"Everytown" campaign to limit Constitution

EVERYTOWN FOR ... whatever .... wants to undermine MY RIGHT to defend my person, my family, and my property from would-be criminals who are younger, stronger and more violent.

(Yes, they want to undermine your 2nd Amendment rights, too.   But I take their attack personally, so this is all about me.  If you feel the same way, you can write your own damn article.)

EVERYTOWN uses loaded phrases such as "common-sense public safety measures"  to obfuscate their intent to limit my American freedoms.

They think that "local governments" should have the power to legislate against my constitutional rights.

They blame the only organized effort to support the constitution (cough NRA cough) for the fact that *only* 40 states defend my rights, even if EVERYTOWN apparently thinks I'm too irresponsible to deserve those rights.

 (I wonder why the other 10 states don't think I'm competent to make my own decisions.  My country liked me just fine when they drafted me in 1969 and sent me to Viet Nam. Oh, and they gave me a gun, too!)

Here's what Everytown for not-me has to say:

WAPO is always good for a laugh

The NRA is laughing all the way to the bank - Opinion pages of The Washington Post:

Even though the Capital Gazette shooter had threatened the newspaper, he was still able to legally purchase a gun — the common denominator of all the modern mass killings in the United States.

I'm not sure how the NRA is conflated with a mass shooting, but under Federal Law citizens with no felony convictions or history of mental illness are free to exercise their Constitutional Rights.

But I guess that the good folks who write Letters to the Editor of the Washington Post rely less  on reason and facts, than hyperbole and Liberal Hypnosis.   They would rather attack the National Rifle Association for its defense of the Second Amendment rights of ALL Americans,  than to address the mania of today's American Psyche.

Is there A Good Reason why writers to the editor of WAPO should hypothesize that their fellow citizens who legally own guns should be tarred with the same brush as a mass murderer?

Example:

Once the concrete of Trump's fascist republic fully cures, the NRA crowd will be sorely disappointed when the democracyless (?) right wing state of their dreams knocks on the front door demanding to collect their guns. 

Wow.  Like, that's really, really DEEP man, y'know.  What's that stuff you're smoking?
It has  verisimilitude, analogy, and all that stuff that make you sound, like ... smart?

(I'd love to see the WAPO OPINION author of this article knock on the door of any legal gun owner and demand  to confiscate the constitutionally protected firearms there.   That's the epitome of "democracyless " ... which I think is a "made up" word.)

I doubt there's a reasoning person in this country who doesn't think that the mass murder of innocents is unconscionable..

If the people behind that knocked door were ALL armed, and the killer knew it ... that massacre would never have happened. 

Because wolves only hunt sheep.

And the writer of this opinion article is definitely a "sheeple".

This is me.  Laughing.

Things Liberals Want You To Know About NRA President Lt. Col. Oliver North

Oliver North is a worthy successor to previous leaders of the National Rifle Association.  He represents the patriots of the Revolutionary War ... those who saw their duty, and did it.

Fortune Magazine recently published a very demure, quite civilized hit piece on Oliver North ... the new NRA president. Here are the Not-So-Fortunate slams:

1:  Iran-Contra scandal 

2: Iran-Contra scandle (conviction ... later over turned

3: long-standing NRA member (Fortune Mag considers this A Bad Thing?)

4: Ran for Senate a couple of decades ago and lost (1994)5: "His Election Baffled Gun-Control Advocates (!!!!!)

The central issues of North's career is that he negotiated a gun deal with Iran (which was not a political issue during the 1980's) which provided funding for the  anti-communist "Freedom Fighters" in Nicaragua ... who were battling to keep their country free from Communist Insurgents by using the funds to purchase arms

When charges were made against North, President Reagan interceded on North's behalf, under the defense that North was acting under the orders of his commander in chief.

That is, he (North) was acting as an agent of then-president Ronald Reagan (who was at the top of the American Military hierarchy.

I don't know if Reagan or North were justified in acting under the auspices of The Monroe Doctrine, but that american National Policy had been in place since 1983 and never rescinded. 

 North was NOT disobeying a direct command of his ultimate superior.   He was not "operating" as an independent agent; he was operating as an agent of the President.

Later, when Liberals grilled President Reagan in Iran-Contra hearings, Reagan accepted full responsibility for North's actions.

It is unfair for critics to insinuate that Oliver North is not a patriot, or a good soldier, because he became embroiled in a complicate military/political situation which was not of his making.  It's also unfair and petty of today's Liberals to denigrate the NRA because they have chosen a decorated soldier who has performed his duties to the best of his abilities ... with honor, and without apology.

Oliver North is a worthy successor to previous leaders of the National Rifle Association.  He represents the patriots of the Revolutionary War ... those who saw their duty, and did it.

And the fact that North ran for high public office and was defeated?  That' America, Baby! 

5 Things to Know About the NRA's New President Oliver North | Fortune:

The National Rifle Association has named Oliver North, a retired Marine lieutenant colonel known for his role in the Reagan Administration-era Iran-Contra scandal, as its new president. He will replace Pete Brownell, CEO of firearms accessory maker Brownells, leading the pro-gun organization in a few weeks. North has already stepped down from his contributor role at Fox News.

Florida to espouse States Rights v The Constitution?

In an Opinion Article published in the Miami Herald, the author suggests that:

The NRA suing the Florida Legislature is like a parent suing the children. That’s Mom and Dad taking Johnny to court because he won’t eat his broccoli.

(Link and full quote below the fold)

(The reference is to Florida's attempt to limit the rights of its citizens to own firearms; the state has more "rigorous" restrictions on just who, when and why its citizens may possess guns.)

I have no idea what point the author was trying to make in the above quote; but I quite comprehend the rancor which is illustrated in the following quote:

Of course, the NRA picked as its target a patsy who probably won’t fight back too hard. It doesn’t have the guts to go after its real enemy, the courageous children of Parkland.

The NRA, as a representative organization of sportsmen and other legal firearms owners, is unlikely to "go after its real enemy" identified by the Author as "courageous children".   The NRA is all about civil and constitutional rights, and its members demand that it protect the First Amendment as assiduously as the Second Amendment.

The very idea that this membership would continence an attack on patriotic teenagers ... even those who (wrongly) accuse the NRA of fomenting firearms violence ... is anathema.    The author of this article has a private agenda, and has resorted to distortion of the truth and condemnation of strangers in an attempt to paint them with a bloody brush.

