Reinke Faces Life

FROM PLAIN OLD FACEBOOK

Josh LawlerMarch 2 at 3:13pm · 

“You’re not going to be able to fight against the government with your AR-15 anyway. They have helicopters and tanks. The 2nd amendment was written when everyone had muskets.”

Let me first kill this argument the easy way, before I get into the history, social commentary, and whatnot. The simple version is that you ain’t gonna find an infantryman, tanker, or pilot willing to open fire on his countrymen. And the cops outside of NY, NJ, and CA ain’t gonna be too keen on jackbooting, either. So good luck controlling an armed populace with a few thousand feds. Moreover, people who make this argument obviously don’t understand guerilla tactics/military strategy. Vietnam, Afghanistan (both against the USSR and US later), and Iraq are perfect examples of why superior firepower is not the deciding factor in a modern war.

“This isn’t a dystopian novel. The government’s not going to start rounding dissenters up just ’cause they outlawed ‘assault rifles’.”

Now then, on to history. Whenever you bring up how dangerous it is to set a precedent of disarming the populace, pro-gun control folks roll their eyes and go, “It’s the 21st century. Do you really think the government’s out to get you? Everything is broadcast worldwide now. Look at these other countries without guns. You’re paranoid.” Let’s examine this with some examples, some of which I’ve discussed prior.

It was just during the Clinton administration that the Serb death squads rounded up Bosnians and machine gunned them into open graves. The Serbs and Croats took turns raping women and children in public to screams so horrifying that one survivor wrote a book about the sound basically driving her to insanity.

In the 70s, Iranian women were wearing skirts, going to public universities, driving cars, and drinking wine. I’m sure plenty of people didn’t think it was realistic that Khomeni and the revolution would turn that nation into a giant human rights violation. I’m sure lots of people said, “Executions in the street? Rape parties? Take off the tinfoil hat, it’s the 70s, man!”

Plenty of Germans rightfully felt like they got hosed after WWI with the Treaty of Versailles. The Nazi party seeked to right those wrongs economically, and restore Germany’s industrial prominence and rights to self-defense. Plenty of Germans in the 30s would’ve surely looked at you like a madman if you’d said the chancellor of the party was going to go on to pull off a 6 million person genocide.

Actually, why am I moving backwards in time? Let’s focus on the now. Let’s keep it topical and relevant to the moment. In the Twitter and livestreaming era, North Korea is still locking people in prison cells too short for them to stand up in, and too narrow for them to lay out in. NBA star Enes Kanter can never see his family again, following Erdogan’s call for his life imprisonment back in Turkey for daring to speak out against him. There is currently an ethnic cleansing occurring in Mynamar – people are being tortured and murdered while you read this sipping your coffee. There are buildings being reduced to rubble over the buried bones of innocent victims in Yemen this very minute.

Despite this, gun control proponents are still incredulous of the idea that a militia formed independent of the government, meant to protect the citizenry is viable. Despite these atrocities that make my spine chill, and my stomach cramp just reading about them, gun control proponents still cannot believe that I’m not willing to submit to the government just because of the disgusting actions of a few maniacs.

I am not without empathy. I do care deeply about massacres like the ones in Parkland, Las Vegas, Orlando, Sandy Hook, and Aurora. But no, I will not surrender to subservience because of those attacks. No government has ever existed in history without attacking its people at some point, and I refuse to be complicit or complacent in allowing it to happen again.

I’ll leave you with a question for the pro gun control side: why is it that the same government that you mistrust and want to restrict for things like racial profiling and corruption can now be trusted to not take advantage of you when you become less capable to fight back if necessary?

# – # – #

As I posted before:

A picture is worth a thousand words!

# – # – # – # – #

https://bearingarms.com/tom-k/2018/02/28/anti-gunners-think-bullets-rifles-fast-countered-handguns/

Anti-Gunners Think Bullets From Rifles Too Fast To Be Countered With Handguns
Posted at 4:00 pm on February 28, 2018 by Tom Knighton

*** begin quote ***

By now, we know that many of the people who will pontificate on matters of firearms tend to be clueless on actual firearms. They think they know all they need to know, so they opine on the topic and think people should just agree with them because they’re oh-so-very-smart.

However, these oh-so-very-smart people are usually kind of dumb. Or, at the very least, they say some really dumb stuff.

The latest example comes from the current gun debate, where many of us–myself included–are arguing that armed teachers could well counter mass shootings.

It seems that some think handguns simply aren’t enough to counter rifle-wielding madmen.

Every now and again I’m rendered speechless by the lengths the left will go to in order to scare people into compliance when it comes to their ideas about guns.

MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell took the cake when he suggested that anyone wielding a handgun is no match for someone with a rifle because the bullet from rifle travels faster.

*** end quote ***

Argh!

How stupid can you be? But you don’t know you’re being “dumb”, but you should be able to know that you don’t know a lot of stuff. No slam on anyone. No one could possible know everything, or even everything about one thing.

But when you’re a “leader in media” with a big megaphone, you have an obligation to be informed. With experts at their beck and call, why not let someone, who’s an expert on the topic, give their opinion.

It’s dogma that a mass shooter can be rushed when reloading. It’s not hard to envision that a “victim”, with a concealed carry weapon, can use that interval to put a few holes in mass shooter. Unless the mass shooter has trained reloading, there is a good chance it’ll take a few extra seconds and he may jam the weapon.

# – # – # – # – #

# – # – # – # – #

https://patch.com/new-jersey/southbrunswick/s/gd1h7/nj-gov-phil-murphy-announces-multi-state-crackdown-on-guns

NJ Gov. Phil Murphy Announces Multi-State Crackdown On Guns
“Until Congress and the president produce action on gun violence, we must do our best to keep our states safe,” Murphy announced on Thursday
By Tom Davis, Patch Staff | Feb 22, 2018 10:11 am ET | Updated Feb 22, 2018 11:07 am ET

*** begin quote ***

Additionally, participating states will share information about individuals who are prohibited from purchasing or possessing a firearm within each state. The current lack of information-sharing between the four states has prevented state law enforcement agencies from knowing if an individual has attempted to purchase or permit a weapon in a neighboring state, according to Murphy.

*** end quote ***

Correct me if I am wrong, but if a disqualified person even attempts to buy a weapon, they are subject to arrest.

If the state Gooferments would just do their job, then there would be no need for “information sharing”.

I know Virginia had a very aggressive cooperative effort between gun dealers and the State Police having personally witnessed two arrests for attempted purchases by DQed individuals while I was at the gun range. The dealer’s employee said that they had cooperated with the State Police on numerous occasions. All that was required was that the Federal Instacheck system be operational; he didn’t have a high opinion on it’s reliability. That dealer had a policy of not making delivery of a gun if the system was down. If fact, when it was up, he called folks to come in and pick up their orders. I also say them refuse to sell a gun to individuals on numerous times for various reasons but mostly on “qualification” — one that I overheard was the individual tell the sales guy that the buyer had never held a gun before, the sales guy called the owner over,  and the dealership owner insisted he take a free NRA class before he would sell him a gun. I was very impressed with their policy and diligence. The disappointed owner left. Owner said to the clerk: “Accident waiting to happen but not on my conscience.”

FWIW.

I’ve stopped advocating for gun rights with folks who don’t know the issues. All I do now is share the meme:

# – # – # – # – #

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/gun-control-republicans-consider-grvo/

POLITICS & POLICY
A Gun-Control Measure Conservatives Should Consider
By DAVID FRENCH
February 16, 2018 4:02 PM

*** begin quote ***

Gun-violence restraining orders (GVROs) make us all safer while empowering the individual and protecting liberty.To understand the American gun-control debate, you have to understand the fundamentally different starting positions of the two sides. Among conservatives, there is the broad belief that the right to own a weapon for self-defense is every bit as inherent and unalienable as the right to speak freely or practice your religion. It’s a co-equal liberty in the Bill of Rights, grounded not just in the minds of the Founders but in natural law.

Against this backdrop, most forms of gun control proposed after each mass killing represent a collective punishment. The rights of the law-abiding are restricted with no real evidence that these alleged “common sense” reforms will prevent future tragedies in any meaningful way.

*** and ***

While there are various versions of these laws working their way through the states (California passed a GVRO statute in 2014, and it went into effect in 2016), broadly speaking they permit a spouse, parent, sibling, or person living with a troubled individual to petition a court for an order enabling law enforcement to temporarily take that individual’s guns right away. A well-crafted GVRO should contain the following elements (“petitioners” are those who seek the order, “the respondent” is its subject):

• It should limit those who have standing to seek the order to a narrowly defined class of people (close relatives, those living with the respondent);
• It should require petitioners to come forward with clear, convincing, admissible evidence that the respondent is a significant danger to himself or others;
• It should grant the respondent an opportunity to contest the claims against him;
• In the event of an emergency, ex parte order (an order granted before the respondent can contest the claims), a full hearing should be scheduled quickly — preferably within 72 hours; and
• The order should lapse after a defined period of time unless petitioners can come forward with clear and convincing evidence that it should remain in place.

