Birds of a Feather

An Open Letter to Joe Biden

Dear President Biden: 

Recently the mass shooting in Sacramento caught your attention. Good. The Sacramento DA recently called out the motivation behind the shooting, and it wasn't "ghost guns". It was gang related. 

It was a shooting between rival gangs. Just like much of the so called "gun violence" in Chicago is gang related, many of the needless gun deaths in the country are either drug or gang related. It doesn't matter how the gangs get the guns, whether they make them or steal them off trains or the houses of law abiding gun owners, or the bodies of rival gang members, the problem you should be focusing law enforcement on is not "ghost guns", but gangs. 

If you really want the killing to stop, you will focus on the root cause, not some minor peripheral issue. Thanks!

Quote du jour

Every time a child, or other innocent bystander is killed by gang violence, and you call it "gun violence", you are not addressing the real problem. You will never find any real solutions if you never correctly identify the problem.

- Mike B

A Primer on "Common Sense" Gun Laws

Originally published Feb. 19, 2018

First, let me say that I share in the loss and mourn with those who lost loved ones in that terrible Florida school shooting. Some people want to take advantage of those raw emotions to see if they can obtain some political advantage in what really ought to be a time of mourning. But I want you to fully understand that what the anti-gunners mean by "common sense" gun laws is not necessarily what the rest of us call "common sense". The phrase itself, "Common sense gun laws", polls well. I mean, it's obvious, isn't it? Who in their right mind could object to "common sense"? Poll any number of people if you think we should have "common sense gun laws" and you will get a majority, maybe even unanimity!

The gun grabbers then try to use that superficial verbal agreement, since nearly everyone agrees we should have common sense guns laws, then, you should have no problem accepting the ones they're proposing, regardless of how ineffectual they might be, whether or not they solve the problem, and whether or not there are unintended consequences to Constitutional rights, public safety or both, so long as we label them "common sense". There's the bait and switch.

A Democrat, John Dingell, of Michigan said in 1965,

"We now have on the lawbooks of this nation over 20,000 laws governing the sale, distribution and use of firearms.”

I guess it's pretty safe to assume we've added some since then. Yet, for all the "common sense" gun laws already on the books, the people whose ultimate goal is the complete elimination of privately owned firearms (the honest ones will tell you that. Stop laughing!), the anti-gunners want ever increasing restrictions on firearms, the quantity, the quality, the ease of ownership, the cost of ownership, until they have made it too prohibitively expensive or onerous to obtain, and erode the Second Amendment rights of honest, law abiding Americans to keep and bear arms. At least you common ones! We with political clout and wealth will still require our bodyguards to be fully armed!

"But, but..."you might say, "we still have terrible school shootings. We have to do something!!" Aye, and we can. But before we trip down the primrose path of passing new laws, pause a moment and consider what effect new laws will have if they are enforced exactly the same way as the 20,000 plus we already have?

Consider straw purchases, that is to say, buying a gun for someone else, who could not pass a background check.  That is currently against the law. "Well then, that's settled!" You would think so, wouldn't you? But, "U.S. Attorney B. Todd Jones told a Congressional panel in 2013 that out of 48,321 cases involving straw buyers, the Justice Department prosecuted only 44".
If you're wondering how that works out to a percentage it's: 0.0009105 ( 0.01 = 1 percent).

And just how harsh is the punishment for those prosecuted? To quote Jim Geraghty,

"Last year, Simone Mousheh purchased four weapons for $600 each and sold two to a man with Chicago gang ties. She was sentenced to 12 months probation, 15 days in the Cook County sheriff’s work alternative program and ordered to pay $679 in fines."

In other words, a "slap on the wrist". California's "common sense" gun laws did not stop the San Bernadino shooters, (14 killed, 22 seriously  wounded), from getting their long guns via a straw purchase, nor did they prevent them from illegal modifications under the state's assault weapons ban.

Let's recap: Under state and federal "common sense gun laws", you can't buy guns for someone else and lie about it, you can't legally modify the guns you bought illegally to operate the way they did, oh, and by the way, it's illegal to shoot people. Noise ordinance or some such.

California has, in addition to their common sense gun laws, some of the most restrictive laws in the nation. Likewise, Chicago, where just last year, 3,561 people were shot, 650 killed. Which, granted, was fewer than 2016, where they had 771 murders. Just checking my memory, but have you heard anyone screeching that Mayor Rahm Emanuel had "blood on his hands"? Any screams of "We have to do something?" Funny how only white suburban shootings seem to rouse the anti-gunners from their slumber! According to CBS News, 27 people were shot in Chicago the very first day of the year.