In point of fact, the Federal Government does have the power to impose Constitutional Rights on states which have historically denied them.  Witness SELMA ( do your  homework), where President Dwight David Eisenhower sent troops into Alabama to protect the rights of African-American children to get the SAME educational opportunities as white children ... as opposed to the "Separate-but equal" sham (which was far from equal, but certainly separate) acts of southern states who tried to maintain their apartheid restrictions on many of their citizens.

(The ACLU is great on protecting the First Amendment, but few rights supporters stand up for the Second.   That's why Americans rely on the Constitution, instead of the sometimes-misguided efforts of states.)

It's not about "GUTS", and the author is wrong (and knows he's wrong) to suggest it.

The NRA's only enemies are those who would undermine or deny Constitutional Rights to its citizens.   That's the reason for its existence, and the reason why over five million (that's 5,000,000 to those who are unfamiliar with, or don't understand the Bill of Rights) law-abiding American Citizens accept the National Rifle Association as their representatives in combating anti-constitutional laws at the local, state and national level.  

6 Underreported Reasons Why The NRA Are Just The Worst

I really enjoy reading CRACKED.com

Not that I do so often, but when I do, there's never a dull moment between conspiracy theories and a tongue-in-cheek version of current controversy.

Here's a CRACKED.com version of the news, along with the occasional geeky comment:

6 Underreported Reasons Why The NRA Are Just The Worst:

With AR-15s in the news because of [insert this week's horribly depressing reason here], there's a chance you might be feeling rather peeved at the organization making sure guns are plentiful and easy to purchase in America, the National Rifle Association. But regardless of your politics, you've got to give the NRA some credit for their skill at hiding horrifying stories that would kill any other organization. Their feats range from preventing any real attempts at studying firearm violence to, well ...

(6) Campaigning To Re-Legalize Silencers Because Of "Hearing Safety"

I've been shooting guns for over 60 years.

I've fired "silenced" pistols.  Silencers don't STOP the sound of a shot; they just filter out the sound to the point where it's a "CRACK!" instead of a "BOOM!"   they lower the decibel level; they don't eliminate it.  So it's not as if you can shoot a silenced gun and nobody can hear it ... except in the movies.

Have you ever looked at the muffler on your car?  It's a couple of feet long and several inches wide, and weigh several pounds.   They're MUCH more effective than the silencer you can put on the end of the barrel of a gun.

Silencers are a boon to competitive shooters; they have nothing at all to do with sneaky shooting people so nobody knows you just killed them ... which is the scenario suggested by the CRACKED author who obviously doesn't know SHIT from SHINOLA when he tries to shine on readers who expect a knowledgeable analysis from a trusted source.


(5) Promoting Dumbass (And Dangerous) Conspiracy Theories

"The above-referenced piece of scarelore about the United States’ having already entered into a such a treaty — one which supposedly provides a “legal way around the 2nd Amendment” and will result in a “complete ban on all weapons for US citizens” — is erroneous in all its particulars ..."

Actually,  had Clinton been elected president, she would most likely have imposed draconian restrictions on the private ownership of firearms in America.   Note her comment:  "The Australian Solution is worth looking into".

The Australian Solution was to ban private ownership of most firearms, and to confiscate all but a very few "special license" firearms.   The reason Hillary felt safe in suggesting that it might be a viable solution in America is that the Australians "repurchased" the guns ... for pennies on the dollar.  And BTW ... you can't "repurchase" something you didn't own before.

It's all smoke and mirrors with Hillary, and it's all a great big joke for CRACKED!

For Americans, it's a violation of our Constitutional Rights.

Check out the actual text of the UN Arms Trade Treaty and tell me if you find verbiage which exempts private civilians from the extreme restraints imposed upon terrorists.  (You can't, because they cannot define the difference between a terrorist ans a home-owner.)

So ... yes, there IS a "Conspiracy" against Firearms Freedoms.  It' publically known as The Democratic Party, and privately know as Hillary Clinton .. who has been open in disavowing the validity of the Second Amendment.


(4) Screwing With Police Investigations By Not Allowing A Database Of Firearm Owners

Actually, the reason why Americans are against a Universal Database of Firearms owners is three-fold:
     *(A) Registration of all firearms provides a handy list of owners and guns when they come to confiscate your guns.  YOU may think this is a "Conspiracy Theory" on the part of legal firearms owners, but that's the current trend in Democratic Politics.   Yes, they DO want to "take your guns away" ... and they don't care how responsible you, as an individual, may be; they just want your guns.

    *(B)  Those states which have pushed, and/or are pushing for the legislation, are typically NE Seaboard states (NY, NJ, etc.) which are liberal and "citified".  *Also California*   They don't usually have a lot of gun owners, in part because of the cultural differences between themselves and more "rural" states.   City folks tend to be Liberal ... and vote that way!   It's significant that of all those states have been allowed to pass restrictive firearms laws as a tool to 'reduce gun violence' and "make it easier to resolve crime".  It's worth mentioning that not one state cited has solved a gun crime because of registration.

    *(C) Also, firearms owners are generally independent persons who do not care to be part of a "database".  Ownership of a gun is a private thing, just as is your sexual orientation and your religion.
It's significant that while your sexual orientation is not a Constitutional Right, Religion and Guns ARE!



(3) Exploiting Hurricane Harvey To Sell Guns To People Afraid Of Looters

Natural Disasters are an excellent example of exactly WHY we need out Second Amendment rights.
When the local infrastructure is INOPERATIVE because all communications lines are substantially  inoperative, police and emergency medical and fire protection resources are typically overwhelmed by all the calls for help.

South Eastern American disasters over the past few years have demonstrated that looters have been able to have their way with honest citizens, their persons and their property, when law enforcement is overloaded by the volume of calls for help.

When seconds count, Emergency Responders are weeks away; the best they can do is to (a) confiscate privately owned firearms and (b) pick up the corpses.   Oh, did I mention that the phones don't work?  Who you gonna call  .. Ghost Busters?

Police in these situations have as part of their "game plan" to confiscate privately owned firearms.  This does nothing to ensure the safety of their citizens, but it DOES ensure that marauders, thieves, rapist and killers are assured that all of their would-be victims are unable to protect themselves against those bad boys who didn't register their guns  (and never would).

(2) Endorsing The Work Of The World's Hackiest Researcher

John Lott.     The author of "More Guns/Less Crime", is a world renowned researcher who has written many scholarly articles, and has recently focused his attention on the firearm as a necessary took when seconds count and the police are minutes away.

