Archive for the 'Gun Control' Category

I am reproducing this entire post brought to you by AmmoLand because if I am not mistaken it is a release by the ATF and not unique to AmmoLand.

ATF has found that Federal firearms licensees are often involved in the disposition of National Firearms Act (NFA) firearms in estates of decedents.

As a result, ATF receives questions from licensees about the procedures involved to comply with the law.

Information regarding registered firearms is protected tax information and the release of the information by ATF is restricted. In general, the release can only be made to the executor (administrator, personal representative, or whatever term is used for the person appointed and tasked with disposing of any property in an estate).

ATF can respond to general procedural questions by the licensees, but, for specific questions, the response can only be to the person noted above.

Prior to the release of any registration information, the person requesting the information must provide documentation of their status to the NFA Branch.

The firearms must remain in the possession of the executor, until a transfer application has been submitted and approved. A transfer would include the disposition of an NFA firearm to a licensee for consignment or safekeeping.

Any unregistered NFA firearm(s) in an estate are contraband and there is no means by which these firearms can be registered. The executor should contact the local ATF office to arrange for the disposition of these firearms. The disposition of an NFA firearm to a beneficiary of an estate is on a tax-exempt basis (using ATF Form 5 to update the registry). However, in the case of multiple beneficiaries, ATF will request a release from any beneficiary who is not receiving the firearm. The laws of the State in which the decedent resided determine who is a beneficiary. The application for transfer to the beneficiary must include the beneficiary’s fingerprints and photographs.

The disposition of a serviceable NFA firearm to a person who is not a beneficiary is on a tax paid basis (using ATF Form 4). The disposition of an unserviceable NFA firearm to a person who is not a beneficiary is on a tax-exempt basis (using ATF Form 5). As noted above, the requirements of the NFA apply for these dispositions.

If the disposition is to a person in another State and the person is not a Federal firearms licensee or a beneficiary, then the firearm must be transferred to a Federal firearm licensee in the recipient’s State. After approval of the transfer and receipt by the licensee, the licensee would then apply to transfer the firearm to the purchaser.

Good grief.  None of this would be an issue if the Congress had not passed the NFA (and you know my position, i.e., that the Second Amendment frames in the federal government and restricts their actions, making all gun laws passed at the federal level unconstitutional).  Furthermore, none of this would be a problem were it not for the ATF, which in my opinion is an illegitimate arm of the federal government given the way I see the Second Amendment.

But here we are, with armies of lawyers trying to figure out ways to comply with the regulations, with armies of lawyers inside the beltway trying to figure out ways to make it hard to comply with the regulations.  This is what happens when the federal government is too big and powerful, which is exactly what our wise founders tried to avoid.

David Codrea:

The prevalence of guns in the Philippines is complicating efforts to bring relief to survivors of Typhoon Haiyan, the diplomatic correspondent for The Daily Telegraph asserted yesterday.

[ … ]

He appears to be getting those numbers from GunPolicy.org, a project of the Sydney School of Public Health that “promotes the public health model of firearm injury prevention, as adopted by the United Nations Programme of Action on illicit small arms.” It’s hardly an endeavor sympathetic to private gun ownership, but nonetheless provides a useful resource for unwittingly showing the utter failure of globalist citizen disarmament edicts at living up to their promise of a safer world. And as with other countries this column has reported on that used the website as a resource, a summary of gun laws for the Philippines is instructive.

“The regulation of guns in the Philippines is categorised as restrictive,” the policy assessment reports, but adding “In the Philippines, private possession of handguns (pistols and revolvers) is permitted.”

That would seem to exclude rifles …

Read the rest of David’s piece.  When the report came out I looked at what they’re citing as the rate of gun ownership, and concluded that this couldn’t possibly be the cause of the problems.  The problem is that this is on the other side of the world, they should have evacuated people before the storm, and the government is inefficient (what government is efficient?).  Guns have nothing to do with it, or so I concluded.  It’s just another chance to bring up personal freedoms and stomp on them if they can.  Oh, and by the way, I disagree wholeheartedly with the idea of using what used to be the most effective and violent fighting force on earth, the United States Marines, for missions of benevolence.  We need to find another way to conduct relief efforts.