Shrieks of outrage? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller??

No, because Chicago already has the strictest gun control laws in the nation. Making a fuss there would be counterproductive to passing new laws, which would be, for the most part, those very same laws for the rest of the country. Show me the law working in Chicago and I'll consider implementing it somewhere else. Anywhere else. You say, "Thoughts and prayers are not enough!" Likewise, emotional grandstanding and demagoguery is not enough, either.

One last point on "common sense" gun laws and their implementation. Consider the incongruity of liberal attitudes towards guns. I'm sure you've all heard the horror stories of "zero tolerance" in the public schools, which are by and large the domain of liberals. A kid is expelled for biting a Pop Tart into the "shape of a gun" or drawing a picture of a gun. A kid put a green Army man on his ball cap to honor veterans, but because it carried a 3" plastic rifle, it violated the "zero tolerance" policy on guns. Zero means zero! Repercussions are swift! Off with his hat!

Contrast that with our attitude with people who bring actual guns onto a school campus. How many times do you suppose has a teenager walked away from a courtroom because "it was his first offense". Really? So we get one free murder each, like the Bill Clinton "one free grope" rule? Or we question whether or not to try a 16-17 year old gangbanger as an adult, because "He's just a child, better go easy on him!" If there ever were a place for zero tolerance, shouldn't it be for murder and violent assaults? Popular media reinforces the stereotype that first offenders, and those under eighteen, will skate on a first offense, or receive a much less stringent sentence. Where's the deterrence in that?

Listen to what Nikolas Cruz's public defender, Melisa McNeill, said about him:

“When your brain is not fully developed, you don’t know how to deal with these things. When you have the lack of impulse control that a 19 year old has, that effects the behavior you exhibit."

Got that? All you seventeen, eighteen, nineteen year olds: your brain is not fully developed, you lack impulse control and you don't know how to deal with these things! Next time you get pulled over by a police officer, tell him, "Officer, my brain is not yet fully developed and my lack of impulse control effects the behavior I exhibit." At which point, the officer will pat you on your head and send you home to Mommy...in no universe ever!

I'm thinking maybe we need a class action suit against the military. For years they drafted 18 year olds, with brains not fully developed, enlisted recruits as young as seventeen, with their parent's permission, and put a rifle* in the hands of all those poor lads who lacked impulse control and showed them which end the round came out!

"That’s the child I’m sitting across from...He’s sad. He’s mournful. He’s remorseful. He is fully aware of what is going on, and he’s just a broken human being.”

Not sure if any jury is going to buy this. A 19 year old "child" who is "fully aware of what is going on", even with his 'not yet fully developed brain' and 'lack of impulse control' is somehow not responsible for what millions of similarly functioning young adults have managed not to do for as long as anyone can remember?

If it's a question of not knowing right from wrong, ask yourself why he took his vest off and tried to exit unnoticed with all the other students? To avoid capture. Why would he try to avoid capture unless he knew what he did was wrong?

Before you join the stampede for new guns laws, because "we can't just do nothing", consider the consequences of electing and appointing District Attorneys, Judges, and Attorneys General and electing the politicians who appoint them, who do not enforce the laws they write, that are already on the books, such as "straw purchases".

And maybe before you start calling pro-gunners vile names and wishing for their painful deaths and the death of their children, consider that they probably value much of what you value, and want many of the same things for their children and their communities as you do, but simply disagree with you on the best way to accomplish it.


*Or a fighter jet. What could possibly go wrong?

Quote du jour

"I had used the firearm as an example to prove the legislation was not targeting ‘military-style assault weapons’ as the media, prime minister, and her cabinet repeated ad nauseum.”

-Dieuwe de Boer, on New Zealand law enforcement's warrant to seize his .22 lever action rifle

Mass Shooting in Philadelphia -Who's to Blame?

Hypocritical Philly Mayor says they need more gun control laws to help police. The same guy who danced when he learned that hs city could violate federal immigration laws? Who said he would abolish ICE?





The U.S. Attorney in Philly gave his opinion of current DA Larry Krasner:

"Red Flag" laws and enhanced or "universal" background checks would not have stopped this convicted felon from acquiring firearms. When you make your living doing illegal things, making one more of them "illegaler" is not a deterrent.

Enforce the laws on the books against strawman sales, eliminate most "diversionary" programs that keep felons out of jail and new felons from having that record that would make them ineligible to purchase a gun legally. Enforce the law and you'll have fewer law breakers.