Op-eds by Lott have appeared in such places as the Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, and the Chicago Tribune. Since 2008, he has been a columnist for Fox News, initially weekly.^[

Typifying Lott as "The World's Hackiest Researcher" is not only dismissive, but ignorant.   Just because the accuser refuses to acknowledge the experience and expertise of DOCTOR Lott doesn't reliably dismiss his experience and scholarly contributions to the issue of firearms ownership.   The accusation deserves less attention than it has already received.
And I would like to know when the accuser was awarded his PHD, and in what  area of expertise.

No?

I didn't think so.  Cheap shot, dude!


(1) Sabotaging A Deal Between Smith &Wesson And The Government To Make Guns Safer After Columbine

 S&W developed a whole bunch of measures that they thought they  could implement to make their products safer. These included a commitment to researching and developing "smart guns" that could be locked to a specific person, plans to install safety devices on all new handguns that could lock them when not in use, and other less sci-fi-sounding but equally interesting ideas.

Actually, a lot of firearms manufacturers worked diligently to develop "Smart Guns" which would meet the requirements of ... basically ... prohibit access the the firing mechanism of a pistol by anyone except the registered owner(s).

The problem was, that when S&W offered firearms with "personal identifiers" to prevent non-authorized folks to use the gun ... the authorized folks couldn't use the guns, either.

You may be focused on preventing unauthorized usage of guns, but the folks who will BUY THEM want to make sure that when THEY pull a gun, it's going to work.  And S&W were unable to buile a reliable "Safe" gun.

In the final analysis, people who buy guns only want their car to start when they turn the key, their cell phone to connect every call, anti-biotics to cure their ills, and guns to work when they really really need to shoot someone who threatens them.

ULTIMATELY ... WHEN IT COMES TO FIREARMS, "CRACKED" DOESN'T KNOW WHAT IT'S TALKING ABOUT!1!

NRA Blunder?

Bloomberg was all over last weekend's anti-gun march, featuring a plethora of teenagers who were mad as heck and are just not going to take it any more.    And for lack of any other organization devoted to protecting our Constitutional Rights, they (both the marchers and Bloomberg) dumped a smelly load all over the NRA.

NRA Created the March for Our Lives That Now Threatens It - Bloomberg:

... The marches against gun violence would not have been as big without the undercurrent of rage that liberals, Democrats, good-government activists, racial minorities, ethical conservatives and others carry through daily life under President Donald Trump’s regime. And they wouldn’t have been as big without the cathartic breakthroughs of #MeToo and the Women’s March that preceded them.

(At a guess, an "ethical conservative" is a RINO.)

I was rather impressed with the determination of these young people to take on the 500 pound gorilla  (the National Rifle Association) in the room.   And even more impressed by the liberal adults who used them like a rented mule to further the Liberal Agenda.






It would have been more impressive if the marchers actually knew what an "assault weapon" was :   (H/T: MasterClass)


The reporter embarrassed a lot of teens when he asked them what an "Assault Weapon" is.

He should have asked them to define "Roofie".

They know what that is.

"Gun Sense Vermont" offended by NRA contributions to students

They didn't know whether to Sh*t or go blind, so they closed their eyes and pharted.

NRA Dollars Target Vermont Schools | News | Seven Days | Vermont's Independent Voice:

 Clai Lasher-Sommers, executive director of the gun-control group Gun Sense Vermont, said public schools and universities should refuse money from NRA-affiliated entities because their parent organization lobbies against gun regulations. "When the NRA goes in to provide bullets to students, I just find that problematic," she said. But according to Evan Hughes, a leader of Vermont's NRA chapter, the grants largely support training for women and students,

NRA Membership Controversy

Anyone who reads my blog knows that I'm no great friend of the NRA ... they're too reluctant for my taste to take on the anti-gunners, so as far as I'm concerned the NRA is a bunch of woosies.

Which is another way of saying that the NRA is insufficiently aggressive for my taste.

I'm currently a dues-paying member  of the NRA, but that varies from year to year;  some days I am reluctant to pay my dues, some days not.   

I suspect that I'm not the only "NRA MEMBER" who doesn't consider the NRA to be a sufficiently conservative representative of his pro-gun views.    That doesn't mean we don't agree with the NRA   it might mean that the NRA is more politically correct, and less liberally cognizant, than I am

The mainstream-press (read:  "LIBERALS")  may choose to interpret a choice to declline a conservative statement with a choice to disavow agreement with with the NRA's political position.


 I may be an NRA member this year, and a cranky old poop  the next;  but I'm completely comfortable with my NRA affiliation, even though I question their politics on a daily basis.

I'm guessing that I'm not the only "cranky old poop" who (from year to year) declines to renew his membership because the NRA is too 'gentle' to represent my pro-gun opinions.   So ... some years I don't renew my NRA membership, and that skews the "representation" numbers of the NRA.


That doesn't mean that the NRA isn't the best representative of my politics from year to year.

So when the extreme liberal website "Mother Jones" questions the exact-at-this-moment membership numbers of of the NRA, I have to mention that the membership is probably much more conservative than the organization, and the pure numbers which are reported might not be as  significant a 'data point' as the casual observer chooses to report.

Speaking as  not-so-casual observer, the membership of the NRA is so controversial that even its own members are so politicially (and socially) involved that they question the goals and involvement of their political support on a daily basis?

The NRA Says It Has 5 Million Members. Its Magazines Tell Another Story. – Mother Jones:

The National Rifle Association likes to boast that it represents 5 million gun owners. Or maybe it’s “nearly” 5 million—or perhaps “more than” 5 million. The NRA has never provided solid numbers on how many members it has, yet a look at what data is out there suggests that its claims may be wide of the mark—and the real figure could have dropped by more than 10 percent in the year after Donald Trump was elected president.

z

The National Rifle Association influences politicians by spending $14 MILLIONS in political contributions!

NRA’s influence comes from $14 million in spending — not just campaign contributions : Sunlight Foundation:
The National Rifle Association ("NRA") is 'accused' of contributing (according to "Open Secrets") a LOT of money to "Private Interests".

QUOTE:

All of this money, of course, is invested by the contributions and membership dues of the NRA. When people talk about money in politics, they often point to the money that a candidate receives from a special interest (regardless of the amount of that contribution) as evidence of undue influence. Nowhere is this more true than with the National Rifle Association. .... The NRA, according to OpenSecrets.org, has contributed about $593,000 in 2016, almost entirely to Republicans. And while contributions certainly tell part of the story, it is the NRA’s big campaign spending that makes up most of its influence: The group’s two political arms, the NRA Institute for Legal Action and the NRA Political Victory Fund, have spent $14.5 million opposing and supporting federal candidates, according to an analysis of Federal Election Commission data by the Sunlight Foundation.