Kurt Hofmann:

LA Times columnist George Skelton nevertheless takes Governor Brown to task for not being anti-gun enough, because one of the vast number of models of rifle the vetoed bill would have banned is supposedly the one used in the LAX “gun free zone” killing. From the LA Times:

Not that it would have mattered for Gerardo Hernandez, 39, the TSA agent who was murdered. The bill would not have taken effect until Jan. 1. And Paul Anthony Ciancia, 23, the disgruntled, alleged assassin, could have kept his semiautomatic rifle by registering it.

And, yes, he also could have armed himself with a handgun and probably inflicted the same damage.

Yep–Skelton admits that the incident he is using to bolster his argument condemning Brown’s veto would not have turned out any differently if Brown had signed the bill …

Kurt is doing what he does best.  He’s undermining the arguments of the gun controllers by examining their inconsistencies.  Gun control, like control of everything else, doesn’t work.  A person bent on killing will always do it, even if he has to learn to fabricate the tool himself.  The Texas tower shooter, Charles Whitman, used primarily bolt action rifles to inflict most of his damage.  The best option is always deregulation, i.e., get rid of gun free zones.  Gun free zones are for killers and their protectors, the lawmakers.

On another front, I didn’t know that we have U.S. federal agents doing the bidding of the Polish government?  I guess they don’t have anything else to do.

Chris Christie:

“If you look at what we’ve done in New Jersey, we want to control violence,” Christie told Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday. “And some of that may involve firearms, but a lot of it doesn’t.”

Just reminding you again of what we’ve already discussed.  Chris Christie is an anti-gun nut from way back.  There could almost be no better reason to stay home during the next presidential election than if the GOP were to nominate him for office.  There isn’t a dime’s worth a difference between Hillary Clinton and him.  The former is a cackling, collectivist, totalitarian control freak, the later is the same thing except with a loud mouth.

Here I discussed my good experience with Springfield Armory.  It looks like I’m not the only one.

Michael Bane has some interesting comments:

… we have been having a “dialog” about the role of firearms in American society at least as long as I’ve been alive. IMHO, the “dialog” ended when the war began.

Let me say this again…we are at war with a segment of society whose sole goal is total civilian disarmament. We are not in a dialog. We are not in a debate. We are not in a healthy give-and-take in the Cornell University academic lounge. The primary weapon used by our blood enemies is the Big Lie.

It works like this…our enemy states a Big Lie, and I could list dozens, and we run around like little bitty chickens with our heads cut off, marshaling our arguments, footnoting our learned responses, bullet pointing our facts…and after the whole charade is over the enemy repeats the Big Lie, the lapdog media reports it as truth, and WE LOSE AGAIN!

Look at the thoroughly discredited “a gun in the home is 43% more likely to harm rather than protect the homeowner.” Probably more words have been written debunking that fake piece of trash than all Shakespeare’s plays and the complete transcribed Wikipedia, yet 2 weeks ago I read it presented as gospel truth in a daily newspaper website.

During the fight on the Colorado gun laws earlier this year, thousands of us came with our carefully prepared remarks, charts, studies, bullet points, facts — real honest to goodness facts. Our blood enemies, most notably Michael Bloomberg, shipped in a parade of liars…heads of fake organizations created by Bloomberg, a presentation of “polls” that wouldn’t meet even the most basic rules for polling, etc. We had the “indisputable” facts; they had the Big Lie. Who won?

Hint: It wasn’t us.

Good points all around, Michael.  But then, I’m not sure sure about this from Michael!  By the way, concerning Metcalf’s position that I discussed here, I don’t back down one bit from my position that the state is the right level for regulation of any kind, including firearms.  Of course, that’s not to say that there should be onerous regulation of firearms even at the state level.  Recall our previous discussions where I have said the fight is at the level where the founders wanted it, i.e., near the people and not with a centralized government.  The state constitutions, all of them if I am not mistaken, recognize the right to bear arms, although Illinois was late to the game (and some states are stronger than others).  The corollary to my position, of course, is that all laws made at the federal level are unconstitutional.  All of them.  Every last one.  When the states are weak, voters need to fire the politicians and put in honest men.

The Daily Beast:

If you were told a Republican has a 30-point lead in one of the two states that hold off-year gubernatorial elections, in the past you would have guessed Virginia, seat of the old confederacy, certainly not New Jersey. But the politics have flipped. Republican Chris Christie is cruising to victory in the blue state of New Jersey, and Democrat Terry McAuliffe has a big lead in Virginia, topping a ticket that could sweep enough Democrats into elective office to install a Democratic attorney general for the first time in decades and break the GOP’s lock on the Virginia General Assembly.

