FS1040
.45 acp
I shared this on my forum here in NC, but thought y’all might like to see what we are up against.
Today, I met with NC House Reps. Julie von Haefenand Christy Clark in attempt to better understandHB86, which is also known as the "Gun Violence Prevention Act", and their motivations in supporting this poorly worded and written piece of legislation.
First, both ladies were personable and I appreciate their willingness to meet with me at lunch in the subterranean, members-only section of the cafeteria. They were accessible and, to their credit, appeared to be listening to my points. They did not interrupt nor were they uncivil. I, in turn, did my best to represent gun owners and our cause. When we parted, however, I don't believe they were any closer to withdrawing their support for HB86 than I was in supporting it. I would encourage you to reach out to your legislators and ask to meet with them. Dress up, be respectful, and represent the gun community positively. I don't think parading with AR's in front of the legislative building is as productive as a calm and reasoned conversation.
What we discussed with my commentary----
Clark carried the discussion on their side as she has better knowledge of gun laws/terms/facts than Von Haefen. Neither party owns a gun, but they "have family that do." Clark stated that she only wants background checks on rifles, but had to compromise with the other sponsors who loaded up the bill. This is actually not true. As the conversation continued, she also supported magazine bans, safe storage laws, and banning certain weapons. These politicians want to seem reasonable so they 'co-sponsor' a bill. This gives them political cover to say, "I only wanted this, but I had to compromise. You should too." Make no mistake--the Democrats in NC are coming for your guns if they get their laws passed. She wants to stop the 'online' gun-sale loophole, the 'gun-show' loopholes, and the long gun loophole. She said she supports the 2A and said it's not going anywhere and we will always have it because any law that takes away guns would be unconstitutional and would never get passed. I pointed out to her that my wife's father, despite freedom of religion laws in the USSR, spent most of her childhood locked up and away from the family for his faith. Her promises are meaningless. She wants all guns, both through an FFL and private sales, to have a background check because this will cut down on gun violence. She used debunked facts and said these laws, where already implemented elsewhere, have proven successful. I pointed to St. Louis, D.C., Baltimore, and Chicago. Her response was that because gun control wasn't fully adopted by neighboring states, it wasn't working in those areas. This is the Communist line--communism doesn't work because not everybody is doing it or doing it right.
I could drone on about how I pointed out how HB896 is unenforceable, it does nothing to prevent crime since most gun crime is committed with handguns and most of those hand guns are stolen, and how these two women didn't know what they were talking about (that really burned them). Instead, I will leave you with a bigger picture of the fight for our rights.
These two women are under the false illusion that passing a law is doing something that will prevent crime. They seemed genuinely surprised to have this pointed out to them. Criminals commit crime regardless of what is on the books. That is what makes them criminals.
Second, Clark let it slip that no one Bill can stop gun violence and this would just be the first one. I asked them what bills are next and next and next. They would not talk about that, but they didn't deny it. They want you to focus so heavily on this one that you can't think 2 or 3 steps out. I am willing to bet my lunch that other Bills are already written than can be introduced at the next available opportunity.
Third, Clark made the stunning admission that there are no "Good guys with a gun."
[Hold up a second. Did you catch that? Earlier in our conversation, she said she wants universal background checks that will allow you to purchase , own, shoot, and carry a gun. Think about it--isn't the purpose of universal background checks to prove you are a good guy with a gun? Wait, wait, wait, wait--you gotta think through what this seeming contradiction means because there is no contradiction. They WILL NOT be issuing permits for handguns, long guns, or carry permits since they believe there are no good guys with guns. I'm not mincing or parsing words, I'm not paranoid, nor am I playing 'gotcha' with these representatives pouncing on any little malapropism (easy for me to say) they make. Their laws are not designed to help law abiding gun owners be more responsible; their laws are meant to be responsible for separating owners from their guns.]
I had seen a sign in Von Haefen's office that said--among other things such as "Science is real, love is love, and women's rights are human rights--that "Black Lives Matter." (I believe Black Lives do Matter as do all lives including the unborn, but I digress.) Her comment presented the perfect opportunity to press the point that if there are no good guys with guns, then why are there cops with guns all around the legislative building? Has she seen the number of times that cops have shot and killed black people? Why is she saying that only cops should have guns if they are killing black people? (I said this loudly too.) If there are no good guys with guns, then cops should be disarmed as we can't trust anyone. I threw her talking point back in her lap. This point made her uncomfortable and she said that's another topic she doesn't want to talk about. I was not surprised, but the Left's position is riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions cleverly devised, disguised, and meant to confuse, befuddle, and addle the public.
As a friend pointed out in a private conversation, these people are "blind" and will not "listen to factual information that goes against their belief structure." I agree, but I also feel (as does he) that we must have these conversations. These people need to be exposed to ideas outside their own echo chamber and understand that we will not surrender.
Again, I'm glad these representatives spoke with me and I would love to continue my conversation with them. I hope this short essay motivates you to get involved and stand up for your freedom, your gun rights, and your New York.
