Free Speech Will Survive

This past week Facebook announced additional updates and enforcement of their terms of service for individuals offering firearms for sale on the social media platform as well as on its photo-sharing site Instagram. Post, threads and entire pages began disappearing around the country. Not only were individual’s sale posts targeted, but also legitimate retailers and firearms related information exchange groups, both private and public as well as the individuals who served as administrators on the offending pages.

Lesser reported on but also impacted were Curio & Relic collectors who possess Type 3 Federal Firearms Licenses (FFL’s) who are legally permitted to do non-dealer acquisitions in most places outside of California.  Also caught up in recent sweeps have been the marijuana dispensaries that, while legal, licensed, taxed and regulated in their area, have also been given the boot.

The seemingly randomness of the enforcement, immediately and unceremoniously unpublishing some pages while leaving other competing pages intact, removing some posts but leaving others of nearly identical content, lead many to believe the cause was everything from algorithms run amuck, solo malcontents with an axe to grind, local activists & NIMBY’ers to a coordinated national gun control group attack.  The result has been a lot of confusion, finger pointing and even some allies turning against each other.

Of course, the timing – as the presidential primaries are just getting under way, smack of politically motivated censorship aimed at disrupting opponent’s focus on the candidates and elections. Probably a coincidence, but who knows.

Regardless of how it was implemented, Facebook states the new policy arose from the company’s review of its rules following its recent efforts to encourage new forms of commerce on the site.

Believe it or not, this isn’t something new. Facebook announced restrictions on commercial activity back in 2014. See the press release here: http://newsroom.fb.com/news/2014/03/facebook-instagram-announce-new-educational-and-enforcement-measures-for-commercial-activity/

A couple of things to keep in mind here: We use Facebook’s social media platform for free. Unless you pay for ads for non-restricted products, there is no cost. And to Facebook, YOU are the product. They make BILLIONS of dollars a year selling access to us and information about our likes, habits and… well more information than we really want to admit they have about us.

The discouraging thing here is Facebook has become a staple in a lot of our lives. We use it to communicate and stay in touch with friends, family and other like-minded folks around town, the country and the world with just a few likes. Companies use it to communicate with customers. Government entities use it to inform the citizens they serve. Clubs, religious institutions, neighborhoods and information sharing groups use it to communicate with members.  Its ubiquitous nature, being on our computers, tablets, and mobile phones lets us get news about what’s going on in Facebook faster and often more reliably than we can from traditional news outlets. It has connected more people than has ever been possible before.  Because of this, we’ve become far too reliant on a single tool that is subject to the whim of someone who may or may not agree with our point of view.

While Facebook is free and open to all, we tend to forget this environment is owned and operated by a corporation; it is not a free, open space like the Internet itself, even though it may feel like it. While I expect there to be 1st Amendment challenges to these latest actions, the private product terms of use will most certainly prevail, even though Facebook seems to have broken some of it’s own rules enforcing it.

If you’re thinking what’s next, you’re not alone. Who’s to say Facebook won’t expand the definition of banned content to include religious practices, the promotion of civil rights, criticism of the government, or even criticism of Facebook policy.

Personally I find it sad Facebook has chosen this heavy-handed approach. One would think they could more effectively encourage legal behavior, even if they don’t especially like it – by facilitating the actions and ensuring it remains legal, instead of slamming the door on those who participate in it.

If nothing else, this latest action provides opportunity to a number of alternative social media platforms and sites such as MeWe, Gun District and many others who are vying for the customers, traffic and revenue Facebook is turning away.

Yes, I have voiced my dissatisfaction to Facebook about their new policy and enforcement practices and will continue to do so. Will Facebook give a tinker’s damn about anything I say, one user out of 1.59 billion? I seriously doubt it. But then again, I’m not the only one.

Legal, responsible commerce will survive. The free exchange of ideas and information will survive. Free speech will survive. It may just happen outside of Facebook.

Bob

p.s. Odd Stuffing content is also available at www.oddstuffing.com and on MeWe at https://mewe.com/join/odd_stuffing – just in case.

#oddstuffing #neverdoubt #facebookcensorship #2ndamendment #freespeech

 

Trust

The simple definition courtesy of Merriam-Webster: belief that someone or something is reliable, good, honest, effective, etc.

Trust is an important concept for all beings, but especially in humans. Trust allows us to proceed with confidence that what we see, what we are told, the relationship we share with another is based on truth and honesty. Being suspicious creatures at heart, trust is earned over time and through evidence of good deeds or intentions. But for as long as it takes to develop trust, it can be destroyed instantly through lies, deceit or collusion.