I’m not so sure, and the author may be whistling through the grave yard.  But continuing:

Seeing opportunity in this once red state on the issue New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg cares most about, gun safety, his Independence USA super PAC, which he founded last year, contributed some $2 million to McAuliffe’s campaign and to the Virginia Democratic caucus overseeing state legislative races. On Tuesday—just seven days before Election Day— Independence USA directed another $1 million into the race for attorney general, where Democrat Mark Herring has a real chance to defeat Republican Mark Obenshain. As a state senator, Obenshain voted to repeal the one-handgun-a-month law and to allow guns in bars and daycare centers. He also supports the bulk purchase of guns and opposes closing the gun show loophole.

If McAuliffe wins, as the polls indicate, he will break a long-standing curse that whatever party holds the White House loses the governor’s race in Virginia. And he will buoy hopes among Democrats that Virginia is reliably purple, if not blue, in the 2016 presidential election.

Seeing opportunity in this once red state on the issue New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg cares most about, gun safety, his Independence USA super PAC, which he founded last year, contributed some $2 million to McAuliffe’s campaign and to the Virginia Democratic caucus overseeing state legislative races. On Tuesday—just seven days before Election Day— Independence USA directed another $1 million into the race for attorney general, where Democrat Mark Herring has a real chance to defeat Republican Mark Obenshain. As a state senator, Obenshain voted to repeal the one-handgun-a-month law and to allow guns in bars and daycare centers. He also supports the bulk purchase of guns and opposes closing the gun show loophole.

If McAuliffe wins, as the polls indicate, he will break a long-standing curse that whatever party holds the White House loses the governor’s race in Virginia. And he will buoy hopes among Democrats that Virginia is reliably purple, if not blue, in the 2016 presidential election … The top three statewide candidates for the GOP are walking billboards for extremism, which gave McAuliffe plenty of running room, even among more rural voters, to the point where he could be more assertive on issues of gun safety than anyone had previously dared, calling for expanded background checks and limits on the size of gun magazines.

For my readers in Virginia, this is awesome.  This is where it’s at.  The fight is on your doorstep, and you must repel the invasion and take it to the enemy.  The State is where the battles for our liberty should be waged, and if you lose I don’t want to hear any bullshit excuses and plans for taking your loss of gun rights before the totalitarian federal court system and whining about the second amendment.

I don’t intend to sound unsympathetic or mean spirited, but if your state elects the ass-clown Terry McAuliffe to the office of Governor, you deserve everything you get.  Again, I’m sorry, but win or move.  The battle lines are drawn, and the federal leviathan will not help you maintain your rights.

Win the battles or move from Virginia and take everything with you when you go.

As readers know I’m usually bored with polls.  But The Washington Post had an interesting piece entitled The Start Divide Over Gun Laws – In Two Charts.

The best way to describe Americans’ overall attitude to current gun laws? One word — split.

A new Gallup poll shows that nearly half of adults say laws concerning guns sales should be tightened, while 50 percent say they should be unaltered or loosened.

Wait.  You mean all that stuff about 90%+ of all people wanting universal background checks was all just horse shit?  You mean they were just making that up because they know the GOP just sticks its fingers into the air to see which way the wind is blowing rather than make laws based on principle?  You mean the collectivists can’t be trusted?

Gosh.  It seems that someone should have said something about that before now.

Science Daily:

A string of public mass shootings during the past decade-plus have rocked America leaving policymakers and mental health experts alike fishing for solutions to prevent these heinous crimes. A Mayo Clinic physician, however, argues that at least one proposal won’t stop the public massacres: restricting gun access to the mentally ill. J. Michael Bostwick, M.D., a Mayo Clinic psychiatrist and author of the editorial published online in Mayo Clinic Proceedings today, argues several points including that mass shootings are carefully planned — often spanning weeks or months. There is plenty of time for a meticulous planner and determined killer to get a gun somewhere in that time, he argues.

Dr. Bostwick’s editorial is a commentary on an essay in the same issue of Proceedings titled “Guns, Schools, and Mental Illness: Potential Concerns for Physicians and Mental Health Professionals.” The authors focus on recent mass shootings and argue that these actions were not and could not have been prevented by more restrictive gun legislation. They further contend that a diagnosis of mental illness does not justify stripping Second Amendment rights from all who carry such a diagnosis, most of whom will never commit violent acts toward others.