*** end quote ***

While I would open up the “narrowly defined class of people” to include neighbors and others with direct knowledge and / or concern.

A road rage victim, someone threatened on social media, someone who sees “something” on social media should all be permitted.

If they are willing to use their own time, money, and resources to make a case before a Judge, then they should be heard. 

Frivolous actions should be sanctioned for those who misuse the process; like the SLAP stuff for those who file frivolous lawsuits.

The judge should be able to be able to set the time period for the sanction to apply.

The  judgment should be quickly registered to prevent acquisition, a warrant issue, to search for the defendant’s weapons in “all the usual places”, and seize any found. To be returned when the order lapses.

Seems like a good idea to me.

It’s an adversarial process where defendant has rights.

# – # – # – # – #

FROM THE WALL STREET JOURNAL “The 10-Point”

*** begin quote ***

Classroom Massacre 

A South Florida high school became the latest scene of a deadly mass shooting in the U.S. after a gunman opened fire at the end of the school day, leaving 17 people dead and more than a dozen injured. The suspect, who is in custody, is 19-year-old Nikolas Cruz, a former student who had been expelled for disciplinary reasons, police said. Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel said the suspect had “countless” gun magazines and one “AR-type rifle.” The victims include both students and teachers, the sheriff said. Twelve people were killed inside Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., and three outside the school. Two others died at the hospital. The Florida school shooting is the deadliest since the 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., where 20 children and six adults were killed. It is the third-deadliest school shooting in modern U.S. history, after Sandy Hook and Virginia Tech. One parent, who reached his daughter on the phone as the shooting unfolded, said: “She’s 14 years old and she had to see multiple dead bodies….It’s something that you hear about all the time, and you never think it will happen to you.”

*** end quote ***

Now that a little time has past, here’s my “solutions”.

• “Gun-free zones” are nothing more than “Target rich environments”. End them!
• Arm any teacher, bureaucrat, or custodial person interested.
• Screen the students for “wackos”.
• Study the relationship between these events and the drugs given to young men.
• Surveil “social media” sites for young men with weapons fetishes.
• “Harden” the Gooferment Skrules.
• Implement “Constitutional Carry” like in Vermont.
• Pass “National Reciprocity”; just like “drivers’ licenses”.
• Enforce the existing laws & enforce prison terms like “felon in possession”, “straw purchases”, and “attempted purchases by disqualified persons” with NO plea deals! (DJT45 should be leaning on the various Deputy Attorneys around the country for regular reports on their results.) 

Argh!

# – # – # – # – #

FROM LUDDITE:

You can screen for wackos like your blog says, but then what do you do?  You can’t arrest or detain them….and that certainly would go against your libertarian civil liberties.  I’m not sure there is a defense for this stuff…at least on that vein.

[JR: You most certainly can “detain” them as “threat to themselves and others”. All States have a 72 hour hold. And, an adversarial court finding would bar them from purchasing firearms under the current laws.]

# – # – # – # – # 2018-Feb-18 @ 09:09

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/02/14/fact-check-pro-gun-control-liberals-spread-misleading-claim-18-school-shootings-far-2018/

Fact Check: Pro-Gun Control Liberals Spread Misleading Claim of 18 School Shootings so Far in 2018
by AWR HAWKINS 14 Feb 2018

*** begin quote ***

In the wake of the heinous attack on Florida’s Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, pro-gun control liberals spread the misleading claim that there have already been 18 school shootings in 2018.

*** and ***

For example, in Everytown for Gun Safety’s breakdown of the alleged shootings, it is evident that eight of the 18 incidents did not result in any injuries or fatalities. Of the remaining 10 alleged shootings, Everytown lists two as an “attempted or completed suicide, with no intent to injure other person.” One of the suicides occurred in the bathroom of an Arizona school and the second in the parking lot of a Michigan school. No one else was injured in either incident.

Of the remaining eight incidents, Everytown lists one as a “gun fired unintentionally.” Of the remaining seven, where a gun was fired to harm others, at least one of the incidents was a single shot fired following an early morning fight at Wake Forest University. One shooting happened outside a Louisiana high school resulting in a 14-year-old receiving an “superficial” wound, and another resulted in a 15-year-old girl being wounded by a 16-year-old boy.

When suicides, accidental discharges, purposeful shootings without injuries, and purposeful shootings with only “superficial” wounds are counted as school shootings on par with the attack on Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School or Columbine, then we have reached a point when the phrase “school shootings” can connote anything.

*** end quote ***

How can we have an honest discussion when “interesting definitions” are used?

It’s really counter-productive and does nothing to advance our understanding.

Argh!

# – # – # – # – #