The trust we place in the people around us is the foundation of a civilization. We trust the officials we have given the authority to govern and regulate our society will do so not in their own best interest, but in ours. We trust they will respect the laws of land and of humanity in general. We trust them with our safety, security and our very lives.

This year more than any, our trust as United States citizens is being tested. We are being told that changes need to be made for our own good, in our best interest – not for the benefit of a select few. We’re being told that the majority of us actually support these changes and we should as well.

At a time in our nation’s history when firearm ownership is at an all time high and violent crime is at historic lows, and continuing to trend downwards, we are told we have a gun violence crisis. This ‘crisis’, the narrative goes, can only be solved through new and severe restrictions of our rights to own firearms. We are told the authority exists to make these news laws without our consent.

We are told the only way to prevent criminals from using guns illegally is to prevent the law abiding from having them. We are told we do not need the best and most effective means of protecting our lives and our families. We are told we can only have a certain, limited set of non-intimidating firearms. We are told we cannot have enough ammunition to practice and prepare for our personal defense. We are told we can only have these if we pay new fees, new taxes and subject ourselves to constant and intense scrutiny by our government. We are told we cannot be trusted to safely defend ourselves. And of course, we are told nobody wants to take the firearms we already have.

We are not being told the truth.

We look at what is going on in our communities and around the country, and we see the attacks on our Second Amendment rights ourselves. We see politicians and the elite, surrounded by the very firearms they say we should not be able to own. We see states, counties and municipalities imposing more and more restrictive firearms and ammunition laws. Laws which will never prevent criminals from obtaining firearms or committing acts of violence. Laws which only burden the law abiding citizen – turning them in to criminals overnight with the stroke of a pen for daring to defend themselves.

We can see the truth.

This is a very important year for the Second Amendment and for our country. At the heart of it, is who do we as citizens trust. Do we trust in the foundations of our nation, do we trust in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? Do we trust in ourselves to be able to make the right choices for our families and ourselves?

Who do you trust?

Bob

#oddstuffing, #trust, #2ndamendment #constitution

We The People

I’ve chosen to start the New Year with the Preamble of the United States Constitution. The full text is:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I bring this up for two reasons. First, I want this to be a reminder of the founding principles of our nation. These radical and downright revolutionary ideas at the time were what our founders created to lead this new country into the future and serve as the basis for all that would follow. Second, with this in mind, 2016 will likely see some of the most serious attacks on US citizens individual and collective rights witnessed in modern times.

At the national level we’ve already seen a taste of what is to come:

• Our President threatening to circumvent congress and legislate through executive orders by requiring NICS background checks utilize the non-due process No Fly List for firearms purchases, mandating universal background checks and firearms registration, reclassifying individual sellers as firearms dealers and banning certain types of ammunition.
• A new and expanded version of the ‘Assault Weapons’ ban.
• Presidential candidates jockeying to see who can come up with the most restrictive gun control scheme including Australian-style gun buyback/confiscations and ‘Assault Weapons’ bans.

On the state level, we’ve seen:

• New York’s ammunition proposal to limit individual purchases to two (2) times the maximum capacity & caliber of their registered firearms every 90 days.
• Connecticut’s Governor’s Executive Order to run state firearm purchases through the No Fly List.
• California’s Lt Governor’s 2018 Gubernatorial campaign/ 2016 Ballot Initiative to require permits and point-of-sale background checks for in-state only ammunition purchases and outlawing all pre-ban standard capacity magazines.

On the local level, we’ve seen:

• Highland Park, Illinois banning so-called ‘Assault Weapons’ and standard capacity magazines.
• Various municipalities outlawing all pre-ban standard capacity magazines, bans of self-defense ammo, mandatory in-home storage laws and zoning firearms and ammunition retailers out of existence.

What’s worse, the list above is just the starting point. Inspired by recent case rejections from the US Supreme Court; states, counties and municipalities around the country are emboldened to push their own restrictive agendas. Will any of these measures do anything to prevent violence? No, of course not. All they do is further erode honest, law abiding citizen rights and their ability to protect themselves and their families from those who don’t obey the law in the first place.

Does it have to be this way? NO! But it’s going to take a concerted effort by ALL responsible firearms owners to stop it. It’s going to take everyone’s voices and votes.

If you’ve never been involved before, 2016 will be the year to be heard. It is understandable to want to stay below the radar and not get on someone’s list, especially for those of us in a restrictive and downright vindictive state like California. Well, I’ve got some bad news for you. If you own a firearm, you’re already on the list – and that legal ownership you enjoy today may not last for long.

