Democratic "leadership" in Washington state shows why party is in decline: Dishonesty, Arrogance

A few months after I moved to Washington state in 1997, the state election included an initiative which would have required that all handgun owners in the state obtain a handgun license or face felony charges (for continuing to own a firearm they had owned responsibly for decades). Despite predictions that it would pass easily, the measure lost by 71%. A gun control supporter at the time lamented that it had set gun control back 20 years because it contained such blatant overreach.

Now it's 20 years later and the gun control lobby is pushing bills which could end up setting their efforts back by another 20 years.

Grandstanding Attorney General Bob Ferguson has proposed restrictions which form the basis of two separate bills concerning so-called "assault weapons". Should these bills fail, as they are expected to do, there is already talk about them being formed into a ballot initiative for 2018.

I have written in a previous blog post why such restrictions are absolutely foolhardy:

• Rifles are not used often for murder. They are used to kill substantially less people annually than are killed by people with their bare hands...or other common weapons such as knives or blunt objects like baseball bats
  
• These rifles are very commonly owned, undoubtedly in the hundreds of thousands in the state and we have see in other states that complying would lead to confiscation (as in California). Compliance would be low, leading to massive disrespect for the law. (Hint: if you want to discourage ownership of a type of gun, proposing a ban is NOT the way to do so)
  
• Egregious restrictions like these have been a significant factor in Democratic party losses nationwide

The more obnoxious version of Ferguson's legislation, HB 1387 would mandate licensing to own "assault weapons", with annual renewal required. The consequences of this would be simply stunning: gross overreach attempting to turn Washington state (which is politically moderate but VERY gun friendly) into a state with worse gun control laws than any other state in the West, including California.

I referenced I676 and the consequences to the gun control lobby of its arrogant overreach earlier. But perhaps even more disturbing is the willingness, nay, eagerness of gun control proponents to utter statements that are blatantly dishonest...and the media's tendency to report those statements without even the pretense of fact checking.

Take for example the Seattle Times and their witless reporting of politicians pushing for these gun control bills here.

Laurie Jinkins of Tacoma opined:

“We have a lot of data now with mass shootings that assault weapons hurt and kill a lot more people and do it a lot faster,” she said. “We’re trying to make sure that these kinds of weapons stay out of the hands of dangerous people”

However, the FBI Uniform Crime Report consistently shows rifles as uncommon crime weapons, used in very few murders. And "mass shooting" statistics are being manipulated to inflate numbers by counting any situation where more than one person as shot.

Deputy prosecuting attorney Adam Cornell, told the group his worst day out of the 15 years working in Snohomish County was when he arrived at the scene where a 19-year-old, Allen C. Ivanov, shot and killed three of his former high school classmates at a house party in Mukilteo last year. 

Authorities say Ivanov opened fire with an AR-15-style rifle he had just purchased. Ivanov pleaded guilty and has been sentenced to life in prison. 

“That shooting, those murders,” he paused and said, “occurred in a span of less than 35 seconds … Assault weapons are the most efficient killers of people that we have in our communities.”

While that was an awful crime, it could have easily been committed with a 5 shot revolver. Grandstanding because a scary looking rifle was used is simply idiotic.

However the most awful part of this article could easily be this sentence:

Inslee said there’s a loophole in the state’s law that doesn’t require background checks for assault weapons.

Think about that for a moment. The governor of Washington state stated in the mainstream media that Washington state doesn't have a background check for these rifles. And the Seattle Times reported that statement AS FACT.

In point of fact, all firearms sold through dealers in Washington state require a Federal NICS background check. And since I594 passed, ALL firearms purchases are required to go through a dealer.

Governor Inslee and Attorney General Ferguson: are you actually so low as to attack a civil liberty through rank dishonesty or are you actually this ignorant of existing law?

If you're going to call yourself The Resistance

If you're going to call yourself The Resistance, I expect you to join me:

• Oppose ALL government overreach, including the party you support
• Hold both major parties to a higher standard and don't freak out about the other party doing things your own party has done...shut down bad actions by BOTH 
• Oppose all infringements on the Bill of Rights (all 10 amendments including the Second)
• Oppose all denial of civil liberties without due process based on actual crimes committed
• Realize that different things are important to different people and don't attack other peoples' rights and then expect your rights to be safe
• Trust that most of your fellow citizens are good people and don't jump to conclusions involving bigotry
• Our public life and society are not a reality TV show. Stop treating it with that level of shallow idiocy.