Gun Background Checks: How the State Came To Decide Who Can and Cannot Buy a Firearm

Guest editorial from Ammo.com

Prior to 1968, most adults in the United States could purchase a firearm without state interference. Guns were available in local retail stores, as well as mail-order catalogs, and as long as you hadn’t been convicted of a felony and you had the funds, there weren’t any questions asked.

Things are different now. Depending on where in America you are and what type of gun you want to buy, there’s a good chance you’ll need to pass a NICS-mandated background check to complete your purchase.

Although many people hold a strong opinion for and against gun background checks, they’ve proven to be an integral part of the state's gun control apparatus – and they don’t appear to be leaving anytime soon.

Since background checks are such a requirement for today’s gun enthusiasts, it’s important for gun owners (and those who may someday be gun owners) to understand everything they can, including how the current system works and how it came to be.

The History of Gun Background Checks in the U.S.

The history of background checks for gun purchases reaches back to the first restrictions placed on individuals trying to purchase firearms. Here in the U.S., this occured after the Civil War, when several southern states adopted “Black Codes,” which replaced the prior slave codes and worked to suppress the freedoms of black Americans. Among other restrictions, the Black Codes forbade African-Americans from owning firearms.

The Federal Firearms Act of 1938 began restricting the sales of firearms, requiring those in the business of selling firearms to purchase a Federal Firearms License (FFL) and maintain a list of persons who purchased firearms, including their name and address. The Firearms Act of 1938 also listed convicted felons as the first prohibited persons – who are not allowed, by law, to own, purchase, or possess firearms.

And then something happened that would forever change American history. Six days before Thanksgiving, on November 22, 1963, President John F. Kennedy was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald using a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle purchased from a mail-order catalog. The Kennedy assassination led to the Gun Control Act of 1968, which was specifically intended to keep “firearms out of the hands of those not legally entitled to possess them because of age, criminal background, or incompetence.”

Through the Gun Control Act of 1968, the federal government placed restrictions on the sale of firearms across state lines and expanded the prohibited persons who were not allowed to purchase or possess firearms. Under the new law, gun purchases became illegal for those who were:

Convicted of a non-business-related felony
Found to be mentally incompetent
Users of illegal substances

To determine this information, those who wished to purchase a firearm from an FFL had to complete a questionnaire of yes/no questions such as “Are you a convicted felon?” and “Are you a fugitive from justice?” Although these questions needed to be answered, they did not require verification from the gun seller.

In 1972, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) was formed as a way to help control the illegal sales and use of firearms.

In March of 1981, the assassination attempt of President Ronald Reagan led to further gun legislation with the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, which amended the Gun Control Act of 1968 to now require background checks for the purchase of firearms from a retailer. The Brady Act, as it’s known today, also led to the development of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which launched in 1998, and is the current law on background checks for gun purchases in the U.S.

Exploiting Dead Cops for Political Gain Ought to be a Crime...

...so says Ruben Navarrett Jr. in my local dead tree paper yesterday morning. My first instinct was to move it right along to the recycling bin where it would do the most good. But since this goes well beyond the Left's typical hypocrisy, I thought it should have a reply. Mr. Navarett states:

It is grotesque that anyone would ever seize on the killing of a police officer for political purposes. Alas, the practice is bipartisan.

"Grotesque" Noted.

On the right, when the alleged assailant is an illegal immigrant, we often see a cheap and shrill attempt to turn the grief of families and communities over a fallen guardian into outrage over illegal immigration and "open borders."

A "cheap and shrill attempt to turn the grief of families and communities... into outrage" Got it.

You see, for me, the concept of dead policemen is personal and painful. It's not just another issue du jour to be played with. Still, mercenary politicians use it as a chew toy. May they choke on it.

May I suggest that Mr. Navarrett either didn't go far enough, didn't think it through or couldn't see past his own biases?

Maybe the outrage should be when people seize on any killing for political purposes? Recently, on the border, two children died because of medical problems related to their long trek across Mexico. How many on the Left immediately made a "cheap and shrill attempt" to turn the grief of families and communities over these children into outrage over Trump's immigration and borders policies, or against ICE and the Border Patrol?

After Sandy Hook, the "ghouls of gun control" seized on the killing of children for political purposes, proposing numerous gun control methods, none of which would have prevented the shootings. Or at Parkland, where laws already on the books, had they been properly enforced, would have taken the shooter off the street, long before the fateful shooting. "Grotesque", as Mr. Navarrett would say.

In Ferguson, Missouri, there were those who seized on the killing by a police officer for political purposes, giving birth to the bogus "Hands up, don't shoot" movement.