If you haven’t joined the NRA or your state affiliate organization, now is the time. If you haven’t donated to the organizations fighting to stop these new constitutional infringements, now is the time. If you haven’t written to your representatives at the local, state and federal level to tell them these attacks on our Constitutional rights is unacceptable, now is the time.

2015 saw record numbers of citizens around the country exercising their Second Amendment rights and purchasing firearms, many of them for the very first time. Imagine the power of that many people saying NO to new gun control laws in their communities, in their states and in the nation. Imagine the power of We The People.

Bob

‪#oddstuffing #wethepeople‬ ‪#‎2ndamendment‬ #2016

A World Without Guns

In the wake of tragedy in our nation and around the world, the rhetoric for more gun control and the erosion of our national gun rights is immediately called out. It begins within hours of the first shots being fired, as the victims still lay bleeding and long before the who, why and how have been answered. They demand to keep the dangerous weapons of war of out the people’s hands, even if what is being proposed would not have prevented the most recent tragedy they reference. While the proponents feign a respect for the Second Amendment, the goal is always clear, to restrict then eliminate private gun ownership.

How do you turn the United States into a Gun Free Zone? Simply put, you criminalize possession of all firearms and ammunition and confiscate what already exits.

Here are just a few reasons why this would not work.

The Second Amendment would need to be repealed, eroded or reinterpreted to the point where it removes the right of citizens to own firearms and ammunition. While not completely impossible, in totality it is highly improbable at this point in our history.

Getting Americans to turn over their firearms wouldn’t be easy. Compulsory buybacks – as witnessed in other countries, would be even less successful here. At that point, a purge would require going door to door to pick up what citizens have refused to surrender. The cost in dollars and lives would be high.

The knowledge on how to build a firearm is readily available. Anyone with minimal mechanical skills can fashion a simple working gun from a $10 trip to Home Depot. Most certainly basic, but it doesn’t take much to progress from there. In other parts of the world, sophisticated home-based firearms and ammunition are readily produced using rudimentary tools.

Some guns will have to remain. The State, including federal, state & local authorities and the military will always need guns to enforce this new reality. They will also be needed to protect the members of the government and the government itself. Protection for the key members of the economy, most likely in the form of private armed security forces will be required.

Then of course there are the criminals – or terrorists who are nothing more than thug criminals with a “cause”. These are the people whose very livelihood is made through illegal means. Making guns more illegal than they already are for them is not going to deter someone who breaks the law anyway.

What begins to emerge is a society where the ruling and economic elite are well protected by the very element they won’t allow the normal citizen to have. For the ordinary citizen, crime will not have been reduced. The most likely outcome is crime will dramatically increase, as citizens will have no means to prevent themselves from becoming a victim. The promised sense of security in this new world will be exposed as a lie.

Despite what some would have you believe, firearms are being used successfully to defend normal citizens’ lives every day. And not every successful defense requires the discharge of the firearm. It’s presence alone is often enough to save a life.

A world without guns in anything but. It is a simply a world of discrimination where very few will be granted the privilege to defend themselves and a large population of those who will not. It is a world where someone else has already decided you do not have the right to ensure your own safety.

Bob

‪#oddstuffing #aworldwithoutguns‬, ‪#‎discrimination‬, ‪#‎privilege‬, ‪#‎2ndamendment‬, ‪#‎righttoselfdefense‬

Thanksgiving Dinner Discussion

For this year’s Thanksgiving wishes, the White House asked Americans around the country to talk about national security over dinner. Following the former chief of staff & current Chicago mayor’s strategy of “You never let a serious crisis go to waste.”, the White House chose to push this latest chapter of gun control agenda on this national holiday.

The events that precipitated this were of course the horrific attacks on the citizens of Paris. Never mind that the fully automatic firearms and explosives used in the attacks were illegal in France anyway, or that private ownership and defensive use of firearms in France is almost unheard of. Those events, and the national call for caution in accepting refugees from the war torn Middle Eastern region can only mean one thing – pushing for more ways to restrict legal firearm ownership in the United States.

At issue, the use of the ultra-secretive terror watch list to be used as a means to deny purchasing a firearm from a Federal Firearms Licensee. How could any ‘reasonable’ person object to linking a terrorist watch list into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS)? Could it be the Congress and the NRA want to allow gun sales to terrorists?!?