(emphasis added)

Hmmm ... so people who support the Second Amendment of the United States Contribution are willing to contribute (in membership fees, and voluntary contributions), to defend your constitutional rights?   And this is "A Bad Thing"?

Don't Americans have the right to give money to institutions which support their Constitution?
If so ... why should they be publically castigated. when more frivolous issues are supported with no comment at all?

Here is just a short list of charities which enjoy an annual contribution of $13,000,000 and up (and not all of these fundings are from private contributions):

You can get an "overview" here; note that most of the major participants are labor and educations unions.   But there are some "outliers", such as ....

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)

TOTAL FUNCTIONAL EXPENSES

$46,114,330

WETA: "Washington's source for compelling television and inspiring classical music"
Net Assets:                                                                                                                          $136,239,734

The Washingtone

Founded in 1961, WETA (The Greater Washington Educational Telecommunications Association) is the leading public broadcasting station in the nation's capital, serving Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia with educational, cultural, news and public affairs programs and services. WETA's mission is to produce and broadcast programs of intellectual integrity and cultural merit that recognize viewers' and listeners' intelligence, curiosity and interest in the world around them.

So we are willing to accept the societal expenditure of $46M to save puppies, and $136M  for "compelling television and inspiring classical music", but we are unwilling to accept the societal expenditure of $14M to protect our constitutional rights?

Oh ... and that fourteen million dollars contributed to the NRA is privately donated ... voluntarily, by the participants.

But the puppy-fund and the television funds are ... you guessed it ... supported by your tax dollars.   You don't get to choose; it's federal!

Don't you sometimes wish that you had the option of deciding which cause your tax dollars went to?

Wouldn't you rather contribute to the Society for Maintenance of Ethnic Russian/Siberian Huskies (SMERSH) than the Preservation of Urasian French Female Siberians (PUFFS)?

I'm telling you ... this society is going to the dogs!

NRA, Republican Politicians, White Blood Guilt and Letters to the Editor of the SLC Tribune

Letter: Even with sensible gun laws, it would take centuries to undo the crazy - The Salt Lake Tribune:

For over a decade now the NRA and Republicans who are financially obligated to them have waged a campaign of aggressive pro-gun activism. They have convinced the public that gun ownership is essential to survival. These Republican policies have come to fruition. The chest-thumping, white Americans proclaiming the most important thing to them is their gun have set the new norm of our Republican-run America, a mass shooting every month. The NRA, Republican politicians and all those white voters will have to own this bloodshed.

Actually, the Republicans are not all that "financially obligated" to the NRA.

Washington Examiner: (December 05, 2015) *

... an examination of the NRA's actual lobbying and political contributions reveals it is a relatively light spender compared to other corporations, interest groups and industries.

Which seems as if the NRA is not the big-spender that you seem to think it is.  Look up the stats on the NRA vs  .... oh, say ... the dairy industry.  You know ... cows?  Milk?  *sic

For example, the NRA spent roughly half of what the dairy industry spent last year on lobbying, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Don't take my word for it; go look it up!

And by the way, where does all that money come from, which " ... financially (obligates) ... the evil REPUBLICANS to the whims of the even-more-evil NRA?

Some of it comes from the $50 a year membership fees for the (reportedly) five million members of the association.

But some of it comes from corporate sponsors:

Cheaper Than Dirt: (March 28, 2013)

Companies often donate money to the NRA to protect our RTKBA. But is the NRA just taking orders from all gun companies? No, the NRA takes orders from the members of the association; the guys and gals who love guns and want to keep their rights. If any group is a “shill” for the firearm and ammunition companies, it would the NSSF, but even that is a stretch. The National Shooting Sports Foundation is the trade organization that represents all of the companies that make up the shooting sports. Their job is to protect and defend shooting industry companies and rights. However, in this industry, the views of the NRA and the NSSF almost always are directly tied if not the same. “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander,” the old saying goes, and what is good for the gun owner is good for the gun industry.

Of course, none of this information will ever filter back to the writer of the letter to the editor of the Salt Lake Tribune. ( Theresa Roberts), but that doesn't matter.  Even if she got the information, she wouldn't believe it. Her mind is made up, and she cares not for the facts.

Because Theresa is a bigot.    She knows what she knows, and she doesn't like what she doesn't like. 
Facts are something of a stumbling block for her, so she not only ignores them, she doesn't even bother to do the five minutes of online research it took me to find these references (although I'm not sure she wouldn't take a glance at the Washington Examiner article).
Oh, and here's another factoid which you can take for a lie:

www.washingtonexaminer.com/how-powerful-is-the-gun-lobby/article/2577699

Dec 5, 2015 - "Just what will it take for Congress to overcome the intimidation of the gun lobby and do something as sensible as making sure people on the terrorist watch ... Blue Cross Blue Shield, a major health insurance company, poured more than six times as much money into lobbying as did the NRA last year by ... (see below the fold)

The NRA IS Stronger Than Our Government!

I started writing a "reaction" to that titular statement (added in full below), and after an hour of trying to undermine the thesis, I realized that it was true.   The NRA is "Stronger Than Our Government"!

The key word here is "STRONGER".  The NRA is not more powerful, not more influential than our government.

Just Stronger!

Our government is filled with politicians, all seeking re-election to positions of power and influence, and often full of themselves.  They want to be king-makers ... or kings in their own local barnyard.   From the local level to the national, they pander to the voters to support their own personal careers.  They campaign for re-election by saying anything which will give them one more vote.  They'll say anything for that vote.  I don't stoop to calling them all charletons but we know there are many in elected office.

 Sure, most of them are honorable men and women, but some are selling tonic water from the back of a wagon. And you're buying their tonic water with your votes.


The National Rifle Association is a 'club' with five million members who have the odd notion that the Second Amendment is as important as the First Amendment (and all the others) and not coincidentally enjoy the "Shooting Sports"; which include hunting, competition, and personal defense according to the Constitution.

The difference between "Our Government" and "The NRA" is the Government is a group of people fighting for dominance.    The NRA, on the other hand, is a group of people in (almost) complete agreement about their goals and their message.   Their goal, and their message, is the Constitution of the United States of America.

If you will fight to defend the Second Amendment, you must necessarily fight for ALL of the Constitution.

There is infighting among congress and almost any other organized group; but the infighting within the NRA is almost always "technical".   Lately, the controversy in this group is about "Bump Stocks"; which will be rancorous, but will not undermine their homogeneity of purpose: to defend the Constitutional rights of all Americans.

