No.

It’s short, it’s sweet, and it’s the only reply that can be given to the CATO Institute’s latest policy report inviting Americans to consider grounds for compromise on gun control. Written by CATO Chairman Robert Levy, who despite listing all the facts that support gun rights’ advocates contentions that gun control cannot and will not reduce crime, still claims there’s room for compromise on the issue.

Universal Background CheckAs if we haven’t been compromising and getting our rights shredded for decades!

Second Amendment rights are not absolute, he says. What does “shall not be infringed mean?”

“Everyone understands that children can’t carry automatic weapons to school,” he claims. But “can’t” and “shouldn’t” are different things. And if a child carries an automatic weapon to school, but harms no one with it, threatens no one with it, and merely bears this particular arm, as specified in the Bill of Rights, whose right is being violated, other than the child’s? This reductio ad absurdum is stupid and unworthy of a libertarian scholar.

“Assault rifles” are common and regularly used for hunting and shooting sports. Attempts to buy them back would backfire, like they did in the past. But yet, Levy identifies these rifles as a major area for possible compromise.

us-murder-rates-1980-to-2010Now about NO! We tried that whole ban thing once. You know what happened during it? Fucking Columbine! Law abiding citizens dutifully stopped purchasing these weapons. Homicides with firearms were already on the decline prior to the implementation of the 1994 ban, and they continued to decline during and after the ban.

No! There’s no compromise that is acceptable to relieve people of their rights for absolutely no benefit.

Some weapons can be banned, he says. After all, machine guns have been banned for all intents and purposes since 1934, right? No, you undefuckable traitor to the Constitution. People still own them. They just have to jump through a shitload of legal hoops to legally do so. And they’re barely ever used in crimes. Again, what part of “shall not be infringed” is not clear?

And yes, the courts did say some regulation is legal. But if, according to Levy, “the government bears a heavy burden to justify its regulation. Government must show (a) public safety requires the proposed restrictions, (b) they will work, and (c) they are no more extensive than necessary,” show me where the hell these three requirements are being met!

Maybe we should compromise on high-capacity magazines, Levy says.

How about NO!

According to Gun Facts, The number of shots fired by criminals has not changed significantly even with the increased capacity of handguns and other firearms. The average magazine swap time for a non-expert shooter is 2-3 seconds. In the case of the Newtown Sandy Hook massacre, the murderer performed 10 magazine changes before the police arrived. A 10 round restriction would have saved nobody.

So why compromise away the right, if it will help no one, save no lives? Once again, none of the requirements to meet the government’s burden to justify its regulation.

And then there are the universal background checks, which Levy admits felons easily avoid by either purchasing firearms illegally or stealing them, but still thinks gun owners will compromise on.

…even staunch Second Amendment proponents might be receptive to background checks for private (non-dealer) sales at gun shows, over the Internet, and through published ads. The key is quid pro quo — concessions to gun rights advocates in return for closing the “gun show loophole.” That was essentially the deal offered by the 2013 Manchin-Toomey bill, which garnered 54 Senate votes, but not enough to meet the 60-vote threshold.

How about FUCK NO, shit git?

There is no “gun show loophole,” since less than 1 percent of guns used in crimes are sold there.

There is no such thing as a legal Internet purchase without going through a federal firearms license holder, who is obligated to run a background check before handing you that gun you just purchased on the webz.

What they’re really talking about is outlawing private purchases. Period. (Which, by the way, will disproportionately affect the poor, who will have to pay more than they normally would for a firearm purchased from another individual, because they would have to absorb the cost of an FFL performing a background check.)

Since when does CATO have so little respect for private property?

I suspect my buddy Miguel is correct when he says that the libertarian intelligentsia is so desperate for relevance, they’re willing to take a large, steaming dump on the rights they once held dear. I guess they’re tired of being known as “extremists,” and they would rather compromise on their basic principles than be waved away as some radical zealots who are unwilling to negotiate away their fundamental rights.

Rights? Meh. They’re anachronistic, antediluvian tripe.

Looks like CATO would rather be taken “seriously” by those who despise individual rights and freedoms and would sacrifice them at the altar of “common good” in hopes that the alligator will eat them last than stand up to protect what is right.

What a damn shame.

56 responses

  1. I want my cake back. All of it.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Nicki, my experience with so-called libertarians is that they just lurves them some government force as long as it’s being used to force groups they despise, such as Christians, to choose between being able to earn a living and showing their faith in the public square. After all, they’re cosmopolitans who’ve outgrown such concepts as patriotism.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. The Libertarian Party has stopped being libertarian some time back.

