  It was gun control as applied to so-called enemies of the state, while the Nazis had all the guns they wanted.

But read Caitlin again.  This idea hasn’t just been debunked.  It has been “thoroughly debunked.”  And her source?  Why, Salon, to be sure.  That’s what happens when ditzy girls who write for The New Republic and The Daily Beast become … ahem … researchers.  Fringe factor indeed.