So when an obscure editorial comment (see below) complains about the NRA, our thought is that he should be complaining about the Government ... which cannot make a decision.

We've already made our decision, to defend our Constitution and (not incidentally) our Second Amendment Rights. 

 Leadership?

We don't expect "Leadership" from politicians.   Their goal is to be re-elected, not to defend the Constitution.   It's an effort for them to even find a way to pretend to care about the Constitution.

Europe?

We don't expect "Leadership" from Europe.  They don't a Constitution!   There are no moral guidelines in Europe.   They are a disparate bunch of tiny groups which cannot agree on anything, and their constant bickering relegates them to nothing more than background noise, like static from an FM radio tuned into a frequency which you can't clearly receive from Outback, Alaska.


 A letter to the editor of a Florida newspaper insists that "The NRA is Stronger Than Our Government":

I think America is confused. We have no real leadership. Maybe we need to look to Europe for models of leadership on gun control and other issues.
When will Congress finally do something about the NRA, which has become stronger than our government, and enact and enforce stronger gun control laws? Every time there is a mass shooting we learn that someone fell down on the job, ignored significant warnings about the shooter, let important findings fall thru the cracks.
Why are lawmakers so afraid of the NRA? Get rid of every ineffective representative in Congress. I'm mad and I'm frustrated and I have to stop reading and watching the news. Let me know when we have a real president and lawmakers who really do love America more than their jobs.

 Wikipedia Entry:

Observers and lawmakers see the NRA as one of the top three most influential lobbying groups in Washington, DC. Over its history the organization has influenced legislation, participated in or initiated lawsuits, and endorsed or opposed various candidates.

(Wikipedia)

NB:  The author of this letter to the editor is someone who wants his government to treat him as a child to be coddled and protected.  He is not someone who wants his government to protect his Constitutional Rights.  He could stop reading and watching the news, and learn to love America for what it is.  He chooses instead to take counsel of his fears.   This is no country for old men.  He could move to Europe, where they would be happy to give him no 'rights' but not ask what he can do for his country.

Murder Insurance?

The NRA has shot itself in the foot ... again.  And it's their own damn fault.  (My annual membership dues are paid up for this year, so I can say this.)

A recent "Hello Giggles" article accuses the National Rifle Association of offering "Murder Insurance":

Why the NRA’s new “murder insurance” is so alarming to gun control activists:

Gun lobbyists have been working tirelessly to protect gun owners and their “right to bear arms.” In a move that has left many gun control activists absolutely appalled, the National Rifle Association is now putting its weight behind insurance coverage for NRA members who may find themselves dealing with lawsuits that stem from shooting someone. In other words, the NRA-sponsored insurance policy will provide “clean-up costs for any covered claim resulting from the use of a legally possessed firearm — including an act of self-defense.” The NRA’s “Carry Guard” sells itself as the “most complete self-defense insurance program and training for those who carry a gun.” But some are calling it “murder insurance.” This move is prompting many to ask: Why implement better laws to regulate guns when someone can shoot first and show their “murder insurance” card later?

Why call it "Murder Insurance"?

Good question;  the NRA website (see below) doesn't present the details in a manner as obvious as it might have, and that makes it reasonable to misunderstand the conditions. 

The "Carry Guard" insurance policy will NOT reimburse the insured if the firearm was not legally possessed, is not used in self-defense, or if the insured is otherwise found guilty (of a felony).

Which is to say, it specifically does not pay if the insured murders somebody.

But anyone who casually visits the NRA website might be forgiven for not having noticed the "fine print".  I think that the NRA has deliberately (or on the advice of shysters lawyers) buried the details deep in the webpage which offers the insurance plan.  Well, that's what lawyers do; give bad advice.

So when someone criticizes their policy, and automatically assumes that the policy will recompense "murderers" ... it may be somewhat naive, but it's politically useful!

The NRA has nobody to blame but themselves for this misinterpretation.

IN CASE YOU DIDN'T READ THE FINE PRINT:

Here's the applicable FAQ text from the NRA Carry Guard website:

Each NRA Carry Guard member’s insurance applies to four components: Civil suit liability, civil defense legal costs, criminal defense reimbursement and supplementary payments. When an NRA Carry Guard member uses a legally possessed firearm in self-defense, the member will have immediate access to their insured supplementary payments. This amount is up to 20% of the criminal defense reimbursement limit. Any criminal defense costs incurred by the member are reimbursed when their case is dismissed or are found not guilty. If a civil suit is presented by the alleged victim(s), the remaining policy limit will apply. Supplementary payments and related criminal defense reimbursement expenses will reduce the amount of insurance available for civil suit damage awards.

Side Note:

Hello Giggles was co-founded by Zooey Deschanel, an actress from a family of actors (including sister Emily Deschanel, "Doctor Temperance Brennan" in BONES).   I like BONES more than I like the people who run the NRA.   I think Zooey appeared on one episode.

But sometimes, like today ... the NRA is almost as entertaining as Television.

"if you're going to shoot, shoot! Don't talk!"

Law abiding firearms owners are demeaned, castigated, and insulted on a daily basis by liberal "pundits" who suggest (and too often specifically state) that we are shills for "The Gun Lobby", "Firearms Manufacturers", and the NRA.

It's demeaning to read Internet articles which suggest that we are irresponsible, infantile, and are unduly influenced by money-grubbing industry sharpies with the immoral purpose of taking advantage of our lack of civil and moral values.

It's convenient when a Gun Grabber  Gun Control shill Gun Safety Advocate comes out in the open about their agenda:

What to Bring to the Gun Fight | Crooked Media:

Last week, Republicans rejoiced, and some Democrats winced privately, when Nancy Pelosi said she hoped regulation of bump stocks—the device the Las Vegas shooter used to make his weapon more deadly—would be a “slippery slope” to further regulation. Democrats were concerned that Pelosi had handed the NRA a political cudgel the group would brandish against every one of them. But Pelosi was right, and I would like to see more Democrats find her courage, because the alternative is to surrender our ideals, and the moral high ground, for no discernible upside.

I fail to understand where the "moral high ground" lies in undermining the Constitution and abrogating the civil rights of Americans.

We could lay the death of progress at the feet of the Republican Party, which has become a wholly-owned subsidiary of the National Rifle Association, but that would ultimately be a cop out. 

[emphasis added]

Or the Republican party might be defined as that political group which protect the Constitution;   all of it.    And it could be than many firearms owners are Republicans because the alternative ... to elect Democratic representatives to high office ... would compromise our own civil priorities and moral values.   And since too many Democratic Officials are ignorant of the term "Democratic" (representing ALL, equally) ...