Democrats: Don't take LGBT folks for granted: how not to win in 2020

I have a daughter who is 22. She is the most awesome person in the world.

She also questions her gender and orientation, putting her firmly in the LGBT continuum, This is not an issue for us in any sense. When she came out about her questions it was probably the most boring coming out ever.

Perhaps as a result of being raised by two cantankerous freethinkers, my kid also voted third party this year. Her vote was Green Party this year, not Libertarian but she chose a candidate whose views matched hers and I could not be prouder.

Today, my kid's Facebook feed has been lit up with people who feel entitled to decide who people should vote for, scolding and shouting at people who vote third party.

Warning: this kid has never been one to tolerate bullying and vapid browbeating. She is very bright and you can convince her but trying to control her will be like talking to a wall. Taking her vote for granted in future elections is foolish. Trying to manipulate her opinion this crudely only means that you will probably NEVER have her vote.

You have been warned.

I am a libertarian.

I am a libertarian.

People talk about libertarians as if they are selfish, borderline antisocial members of the community. From my perspective, we're not. To me it seems to me that it's other political parties that are selfish, muddled, incoherent. Not examining the implications of their party platforms and actions.

Democrats claim to be pro-choice (at least 1 choice), claim to want unity and freedom. But they don't if you're a gun geek or religious or own property. (On that last point, you know that the DAPL pipeline wouldn't have been forced down peoples throats without eminent domain laws, right?)

Republicans claim to want small government but try to be the morals police, worrying about which consenting adults sleep together.

Both those parties criminalize things they shouldn't, attack countries they shouldn't and are awful on basic civil liberties. Both are essentially for unlimited government which can do whatever it chooses and only complain when it chooses to hinder them.

I'm a straight white guy with a quiet lifestyle and it would be *much* easier for me to be Republican and just protect my rights. But I'm a libertarian instead so I can *also* support the few positive rights Democrats also claim to value, even if they mostly don't.

I'm a libertarian but after this horror show of an election maybe I'll be an anarchist.

Don't try to control me and we'll get along fine. But if you do, we'll have a serious problem. And you will lose.

2016: Time to Withhold The Consent Of The Governed?

A founding document of the United States, the Declaration of Independence includes these words:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Notice two phrases that I highlighted.

Point #1: The purpose of governments is to secure our RIGHTS. Yes it can do other things, when they don't conflict with our rights
Point #2: Governments derive their powers from the CONSENT of the governed

However, it's pretty clear that the government is now as interested in our rights and consent as an inebriated Brock Turner. A government that theoretically serves us actually rules us: it takes on any new power that it wants, denies and curtails our rights at every turn, denies us the information that we need about its functioning. The mainstream media are utterly useless and the only way that we obtain insight into what our government is actually doing is through the bold actions of Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning, Julian Assange, Wikileaks and Anonymous. Naturally, these people are imprisoned or forced to flee the country that they have served, while the media and politicians argue about how they should be punished, from lengthy jail terms to extrajudicial execution.

If a government whose primary purpose is to protect our rights actually goes rogue and makes it a primary task to attack them, maybe it's time to discuss whether it's time to withhold our consent to their activities and how to do so effectively.

• vote third party - people are obsessed with the choice of  left vs right wing authoritarian and the important question is whether to continue choosing authoritarians or choose a freedom-oriented candidate

• don't vote at all - maybe voting for anyone IS giving consent to an out of control system

• holding up signs and yelling - potentially useful, if the media notices large numbers turning out

• armed revolt - has a number of down sides :)

Or we could just ignore an inconvenient question and continue to post cat pictures, while partisans argue about whether the US should elect Hitler or Stalin as President. Sorry that Franklin Delano Roosevelt isn't a serious contender, his supporters just didn't start campaigning soon enough...

Rambling Third Party Election Thoughts

OK, a thought for my fellow USan voters.

We've gotten too used to a knee-jerk thought process that's a simplistic left vs right paradigm.

Given that the Democrats and Republicans are a giant cluster@#$% of FAIL this year and many people are considering a third party vote, please consider casting that vote in a Libertarian direction.

Here's my thought process:

- left vs right DOESN'T MATTER so much as an orthogonal axis that charts authoritarian vs libertarian positions. If Trump and Clinton didn't have the power to totally implode our country it isn't just because they're complete idiots...it's because they're complete idiots with TOO MUCH POWER. How much harm could Trump do if he was the King of England? Next to none because the royal family in England are figureheads. Is anyone in England scared of the Queen? I doubt it.

