“Shame on you Michael! Robert Farago as a guest? His contributions to the discussion were insulting to your listeners’ intelligence. I hardly consider calling a proposal ‘stupid’ as sophisticated discourse. Mr. Farago, we’re still dealing with the loss of 6 innocent lives, we’re still reeling over the loss of 20 six and seven year olds in Newtown. These children would not all be dead if it weren’t for a GUN. I still don’t know how I feel about solutions, but when you can’t even admit that guns kill and some level of control would be helpful, your course of conversation is illogical and unreasonable, and Michael I am surprised at your participation in such low brow discourse.” Click above to listen to RF and Nancy Skinner, California Assembly member representing the 15th District and author of AB1014 debate Could Restraining Orders Help Prevent Gun Violence? at KQED.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

70 COMMENTS

  1. The anti-gun ranter has one valid point: calling a proposal stupid is not a sophisticated argument. That’s what they do, because they have no logical basis for their arguments (as illustrated by that ranter a few words later referring to RF as illogical and unreasonable). We have fact, logic, and the moral high ground on our side. We should never sink to their level.
    The correct response is “I disagree, and here’s why…”.

  2. I know this is off topic but just found out Please pass the word and make the calls.

    Thompson-King amendment. Call the House ASAP at 202-225-3121.
    Anti-gunners in the U.S. House are trying to sneak through a last-minute gun control bill to a large appropriations bill TONIGHT

    Thank you I now return you to your reality.

  3. Let’s see. Undergrad and grad studies at Cal-Berkley, she taught classes on native California plants. Clearly an expert on firearms and the law.

  7. RF you did very well. Better than last time I would say. Anyone with sense sees that this bill is a feel good effort. On the other hand we need pols on our side who need to step up on the mental health side. If the Brady folks can churn out proposals 2 days after a shooting we need folks to put on the table our proposals. Like Alinsky said, you need to overwhelm the system….

    Also just a suggestion. Before the next debate, put together a cheat sheet of 5 points we should always throw into the discussion. Such as
    1. Gun deaths are declining. Lowest in xxx years.
    2. Child gun deaths are incredibly low. xxx per yr.
    3. 300 million guns are not going to disappear
    etc…

    • I was thinking that the next step for her was a “roving gun free zone”. Take the guns from not only the crazy guy, but all his neighbors, family etc. Maybe have a 1000 feet bubble around crazy guy.

    • The politicians will never step up for mental health because they would lose too many ardent supporters (and probably colleagues and staff) that way.

      • They would also have to start looking at the genomically inherited population distribution of functional retardation, expressed as violent and antisocial behavior, which is so frequently miscast as “mental illness.”

        Easier to ignore the whole thing with displacement of concern onto guns and those who use them for lawful purposes.

  8. RF, you’re such a nasty man and a cold, heartless bastard. That’s what I dig about you Man.

    Their trouble is that they can’t handle reason, logic, irrefutable data or anyone who disagrees with them. Their cognitive dissonance must be truly deafening.

  10. “Inncoent lives” This term, used in this context, makes me want to gag. When will they realize that to these derranged f**ks, there are no innocent people. In their minds, every person is guilty of conspiring against them and must be punished. No amount of therapy, negotiation, or rationalization will help. Only the ability to defend against their actions.

    • Everyone who is shot and killed, whatever their past, is a candidate for sainthood in their mind. Even the druggies, perverts, and gang-bangers. Reality need not apply.

      • Oh, I think they know what the reality is. But in Skinner’s district (where I lived and worked for a couple years), there is a consensus orthodoxy around agreeing not to notice who is doing crimes and why, and the priesthood/overseer class (of which Skinner is part) punishes anyone with an IQ high enough to exercise pattern recognition and integrity high enough not to lie about it.

        There is no crime bigger, in their minds, than laying out the simple demographics of violent crime in Berzerkeley and Orcland. A person can be as lefty progressive as I am, with Yankee roots back to the Revolution and Ivy League education…and STILL get called a redneck nazi klanswoman gun nut from hell…simply for producing a tabulated summary of the data and asking whether we shouldn’t revise how we think about all this, because the past 50 years of thinking obviously isn’t working for the vast majority of us.

        Anti gun policy and discourse is one proxy for a whole bunch of social issues that cannot be discussed because liberals and progressives have gained political power by lying about them. Or more accurately recasting political and social policy issues in the terms of religion. Another proxy is “microaggression” and “speech codes.” That’s more on the First Amendment front.

        Therefore they scapegoat and bash safe, law abiding people like Robert.

        And like me, who found a restraining order absolutely useless against a violent insane long-criminal-history stalker in the liberal paradise of Madison, Wisconsin…but was assured by “feminist” “self-defense” trainers that to use a gun to protect myself against that orc and his friends wasn’t a good idea, because women are too helpless and stupid to use tools…and that if the (frankly useless) “training” failed, I’d die knowing that “at least I didn’t sink to the level of using a gun.”