The speaker for the Democratic Opposition to Civil Rights continues:

But when it comes to firearms we routinely fail. We are now in the midst of another gun debate that we will almost certainly lose.  The majority of Americans support stricter gun laws; less than 40 percent of Americans live in a house with a gun; consensus Democratic gun control proposals like requiring universal background checks and banning assault weapons poll above 80 percent; and yet the idea that even trivial legislation will reach the president’s desk remains a fantasy.

"40 percent of Americans" vs Democratic Polls

(See Below The Fold for a short discussion of "DEMOCRATIC")
It's a strange thing about the Constitution.  Each  generation of Liberals fails to understand that the point is to avoid the "tyranny of the majority".   In this case, the author conveniently fails to cite the source of his statistics.   Which I wouldn't believe even if he did.

If you were asked to respond to a telephone "poll" asking if you had firearms in your house, how would you answer?   My own unofficial poll is that 100% of Americans who own guns would decline to answer in the affirmative.   But I'm more honest than the author; I only asked myself.

It's nobody's business whether I own firearms.  I freely acknowledge here that I do, because it's obvious; not because some nosy reporter asked me to become a statistic.

"... another gun debate that we will almost certainly lose ..."
... and rightly so.   People who want to undermine my Constitution have no moral stance here.   It is immoral for one person to demand that a law-abiding American citizen be denied his right to defense of family, self, home and property.

The author suggests asserts that the Republican Party ... has become a wholly-owned subsidiary of the National Rifle Association, which is misleading at best, disingenuous at worst.

The National Rifle Association  (NRA) is a representative organization which is supported by its (approximately 5 million) members, who are firearms owners.   Contributions and support are generously sourced by business interests (which in turn are supported by the purchases made by firearms owners); but the corporate interests would go out of business if NOT for the support of firearms owners and other sportsmen.   The NRA would not exist without its (relatively small) membership.

Note: Political Party Membership varies in the United States, with about 45% in each major party (changes annually).  Membership in the NRA seems relatively miniscule compared to major political party membership, which is somewhere in the area of 100 million members; give or take 5 million.

It's as disingenuous to suggest that the members of the NRA are controlled by the NRA, as to suggest that the NRA is controlled by the firearms industry.   It's a tripartite relationship, each wing as dependent on the others.

And firearms laws would not be enacted by our elected representatives if they were not voted into office.   Note here that the power of the NRA does not come from financial contributions, but by the VOTES OF LEGAL FIREARMS OWNERS.   Politics is funded by money, but it is decided by votes.   Firearms owners are often single-issue voters, and both parties are aware of this.

BELOW THE FOLD: DEMOCRATIC

When you're right, you're right.

The first time I saw a Vegas video, I said it out loud:

"Holy Shit!   That's Full Auto!"

Well, yes and no.  It was a conversion (bump fire; never heard of it).   But it was still full auto.

Later, I grew angry with the NRA because it wouldn't make a statement about bump fire.   I was torn for two reasons:

• I never fully agreed with the severe restrictions on private ownership of Full-Auto weapons because I think that any weapon available to the average infantryman should be available the the law-abiding citizen.  Because Second Amendment.
• I also realize that is unrealistic, because this world is full of crazy people ... and yes, the rest of us ARE penalized unfairly.   Because crazy people are all over and we know we can't predict who is going to do a crazy thing. *(apologies to Minority Report; it just ain't happening)*

Then I got mad at the NRA because they were silent.   But I decided to give the NRA time to decide what they were going to say.   That was a good choice, because ...

Today the NRA's Past President Marion Hammer made a statement:

An open letter to NRA board of directors from past-president Marion Hammer - The Gun Writer:

If you listened to an audio recording of the shooting during that horrific massacre, you must have concluded that it was full-auto fire. You were not alone, many firearms experts and law enforcement professionals came to the same conclusion. It was not until later that information was released disclosing that bump-stocks had been used to convert semi-automatic firearms to perform like full-auto firearms.

and:

Do you have any idea how many people were shocked out of their minds when ATF decided bump-stocks were not subject to regulation and APPROVED them for sale and use? That was under the Obama administration for crying out loud. Your mind is forced to run wild wondering why.
Once the ruling was made, what would you expect NRA to do? Do you think NRA should have said, Oh! No, ATF is wrong, ATF made a mistake?
It doesn’t matter what laws the NRA doesn’t agree with or doesn’t like, the NRA must abide by the law. For decades, over and over again when the enemies of the Second Amendment have tried to capitalize on tragedies by calling for more gun control, NRA has called for enforcing existing law. That is exactly what we are doing now.

On the other hand, there's this:

NRA Opposes New Bump Fire Stock Ban Bill

Bill's language may reach far beyond bump fire stocks

A woman's work is never done.

"Allowing"?

 Allowing more Minnesotans to freely carry guns seems unwise | Duluth News Tribune:

 It wasn't that I thought the NRA and its members had some ill intent when I decided to discontinue my membership; it was because of the evermore unlikeable image of the NRA to many people.

Odd, that this writer decided that he should quit the NRA because of what OTHER people think.
(You may want to read the original post to GROK the context.)

PERSONAL:I have no objections to his decision to quit the NRA; I've personally quit the NRA a dozen times over the past 50 years .. .for reasons which were personal, and not related to what someone else may think.
.
I still don't much like the NRA; I get tired of getting "personal emergency letters" from La Pierre, hounding me for more money.   I'm retired; I need my money for ammunition

So, "This Guy" quit because of public pressure?  Because anti-gun groups, founded by a half-dozen zillionaires, are using their money to turn their own personal preferences into laws which infringe on MY private space?

And "This Guy" has made this decision to quit the battle because his friends and neighbors wonder if he's such a nice guy, after all?  He has allowed the opinion of others to prevail upon his personal judgement, because either he is not sure of his own judgement, or he is fearful of the opinion of his neighbors.  So who needs him?

(Thought: move to another neighborhood; your neighbors don't deserve you.  On second though, because you kowtowed to the opinion of others instead of forming your own judgement, perhaps you deserve them.)

America was built by Individualists; people who knew what this country looked like when outsiders, fearing an armed populace, imposed  severe restrictions upon their civil rights.

Now these  "NEW outsiders" who are nominally INSIDERs are actively trying to impose these same restrictions on me (not us ... ME, personally!)

In 1776 (and before, and later), the OUTSIDERS were the British, who didn't like it that "free men" thought they should have some say about what laws were reasonable, vs those laws which kept them from their freedoms.