- I grant you that there are some economic issues to be addressed because some people are having trouble getting by, let alone thriving, economically. We can brainstorm solutions for that. I think it would be GREAT to do that instead of deciding whether we'll do that OR keep our civil liberties.

- But I'd argue that the most important single problem in our culture is that it's gone way too far for way to long in an authoritarian direction. And the single most important starting place is REDUCING ITS POWER. Are you tired of hearing about things like Eric Garner being strangled to death by the NYPD over a cigarette tax violation? Vicki weaver being killed by an FBI sniper while holding her baby because her husband cut a shotgun barrel an inch too short? The Branch Davidians being barbecued in Waco or MOVE being bombed in Philadelphia? I am!!!!

- I'm also sick of terrorist attacks and government actions that guarantee that there will be many more (Oops, sorry about killing 100 civilian non-combatants in Syria. Hope none of their family want payback)

- How about ending the War on Drugs, police militarization and asset forfeiture without conviction?

- How about not voting to gut the NRA or Planned Parenthood but supporting both worthy organizations?

- How about being the United States instead of letting two parties stuffed with cretinous narcissists who we wouldn't buy a used car from divide and conquer us???

A Tale of Two Movements

"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way – in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only."
- the opening lines of  'A Tale of Two Cities' by Charles Dickens


Our time also seems simultaneously to combine the worst and the best of times. We have horrible things happening, like the awful terrorist shooting at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando. At the same time, in response, many LGBT folks and gun owners have discovered common ground in the right to self defense.

Others disagree. George Takei of Star Trek fame is trying to organize LGBT folks to attack civil liberties saying:

"For if there is one group in this country with more will, more experience, and more tenacity than the NRA, it is the LGBT community.

You don’t want to mess with us."

Here is why I think that their efforts will fail.
  
1. Switching from "extending rights unfairly denied LGBT folks" to "denying commonly appreciated rights"
The LGBT community HAS had remarkable success over the past 20 years and I applaud this. However, that success came about because that community was working to gain equality in rights that were unfairly denied them. LGBT groups who now make it their mission to attack everyone's rights are unlikely to enjoy much success.

2. Many LGBT member support gun rights and intend to defend themselves

Another part of the reason for their failure, as they are likely to fail, will be because they do not speak for the whole LGBT community. Since I became a shooter, I have known lesbian, gay and transgender people who shoot and are determined to retain the ability to keep shooting. I have also been privileged to support their efforts, both as a friend and as a shooting safety instructor.

Indeed, the Seattle area had a Pink Pistols affiliated group around 2000 called Cease Fear (link to an article about us). We offered gun safety and self defense classes at Home Alive and made occasional target shooting excursions. We were also welcomed at Seattle Pride and Tacoma Pride events.

You can get an inkling of the pro and anti self defense breakdown by comparing some social media numbers. On Facebook:

The largest Gays Against Guns Facebook community has 3,742 members. The Pink Pistols Facebook community has over twice that many at 7,931.

Over on Twitter, @GAGNoGuns has 392 followers, while @PnkPistol has 1,391 followers.

 3. Approach, character and attitude

The final reason why I think Pink Pistols will win and GAG fade into obscurity comes down to approach and attitude. Even in this day and age where we have become calloused to the dishonesty and authoritarian creepiness of political "leaders" in both political parties, character counts. People tend to prefer being treated with respect and to be offered the opportunity to judge the facts and make up their own minds, rather than being 'splained.


I have been an active participant on the Pink Pistols Facebook group for a couple weeks now and the approach I have overwhelmingly seen there is one of kindness, community and the open/honest sharing of information. People are presented with information and then given the room to make up their own minds.

In contrast, the Gays Against Guns community as a whole is taking an authoritarian "do what we say" tone. People are banned from the groups (as is typical with gun control "discussion" groups) for presenting different opinions.

This is not too surprising since the gun control community tends to want to seize full control and impose a simplistic narrative onto this complex topic. People, perhaps finding an odd comfort in being told that they are too incompetent and ineffectual to protect themselves from harm, attempt to foist that belief off on others as proven fact. Technical details are brushed aside in an apparent effort to convince people that you can waltz into a gun shop and waltz out with a machine gun in under 10 minutes.

Personally, I'd argue that if you can't win by telling the truth, winning with arguments that you know are dishonest would be a hollow victory. But that's all irrelevant because the gun control lobby is not going to win this one.