        There isn’t a big enough bite me in the cosmos for how I feel about these people.

    • Me too. I also think it makes sense to call proposing any redundant law stupid but if you want to go to finishing school we will all chip in.

  13. “There… There’s a fact there.” She says it as if she’s never come across an actual fact before. Not surprising.

  14. You done real good, Robert. Although granted it was the Bay Area, listening to this was yet another example of how Ca. has become the land of happy fascists. This just makes me even more glad that I live in Texas.

  15. Last session, if I recall correctly, Skinner proposed a bill to carve out Oakland from state pre-emption on gun laws–so that Oakland could enact even harsher laws than California already has.

  16. Uch, the spin. It’s not “repossession” it’s confiscation. And let’s not pretend those guns will come back either, ma’am.

  17. I listened to the show and you did good!
    It is funny that the senator’s closing argument was just another lie… to do something about this 6 gun deaths…
    And another funny thing was when they said who would kill anybody with a knife – you just wound people with it – when this particular case had as many victims from knife as it did from guns…

    • 23 people were killed in a terrorist attack in a southern China railroad station about two weeks ago. Many more were wounded and hospitalized. They used knives.

  18. “I don’t care how many people die, I only care that it’s not with a gun and that it doesn’t make the news in a sensational way and ruin my mood!”

    That’s all I hear from antis when they bring up the mass killings.

      • That’s probably not untrue. Considering how many deaths are rooted in illegal drug trade one could honestly expect death to drop significantly when the majority of the financial pressure is removed.

        This is observable in 1934 as well as several nations that have decriminalized various drugs. Hell! think of the benefits of smuggling no longer being a profitable venture!

        As for dealing with the other issues linked to drugs… do what we do for other legal drugs like booze, prosecute criminals and develop treatments.

  20. After listening my comment would be that the closing arguments are key. The majority of the segment you were on point and very direct, but the closing piece needed to be honed. I think the “natural, civil, constitutional right” bit was a waste of important seconds, and would have been better spent arguing about the apparent lack of due process implicit in the bill.

    As a reference, a google search for “The Use and Abuse of Domestic Restraining Orders” brings up an interesting report that would highlight the abuses of the current restraining order system, which would be very valuable in this kind of debate.

  21. “Repossess”?
    That presumes that there is a party entitled and has preeminence to confiscate such property.
    Like a car or house which are owned by the lender until the note is paid off.

    • Well Democrats and statists aren’t big on property rights. No go shut up and pay your taxes.

  22. RF, Nancy Skinner kept mentioning due process – yet CA does not have due process in regards to concealed carry permits. Suppose a citizen of Santa Barbara wanted to obtain a concealed carry permit. If the sheriff did not sign off on his paperwork, he would have no legal avenue for concealed carry, which would clearly be his best defense against someone like Rodger. The CA “may issue” system is itself a violation of due process. It has been clearly indicated, and particularly unjust under Lee Baca, that favoritism exists in the may-issue CCW system. The wealthy and politically connected party or campaign contributor gets a permit, and everyone else does not.

    I don’t think this issue is off-topic. Regardless of what mental health system is in place, the best defense the responsible citizen has against an armed mass murderer is with a firearm.

  23. Why do people always cognitively lessen the lethality of items that aren’t firearms? Crazy people will find other ways

    $10 of gasoline and a bic lighter is a terrifying tool for destruction.
    A car is equally harrowing in the wrong hands.
    I won’t even start on what can be done with even an even elementary understanding of chemistry

    • Damn, not long ago $10 in gas would have been a terrifying weapon, now its just a mostly full 5 gallon can stinking up the back of my truck.

    • A car is not equally harrowing – the math:

      9mm 125 grain round @ 1100 fps = 336 ft-lbs of energy

      3000lb car @ 30mph = 90,299 ft-lbs of energy

  24. NPR. I figured you were going to get ambushed from the get go. They hate everything conservative.

  25. I love the way she keeps saying “repossess” instead of confiscate. When did the police originally possess everyone’s gun in California so that they can now repossess them?

    • Slave-minded subjects like her believe everyone is born into inherent servitude to the State. So you never actually own anything, the State owns you, so taking any of your property – or your life – is just the State repossessing its property.

  26. Excellent work, Robert! I think you were the only guest on that show that didn’t work for the government.

  27. One of the commenters at KQED’s site says that the station should get Michael Waldman instead. His new book is sweeping through discussions on the left and among TomKat type Democrats in the Bay Area in particular as the be-all and end-all:

    http://www.amazon.com/The-Second-Amendment-A-Biography/dp/147674744X

    We should be ready for this discussion. My initial encounters with the book lead me to conclude Waldman believes that RKBA is granted or withheld by the government, rather than inborn, and that the Bill of Rights negotiates government limits on individual rights rather than establishing which rights exist prior to any government (which is what my own ancestors asserted when framing the Bill of Rights in the First Congress).

