Wednesday, November 19, 2014

Judenrat Sebastian at "Shall Not Be Questioned" has a brilliant solution to Bloomberg's initiative offensive: Preemptive Surrender.

Sebastian, the NRA's favorite "pragmatist" defender on the Internet, has discovered to his consternation something that David Codrea reported back in August: Bloomberg's targeting Nevada with another ballot initiative.
And what is Sebastian's solution? Why, compromise, of course. He writes, "Develop a more acceptable compromise bill that implements background checks upon change of title, but without the registration component, which is far more dangerous."
This tracks with many things he has said for years. Long-time readers may recall this gem:
As a member, I expect the National Rifle Association to fight gun control in the 111th Congress. If they have to get down on their hands and knees and kiss Harry Reid’s rosey red ass as part of a deal to stop a gun control bill, I’ll buy them the lip balm.
The rank-and-file firearm owners in Washington state are lining up to risk arrest to defy the new law and Sebastian is trying to cut deals that preemptively surrenders the issue in another state. In fact, there is a group in Nevada organizing to oppose Bloomberg. But does Sebastian support them? Oh, nooo. He'd rather sell them out ahead if time as a "strategy."
No wonder the Lairds of Fairfax love this guy. There is nothing he wouldn't compromise on, as long as it's someone else's rights and the dues money keeps flowing. One wonders what it really is that Sebastian refers to when he names his blog "shall not be questioned." Is he referring to his cowardice? Well, there you are. I certainly don't question THAT.
Sebastian at Valley Forge. "Are you sure, General Washington, that we can't compromise our way out of this?"


Bruce Krafft said...

You want to "compromise"? Fine, let's propose the following and have the antis do the "compromising" for once:

Repeal the Brady Bill and do away with NICS entirely. It was supposed to keep felons from getting firearms but has failed miserably; in 2013 out of 11 million NICS checks there were 14 convictions for “prohibited persons”. The answer is not to “tweak” background checks; the answer is to get rid of them entirely.

Repeal the Hughes Amendment to the Firearm Owners Protection Act limiting ownership of full-auto weapons to those made prior to 1986.

IAW the 1968 amendments to the NFA there will be a 90-day amnesty registration period every year, from January 1st through April 1st (or March 31st on leap years).

The ATF has 30 days to process any NFA transaction. Failure to complete a transaction in 30 days will result in the refunding of all fees to the transferees and issuance of a default registration letter, stating that the NFA items in question are legally possessed even if they are not entered in the NFRTR.

Any pilot, aircraft crew member or passenger who is an honorably discharged veteran or possesses a permit to carry from any state is authorized to carry a firearm on their airplane in any manner they deem fit with the exception that passengers must load frangible ammunition. TSA will provide "loaner" frangible ammunition to any passenger who needs it; the passenger will return it and pick up their ammunition at the flight's destination.

Repeal the Gun Free School Zone Act of 1990.

Any schoolteacher, school employee or school volunteer who is an honorably discharged veteran or possesses a permit to carry from any state is authorized to carry a firearm in any school in any manner they deem fit. Any school district which found in violation of this law shall forfeit all Federal funds for a period of 6 months (for a first offense) and not less than 1 year for subsequent offenses.

Congress shall deem that Article IV Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution (commonly known as the full faith and credit clause) applies to state issued permits to carry. Any state which fails to honor the permits of every other state shall forfeit all Federal funds for a period of 6 months (for a first offense) and not less than 1 year for subsequent offenses.

IAW Beard v. United States a person who is attacked in a place s/he has a right to be and who is not engaged in unlawful activity has no duty to retreat and has the right to meet force with force, including deadly force if s/he reasonably believes it is necessary in order to prevent death or great bodily harm to him/herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony and shall be presumed to have acted in self-defense until proven otherwise. Law enforcement may not arrest an individual for using deadly force unless they have probable cause to believe that the use of force was unlawful.

The definition of “sporting purposes” shall include all types of sport and competitive shooting and all “military style” and semi-automatic rifles, shotguns and handguns are hereby deemed suitable for sport shooting.

Any firearm or firearm accessory made by a private individual for their personal use is beyond the authority of Congress under its constitutional power to regulate commerce among the states.
“High capacity” magazines are hereby defined as any ammunition feeding device designed to hold more than 150 rounds.

“Armor piercing” bullets are hereby defined as any round which, when fired from a pistol with a barrel of no more than 4 inches (not including recoil or sound suppressor) can pierce 1 inch of HY-100 steel (or its equivalent) at 200 yards.

Anonymous said...

I used to think there were two useless things in this world: balls on a priest and tits on a nun. You, Mike, my Good Man, have introduced me to a third: Sebastian

What a waste of oxygen.

Anonymous said...

Bruce Krafft! Brilliant!

Anonymous said...