The practice is bipartisan, but alas, it seems to primarily find its home on the Left. If Mr. Navarrett wants to criminalize or at best stigmatize the killing of a police officer for political purposes, may I suggest that he expand his horizons to include the deaths of those shot by the police until such time as they can be thoroughly investigated? The deaths of illegal immigrants who tragically may be sick or dying before they ever enter the country is also not "another issue du jour to be played with", not a "chew toy".

Time for Mr. Navarrett to step up and not be choked by his own chew toys of deaths that he approves of politicizing, not just the ones he disapproves.

Now, it's ready for the recycling!

Quote du jour

Recently, London's murder rate caught up with New York City's. Which is weird, because there shouldn't be any murders in either city. After all, both NYC and the UK have very strict gun laws. As we've learned from our moral, ethical, and intellectual betters on the left, banning guns leads to fewer gun crimes.

-Jim Treacher

Logic is not David Hogg's Long Suit

It's been just over 2 months. We have walked out of school and now, on 4/20, we walk out everywhere. No matter where you are - if it's home, school, or work - walk out. Gun violence can happen anywhere at anytime.

— David Hogg (@davidhogg111) April 15, 2018

"Gun violence can happen anywhere at anytime." As Artie Johnson might have said, "Verrrrry interesting!" Wasn't his whole shtick, his and the Cuban-dictator-loving teeny boppers he hung out with, that "We don't feel safe in schools anymore!" ? "We're afraid to go back to class until this 'gun violence' threat is addressed!" And now, young Hogg is telling us that he is every bit as safe in class, on those rare occasions he actually attends, as he is in his bedroom playing video games. Badly.

More accurately, he is at no higher risk in class than he is everywhere else. Statistically (I know, David! Math is hard!) at lower risk than he would be anywhere else. School shootings are rare. Unlike the poor tormented lad David's friends bullied, most people, even hardened criminals, are averse to shooting children.

The anti-gunners are fond of quoting national statistic on 'gun violence', yet most of it takes place in large cities under Democrat leadership. Most of them with stringent gun control laws. Criminals do not faithfully obey the law. One of the things that makes even a 'routine' traffic stop so potentially dangerous, is that the criminal illegally carrying an illegal gun is more likely to ignore laws about current registration and functional taillights, too. The police officer who pulled you over for an outdated tag has no idea how many laws you've already broken or are prepared to break.

Since the illustrious Mr. Hogg has admitted that he is no less safe in school as he is "anywhere" else, I propose he should go back to class. Once he graduates, he should find a community college, where he will undoubtedly be placed in a 'bonehead' English course. This is not a cheap shot. Colleges have known for years that high schools are doing a micturating poor job of teaching English that will serve them in a college level educational environment. Mr. Hogg is no exception.

After a year or two of junior college, he may find himself better equipped to successfully apply to an institute of higher learning. Then, maybe he might take a course in logic.

Risk Assessment and the Modern Liberal

Risk assessment is in the news. Most of it phony. Let me give you an example: Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, opened in 1990. In the last 28 years, approximately 84,000 students have passed through its halls. Fourteen didn't make it. For all you statisticians out there, that's .0001666 of the entire student body. If you averaged in all of the rest of the schools in Miami-Dade, Florida or the entire South, that number would decrease. If you averaged in every school in the United States, Columbine and Sandy Hook included, the numbers would still go down. Way down.

Now before you decry me as being cold and heartless, let me say that I deplore each and every one of those shootings. Any reasonable thing that can be done to prevent such incidents in the future should be implemented. (And by "reasonable" I intend to remain the final arbiter on that. Wrapping every student in bubble wrap and only feeding them through a tube is too extreme. Unless I can buy a lot of stock in bubble wrap companies.)

Where was I? Oh, yes. Risk factors. I have noticed that a number of students (perhaps prompted) have publicly stated and carried signs that stated that they "No longer feel safe in their schools". I find that hard to believe, unless some adult was telling them that this was the case. Have seventeen people ever died in a school bus crash? Have you ever heard a child say, "I no longer feel safe in a school bus"? Fifty thousand people die in car crashes every year. When was the last time you heard a child say, "I no longer feel safe in an automobile"? I'm not sure what the statistics are for lightning strikes or falling space debris, but have you heard cries of "I no longer feel safe going outside"?

Whoever is promoting this fearmongering among children should cut it out. Now. Teens are in far more danger of being killed texting while driving, but even though it is illegal, it is a greater threat. Will children boycott getting drivers licenses out of fear, overhyped or not? I don't think so.