Now these new OUTSIDERS are international fat-cats who share the same nationality as we do, but they don't share the same respect for the Constitution.

They want to force us to reject our freedoms, because they fear another revolution.   Which is odd, because their actions are driving America into a mini-revolution; one which has already started.

So far, it's a war of words; a war for men's minds.

Here are some words to ponder:

H/T: Sebastian

NRA ... can't you tell when you're being played?

It's Publish or Perish in the Blog-o-sphere, and sometimes we write stuff that is obvious.

Sometimes we have to belabor the obvious, to reach the 2% who just don't "get it" without having everything spelled out for them.

Like all the foo-fra over Maloney's latest "outlandish measure".

Of course it's impossible.   So we should not be treating it like it was a legitimate attempt to pass a bill.

Part of her proposal is for her own self-aggrandization;  part to show her constituents that she's "trying to do something about the Gun Problem", and part just to bait the NRA.

Since the NRA *and its members* would be better served to ignore the professional politician [but they didn't], they fell right into her trap.

She can SHOW she's "doing something", can SHOW that the NRA can't do anything, and SHOW that she's important because she has the NRA dancing on her strings like a clumsy marionette.

As of today, I score it Maloney 3, NRA zero

Just looking at the following NRA release (an excellent example of over-explaining the obvious),
 I wonder if we aren't as dumb ... or at least as easily manipulatable ...  as we think she is,

America's 1st Freedom | Another Helping Of Maloney Baloney:

Now Maloney has introduced an outlandish measure in the U.S. Congress—H.R. 2380—requiring that within five years, all newly manufactured handguns sold in the country include technology enabling only authorized users to fire the gun. That’s quite startling when you consider that proven technology of that kind doesn’t even exist. H.R. 2380 would also require that existing handguns be retrofitted with similar technology within 10 years of the measure's passage. With the wide variety of handguns made and sold over the past many decades, such an undertaking would, of course, be impossible. The result of such legislation would simply be outlawing all of those currently owned handguns.

When I was a journalism minor in college, my instructor told me:
"It's all about Column Inches, Son; don't ever forget that."

I didn't.  Didn't like it.  Went into computers instead of journalism.

Now where am I?   (Duh!)

This is NOT going to look good on your resume!

Do as I say ...

https://gunsafetyrules.nra.org/

not as I do:

Man Accidentally Shoots Himself at NRA Headquarters: Police | NBC4 Washington:\

 A National Rifle Association employee accidentally shot himself while doing firearms training at the organization's headquarters, according to police. The 46-year-old man's pistol accidentally discharged Thursday afternoon as he holstered the gun in Fairfax County, Virginia, police said.

H/T: Say Uncle

I guess this is officially an even-numbered year

Yesterday I wrote a draft outline about my angst-ridded decisions whether or not to renew my National Rifle Association (NRA) membership.   But I didn't publish it; I gave myself time to rethink my original decision.

I 'rejoined' the NRA last year, after having allowed my annual membership to lapse the year before.  I usually rejoin on even number years, and decline renewal on odd-numbered years.  There's a "love/hate" relationship between me and the NRA; I think they're insufficiently conservative and that they don't do enough to protect the Second Amendment.

uh ... yes, perhaps I am a little right of center.

Today, I read this article:

America's 1st Freedom | Tracing Judge Gorsuch’s Paper Trail On The Second Amendment: “The Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own firearms and may not be infringed lightly.” So wrote U.S. Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch in United States v. Miguel Games-Perez. That case demonstrates why Judge Gorsuch is a worthy successor to Justice Antonin Scalia.

Then I went to the NRA website and signed up for another year.   If it helps keep judges like Neil Gorsuch on the Supreme Court, it's worth $40 to me.

But I did demand that I get the free magazine with my membership.  I'm not a TOTAL Bleeding Heart!

UK Kops: "Blame The Law-Abiding Victims!"

Top Met Police anti-terror cop blames licensed shooters for Jo Cox MP murder | UK Shooting News:

17 Dec 2016 – The head of the Metropolitan Police’s anti-terrorist division has sought to blame the licensed firearms community for the murder of Jo Cox MP by a political extremist. 

Responding to a fiercely worded letter sent to him by NRA chief executive Andrew Mercer, Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley suggested that the licensed firearms community was to blame because they are targeted for burglaries by criminals. 

Rejecting Mercer’s description of a previous interview with the Daily Telegraph as “unhelpful”, where Rowley had claimed 800 licensed firearms were lost or stolen in 2015 without breaking down the figure, the assistant commissioner wrote: “We do see licensed firearms recovered in criminal circumstances and we do, on occasions, see licensed firearms holders acting outside their licence conditions.”  (sic)

“A recent and high profile example is the firearm discharged in the murder of Jo Cox. This was originally a licensed firearm that was stolen from a vehicle. It then ended up in the hands of Thomas Mair.”

(Mercer/Rowley information link)

Incidentally, Andrew Mercer is chief executive of NRA/UK.

Help me work through the logic here:

Basic Background for those unfamiliar with UK gun control laws:

Great Britain has some of the most stringent gun control laws in the world.  The main law is from the late 1960s, but it was amended to restrict gun ownership further in the latter part of the twentieth century in response to massacres that involved lawfully licensed weapons.  Handguns are prohibited weapons and require special permission.  Firearms and shotguns require a certificate from the police for ownership, and a number of criteria must be met, including that the applicant has a good reason to possess the requested weapon. Self-defense or a simple wish to possess a weapon is not considered a good reason. The secure storage of weapons is also a factor when licenses are granted.

• England doesn't allow anyone to possess a firearm.  Except under strict license laws.
• England keeps a record of every licensed firearm owner, available (only?) to the police.
• The privately owned, licensed firearms were stolen by thieves who obviously knew who had them.
• As far as I know, there is no public record of licensees.
• The police have no leads.
• The police are looking for some way to distract public attention from their incompetence. Or malfeasance.

Did I miss anything?

In passing, I note that the lauded "Gun Control" measures imposed in "Civilized Countries" seem only to penalize honest, legal firearms owners.

Criminals can ALWAYS get a gun .. and this is exactly how it works.

That's all I have to say about this.

Fisking the NY Daily News ... it's too much fun

The New York Daily News has its panties in a bind, and the resultant whining BEGS to be made fun of.  Why?  Because they're idiots, devoid of sense, and SCREAMING to be spanked on their naked butt-cheeks!

Not for nothing did the National Rifle Association pump $38 million into electing Donald Trump President and another $24 million to secure the grip of Republicans in the Senate.  Within grasp now looms a trophy long sought: federal legislation that would, if passed by Congress, extend the right to carry a concealed firearm in any one state, no matter how minimal the licensing standards, to all 50.