The NRA has been about compromise for decades. I was on a payment plan for a Life Membership back in the early 90's when some NRA flack said something about the NRA not opposing further restrictions on NFA items. They got not one more cent of my money and never will, until and unless they adopt a completely solid no compromise position on anything that goes bang. "Bruce Krafft" manifesto above would be a good start.

brassbryan said...

his 'discussion' reminds me of pajama boy and obama care and hot chocolate. disgusting.

any suggestions for a quick and easy stick in his spokes?

brassbryan said...

on second thought, here's what i wrote:

"how about, just say no?

this really reminds me of a conversation from a while ago involving onesie pajamas and hot chocolate, except this time (again) its the NRA wearing the man boy glasses and the smug *insider* smirk.

the NRA is useless, and you sir are deluded. my $ is going to the GOA."

we really ought to flood his comment section. this is total BS.

Anonymous said...

He throws around "compromise" like he knows what it means; he does not. It means the other side has something to offer, and, in this fight, they do not.

RogerC said...

@Bruce Kraft:

I like your brand of compromise! Keep 'em on the back foot, that's the thing.

Informed42 said...

Bruce Krafft- I agree 100% with what you propose should happen.

Carl Stevenson said...

Bruce. I LIKED it. You have my vote :-)

Happy D said...

At what point does this clown cross the line and go full Quisling?
Or has he already?

Anonymous said...

Isn't he a convicted felon? He doesn't even have a dog in this fight so why does anybody listen to him?

Baja Blitzer said...

NRA turned and ran when the Reese family needed them most.........
google Reese family Fast & Furious scapegoat?

Anonymous said...

While of course gun registration should be opposed, it's actually a moot issue. The Fedcoats already knows which guns you own by dint of the American Stasi's surveillance apparatus. Registration is only an issue if people lack the balls to forcibly resist confiscation. And if the people are such cowards, they deserve to trade in their guns for chains and manacles anyway.

Archer said...

@Bruce Krafft:
Excellent! I love it!

@Everyone else: Please hear me out before you jump to conclusions.

Did you click over and actually read Sebastian's post? If not, you missed some crucial context, such as:
1. Bloomberg has already gotten established in Nevada. He (or his cronies; same thing) has filed for non-profit status in the state and gathered enough signatures that his bill will be on the ballot. This is months of work in the making, and we're playing catch-up.
2. In addition to the head start, Bloomberg can easily afford to out-spend anything we can hope to raise 10-to-1 or 20-to-1. Or did you forget that?
3. Most voters don't read initiatives. They listen to propaganda and "news" from the media - which is notoriously anti-gun. Or did you forget that, too?
4. Even if voters did read the initiative, Nevada's is not as extreme as Washington's. Bloomberg is adjusting his message to attract as many supporters as possible.
5. Realistically speaking, background checks are popular among voters. It sucks, but like it or not, that's how it is, and pretending otherwise doesn't help any more than pretending a "No Guns Allowed" sign keeps you safe from bad guys.

Given all that, he's probably right: Bloomberg's bill most likely will pass in Nevada. That's his opinion - the context makes that abundantly clear - but it's probably correct.

Now to brass tacks: Did Sebastian, even once, state that the battle isn't worth fighting? Did he actually say pro-gun folks should let themselves be steamrolled? I didn't read that. Not even close.

In fact, he offers up some counter strategies. Read through them. Sure, they're not all sunshine and daisies, but what part of having to fight to protect your God-given, natural rights is? (Although I do like this one: "Forget fighting defensively, and shove National Reciprocity and some Federal Preemption under the 14th Amendment so far up Bloomberg’s ass that he chokes on Section 5.")

No battle plan survives first contact with the enemy, but no wise strategist has no options in the event things go badly. If you find you cannot get a checkmate, do you throw everything away on a loss, or do you try to play to a draw? Do you go all in on a glorious defeat, or do you try to sneak in some poison pill to make your opponent's victory come at a greater cost than anticipated? Maybe even lay the foundation for us to regain some lost ground?

The bottom line is this: You all are writing Sebastian off as a "Judenrat" and a defeatist, but I think he's merely addressing the reality. We might win in Nevada, but we might lose, too. If it's to be the latter, we should have some plan to get something we want in return, or at least to minimize the loss, rather than lose everything.

Anonymous said...


"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down half of this wall!"

Doesn't have quite the same ring to it does it?

Anonymous said...

Why would anyone still send their hard earned money to the NRA? Gun Owners of America gets $50 per year from me every year, now a few million more gun owners should do the same.

Anonymous said...

In addition to Bruce Krafft's excellent suggestions I would suggest this.

Our opposition claims we need a national conversation that would lead to "reasonable common sense gun regulations". By that they're implying that at least some if not all of the estimated 20,000 federal, state, county and municipal gun regulations currently on the books are not reasonable and/or are not common sense. To prove their good intentions and above board intent they should be required to produce, as the first step in their proposed national conversation, a list of at minimum 10,000 existing regulations they propose to do away with.