Liberals need the emotional tug on the heartstrings of little children quaking in their shoes, fearful of their lives if they return to their classrooms. Thus, it is being artificially induced and I wish they would cut it out. You'll have to excuse me now. I have to buy some "falling space debris insurance".

It's a thing!

I'm All For "Common Sense" Gun Control

...now if someone could just codify "common sense"!

People are very loosely and very passionate crying that we must pass "common sense" gun laws. They want them now! Anything less and you have "blood on your hands". Fine. Let's start with the aspect that has absolutely nothing with caliber, barrel length, barrel shrouds, pistol grips or bayonet mounts. Let's talk about...age.

The state of Florida recently raised the age of buying certain long guns to twenty-one, from eighteen. What does this mean? I remember back in the sixties when you could be drafted into the army at age eighteen, but couldn't vote until you were twenty-one. How is that "common sense"? So the voting age was lowered to eighteen. Common sense, right?

Maybe it's time to have a discussion on when someone becomes an adult? We want responsible adults voting, owning firearms, drinking responsibly, defending our country...shouldn't all those ages be the same? Obamacare in its infinite wisdom, allows children as old as twenty-three to stay on their parent's policy. Are twenty-three year olds not responsible adults?

What about the age for sexual consent? If the age at which someone becomes responsible enough to drink, vote and own a gun, wouldn't "common sense" say that that's the age when a child can both sign contracts and consent to sexual relations? You have to be eighteen to legally sign a binding contract. In the Netherlands and Great Britain, statutory rape takes place before twelve and thirteen respectively, but there are special circumstances for children above that age but under sixteen.

In the US, it varies by state between sixteen and eighteen. Should we raise that to twenty-one? Twenty-three? How is a sixteen year old mature enough to make possibly life changing decisions regarding their sexuality and procreation, but too immature to own certain types of firearms?

Michael Moore, who never met a doughnut he didn't like, recently came out in favor of lowering the voting age to sixteen. Really? Where's the "common sense" in that? You can get pregnant and start a family at sixteen, but you can't sign a contract to buy your own car or rent your own apartment, and even if you did, you couldn't have a gun in your house to protect your family, because it's against the law!

Winston Churchill is credited with saying, "If a man is not a liberal when he is eighteen, he has no heart. If he's not a conservative when he's thirty, he has no brain." Young people, with less experience in the real world, tend to be more liberal. They haven't yet discovered that the world is not the way they wish it was. A younger voting demographic would benefit the more liberal party, the Democrats. Certainly that would make filmmaker Moore happy as a pig in slop, to have a slew of new, idealistic voters, easily persuaded to embrace liberal tenets. But is that "common sense"?

There you have it, fellow babies, as Johnny Fever might say. What is the "common sense" age when a person becomes mature enough to have sex, drive a car, sign a mortgage, drink, vote or own a firearm? Is it "common sense" to expect them all to be the same? Shall we follow the example of Obamacare and require children to be twenty-three before engaging in these activities? We didn't even get into what age constitutes adulthood when a person is tried in a court of law. Some criminals are tried as adults when they are seventeen, if the crime is particularly heinous. Is there a "one size fits all" age for all of these activities? If not, how is this "common sense"? If so, are you sure that it's common sense?

Keeping firearms out of the hands of the immature, mentally ill and criminals is a goal everyone can endorse. So, let's set the age of maturity for all these events. Pick an age. Show your work. Gain a consensus in the electorate and we're home free!

Good luck with that!

14:59...and 15:00!

Jim Carrey Isn't a Hypocrite! Just ask Him!!

Students Gone Wild Over Gun Control

Saw this over at Adrienne's place which prompted me to comment.


In that Stockton protest, the two high schools mentioned, Stagg and Lincoln, are in the "better" part of town. The Cleveland school shooting they referred to, happened 29 years ago, where a single gunman, with many previous run ins with the law, including a psych hold a few days earlier, killed five students, wounded 32 and then killed himself. He had also recently passed a 15 day background check for a pistol that he picked up, but did not use.

A Powerful Argument for Unarmed Guards...

...at your local bank.


I live in California. When the weather turns nice, a young man's fancy turns to... bank robbing. We get a lot of bank robbers in California. Some years back, I was pulling into a bank parking lot and saw the guard there in the lot instead of the lobby. And I noticed he was unarmed.