      Liked by 2 people

  3. Don’t know what’s going on inside libertarian brains these days.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. I think that it is high time that those of us who value the constitution, who value liberty stop talking about it and start acting. The clown at the Cato institute should be shamed. He should be disinvited from conservative fora. People need to protest his appearances and asked that he be banned. We are losing the culture war; we either take the battle back to those who want to destroy our liberties in a non-violent way, or one day we will find ourselves with no alternative except violence. But one way or another the battle is going to be fought.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. A libertarian is the guy manning the ovens before he puts on his overalls. Great post.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. A little historic perspective:

    I grew up during the 1950’s and 60’s. At that time, outside of NFA 1934 and the Sullivan Act in New York, there were almost no laws regarding firearms. In the back of most magazines, you could find ads for everything from cheap .22’s up to anti tank guns with armor piercing high explosive ammunition and more. All you needed was a check or money order and a shipping address. The shipping address could even be care of General Delivery at the local post office.

    No i.d., no background checks, no waiting periods, no age limits, pretty much anything and everything was freely available to anyone and cheap. It was just after WWII and the surplus market was dumping tons of surplus firearms from every country of the world. At one time, the NRA even gave away 1911’s with every membership renewal.

    School shootings were unheard of. Taking a gun to school was unimaginable, unless you were on the rifle team. (side note: A pack of matches or a pocket knife could get you expelled, not suspended, expelled. Standards were clear and enforced.) Drive by shootings were unknown and even among street gangs, disputes were usually settled with fists, not guns.

    it is now 2016, nearly 50 years later. Thousands of laws restricting firearms and their ownership have been passed at the local, state and national levels. Mass shootings of children and adults have become a national nightmare. Disputes that should end with nothing more than a finger in the air and some hurt feelings have become lethal with monotonous regularity.

    If gun control worked, none of that would be happening.

    That doesn’t even consider that the RKBA is a Constitutional right, just as much as freedom of speech, the right to remain silent when arrested and the right to a jury trial.

    Take your choice, the RKBA can be argued from a Constitutional perspective or it can be argued from a practical perspective. Both are valid.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. I grew up during the 60s and 70s. Most of what you describe was true for me as well, with 1 exception. We had no restrictions regarding bringing pocket knives to school. We used to play mumbledy-peg outside at lunch. I distinctly remember dissecting the frog in biology class. The X-Acto knives we had were dull, so I pulled out my trusty (and sharp) pocket knife and used that instead. This was in Texas, where nobody thought anything about having a shotgun or rifle in the trunk of the car or in the gun rack of your truck. After all, we’d go shooting or hunting after school.

      Liked by 1 person

  7. Well, if you were an alien from a conquering race from Space, what better way to conquer your target than to weaken it from within?

    I wish we could round them up and send them back to their own planet, but their planet probably doesn’t want them either.

    Geezis deep-fried peas and carrots, will this asinine shit never end??????

    Liked by 2 people

  8. Reblogged this on The Arts Mechanical and commented:
    Not just no, Instead, HELL NO!! Gun control only gives control of firearms to the people who should least have guns at all by the numbers, governments and crooks.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Please send CATO a small piece of cake.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. Steven Brodie Tucker | Reply

    You used antediluvian in a sentence. I love that word. Poor CATO has lost its mind.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. There’s no compromise that is acceptable to relieve people of their rights for absolutely no benefit.

    Forget the “benefit” crap. Rights are absolute. A “conditional right” is a permission. It can be withdrawn at any time, for any reason or none.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I agree with that. I was merely framing the answer based on what HE has written.

      Like

  12. Bought me an AK two weeks ago at a gunshow, and hey had me fill out the paperwork and called it in. Bought a Glock at a gun store last week and they had me fill out the paperwork and called it in. I have a CCW (which I just renewed) so I have been pre-background checked, so it took almost no time at all to clear me. The point is, the procedure was exactly the same at the show as it was in the store. When will these people shut the hell up with their BS, proven BS, talking points.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. If you’re dealing with an FFL, no matter what, he has to have you jump through the 4473 and NICS hoops (as redundant as they are, even on THEIR terms). Private sellers don’t need to do that. Were those two guys FFLs?

      Some places now require EVERY seller at a gun show, even a private guy who rented a table to offload two guns, to do that same shit…closing the alleged “gun show loophole.” Colorado passed such a law–by referendum–quite some time ago.