Before reading the essay Dr. Bostwick — who is generally in favor of gun control — expected to disagree with its contents. Instead, he agreed.

“We physicians generally do not know enough about firearms to have an informed conversation with our patients, let alone counsel them about gun safety,” says Dr. Bostwick. “We also tend to ignore the reality that as long as the Second Amendment is the law of the land, the right to bear arms and therefore personal gun ownership, whether of long guns for hunting or handguns for personal protection, will be an integral part of the American scene.”

A few points Dr. Bostwick argues:

• Even if every mentally ill person in the country were registered, the system isn’t prepared to handle them — and only about half of the states require registration.
• Only about 10 percent of mentally ill people are registered — and these are people who have been committed, they’ve come to attention in a way that requires court intervention
• Literature says the vast majority of people who do these kinds of shootings are not mentally ill — or it is recognized after the fact
• The majority of mentally ill people aren’t dangerous
• Mentally ill people in a country with gun rights, still have rights.

So let’s see.  Mental illness isn’t a very good predictor of propensity to violence, especially mass violence.  Even if it were, doctors cannot diagnose it well enough to intrude on the rights of others.  Their record is comparatively poor.  Mental illness isn’t the hallmark of said actions – rather, it is pre-meditation and planning.

This seems rather important.  Someone should have talked about this before.  No, really.  I mean it.  I really mean it.

David Codrea:

So how smart is a gun that requires a separate and nearby fingerprint sensor/wristwatch to activate a chip, and has built-in lights to tell an aggressor where a defender in the dark is, and whether or not they that gun is enabled to fire?

Not very smart.  And we’ve discussed this before.

In a very important development, the Supreme Court is going through its backlog of stuff to consider, and rejects an important one.

The Supreme Court won’t review a decision upholding a Maryland gun law that requires residents to demonstrate a “good and substantial reason” to get a permit to carry a handgun outside their own home or business.

Allow me to summarize.  We’ve all noted that Heller and McDonald were weak decisions, and didn’t envelope carrying outside the home.  Many had suspected that the SCOTUS would continue to develop post-Heller case law that fleshed out Second Amendment rights.  This is important in that what the Supreme Court rejects is as important as what they decide.  In this case, they have decided that Heller doesn’t apply outside the home, or at least, they won’t intrude on decisions they will leave to the state.

Folks, if I’ve said it once I’ve said it a thousand times.  The Second Amendment frames or boxes in the federal government.  It is a mistake to look to the federal government to delineate your God-given rights at the state and local level.  All gun politics is local.  Marylanders, you must fight the fight where you are, or leave for a free state.

Thomas Sowell discusses the appointment of Janet Yellen to the federal reserve.  She is a true believer in Keynesian witchcraft.  Be careful.  Chicken bones flying around, thrown by Ms. Yellen.  You know, the thing that impressed me most about the article was his quote of Yellen.

Ms. Yellen asks: “Do policy-makers have the knowledge and ability to improve macroeconomic outcomes rather than making matters worse?” And she answers: “Yes.”

For those of you who have read Plato’s Republic, she appears to be a believer in the concept of philosopher-kings, just as is Obama.

Kurt Hofmann:

For one thing, while the supply of legal machine guns in private possession has been capped since 1986, with the (very questionable) passage of the Hughes Amendment to the Firearm Owners Protection Act, driving the price of the artificially limited supply well out of range of most gun owners, the number of suppressors in private hands has been spiking dramatically, according to the Wall Street Journal.

There is no rational reason to require CLEO approval for purchasing silencers (which Kurt correctly points out should be considered safety equipment).  I have worked in a plant environment all of my working life, as well as operated power equipment outside of work.  I love the fact that I can still hear (albeit less clearly than 35 years ago), and I want to continue being able to hear.  Prohibiting equipment that can protect hearing (part of your set of PPEs) is immoral.

John Jay gives us an update on the armored personnel carriers in Montana.

Finally, see my disapprobation of the federal leviathan from this weekend.

NorthJersey.com:

For years, they’ve existed only in science fiction and the archives of the New Jersey Legislature: handguns that fire only in the grip of an authorized user.

And yet these so-called smart guns soon could be the only kind sold legally in New Jersey under a state law that has languished on the books for a decade.