Which, at first struck me a little strange. For one, it ran contrary to all the old TV shows and movies depicting bank robberies, where there was at least one armed guard in every bank. So, if the presence of an armed guard might deter just one robbery, why aren't the banks doing it? If you think about it from a liability standpoint, the bank with an unarmed guard doesn't have to worry about whether or not their guard will accidentally wound or kill someone during a robbery, or whether the presence of an armed guard might cause violence to escalate, causing some of the same liability problems of injured or dead customers and bystanders.

Which seems, on the surface, to coincide with some of the arguments that the pro-gun control crowd put forth: "Arming the teachers could be dangerous to themselves or the students." But, does an unarmed guard serve the same purpose in a school as in a bank?

In a bank robbery, the objective is not to hurt anyone, but to steal as much money as possible, and to escape without being caught and incarcerated. To that end, an unarmed guard in the parking lot could spot suspicious cars or suspicious activity and provide an eyewitness who could testify against the robbers at trial, ruining their chances of living happily ever after on their ill gotten gains. The unarmed man in the parking lot deters the robbers by being someone who could thwart their long term plans.

Apply this same logic to a mass shooting. The deterrence doesn't lie in thwarting the shooter's long term plans, because the shooter has no long term plans. The temperament of the shooter is often suicidal. He doesn't fear being identified for prosecution because he is not planning on being alive that long. An unarmed observer therefore, is not a deterrent. Thomas Sowell has pointed out that in nearly every mass shooting, the event that brings it to an end is when more men with more guns show up, at which point the shooter commits suicide, is shot by someone else or is taken into custody.

The deterrence in arming teachers is not in an open display of strength, but in the uncertainty of where the threat may come from. During the Cold War, conventional wisdom was that if the USSR did not know where all of our nukes and missiles were, that they might not be able to take them out in a first strike and thus not survive American retaliation. Uncertainty is a deterrent.

In Florida some years back, there was a rash of armed robberies of tourists coming from the airports.  Rental cars were easily identifiable, so it was likely that an airport rental car would have someone flush with vacation cash and unlikely to be carrying a gun, since they just got off a plane, therefore it was a very low risk venture for criminals. The law was changed to make rentals less distinctive and such robberies decreased dramatically. You see, it was harder for the crooks to tell if the car had a rich tourist, or a Floridian with a gun in the glovebox in it. The uncertainty made them decide the risk was too high.

Some copycats of Columbine and other shootings are obsessed with the "body count", trying to exceed the infamy with higher numbers. However, if they are not aware of who on campus might be carrying or have access to a gun, the uncertainty that they might be stopped before firing a shot, or achieving the twisted notion of whatever glory awaited them might give them pause in their planning. Uncertainty is a deterrent.

And if a suicidal teen is undeterred, better to have a gun in the hands of a teacher, in the line of fire, than behind a car, outside in the parking lot.



Editor's Note: I wrote this about a year ago, saw something shiny, and never finished it or posted it. The recent school shooting in Florida and its aftermath convinced me to let what I had written see the light of day. BTW, I added that last part.

A Primer on "Common Sense" Gun Laws

First, let me say that I share in the loss and mourn with those who lost loved ones in that terrible Florida school shooting. Some people want to take advantage of those raw emotions to see if they can obtain some political advantage in what really ought to be a time of mourning. But I want you to fully understand that what the anti-gunners mean by "common sense" gun laws is not necessarily what the rest of us call "common sense". The phrase itself, "Common sense gun laws", polls well. I mean, it's obvious, isn't it? Who in their right mind could object to "common sense"? Poll any number of people if you think we should have "common sense gun laws" and you will get a majority, maybe even unanimity!

The gun grabbers then try to use that superficial verbal agreement, since nearly everyone agrees we should have common sense guns laws, then, you should have no problem accepting the ones they're proposing, regardless of how ineffectual they might be, whether or not they solve the problem, and whether or not there are unintended consequences to Constitutional rights, public safety or both, so long as we label them "common sense". There's the bait and switch.

A Democrat, John Dingell, of Michigan said in 1965,

"We now have on the lawbooks of this nation over 20,000 laws governing the sale, distribution and use of firearms.”

I guess it's pretty safe to assume we've added some since then. Yet, for all the "common sense" gun laws already on the books, the people whose ultimate goal is the complete elimination of privately owned firearms (the honest ones will tell you that. Stop laughing!), the anti-gunners want ever increasing restrictions on firearms, the quantity, the quality, the ease of ownership, the cost of ownership, until they have made it too prohibitively expensive or onerous to obtain, and erode the Second Amendment rights of honest, law abiding Americans to keep and bear arms. At least you common ones! We with political clout and wealth will still require our bodyguards to be fully armed!