    We should be particularly ready to compare Waldman’s research (which btw I find highly racist against whites and highly sexist against males) against, say, that of David T. Hardy and others.

    http://www.secondamendmentdocumentary.com/

  28. Outstanding Robert. Measured and on point.

    Note a key word from Nancy on closing…this legislation MAY have stopped six peoples deaths. Even though she admitted people were killed with a knife and vehicles. May is a great word. It’s used in sales presentations all the time. “May” is south of “results not typical” by giving wiggle room to back out of a declaration or an implied guarantee. Nancy is selling this legislation.

    Dear Nancy also admitted a 5150 doesn’t work, yet a peace officer is qualified to decide is a person should be evaluated. Bottom line is peace officers just didn’t want to do paperwork or risk a lawsuit. Once again they serve themselves, protect their pensions, and enforce laws that prevent citizens the right to lawful self defense.

    • “…this legislation MAY have stopped six peoples deaths….”

      Only if, as in airplanes these days, you are only allowed to possess plastic knives….

  29. Gun rights have nothing to do with this. He already fit the criteria where he wasn’t allowed to have a gun and probably would have been institutionalized if someone actually had the cajones to make the call. Left out in public but without a gun, this kid would have simply stuck with just the knife and car. Or maybe he would have gone with a pressure cooker or maybe some bags of fertilizer? When you’re premeditating your actions like this madman was doing, guns don’t make it any easier.

    By the way, the gun used was a pistol. In one of the most restrictive states in the Union. California legal; only 10 rounds. He had 3 magazines. Everyone notes 30 shots in rapid succession. Sure shows the effectiveness of magazine limits.

    The first and most important step to stop things like this from happening is to get rid of the idea that this is a gun violence problem. There is not a gun violence problem. There IS a violence problem. It is unrelated to guns. It is related to a spirit of entitlement, fairness and envy coupled with a devaluation of human life by society as a whole. It’s historically based and it’s a shame people just stick their fingers in their ears and hum real loud if Santayana is mentioned.

    I’ve been beginning to think that one aspect of progressives’ reflexive hatred of guns is more than just their fear that they would ultimately be used against them. It is also that the gun allows them to build a straw man (consciously or unconsciously) to hide the fundamental failure of their ideology. When you look at where their world view has failed (pretty much everywhere it has ever been tried) there is almost always a proportional outcry against firearms. The idea that progressivism (whether communism, socialism, fascism or any other -ism) has resulted in poverty and violence every time it has been tried is not even allowed in the discussion.

    Unless people are willing to be honest about the violence problem – and its causes – nothing will change.

    • I agree that this is a violence problem, not a “gun violence” problem. There is no such thing as “gun violence.” But I do want to point out that Rodger had 40 loaded magazines–400 rounds–in his car. I think the police response was a lot faster than he anticipated–which was fortunate indeed.

  30. How about turning the “pro-choice” argument on its head?

    You can’t tell me how to defend MY BODY. It’s MY CHOICE. Just as you (NPR, that is) support a woman’s choice regarding her body, you would be a blatant hypocrite to tell me I can’t defend my body how I choose to. How can a woman have the choice to murder her unborn baby, but I can’t prevent a murder with a simple tool like a firearm? There have been forty-something million aborted pregnancies since 1973. Does the number of homicides with a firearm even come close to this? (obviously not)

    The claim that there’s a “constitutional” right to abort a baby is weak, at best (actually, the claim is a whole load of bovine feces); there is, however, very clear language in the constitution regarding the keeping and bearing of arms.

  31. So California has no problem writing a gun violence restraining order that suspends the 2nd amendment based on here say. The legacy of Jim Crow continues.

  32. Oh…that quote was actually said…oh my God, I thought that entire paragraph was a parody of the kind of crazy idiocy the antis say. But she actually ranted like that. Oh my God, I’m laughing so hard…

    Guns don’t scare me at all. But leftists scare the crap out of me, being the violent, mentally damaged sociopaths they are.

    But to answer the headline question, they’d be about as effective as “gun free zone” signs.”

  33. 1) I think Robert exaggerated the potential of the 5150 to take threats off the street, especially in blaming the officers for not doing a therapist’s job. I do like that he switched from ‘crazy’ to ‘evil’ to describe the attacker.

    2) The natural, constitutional rights part is preaching to the choir and doesn’t work in enemy territory. Better to spend time talking about potential abuse or ineffectiveness of the law or strengthening existing law enforcement.

    • As to #2, I disagree. Doing so would be giving up ground. That’s a retreat and a very bad idea. We must continue to reinforce the fact that these are natural and constitutional rights.

  34. There you go, she said that they will have “due process”. How many here, a few years after something like this becomes law, will claim, “well, they had due process.” That’s been the argument by some 2Abuts about other things.

    You did well, RF. Thank you for taking the time and going on-air with the argument.

  35. Great job, Robert! You volunteered for a one-against-many mission and pulled a Bruce Lee on them! The first caller was an unexpected ally, much to the chagrin of the call screener, I’m sure.

Comments are closed.