Here's the original article.   It's a rare screed which takes too much space to display the ignorance of the author:

But I'll do it anyway: one of my favorite things (besides kittens and mittens) is disemboweling New York Editorials.    It's a cheap shot but I don't feel guilty about pointing out the logical fallacies of East Coast Liberals.

Let us proceed with the evisceration:

The statements of the author of the NYDN article are identified by color;

My statements are embedded in indented paragraphs and black bold.

The point is, the NRA calls for identical concealed-carry laws in all states, so that a person who can legally carry a concealed firearm in his/her home state is not subject to arrest or harassment in a neighboring (or any other) state.   The author objects on the grounds that state laws are, and should be, more stringent than federal laws.

Here is the screed, with my embedded arguments.


The NRA’s dead aim - NY Daily News:

No matter how readily another state arms individuals already known to law enforcement as prone to violence, New York would have to allow its permit holders to carry a hidden pistol in public, overriding state law allowing gun permits only to those with the temperament and need for a firearm.

The Second Amendment applies to all peoples, all states, and carries the same weight as the right to have an abortion: whether you agree with it or not, it is the National Creed and it trumps (excuse the pun) State Laws.   If you're an adult, not a felon, and you are in control of your emotions (not a lunatic), your constitutional right to possess and carry a firearm is guaranteed.

 How the NRA's grades for pols shape U.S. gun policy So it would go for New Jersey, and Connecticut, and other states with stringent safety-focused prerequisites for carrying guns. Trump promised “national right to carry” as part of an absolutist Second Amendment agenda that would leave in place gargantuan loopholes in existing background checks for gun buyers, which allow anyone — convicted felons and the mentally ill among them — to purchase firearms on the internet or at gun shows without interference. 

This is a lie.
There are no "loopholes" in the Second Amendment.
 Convicted felons MAY have their 2nd Amendment rights reinstated after release, if they have not been convicted of violent felonies ... "Forgers" are not considered violent felons, for example.  Their 2nd Amendment rights MAY be reinstated upon application and case-by-case approval, but this is a federal issue and not affected by any National Rifle Association influence.

 Even someone on the FBI’s terrorist watch list can stroll into a gun store without impediment if his or her criminal and mental health records are clean. That’s a rare, perhaps the only, loophole Trump has hinted at a willingness to close.

You may have overlooked that constitutional thingie called "Due Process".
That means that nobody is subject to arbitrary evisceration of their Constitutional Rights.
So you may not agree with my politics, but you can't deprive me of my liberties without taking me to court and proving (to the satisfaction of a judge or jury, and while I'm protected by legal counsel) that I have forfeited my rights by my illegal actions.
People get on the FBI's Terrorist Watch List because of suspicion.   They are there because a governmental agency has deemed them worth of special attention.  If they were found to be guilty of  a crime, they would be arrested.  And Prosecuted.  

Short of that level of confidence, nobody loses their Constitutional Rights. 

Suspicion is an heinious thing, and if you use that as your guide to abbrogating the rights of others ... I think you are a stinker and should not be allowed to exercise your First Amendment Right to Free Speech.
How do you like them apples?

 Atop that tinderbox the President-elect girds to pile what amounts to carte blanche for gun owners registered in states with barely-there licensing hurdles to traipse armed through states with much stricter conditions for carrying firearms in public. Every now and then, a poor, well-meaning tourist gets arrested at an airport for violating the law; pleas for leniency follow. The possibility of armed tourists and other visitors roaming streets where open- and concealed-carry is now heavily restricted is problematic enough, making cops’ jobs that much harder

Now you're just ranting ... and doing a darned poor job of it, too!
You talk about 'barely-there licensing hurdles', which I assume refers to the criteria to qualify for Concealed Handgun License (CHL) in the individual states.

I agree that we need to define reasonable criteria, but the national trend is that if you're not a convicted felon you haven't lost your Constitutional "Right To Keep And Bear Arms", so most states would issue a permit to a non-felon.   The local laws vary: as an example, some states restrict CHL owners from bearing arms in an environment where liquors are served as their primary income (bars, rather than restaurants)  But other states do not have this restriction, assuming that anyone who is sufficiently responsible to carry a handgun is sufficiently responsible to remain sober while doing so.
But your comments about a " .., a poor, well-meaning tourist gets arrested at an airport for violating the law ..." is very much to the point!
Why should that passerby (someone who has a ticket on a plane from Maine to Texas, but the plane is rerouted through New Jersey and the cops arrest the flier because he has a firearm in his checked luggage) be persecuted because his firearms are legal in Maine and Texas, but not in New Jersey

But that’s not even the main threat national right-to-carry reciprocity, as it’s called, would unleash. Because many states with especially lenient laws, such as Florida and Utah, invite outsiders to obtain their firearms permits, the federal law would as much as demolish New York’s common-sense limits. Live in New York, get a Florida permit — and, via the internet, a gun. 

And now, besides being ill-informed, you're just wrong.
 Buying a gun over the internet is illegal.  just as having a handgun in certain areas is illegal.   You can make contact with someone who owns a gun and wants to sell it over the internet, but the actual transaction must be made through a licensed dealer, who is required to perform a  background check through the National Instant Check System before completing the transfer.  I know, because I sold a pistol to an internet contact last year and it was a legal transfer; like all responsible gun owners, I was aware of the legal requirements and abided by them.

And oh .. by the way?  New York's "Common-sense limits" are neither common nor sensible.  They are anti-constitutional, onerous, disruptive, and contrary to the interests of your average citizen.  You don't agree?  How many OTHER states impose those illegal infringements on their citizens?  How's that "No Guns" thingie working for your citizens who have no defense against the thugs who don't obey the laws?   And don't get me started talking about Chicago, and Maryland, with some of the most restrictive laws and the most unrestricted thugs!

Needless, heartless, pointless: Blood would spill, because the gun manufacturers bought friends in Congress and now in the White House, because no one had the spine to take a stand. 

The Senate must. 

You know, they said the same thing when Florida opened their doors to legal, responsible gun owners to carry a concealed weapon.
What really happened was ... nothing.  Except crime went down, because muggers were aware that their victims might be prepared to defend themselves.
Blood will run?
Hasn't happened yet.    Well, except for the blood of bandits who run unchecked when robbing businesses, and the mild-mannered customer in the corner blows their brains out before they can kill the clerk.  That happens.
It's the new Cost of Doing Business for Bad Guys.
I call that a good thing.