The biggest problem with David Chipman's appearance on Chinese state-run media immediately after Sandy Hook is what he said, not where he said it. bearingarms.com/camedwards/202…
During his interview, Chipman repeatedly said that the death of school children didn't have to be "meaningless," as long as there was gun control legislation enacted as a result. 2/
Now, it could be that Chipman was just a craven gun control lobbyist willing to exploit the deaths of school children because that's what he was paid to do, but I suspect that Chipman is, in fact, a true believer with an almost spiritual faith in the idea of gun control. 3/
Chipman already claimed that, if confirmed, he would merely enforce laws passed by Congress, not try to enact any of his personal beliefs about gun control. But what he said in the 2012 interview demonstrates he sees no conflict between gov't service and gun control activism. 4/
Chipman compared his time at ATF and his then-current role at Mayors Against Illegal Guns as serving the same mission of preventing violence. If he truly believes they have the same mission, then he will unquestionably bring his gun control activism to work with him. 5/
And based on his comments about imbuing meaning in the lives of murdered children through the implementation of gun control, I'd argue that Chipman believes he has a moral responsibility to be an activist director of the ATF. 6/
Either Chipman is a true believer in safety through restricting and criminalizing a civil right, or he's willing to exploit dead kids because someone will pay him to do so. Like I said, I suspect he's a true believer, but either way, he doesn't belong anywhere near ATF HQ. 7/7
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The DOJ's new proposed rule on pistol braces and AR-style pistols has been released, along with model "red flag" legislation. A brief thread with some initial impressions. #2A#guncontrol
First, while the DOJ says its trying to offer clear guidance for the gun industry, their "solution" is a new worksheet/checklist that offers up a lot of subjective language rather than a standard, easy-to-follow definition. 2/
However, the DOJ *does* try to redefine "rifle" under both the Gun Control Act and National Firearms Act with one very vague and fuzzy sentence. 3/
There are 20-million modern sporting rifles in private hands, yet 2x as many Americans are murdered each year by someone using their fists or feet than a rifle of any kind.
Trying to ban and arrest our way to safety a) doesn’t work and b) violates our civil rights.
I realize some people don’t give a shit about 2), but we should all care about the first part, particularly when we know strategies that are far more effective at reducing violent crime without any new gun control laws.
As for the “this is how we did it in the Marines” argument, we don’t live on a nationwide military base. Civilians simply have more freedom than active duty soldiers, including freedom of speech and the right to keep & bear arms. We can talk about expanding rights of soldiers...
I don't think these red flag bills are coming from a place of "let's take all your guns". I understand the point they're trying to address: to stop the most dangerous people from hurting themselves or others.
But this bill doesn't do that, @marcorubio. Here's why. 1/
@marcorubio A lot of the requirements that you have in place for due process protections are great. But there's no requirement that the person deemed to be a danger to themselves or others receives any mental health treatment whatsoever. 2/
@marcorubio In fact, wouldn't it be better if there was a requirement that the initial determination that you were a danger came from a doctor who actually examined you, instead of a judge in a courtroom in a hearing you most likely aren't even allowed to attend? 3/
Three years ago today Miss E went to the ER in Farmville worried she was having a heart attack. She wasn’t, but the chest X-Ray showed something weird in one of her lungs. “Probably pneumonia,” they said, and sent her home with antibiotics. 1/
A couple of weeks went by and she went back for another look at her lungs. Nothing had changed. That’s when we started to get a little concerned. They scheduled her for a biopsy. Meanwhile, life went on. We got a puppy. My car caught fire. And we waited for the procedure. 2/
When the biopsy results came back inconclusive, we were both a little relieved. We still didn’t know what was wrong yet, but whatever it was, it wasn’t something easy to detect, like cancer. We joked about bringing in Dr. House for a consultation. 3/
Thank you to everyone who's been praying for Miss E. I am really sorry to tell you we did not get the news we were hoping for this morning. 1/
E has ten tumors in both lungs, all pretty small. Eight of them are larger than they were a few months ago.
We've pretty much run out of standard treatment options, so now we're going to have look at clinical trials. 2/
There is some good news mixed in with the bad: there are no signs of the cancer spreading beyond her lungs. There are no new tumors. And she is relatively young and healthy (besides the whole cancer thing), and should be a good candidate for a trial. 3/