Like Our Facebook Page

Thursday, February 5, 2015

Gun Rights Haters Try To Learn About Guns

The cover of the handout containing the presentation's PowerPoint slides
You read the title correctly, Delaware County United for Sensible Gun Policy (Delco United) held their “Firearms 101 Presentation” Monday night (02/02/2015) in Springfield, PA. They figure if they gain a little book knowledge about guns they'll have more credibility. OK, stop laughing, you have an article to read.

A page from the handout questioning
the nonexistent gun show loophole
As you can see by following the link above, the presenter, 

Larry Glick, is well credentialed being a former law enforcement officer and a former National Rifle Association member. Unfortunately, my request to video his presentation was denied. Let me start with one of the most most important things that he said, “there is no gun show loophole”. He went to great lengths to explain that the idea that there are many gun sales going on at gun shows with no background checks performed is false. Glick very directly told the Delco United people not to pursue that angle. Let's let that sink in for a moment. At a meeting of one of the major gun rights hating groups in the Philadelphia area the speaker debunked one of the biggest lies that gun rights haters put out.

The evening started out interestingly enough. When I first got there Terry Rumsey and Robin Lasersohn, Co-Chairs of Delco United, recognized me as the leader of the Open Carry Counter-Rally For Gun Rights that stole the thunder from their march and rally for universal background checks in Media, PA last June. They took me aside and expressed their concern that I might try to disrupt their meeting. “We don't want people being afraid of being mocked when they ask questions”, is how I recall Robin Lasersohn putting it. After agreeing to behave, which was my intention all along, I was allowed to stay.

The presenter, Glick, hit on the de rigueur propaganda notes. “It's for the children”, he said at one point. Tellingly, Glick said that he knows that crime rates, including murder rates, are falling as are rates of gun accidents. He must also know that this is happening as the number of guns in the US is higher than ever and rising. It doesn't matter, he still thinks we need more gun control. “If we can only save one life it's worth it”, he said dramatically. Hey, who needs facts and logic when you can tug at the heartstrings? I've written several articles covering the dynamics that drive the murder rate and it's not the availability of guns that matters. They can be read here, here, here, here, and here.

Glick also went into denial and said that nobody wants to confiscate guns. He may be sincere but is very misguided. Conversations with gun rights haters often reveal that ending civilian gun ownership is their goal. I don't recall him saying much about gun bans, but he sure was talking about the kinds of so called “assault weapons” that we don't need. Let's keep in mind that when certain kinds of guns are actually banned (as opposed to the phony 1994 – 2004 “assault weapon” “ban”) they're going to be confiscated. It makes little difference if all guns are banned/confiscated at once or if it happens in gradual stages. We end up in the same place.

Let's, for a moment, assume that few or no guns will actually be banned/confiscated. Onerous regulations, severe licensing requirements, high fees, insurance mandates, and draconian penalties for minor gun infractions can end up making owning and bearing arms financially prohibitive and legally dangerous. This is a way of de facto banning/confiscating guns without making the guns themselves illegal.

Because of my good behavior, I said not one word during the whole presentation, Terry and Robin were a bit nicer after the meeting. During our conversations I asked if they'd be interested in a debate. They said no but they would be interested in a moderated discussion. That sounds like a fine idea. Stay tuned for updates.

21 comments:

  1. Had they let people hold real but safed firearms and been explained the 4 golden rules, they might have actually cured some hoplophobia amongst the attendees.

    Casting some light of reality upon the guns to dispel the shadowy exaggerated fears does wonders. When they survive being that close to, within visual range of, and after actually holding a gun, half of the terrors are popped and proven false and ridiculous.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agreed. Unfortunately, the meeting was held at a Friends Meeting House where no weapons of any kind are allowed. The organizers of the event informed the speaker that I was in the audience. He then opened by saying that if anyone had any guns on them, perhaps in an ankle holster, they had to leave. Since I wasn't armed I stayed.

      Delete
    2. Think how disappointed the organizers were to not be able to throw you out for bearing arms.

      (No gun on you? Knives perhaps??)

      Delete
    3. LOL You know it. I'm sure they'd have loved an excuse to run me out.

      No, like I said I had no weapons. I believe in respecting private property. If the Quakers don't want weapons around then I have to abide by their wish, misguided as it is.

      Delete
    4. It's obvious from the article that the organizers had no intent or willingness to cure or even slightly relieve any hoplophobes, but rather to reinforce it and polish the attendees' talking points so the won't sound QUITE so stupid in the future.
      Most antis, being "liberals/progressives," are totally immune to logic, facts, and reality. They live in their own self- reinforcing, self-perpetuating world of delusions that are impenetrable. The vast majority of them will never change their mind about guns and the right to self-defense, even if they or someone they care about is killed or brutalized by some thug.
      They operate on "feelings," not facts. They "feel" threatened by the very idea of violence (and self-defense, at the end of the day, implys the application of violence against the attacker). They "feel" that it's barbaric to use violence, no matter the circumstance (though most of them support the use of violence by state actors in their defense, or against those with whom they disagree).
      In other words, they're illogical, neurotic hypocrites. They don't want us to have guns to defend ourselves from criminals ... especially the tyrannical "we will control and tax every aspect of your lives type" they willingly support for public office ... but they expect to be able to summon armed employees to protect them if someone threatens them with violence.
      Hypocrites, one and all they are.