Once we stop laughing at the absurdity of the suggestion, we find the heart of the issue is the watchlisting process. Intended to be a mechanism to assist the national intelligence and security services, the list includes known or suspected terrorists. So what’s the problem? Perhaps it’s the fact that any US citizen or foreign national as well as their family and associates, can be included on the list for suspicion of terrorist acts, activity, or association with someone who is on the list – through no fault of their own, based on the loose standard of ‘reasonable suspicion’. If you have a little extra time and want to read about the program, Google “Watchlisting Guidance”.

The end result is any one of us could find ourselves on the Watchlist for a variety of suspicious, non-terrorist related activities on this nebulous list without ever knowing it. All of this occurs without judicial oversight or the ability of the named individual to mount any form of defense.

Should an individual discover they are on the Watchlist, most likely from being denied boarding an aircraft as a result of being on the subset No-Fly List; they can file a complaint through Traveler Redress Inquiry Program. Of course, they will never be told of a change in their status or the reasons why they were placed on the Watchlist.
The United States is a “a nation of laws, not a nation of men.” If we allow our Constitutional protected Second Amendment rights to be stripped away without due process in the name of national security, what is next; freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, or our freedom altogether? Where does it end?

So while we were discussing this latest attempt to expand the list of restrictions to lawful activity, here’s a few items we didn’t get a chance to talk about:

Homeless Veterans
Veterans unable to get medical care from the Department of Veteran Affairs
Accountability for the American citizens killed in Benghazi
Lack of prosecution of existing Federal firearms statutes
Border security & immigration policy

Maybe we’ll get to these topics over Christmas dinner.

Bob

#oddstuffing ‪#‎thanksgivingdinnerconversation‬, ‪#‎watchlistingguideance‬, ‪#‎2ndamendment‬, ‪#‎freedom‬

Eating an Elephant

By now you’ve heard California’s Lt. Governor has kicked off his 2018 gubernatorial campaign by proposing a new set of gun control measures. His proposal is inappropriately called the Safety for All Act of 2016.

There are two things to look at here, the political rational and initiative itself.

Unfortunately for California, this is more of a sly political move than anything. Every bit of opposition, criticism of the proposal or the Lt. Governor himself, brings his name into the press and public arena a little bit more. In other words, massive free campaign advertising. The timing is also important. By putting this on the 2016 ballot during a Presidential election where the presumptive Democratic Party Presidential candidate is a woman (sorry Bernie fans), far more of the Democratic base will be energized and going to the poles.

Even worse for California, the proposal does nothing to enhance the public’s safety. It only creates additional barriers and costs for legal firearms owners, as well as creating criminals from current legal activity.

There are a number of sections in the proposal. So I don’t rant forever, I’ll just focus on one: ammunition.

Anyone wanting to purchase ammunition will be required to obtain a State issued ID card, which will include a background check, for $50 for two years. While $50 may not sound like a large sum, this requirement will disproportionally impact lower income individuals.
Ammunition sellers would need to be State licensed. Employees would need to have State Certificate of Eligibility certificates and all ammunition would need to be behind the counter. Every purchase must be face-to-face – no out of state or Internet orders. All purchases would be recorded and point-of-sale background checks run. All of these serve no purpose other than adding costs and barriers for legal consumers.

Think this proposal is the end? Not so fast. Here are a couple of items this new system would enable. Keep in mind these are not things I dreamed up, these have come up already.

Consumers would only be able purchase ammunition in calibers in which they have firearms registered with the state. Never mind the fact you can legally change calibers, manufacture your own firearms or legally own firearms that are not registered with the State. Consumers would only be able to purchase ‘X’ number of rounds at any given time. Consumers would only be able purchase the type, brand and characteristics of ammunition approved by the State.
So why is ammunition the new front for Gun Control? Part of the rational comes from their interpretation of the Second Amendment.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

In essence, the logic is: “It doesn’t say a single thing about the right to own bullets.” The idea that the framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights would have differentiated between arms and ammunition is of course ludicrous. But to date the lower courts have been very forgiving of ammunition restriction laws, either not acknowledging a Second Amendment right or allowing what they call ‘slight’ infringements. Without a definitive ruling from the Supreme Court, this logic may be used as part of a wider gun control scheme.

So where do these types of proposals come from? One of the major forces behind this ballot initiative is the San Francisco based Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. If you’d like to see their target list, take a look at Search Gun Laws by Policy page at http://smartgunlaws.org/search-gun-law-by-gun-policy/ Then take a look at the proposals in your own community and you’ll likely find much of it tied back to this group’s recommendations.