"But, but..."you might say, "we still have terrible school shootings. We have to do something!!" Aye, and we can. But before we trip down the primrose path of passing new laws, pause a moment and consider what effect new laws will have if they are enforced exactly the same way as the 20,000 plus we already have?

Consider straw purchases, that is to say, buying a gun for someone else, who could not pass a background check.  That is currently against the law. "Well then, that's settled!" You would think so, wouldn't you? But, "U.S. Attorney B. Todd Jones told a Congressional panel in 2013 that out of 48,321 cases involving straw buyers, the Justice Department prosecuted only 44".
If you're wondering how that works out to a percentage it's: 0.0009105 ( 0.01 = 1 percent).

And just how harsh is the punishment for those prosecuted? To quote Jim Geraghty,

"Last year, Simone Mousheh purchased four weapons for $600 each and sold two to a man with Chicago gang ties. She was sentenced to 12 months probation, 15 days in the Cook County sheriff’s work alternative program and ordered to pay $679 in fines."

In other words, a "slap on the wrist". California's "common sense" gun laws did not stop the San Bernadino shooters, (14 killed, 22 seriously  wounded), from getting their long guns via a straw purchase, nor did they prevent them from illegal modifications under the state's assault weapons ban.

Let's recap: Under state and federal "common sense gun laws", you can't buy guns for someone else and lie about it, you can't legally modify the guns you bought illegally to operate the way they did, oh, and by the way, it's illegal to shoot people. Noise ordinance or some such.

California has, in addition to their common sense gun laws, some of the most restrictive laws in the nation. Likewise, Chicago, where just last year, 3,561 people were shot, 650 killed. Which, granted, was fewer than 2016, where they had 771 murders. Just checking my memory, but have you heard anyone screeching that Mayor Rahm Emanuel had "blood on his hands"? Any screams of "We have to do something?" Funny how only white suburban shootings seem to rouse the anti-gunners from their slumber! According to CBS News, 27 people were shot in Chicago the very first day of the year.

Shrieks of outrage? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller??

No, because Chicago already has the strictest gun control laws in the nation. Making a fuss there would be counterproductive to passing new laws, which would be, for the most part, those very same laws for the rest of the country. Show me the law working in Chicago and I'll consider implementing it somewhere else. Anywhere else. You say, "Thoughts and prayers are not enough!" Likewise, emotional grandstanding and demagoguery is not enough, either.

One last point on "common sense" gun laws and their implementation. Consider the incongruity of liberal attitudes towards guns. I'm sure you've all heard the horror stories of "zero tolerance" in the public schools, which are by and large the domain of liberals. A kid is expelled for biting a Pop Tart into the "shape of a gun" or drawing a picture of a gun. A kid put a green Army man on his ball cap to honor veterans, but because it carried a 3" plastic rifle, it violated the "zero tolerance" policy on guns. Zero means zero! Repercussions are swift! Off with his hat!

Contrast that with our attitude with people who bring actual guns onto a school campus. How many times do you suppose has a teenager walked away from a courtroom because "it was his first offense". Really? So we get one free murder each, like the Bill Clinton "one free grope" rule? Or we question whether or not to try a 16-17 year old gangbanger as an adult, because "He's just a child, better go easy on him!" If there ever were a place for zero tolerance, shouldn't it be for murder and violent assaults? Popular media reinforces the stereotype that first offenders, and those under eighteen, will skate on a first offense, or receive a much less stringent sentence. Where's the deterrence in that?

Listen to what Nikolas Cruz's public defender, Melisa McNeill, said about him:

“When your brain is not fully developed, you don’t know how to deal with these things. When you have the lack of impulse control that a 19 year old has, that effects the behavior you exhibit."

Got that? All you seventeen, eighteen, nineteen year olds: your brain is not fully developed, you lack impulse control and you don't know how to deal with these things! Next time you get pulled over by a police officer, tell him, "Officer, my brain is not yet fully developed and my lack of impulse control effects the behavior I exhibit." At which point, the officer will pat you on your head and send you home to Mommy...in no universe ever!

I'm thinking maybe we need a class action suit against the military. For years they drafted 18 year olds, with brains not fully developed, enlisted recruits as young as seventeen, with their parent's permission, and put a rifle* in the hands of all those poor lads who lacked impulse control and showed them which end the round came out!

"That’s the child I’m sitting across from...He’s sad. He’s mournful. He’s remorseful. He is fully aware of what is going on, and he’s just a broken human being.”

