Calling a stupid idea "Common Sense", doesn't make it un-stupid.
So, we've got a small-but growing problem in this country: The dreaded Zika virus. I have some ideas. Been doing some research, and looking around, and found nifty stuff on the Internet. Here's my plan:
- Zika is a blood-borne pathogen, so we can use the fleam and bleeding bowl, or leeches, to bleed the patient. This will bring their Four Bodily Humours (Blood, Phlegm, Choler, and Melancholy) back into balance.
- It's accompanied by fever, and comes from the lands of South America. We'll use a decoction of White Willow Bark, and Peruvian or Jesuit's Bark (aka aspirin and quinine) to reduce the fever, using the associative properties of the latter (South American bark for South American disease) to reduce the disease.
- As the mentioned decoction is in and taste, and upsets folk's stomachs, we'll use the pewter Clyster Syringe, to administer it Per Fundamentum.
- Because Zika is also transmitted by sexual contact, we will complete the treatment by using the Urethral Syringe, to instill Tincture of Mercury Salts into the appropriate orifice, as we would with French Pox.
Now, suppose I hear you, and I double down. I castigate you, call you wanna-be bio-terrorists, and yell that you are a bunch of meanie poopy-pants, because you oppose my Common Sense Virus Safety Measures!
Those who know me, can guess where I'm going with this. Yep -- I got one too many accusation of "You fanatics are paranoid, we're not taking your guns, we just want some Common Sense Gun Safety Measures(tm)." First off, let's get one piece of bullshit off the table: These people are not "gun safety advocates". They're pushing gun CONTROL. There's a classic cartoon from my childhood out there:
Yep. I'm not buying the spinach, just because the antis call it broccoli. Now, let's look at the "common-sense" thing. Calling a bad, or stupid, idea "common-sense", does not MAKE it common sense. It's the equivalent of polishing a turd. Anyone, old enough to have graduated potty training, will instantly recognize the smell. Let's dissect some proposals, and see what they smell like, inside.
"We will expand background checks and close dangerous loopholes in our current laws..."
Note that the antis will frequenly claim that there are "No background checks at gun shows", or that you can buy a gun off the Internet with no background check. There is no difference between "at a gun show", and "not at a gun show".
If a Federal Firearm Licensee (aka licensed gun dealer) sells a gun, he does a background check. Period. Store front, gun show, selling to a buddy at a kitchen table, that ATF Form 4473 will get filled out, and background checked via the National Instant Check System (NICS). Incidentally, people will occasionally ask, "What about UNlicensed dealers?" There is no such thing. There are licensed dealers, and criminals. If the BATFE determines that you are "in the business" of buying and selling guns, you either have an FFL, or you're subject to a vacation in Club Fed.
On the other side of the coin, there are private sales. A private seller CANNOT, by law, perform a NICS check. Access to NICS is restricted to FFLs, and Law Enforcement. Let's say Grandpa dies, and leaves you a truckload of guns. You don't need or want all of them. You get a table at a gun show, and sell them off. You're not a dealer, and don't need an FFL, because you're not "in the business". Since you're not an FFL, you can't get access to NICS.
Internet sales? Lemme tell ya about Internet sales: The only way that you will get a gun off the Internet, is (a) order the gun, (b) have it shipped to an FFL of your choice, (c) fill out a 4473. Anything else, you and the seller are up for a trip to Club Fed.
"But we just want Universal Background Checks! How can you object to background checks?" Let's see... Suppose I see something really cool on the 'Net. Can't find it locally, or the guy at Gunbroker wants $100 less than the nearest dealer that has one. My favorite FFL down the road charges $35. I'm good with paying that, because I want that gun at that price.
Now, suppose I want to sell my CETME to my neighbor, or buy his Dragunov. We both have Concealed Handgun Licenses, ergo clean backgrounds. Why the HELL should we be forced to run the purchase through an FFL, fill out the paperwork, and cough up the bucks? Then, you have the Washington State law, which might as well have been deliberately designed to create accidental felons. I'm out hunting with my neighbor. I hand him my gun so I can climb a fence. Misdemeanor. He hands it back. Felony. If you HAVE to have "Universal Background Checks(tm)", here's something I wrote up, and that I'd support: http://www.3fgburner.net/ubcproposal.pdf Basically, free, instant, and guarantees gun owner anonymity.
"We will hold irresponsible dealers and manufacturers accountable..."
This is codespeak for "We want to repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA)". Antis will claim that the PLCAA grants blanket immunity to firearm manufacturers and dealers, for everything from gross negligence, to defective products. Umm, NO. The Act arose from a set of frivolous lawsuits brought by the gun-ban lobby in the late 1990s, trying to lay blame on manufacturers for criminal misuse of their products. This is approximately equivalent to suing General Motors because a drunk driver plowed a Chevy truck into a crowd and killed a bunch of people. The suits were brought because the antis couldn't get their agenda through Congress, so they figured they'd get their way by misusing the courts.
"We will keep weapons of war -- such as assault weapons -- off our streets..."
In other words, try to reinstate the 1994-2004 ban on "assault weapons". Science fiction author Michael Z Williamson, who also happens to be a firearms expert, wrote an excellent piece on this, back in Dec 2012. Go read that, and get back to me.
The "Assault Weapon" issue is, in essence, a SCAM. The antis were unable to get traction in the 1980s for a handgun ban. Unfortunately, some idiot marketing weenie working for a gun manufacturer, coined the "AW" phrase as an advertising gimmick. The antis picked it up and turned it into a propaganda phrase. The object of the ban, was simply to get a ban of something in place, to get Americans used to the idea of banning guns. Josh Sugarmann, of the Violence Policy Center, outlines the con job, here (No, that link is not to a "right-wing think tank". It's to VPC's website). He says, "The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons-anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun-can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. "
Here's a bit of a pictorial demonstration, click to enlarge:
In other words, the difference between an "assault weapon" and any other detachable-magazine semi-automatic, is cosmetic.
"We will ensure guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists, domestic abusers, other violent criminals, and those with severe mental health issues."
Let's see... The current fad is to add those on the Terror Watch List, and the No Fly list, to NICS as prohibited persons. The problem is, that those lists are secret, arbitrary, and have zero due process for getting off of them, much less even knowing that you're ON them. For example, this veteran got screwed over -- took several years, and a few MILLION dollars' worth of pro-bono legal work from the ACLU to get off the list. And he still has no idea how he got ON it. Tell ya what -- you guarantee me that the lists are 100% free of innocent people, and we'll talk.
"Severe mental health issues" -- Like veterans, or Social Security beneficiaries, who have a fiduciary assistant to handle their benefit checks. Congress has since passed a bill to require that these people have to actually, you know, be ADJUDICATED MENTALLY INCOMPETENT, by a JUDGE, before losing their rights.
"Common Sense Gun Safety", my ass.
One last note on the Homeland Security thing, courtesy of Scott Bieser:
[DW Original]