Why is opposition to this ballot initiative and other proposals important? The likelihood of an Australian-style forced gun forfeiture being successfully implemented in the United States is highly unlikely. What is more possible, and is the current strategy, is to take small, incremental, “common sense and reasonable” bites out of the Second Amendment until there is nothing left. It goes back to the old saying: How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time.

Bob

#oddstuffing #eatinganelephant #2ndamendment

Accountable

A popular political promise these days is the notion – We’re going to hold the gun manufacturers accountable for gun deaths.
What exactly are we making them accountable for? Accountable for making a safe and legal product or accountable for everyone’s use of the product, lawful or unlawful, at some point in the future?

Okay, so let’s say this actually happens. It would require repealing Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act and would be an unprecedented move by the US Government. It would also open Pandora’s box of lawsuits against any maker of any product ever used to harm anther person. But for now, let’s go with it.

First, we need to determine who can sue a firearms manufacturer. Obviously anyone injured or killed by someone committing a crime, that’s the core audience behind this push. But what about the criminal who is shot during a home invasion? Certainly that criminal has legal standing. What if a law enforcement officer shoots the criminal? Does the criminal’s legal standing change if an agent of the government is involved? And what if the officer’s actions are later determined to be unlawful? Should the person shot have the right to sue the manufacturer then? Naturally, our nation’s military use of firearms has got to be added in here too.

So refining the logic down a bit, if a shooting is “good” or justified, then you would assume there would be no legal liability for the manufacturer. If the shooting is “bad” or unjustified/illegal, then that would seem to invoke the civil liability. Bad = lawsuit, good = no lawsuit. That doesn’t seem quite balanced. We’re going to punish them for the bad but not reward them for the good.

As a matter of fairness to the manufacturers, maybe we should do a quick tally at the end of the year and put all the “good” firearm uses in one column and all of the “bad” uses in the other. But what about those cases where a firearm is used, but not fired? Certainly those should be counted. Maybe we’ll give a half point for each of those.

And then, how do we count the deterrent effect a firearm may have? Would our law enforcement officers be as effective if unarmed? Would any our current elected officials or political candidates be willing to visit <insert name of your favorite big city> with unarmed Secret Service, police or other security? And how do we count a criminal’s hesitation to attack, rob, rape or just plain kill someone because that person might be armed and able to stop them instead.

As foolish as all of this sounds, it’s equally foolish to hold a manufacturer liable for an individuals choice in how to use their product.

If a product – any product – is considered safe when used legally, then why would it be considered unsafe when used illegally?

Bob

#oddstuffing #accountable #2ndamendment

Is it Really Common Sense?

I’m hearing a lot of folks spouting common sense ideas these days. What exactly is this common sense they speak of?

Wikipedia’s definition: Common sense is a basic ability to perceive, understand, and judge things, which is shared by (“common to”) nearly all people, and can be reasonably expected of nearly all people without any need for debate.

An acquaintance of mine’s favorite saying was ‘you can’t teach common sense’. This always struck me as odd since if you can’t teach it, how did you learn it in the first place? Humans don’t start out with a whole lot of talent above the basic instinct level. Somewhere along the line you learned something and can apply it to your daily life.

What I’ve found is common sense on any given topic is very specific to your personal history. Example: If you grew up in a cold weather climate, it’s common sense to not let your gas tank get below ¼ in the winter. If you grew up in a warm weather climate and moved north, you probably learned this one your first winter when your gas line froze.

What common sense is not – A simple solution to complex geopolitical, socioeconomic or psychological problems that have plagued mankind since day one. Example: There’s a crime problem in large inner cities. A ‘common sense solution’, create more laws to address the crime. Great! You now have more laws to arrest criminals. But if the criminals are already breaking the law – criminals break laws, that’s how they became criminals in the first place, why would they care about one more law to break?

So why do you hear ‘common sense’ attached to all sorts of change, reform, update or solution? It’s usually a means to convince you that everyone else thinks this way and if you want to be considered someone of normal intelligence and knowledge – like they are, you should be thinking this way too.

If you have to be convinced into believing something is a common sense solution, it probably isn’t either common sense or a solution. It’s more likely part of an agenda they want you to support because it benefits them, not you. Buy into their way of thinking on this topic and the rest just comes easy. If they were right on this one, they must be right about the next one too.

So as we plow deeper into the season of political speeches, posts, posturing and solutions to all your problems with just one vote, think twice about anything being promoted as a common sense proposal. After all, isn’t that just common sense??

Bob

#commonsense #badpolitics #oddstuff