Not sure if any jury is going to buy this. A 19 year old "child" who is "fully aware of what is going on", even with his 'not yet fully developed brain' and 'lack of impulse control' is somehow not responsible for what millions of similarly functioning young adults have managed not to do for as long as anyone can remember?

If it's a question of not knowing right from wrong, ask yourself why he took his vest off and tried to exit unnoticed with all the other students? To avoid capture. Why would he try to avoid capture unless he knew what he did was wrong?

Before you join the stampede for new guns laws, because "we can't just do nothing", consider the consequences of electing and appointing District Attorneys, Judges, and Attorneys General and electing the politicians who appoint them, who do not enforce the laws they write, that are already on the books, such as "straw purchases".

And maybe before you start calling pro-gunners vile names and wishing for their painful deaths and the death of their children, consider that they probably value much of what you value, and want many of the same things for their children and their communities as you do, but simply disagree with you on the best way to accomplish it.


*Or a fighter jet. What could possibly go wrong?

Michael Bloomberg: The Most Trusted Name in Gun Control Statistics

Bloomberg's "Everytown" claims there have been 18 "school shootings" so far in 2018. Among them:

* a man committed suicide in the parking lot of a school closed for sever months: no students around, no teachers.

* Someone shot a gun several times in a school parking lot at 8 PM when there were...no students around, no teachers either.

* Someone shot a BB gun at a school bus window...no students present, no teachers either.

* One was the accidental discharge of a school police officer...no one injured.

Are you starting to see a pattern here? I understand that in 13 of these 18 school shootings, there were no physical injuries whatsoever to anyone involved. Now, you and I may agree that one school shooting s too many. But, liberal liars like Mike Bloomberg are not doing any favors to a rational discussion of what needs to be done. On the other hand, irrational emotion is vital to their cause of eliminating the private ownership of firearms.

A Common Sense Solution to Illegal Guns

Liberals have been clamoring for some time to have "common sense" gun laws enacted. That sounds reasonable. Then, they proceed to regale us with the need for laws that are already on the books, or impractical ideas that would never work. Never fear! I have a solution.

It's not a new law per se, but something that every liberal who is serious about solving the problem can do. It might cost a few bucks up front, but, as you're always telling us, "If it saves just one life it'll be worth it", so I expect close to 100% participation. (Stop laughing!)

Now to be honest, I am basing this solution on what hundreds of liberals have told us about the ease of buying a gun. We've been told that it's literally easier to buy a gun than to buy a book. Teen Vogue recently regurgitated liberal talking points reminded us that it's:

* Easier to buy a gun than get a driver's license
(which is a neat trick, since you need to obtain a driver's license to buy a gun, so technically you have to do MORE to buy a gun!)

* Easier to buy a gun than to adopt a pet

* Easier to buy a gun than to get married

* Easier to buy a gun than to get an abortion, and

* Easier to buy a gun than to get an internship or a full time job.

At first, I thought I would challenge liberals to attempt to purchase a legal handgun, to see just how much more difficult it is than they imagine. But then, I thought, what is the liberal going to do with that gun? They don't want it, don't know how to use it or properly store it. In their hands, it could become a hazard. But what if every liberal committed to the elimination of gun violence were to purchase a gun illegally?

Hear me out, this is good! Liberals tell us it is easier to buy an illegal gun than to buy a book, so, why don't they just prove to all us hard-headed, gun-toting conservatives just how easy it is? Here's what you do...go down to wherever you think it is that illegal guns are sold...street corners, back alleys, gun shows...wherever! Take cash. Most criminals probably aren't set up to take MasterCard or Visa. Purchase the gun for cash. You can haggle a little, but remember..."if it saves just one life it''ll be worth it". So don't be cheap.

Next, you take the gun directly to the nearest police station. They can dispose of it for you and also check to see if it's been used in any crimes. And then, this is the good part, you tell the police exactly where you bought the gun and give a description of the person who sold it to you. If possible, try to drop the gun into a bag and maybe it will have some usable fingerprints for the police. Take video of the exchange if you can do it surreptitiously. It may not hold up in court for putting this guy away, but should go a long way in mitigating any charges towards you for purchasing an illegal firearm.

It's a veritable threefer! You have irrefutable proof of just how easy it is to buy a gun, shutting the mouths of all those pro-gun types. You have taken an illegal firearm off the street AND taken an illegal gun dealer off the street as well!  What more could you ask for? If it's that easy to buy a gun, it's just common sense, right? If liberals from coast to coast take millions of illegal guns off the street and likewise thousands of illegal gun dealers, everybody wins! Right?

So, what'll it be liberals? Up to the challenge? Beuller? Bueller??

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.