      And of course some places now require EVERY transfer to be checked. That would be Colorado again, in 2013, as an example, but at least some state senators lost their fucking jobs for it. And most people just give that law the finger, just like the >15 round mag ban (which has a ridiculous workaround, not that one should be needed).

      But as far as I know the national “default” is FFLs are the only ones required to help the government infringe your rights.

      Like

      1. “But as far as I know the national “default” is FFLs are the only ones required to help the government infringe your rights.”

        Unless the seller lives in one state and the buyer in another. Then it has to be shipped from an FFL in the seller’s state to an FFL in the buyer’s. Drive it back in the trunk and you’ve broken Federal law. Never mind that they can’t tell you did it at the time; when you’re arrested on a conspiracy charge, they have an actual physical crime to hit you with in reserve.

        Like

        1. True that. Yes, I forgot about interstate purchases, because I was addressing Doug’s situation, which (apparently) was a local purchase.

          Given the fact that an FFL can do a background check on someone from out of state, even by THEIR logic there’s no point to this rule; an FFL should be able to sell to *anyone* who walks through his door, directly, and it would take nothing away from the alleged security of the process.

          But of course, that security is the excuse, not the goal.

          Like

  13. Levy has become quite the whining gun-control advocate the last few years. He needs to fuck himself to death with an acid-soaked cactus, while rolling over a fire-ant hill.

    http://www.cato.org/blog/further-thoughts-sensible-gun-legislation

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I guess libertarian intellectuals get dumber with age?

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Pot residue does build up in fatty tissue, including between the ears…..

        Like

  14. I would suggest everyone read the books by Sheriff Richard Mack, enlightening to say the least.
    So regarding the 2nd Amendment, room for compromise etc. etc. etc. From what I have read, the revolution started not over taxes, or misrepresentation or any other such “minor” but surmountable action by the british. It was touched off by nothing less than the brits confiscation of powder and amunition from storehouses, to be followed by guns cause they knew who had em (basically everybody). That is what was the fire that lit the fuse, Should any semblance of our so called stoners in charge feel the need to do likewise the results will be exactly the same. There can be no doubt about this fact.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. The only constraints **I** recognize on weapons are engineering ones. . .

    Liked by 1 person

  16. It is starting to become apparent that many of the organizations that we thought were conservative and on our side are not. They suckered us. National Review, Weekly Standard, Cato…. all false flag operations.

    Maybe you can now start to see why the popularity of Trump. The light dawns for different people at different times — I’m thinking that the first people who jumped on the Trump Train saw it before any of the rest of us did.

    Like

    1. Except Trump is the biggest “false flag” of all.

      Like

    2. It’s always amazing to me the lengths Trump supporters will go to in order to spin him as something pro-freedom and conservative and to paint themselves as some kind of clairvoyants. I’m going to break it down very slowly. Trump. Is. Not. A. Friend. Of. Second. Amendment. Rights. At. All. Did you not hear him at the debate, advocating that Americans be deprived of their Second Amendment rights without due process? My God! The lack of awareness is beyond sad!

      Like

      1. In the course of this campaign, Trump has thrown the First, the Second, the Fourth, the Fifth, arguably the Sixth, and the Eighth Amendments under the bus. Even if we don’t include the Sixth (yet), that’s half the Bill of Rights.

        With the Ninth and Tenth largely being dead letters anyway, that only leaves the Third (no forcibly quartering of troops in private homes in peacetime) and the Seventh (jury trials for certain civil suits).

        If Trump is a “response” to encroaching government tyranny, the response would appear to be to “double down”.

        Like

        1. Exactly. I just don’t understand people who consistently defend him, no matter how statist that motherfucker is!

          Like

        2. More along the lines of “Rule of law didn’t work for us, therefore we’ll put someone in with no qualms about payback.”

          What they don’t seem to realize is that we’re past that; the government is so thoroughly colonized and corrupted that the only remedy is a hot civil war. Which we may as well have now before there are no gun and ammo suppliers, etc. rather than later when things WILL be worse.

          Like

        3. With either Trump or Clinton, the next 4 years are going to be “interesting”.

          Like

        4. You’re being awfully generous, aintcha?

          Like

        5. Talking to many of them in earnest, they sincerely believe they’re giving “the system” and/or “the establishment” the finger by supporting him. They look at me like I’m just some tool of the establishment.

          I understand the impulse. I think everyone I’ve seen comment on this thread does. But doing something just to do something is what got us into this fucking mess in the first place.