Today, I met with NC House Reps. Julie von Haefenand Christy Clark in attempt to better understandHB86, which is also known as the "Gun Violence Prevention Act", and their motivations in supporting this poorly worded and written piece of legislation.
First, both ladies were personable and I appreciate their willingness to meet with me at lunch in the subterranean, members-only section of the cafeteria. They were accessible and, to their credit, appeared to be listening to my points. They did not interrupt nor were they uncivil. I, in turn, did my best to represent gun owners and our cause. When we parted, however, I don't believe they were any closer to withdrawing their support for HB86 than I was in supporting it. I would encourage you to reach out to your legislators and ask to meet with them. Dress up, be respectful, and represent the gun community positively. I don't think parading with AR's in front of the legislative building is as productive as a calm and reasoned conversation.
What we discussed with my commentary----
Clark carried the discussion on their side as she has better knowledge of gun laws/terms/facts than Von Haefen. Neither party owns a gun, but they "have family that do." Clark stated that she only wants background checks on rifles, but had to compromise with the other sponsors who loaded up the bill. This is actually not true. As the conversation continued, she also supported magazine bans, safe storage laws, and banning certain weapons. These politicians want to seem reasonable so they 'co-sponsor' a bill. This gives them political cover to say, "I only wanted this, but I had to compromise. You should too." Make no mistake--the Democrats in NC are coming for your guns if they get their laws passed. She wants to stop the 'online' gun-sale loophole, the 'gun-show' loopholes, and the long gun loophole. She said she supports the 2A and said it's not going anywhere and we will always have it because any law that takes away guns would be unconstitutional and would never get passed. I pointed out to her that my wife's father, despite freedom of religion laws in the USSR, spent most of her childhood locked up and away from the family for his faith. Her promises are meaningless. She wants all guns, both through an FFL and private sales, to have a background check because this will cut down on gun violence. She used debunked facts and said these laws, where already implemented elsewhere, have proven successful. I pointed to St. Louis, D.C., Baltimore, and Chicago. Her response was that because gun control wasn't fully adopted by neighboring states, it wasn't working in those areas. This is the Communist line--communism doesn't work because not everybody is doing it or doing it right.
I could drone on about how I pointed out how HB896 is unenforceable, it does nothing to prevent crime since most gun crime is committed with handguns and most of those hand guns are stolen, and how these two women didn't know what they were talking about (that really burned them). Instead, I will leave you with a bigger picture of the fight for our rights.
These two women are under the false illusion that passing a law is doing something that will prevent crime. They seemed genuinely surprised to have this pointed out to them. Criminals commit crime regardless of what is on the books. That is what makes them criminals.
Second, Clark let it slip that no one Bill can stop gun violence and this would just be the first one. I asked them what bills are next and next and next. They would not talk about that, but they didn't deny it. They want you to focus so heavily on this one that you can't think 2 or 3 steps out. I am willing to bet my lunch that other Bills are already written than can be introduced at the next available opportunity.
Third, Clark made the stunning admission that there are no "Good guys with a gun."
[Hold up a second. Did you catch that? Earlier in our conversation, she said she wants universal background checks that will allow you to purchase , own, shoot, and carry a gun. Think about it--isn't the purpose of universal background checks to prove you are a good guy with a gun? Wait, wait, wait, wait--you gotta think through what this seeming contradiction means because there is no contradiction. They WILL NOT be issuing permits for handguns, long guns, or carry permits since they believe there are no good guys with guns. I'm not mincing or parsing words, I'm not paranoid, nor am I playing 'gotcha' with these representatives pouncing on any little malapropism (easy for me to say) they make. Their laws are not designed to help law abiding gun owners be more responsible; their laws are meant to be responsible for separating owners from their guns.]
I had seen a sign in Von Haefen's office that said--among other things such as "Science is real, love is love, and women's rights are human rights--that "Black Lives Matter." (I believe Black Lives do Matter as do all lives including the unborn, but I digress.) Her comment presented the perfect opportunity to press the point that if there are no good guys with guns, then why are there cops with guns all around the legislative building? Has she seen the number of times that cops have shot and killed black people? Why is she saying that only cops should have guns if they are killing black people? (I said this loudly too.) If there are no good guys with guns, then cops should be disarmed as we can't trust anyone. I threw her talking point back in her lap. This point made her uncomfortable and she said that's another topic she doesn't want to talk about. I was not surprised, but the Left's position is riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions cleverly devised, disguised, and meant to confuse, befuddle, and addle the public.
As a friend pointed out in a private conversation, these people are "blind" and will not "listen to factual information that goes against their belief structure." I agree, but I also feel (as does he) that we must have these conversations. These people need to be exposed to ideas outside their own echo chamber and understand that we will not surrender.
Again, I'm glad these representatives spoke with me and I would love to continue my conversation with them. I hope this short essay motivates you to get involved and stand up for your freedom, your gun rights, and your New York.