      Delete
    5. Yes indeed, Carl. The real hypocrisy is the so-called pacifists who turn around & advocate state aggression such as taxation. I had a long conversation outside of Lockheed Martin in King of Prussia, PA with a pacifist who just refused to get it:

      "It comes as no surprise to libertarians that when governments use aggression at home to finance their operations they use much of that loot to aggress abroad. To really advocate peace pacifists need to apply their principles consistently. The use of force is either consonant with pacifist principles or it isn't. There is no magic of the collective that excuses the government using force in a way that is immoral for individuals to do so. I have no doubt that none of the members of the Brandywine Peace Community would themselves ever use force, or the threat thereof, to separate anyone from their money. Why then do they advocate that the government do so? Taxation isn't consonant with pacifist principles. It can't be enforced without using force, a violation of everything pacifists claim to stand for. Until they resolve this conflict pacifists may say they want peace but are really the enablers of war and other aggressions. We won't get rid of the scourge of war until we rid ourselves of the scourge of taxation."

      From Taxes and War Profiteers

      Delete
  2. Well done Darren. Excellent visit and article.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Who is funding the ex-cop? Bloom-but or Big George Soros, the Nazi crime boss?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good question. That may be a good topic to research one day.

      Delete
  4. Too bad you couldn't get some of these people out to a firing range. I bet they'd love it and come around to our side.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Private property rights"? There is no such thing. The owners of private property have rights, but their rights do not extend to infringing upon or interfering with the rights of anyone else. A private citizen (not a corporation) may require a person on his personal property to be disarmed as a condition of entering upon the property, but if he invites a person onto his property he is inviting that person with all that person's rights intact. Let's get this straight: NO ONE has the right to tell anyone else they have to waive their (non-disruptive) rights -- ever. Respecting someone's "right" to tell you that you don't have any is respecting cultural Marxism/fascism/totalitarianism. If someone invites you onto their property, they are responsible for your safety. If they oppose firearms, then they cannot meet that responsibility. If an officer of a corporation prohibits firearms on corporate property, the corporation may be held responsible, but the doofus who violated your rights will not be. Let's not hear any more about "respecting private property rights" by giving up our right to self-defense. Private property rights do not extend to interfering with the non-disruptive rights of visitors or attendees.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don, it's tempting to think that way but I have to disagree. Forcing people by law to accept guns is as bad as banning them. It is only by having strong property rights that we can protect gun rights. No issue can be looked at in a vacuum. Therefore, as with any issue, we have to start with basic principles and moral implications. That means talking about the one moral imperative that guides us in all human relationships, the non-aggression principle. It is immoral to initiate the use of force or the threat of force against peaceful people. In other words, a person has to be actually engaging in aggression or credibly threatening to do so before it is morally justifiable to use force in retaliation. What does that have to do with guns? The mere possession of an inanimate object such a gun aggresses against no one. There is no moral justification for taking guns away from people who adhere to the non-aggression principle since this involves initiating the use of force to separate them from their weapons.

      Property rights are part of this equation also. People have a right to their property. Guns are property. Separating people from their guns by force is theft of those weapons.

      Progressivism’s Violent World goes into this.

      Delete
  6. The most 'private property' anyone possesses is their own body/life/health. No piece of mindless pacified trash has any 'right' to tell us we can't defend ourselves where ever we are.

    If the creatures can't or won't 'accept our guns' they don't belong here. There's no such thing as a 'right' to destroy our most basic right.

    The 'non-aggression' principle is pacifist Bravo Sierra. Of course we shouldn't attack 'peaceful' people or always resort to violence first if there is a true viable alternative, but if I learn a group is planning to come attack me I have every right, duty and responsibility to destroy them in place if I'm able.

    The Ameri-commies, the "Liberal"(commie) trash, are working openly to destroy this country and rob us of the Bill of Rights, which wasn't written by Libertarians. They will happily send their black-suited Nazis, soldiers, to kill us for refusing to obey their evil laws despite their false pacifism.

    Carry anyway and lie to your domestic blood enemies, because it's their nature to lie to you.

    All warfare is based on deception. - Sun Tzu

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't understand the above? Start here: http://www.freekentucky.com/the-must-readwatch-page/

      Delete
    2. "The 'non-aggression' principle is pacifist Bravo Sierra."

      Do you always attack what you don't know the first thing about? Non-Aggression allows for self-defense, this is clearly not pacifism. I looked at your blog we're on the same page about most things. I'm sure if you dig a little deeper you'll find that the NAP is something you agree with.

      Delete
  7. keeping more guns is always dangerous.

    ReplyDelete
  8. guns are being misused by some people, some steps should be taken to keep away the guns from criminals

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Let's start with the criminals in the govt. Gun control is about incrementally disarming us not safety. We had less crime & murder before we had gun control & a huge law enforcement establishment. More policing isn't the answer it's an intensification of the problem.

      Delete
  9. Gun Rights are appropriate in order to reduce misuse guns and firearms. I always like to read your article. keep sharing.

    ReplyDelete