The law, which requires the state’s gun dealers to exclusively sell smart guns within three years after the first one hits the market, has been largely forgotten since the Legislature adopted it in 2002. But it could be dusted off as early as this year as technology finally catches up to the vision of lawmakers at a time when the debate over gun control is more combative and divisive than at any time in recent history.

After years of stalled and inconclusive research — hampered in part by political resistance from groups like the National Rifle Association — a German company called Armatix says it will introduce the first gun equipped with a user-recognition system within 45 days.

It is unclear whether that model, which will fire only within range of a sensor embedded in a wristwatch, will trigger the New Jersey regulations. But advocates predict that the first sale is likely to create a domino effect as other companies and publicly funded groups — including one at the New Jersey Institute of Technology — are spurred to bring their own prototypes to the market.

[ … ]

The NRA did not respond to requests for comment, but Scott L. Bach, the executive director of the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, said the technology is flawed, and could put gun owners in danger when it fails. He also questioned why law enforcement officers are exempt.

“New Jersey’s smart-gun law is as dumb as it gets,” Bach, of West Milford, said in a statement. “It forces you to use an unproven technology to defend your life, and then exempts the state from liability when the gun goes ‘click’ instead of ‘bang.’ If it’s such a great idea, then law enforcement shouldn’t be exempt, and the free market should be allowed to determine its viability.”

Oh, the free market will indeed decide what becomes of this ridiculous machine.  It will be laughed off the world stage when the first person attempts to defend his life with it and an electronic gadget interferes and causes someone to die at the hands of an assailant.

And the next time Chris Christie asks for your vote, remind him that he is governor of New Jersey, home of the some of the most draconian gun laws on earth.  Ask him if he is going to force all of his body guards and state police to use this silly piece of equipment?

Prior: Smart Guns Tag

David Codrea:

“So, this is a way to inch things forward on the gun control issue,” she observed. “You go to one of Vermont’s most liberal municipalities and you get a tiny bit, then maybe you inch forward.”

Death by a thousand cuts.  And what have I told you about gun politics being local?

Kurt Hofmann:

Isolate the Insurrectionists by embracing the self-defenders and the sporting gun owners.

Another incremental strategy, similar to the collectivists in Vermont?

John Jay is wondering why anyone associated with the government in Montana (or the feds) would need armored personnel carriers or grenade launchers?

Darryl Cannady in Charlotte, N.C., was pulled by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police because his car matched a profile description of one they were searching for.  The officer unholstered his weapon and held it pointed at Darryl for quite some time.  What’s really interesting about this case is the reaction in the comments, which seem to be on the side of telling this kid that racial profiling had nothing to do with it.  Get over it, kid.  It happens every day.  In reality, the officer had no right to unholster his weapon and point it at anyone unless his life was in danger.  I can’t do that, you can’t do that, and it would be called brandishing a weapon if we did.  Additionally, we would be charged with felony assault for such behavior.  But hey, even if the kid was in danger that day, at least the cop got to go home at the end of his shift, right?

Mike Vanderboegh is celebrating the fact that gun shows are the last bastion of a free people.  Well, sort of, but not exactly, and it all depends upon whether the collectivists have persuaded the free men to give up their rights.

A smiling Gabrielle Giffords toured rows of tables loaded with rifles and handguns Sunday in her first visit to a gun show since surviving a 2011 shooting, and pleaded afterward for people to come together to stop gun violence.

The former Arizona congresswoman visited the Saratoga Springs Arms Fair with her astronaut husband, Mark Kelly and New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman to highlight a voluntary agreement that closely monitors gun show sales in New York.

The trio mixed with a gun show crowd that was mostly welcoming — with a few hostile undertones — before calling for people to build on the cooperative effort.

“We must never stop fighting,” Giffords said at a post-tour news conference, her fist in the air. “Fight! Fight! Fight! Be bold! Be courageous!”

Giffords, a face of the national gun control effort, slowly walked hand-in-hand with Kelly through the large room where Winchester rifles, muzzle-loaders, antique knives and other weapons were on display and “Don’t Tread on Me” flags covered a wall.

They stopped at display tables, Kelly asked dealers questions about the weapons, and Giffords shook hands and smiled when people greeted her. “Good to see you looking good!” some said. Kelly bought a book on Colt revolvers, and said later he probably would have bought a gun if he had had more time. He said both he and his wife are gun owners.

The trio was greeted by light applause when introduced at the news conference, but some people booed from across the room. Dealer Joe Albano, who chatted with Kelly about his muzzle-loaders, later said the couple was nice. But he also said he was against New York’s recent gun control law, which is separate from the Schneiderman initiative.

“If she can help us, fine,” Albano said. “We’re doing everything right here. We’re legal.”

Under the agreements worked out by Schneiderman, all firearms are tagged at the entrances to gun shows. Operators must provide computer stations for sellers to do national background checks.

As they are taken away through a limited number of exits, guns are checked to make sure background checks were performed. No buyers can leave a show without documentation of a proper sale.

Schneiderman, who has worked with all 35 gun show operators in New York, showed the couple how the process worked.

“It’s great to see government and licensed firearms dealers working together to solve a problem,” Kelly said.

“Documentation of a proper sale.”  Folks, what have I told you?  The best way for the collectivists to formulate and parse their information is to get the free men to give it to them.  Gun shows are only for free men in free states.

The issue of universal background checks never goes away, and the collectivists never give up.

AS I WRITE this, there hasn’t been a mass shooting in weeks.

I’ll use the lull to shoot off my mouth about guns, divorced from the debate that usually follows a massacre in which both sides dance on victims’ graves for PR gain.

When President Obama tried early this year to get gun restrictions passed – including background checks identical to Pennsylvania’s current system – the vast majority of Americans wanted what he wanted. His most important goal was broadened criminal-background checks at the point of sale for guns. Despite overwhelming public approval, Congress chickened out, mainly because of opposition from the National Rifle Association that purports to represent gun owners (like me), gun sellers and gun manufacturers.

I am not a member – the NRA doesn’t represent me or most of my pistol-packing pals. Some of my NRA friends say it doesn’t represent them, either, on background checks.

A poll by Frank Luntz, who usually works for Republicans, reported that a majority of current and former NRA members favor background checks. “Majority” understates the case – it was 74 percent.

That’s an amazing statistic, but I have one (allow me to invent a word) that’s amazinger.

The Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California, Davis, polled licensed dealers who sell more than 50 guns annually. It reported that 55.4 percent of the surveyed gun dealers support background checks.

I never believed those polls that say Americans want to go down to their local FFL and have to go through a background check to gift a 10/22 to their grandson under the Christmas tree.  And I don’t believe them now.  And of course FFLs favor more control – it increases their revenue by another transfer fee every time somebody comes in to transfer a weapon.  What’s hard to understand about that?

Let me turn my attention to the issue of debates and disagreements over the interwebz among gun bloggers that occur from time to time.  I don’t do that scene.  To me it comes off like church members who agree that they must all agree on paragraph 5.3.6(c), subpart 3.1.6.9 of Section 86 of the book of church order blah blah blah, or else they must separate and cause schism.  Again, I don’t do that scene.  I don’t have to agree with everyone all of the time.

But on this issue I’ve made up my mind.  Universal background checks would do nothing for crime fighting, but everything for the totalitarians.  Universal background checks aren’t about crime.  They’re about state control, and the state does indeed want to control you – every aspect of your life.

So let’s put this in context.  Let’s say that gun rights writer, advocate and reliable journalist and friend David Codrea wrote me and said, “I’ve decided that I am going to support universal background checks, and I think I can talk everyone else of our ilk into the same idea.”

Well, David would still be my buddy, but I would speed up my loosely planned meetup at his place for liquor and cigars over a fire pit, where I would get him loosened up and then say, “So brother David, what gives, and can I persuade you to see it otherwise?  Let’s talk.”

My belief system is what the philosophers call “incorrigible.”  I cannot be changed.  That means that I won’t ever change my mind.  And that, dear reader, means that the NRA will never, never be alone in advocating for freedom and against tyranny, even if I’m the last one on earth who opposes universal background checks.

The commentator is wrong, and one of their favorite tactics is to make you think that, “Hey, everyone else thinks I’m an unsophisticated redneck, so maybe I am.  Maybe I should reevaluate my positions.”  They think that will suffice to persuade you to change your mind.  Everyone else is doing it, so it must be okay.

I repeat.  If I am the last person on earth to oppose universal background checks, I will never, ever, ever change my mind.  To my liberty loving readers: you are not alone.

UPDATE: It looks like Kurt and I were thinking along the same lines last night (Although sometimes I have to wonder about Kurt and if he’s just doing all of this for the largesse – David has written before about the huge money and free beer that Kurt gets for writing for Examiner.  Must have been a note, since I cannot find it in David’s posts).