          Like

  17. Cato hasn’t been the same since the Kochs forced out Ed Crane.

    Like

  18. Excellent commentary Nikki. Like you, I am a vet (USMC) and hold “shall not be infringed” near and dear to my heart.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Semper Fi, Marine!🙂 And thank you for your service!

      Like

  19. No more donations to CATO

    Like

  20. Endless “compromise” is why I ditched the NRA many years ago.

    Like

  21. Today, for people who claim to be libertarians, it is all about drugs, and only drugs. Legalize drugs and they will let the government get away with any restriction on our other liberties.

    Like

    1. It’s true. They don’t understand that the White House has very little to do with it, other than setting policy. If you want to change drug laws, Congress are the ones to do so. And plus – I would submit that the majority of Americans couldn’t give a rat’s flying ass about legalization. It’s a nice to have – not a huge policy priority.

      Like

  22. pssst “assault weapons” were still widely available during the “assault weapons ban”. All the ‘ban’ did was affect certain ‘evil features’ like bayonet lugs. semi-auto AK47- and AR15-type rifles / actions were still sold in large numbers.
    Just as with the 1989 Roberti-Roos AWB in CA, the manufacturers just re-worked the features and model numbers to circumvent the stupid legislation.
    So don’t be misled or parrot that the 1994 AWB did a goddamned thing.

    Like

    1. Correct, and this can’t be emphasized enough. All the AWB did was stop production and freeze possession at the levels existent on the implementation date. If, as argued by anti-gunners, these guns were previously a crime problem at that level of possession, then nothing changed to affect those numbers over the next 10 years, so they cannot claim any reduction in crime due to the AWB.

      Like

    2. Pssst. I know that. That was my whole point with it being ineffective.

      Like

  23. Pamela J S Dunn | Reply

    Quote} ” A pack of matches or a pocket knife could get you expelled, not suspended, expelled” {Quote

    NOT TRUE IN OKLAHOMA where I went to high school; teachers and students smoked just outside the back doors; GUN RACKS in all the pickup trucks, Everybody had a pocket knife, matchs OR a ZIPPO lighter.

    Like

    1. LOL, even 60 years ago, Los Angeles was different from Oklahoma.

      Like

    2. Upstate New York (Orange County), late 60s/early 70s. Same thing – smoking outside, gun racks in pickups, I regularly carried a 7″ sheathe knife on my belt. Nobody batted an eye.

      Like

      1. When I was in 5th and 6th grade the “official” rule was “no knives in school” but from time to time the teacher would need to cut some cord or something and ask “anybody got a knife?” Half a dozen would come out. Nobody fussed about it. But if you got in trouble and had a knife on you…

        Like

  24. Compromise? Sure. The left can start the ball rolling, by pointing out which parts of GCA ’68 they are willing to repeal.

    Like

    1. Them: *stammer* *stutter* B…bu… but no! We can’t repeal that! It’s for the children! Keep the children safe!

      Me: Yeah? Then go fuck yourselves.

      Like

  25. “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” –Benjamin Franklin

    Like

  26. When did the pod people take over?

    Like

  27. It’s very simple, they agree with us 75 percent of the way. “Shall Not Be Infringed.” The only word they disagree with is the “Not.” The other three, they’ll follow enthusiastically.

    Given that leftist pissguzzler federal judges will do the most astounding mental acrobatics to avoid reading the plain meaning of those words, I’m sure there is no constitutional fix. Amendment XXVIII “And Oh By The Way, Asswipes, on 2A we mean it!” won’t work, they’ll just ignore it too. It’s like dealing with fucking two year olds.

    Like

  28. I am disappointed with so many in the gun rights movement who have publicly come out in support of Trump. I won’t name any names, to protect the mistaken, but even if he was right on every other issue, which he is not, Trump is wrong on gun rights, and just because his sons seem to be staunch supporters of the 2nd amendment, and supposedly have talked to him and have helped him to see the light, it is quite apparent that Trump’s heart is with the left on the issue and he could care less about our rights. So to him, I say, no, also.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I do intend to vote for him…if only because I like Hitlary even less.

      But I don’t imagine we won’t be boned, hard, after this election regardless of which of these two pieces of shit wins.

      Like

  29. The fact that they nominated the libertine statist Gary Johnson as their standard bearer says everything one need know about the current state of the Libertarian Party. Given that the Cato Institute is THE heavyweight think tank on the Libertarian side, a trip down the statist road for them comes as no surprise.

    They wonder why nobody takes them seriously. Perhaps its because they’ll jettison every principle they have in order to get another high.

    Like

We Want To Hear What You Have To Say

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: