Month: April 2011

Watch the Anti-Gunners Complain About This

I’ve mentioned before about the rabidness of many anti-gunner’s zealous hatred of guns that lead to them being pissed off at DPMS and Smith and Wesson for donating money to the Cancer Research Center. I also made fun of one anti-gunner’s arguments because I’m an asshole like that. Now The Firearm Blog as brought up the fact that Federal has released pink shotgun shells. A portion of the proceeds from these shells are going donated to the cause of finding a cure for breast cancer.

So anti-gunners, are you readying your complains yet? Feel free to step up to the plate and explain why donating the cancer research is good unless gun companies do it.

Washington Legalizes Suppressors

Man, even people living in Washington state can be courteous of their neighbors and use suppressors. House Bill 1016 was officially signed into law which legalized the use of suppressors within the state and put Washington one step ahead of Minnesota in that regard. The following paragraph sums up why suppressors should not only be legal in every state but should also be removed for the list of firearms and firearm accessories that are regulated by the National Firearms Act:

Anyone who has ever fired a gun knows that gunfire is loud. It can cause immediate and permanent hearing loss. While suppressors do not eliminate the sound of a firearm, they do reduce the muzzle report of the gun much in the same way that a muffler reduces exhaust noise from a car or truck. There are many benefits to suppressors: they can increase accuracy, they make shooting more enjoyable by lessening felt recoil and reducing muzzle blast, they protect shooters’ hearing, and they help to reduce noise complaints from neighbors.

If you live near a gun range and find the noise annoying you should be advocating for the legalization of suppressors. I would love to see this happen here but alas I think it may be a while.

You Will Do As We Say

This story can best be summed up with the phrase, “Shut up slave!” It seems one school in Chicago (where else) is prohibition children from brining their own lunches and thus forcing kids to eat what the school command:

At his public school, Little Village Academy on Chicago’s West Side, students are not allowed to pack lunches from home. Unless they have a medical excuse, they must eat the food served in the cafeteria.

Principal Elsa Carmona said her intention is to protect students from their own unhealthful food choices.

“Nutrition wise, it is better for the children to eat at the school,” Carmona said. “It’s about the nutrition and the excellent quality food that they are able to serve (in the lunchroom). It’s milk versus a Coke. But with allergies and any medical issue, of course, we would make an exception.”

They will allow you to bring a lunch if you have medical reasons? How magnanimous of them! Why thank you Comrade Carmona for granting such a privilege to the lowly surfs! I’m sure you can guess how I feel about this police, it’s terrible. The school administration is basically saying they know better than the parents what their children should eat. Because a parent may decides to allow their child to bring chips with their sandwich it means brining lunches must be banned and any student who does so must be labeled an enemy of the people.

If I were a parent I’d probably be inclined to tell Comrade Carmona, “Fuck you! Go sodomize yourself with a retractable baton.” Then again if I were a parent I’d not subject my child to a public school in Chicago… or Chicago. Practices like this shouldn’t go unchallenged by parents. If you’re a parent with a child in this school you should pack your child’s lunch every day. When they take your child’s lunch bring the administration up on charges of theft.

Although public schools felt like a prison when I was attending one I must say it’s far worse now.

Suppressed Ranch Hand

File this under things that are bad ass. Yes that is nothing less than a Rossi Ranch Hand (you know that really short lever-action rifle that’s legally a pistol) with an attached suppressor. Why would somebody do this? Why wouldn’t somebody do it is my question (unless they live in Minnesota then I know why they wouldn’t do it, stupid law banning suppressors)!

Aliens Vacationing in Roswell

If you read various news articles you’ve probably heard that proof has been brought forth of aliens landing at Roswell. This “proof” comes from a newly released Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) document that is short on details and reads more like an April Fool’s joke.

What do I make of the document? Much like everything else the government says I take this document as being bullshit. Although I will admit such a document would certainly be a very quality trolling.

Don’t Perform Criminal Acts for the State

If you are approached by the State to perform illegal acts for them don’t do it. When you’re finally caught they will ignore you and allow prosecution to be brought against you. That seems to be the problem Albert Gonzalez is now facing. He’s been found guilty of creating one big ass credit card heist and has been sentenced to 20 years in prison. The problem? His actions were likely authorized by the United States government:

The government has acknowledged that Gonzalez was a key undercover Secret Service informant at the time of the breaches. Now, in a March 24 habeas corpus petition filed in the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts, Gonzalez asserts that the Secret Service authorized him to commit the crimes.

“I still believe that I was acting on behalf of the United States Secret Service and that I was authorized and directed to engage in the conduct I committed as part of my assignment to gather intelligence and seek out international cyber criminals,” he wrote. “I now know and understand that I have been used as a scapegoat to cover someone’s mistakes.”

Good luck to you Mr. Gonzalez. The United States government has a long and proud history of leaving those who’ve helped them behind. It’s likely that if what Mr. Gonzalez claims is true the government will disavow any knowledge and let you rot in prison for 20 years. This should go as a lesson to everybody else though, don’t perform acts that are illegal in the United States for the government of said United States. Government agents are pricks and spend more time covering their own asses then doing any real work. Part of covering their asses involves finding other people to take the heat for the illegal acts they’ve committed.

Minnesota Anti-Gunners Moving to Potentially Ban Carrying at the State Capitol

I have no actual details on this but the Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance (GOCRA) is putting out the word that some of Minnesota’s anti-gun politicians might be trying to sneak some carry prohibitions into the light rail finance bill:

On Tuesday, the Minnesota House State Government Finance Committee will be looking at an appropriations bill for improvements to capitol security. The bill funds construction of a tunnel under University Avenue.

The bill, HF1287, is fine as it stands, but some anti-gun house members intend to add new restrictions — or even an outright ban — on permit holders carrying at the capitol.

GOCRA is asking that you contact your “representatives” and tell them to either kill the bill or pass it as-is. Personally I’m all for killing this bill as spending tons of money on a light rail system at a time where our state is massively in debt doesn’t make financial sense to me. What makes even less sense though is attaching a restriction to our right to carry to a fucking finance bill.

Contact your “representatives” and let them know either anti-gun legislation stays out of this bill or they will be staying out of the capitol come next election cycle.

The National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act Of 2011

Although those of us residing in the United States are promised a right to keep and bear arms by the very document that created the powerful federal government we now have this right is often ignored. This shouldn’t be too surprising as the rights laid out in the Bill of Rights are always assumed to have a rider attached that says, “With permission of the states.” Our right to keep arms is restricted by specific types of firearms and our right to bear arms is restricted in so many ways I can’t begin to list them.

After McDonald vs. Chicago the second amendment was finally incorporated and thus now applies to the states. Due to this very fact I believe it is now time to pass national carry reciprocity. Truth be told I previously believed we needed to pass such a law but now we have justification for loosening the restrictions on one of our rights. Thankfully there is a bill on the table titled The National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act Of 2011:

Dozens of states have passed carry laws over the past 25 years because the right to self-defense does not end when one leaves home. However, interstate recognition of those permits is not uniform and creates great confusion and potential problems for the traveler. While many states have broad reciprocity, others have very restrictive reciprocity laws. Still others deny recognition completely.

H.R. 822 would solve this problem by requiring that lawfully issued carry permits be recognized, while protecting the ability of the various states to determine the areas where carrying is prohibited. The bill would not create a federal licensing system; rather, it would require the states to recognize each others’ carry permits, just as they recognize drivers’ licenses and carry permits held by armored car guards. Rep. Stearns has introduced similar legislation since 1995.

The bill number is H.R. 822 and the text can be read here. As of right now the bill need co-sponsors so the National Rifle Association (NRA) is urging people to contact their “representatives” and urge them to support this bill.

Why “Gun-Free Zones” are Dangerous

One of the biggest problems with having a carry permit is ensuring you don’t enter so-called “gun-free zones” while carrying your means of self-defense. If I were to accidentally walk onto property owned by a high-school I could be in some deep shit should my Glock 30SF be in its holster. Proponents of “gun-free zones” seem to be under the belief that bad people will choose to leave weapons behind when they enter these zones as well. Those proponents also exist in a world of make believe that they’ve traveled to on a trolly and to seek the wisdom of puppets.

Gun bloggers have been making the states that criminals are law breakers by definition for a while now. It’s really a simple concept, somebody willing to commit a violent crime isn’t going to be deterred by a law that says they can’t bring a weapon into a zone. “Gun-free zones” only serve to disarm the law-abiding and put them at the mercy of violent criminals. Sadly this is something that Amanda Collins had to experience first hand:

Amanda Collins, 25, is a wife and new mom, and a concealed weapon permit holder for years. At her father’s law office in Reno, she showed us the 9-mm Glock she carries for her safety.

“It’s got a pretty standard magazine,” she said, “and night sights so you can see in the dark when you’re aiming.”

However, Collins couldn’t aim her gun at the serial rapist who attacked her at the University of Nevada at Reno, where she was a student. That’s because, like most public colleges outside of Utah and Colorado, UNR is a “gun free” zone. The rule required her to leave her gun at home, leaving her defenseless the one time she needed its protection most.

Because she followed the law and left her firearm behind when entering a “gun-free zone” she was unable to defend herself against a scumbag piece of shit who preyed upon victims he could be reasonably assured were unarmed. This type of bullshit needs to end. Thankfully in Minnesota no legal restriction exists against a permit holder carrying a firearm onto a college campus. A campus can make rules against students and faculty doing this but should such a rule be violated the college can’t bring any legal actions against the violator (they can expel or fire them though, which is why a law should be passed preventing public colleges from enacting such rules). Sadly many other states have such legal restrictions.

Mrs. Collins’s story is an example of the dangers of established “gun-free zones.” If your state bars the lawful carrying of firearms onto college campuses you should be working diligently to get these restrictions lifted. After all there have been no cases of a person lawfully carrying a firearm shooting up a college campus but there have been many cases where violent criminals have been on college campuses and couldn’t be stopped quickly as mere peasants like you and me were unable to carry our means of self-defense.

The CIA Assassination Program

There is a saying, “Where the CIA goes bodies aren’t far behind.” OK it’s not really a saying since I just made it up but it certainly is descriptive of the actions taken by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). A long history of bloodshed lies in the shadows of the CIA’s history and Bruce Schneier has found a great interview with John A. Rizzo, the former CIA general council . The article is mainly about the selection process used by the CIA to determine who they are going to off in the name of national security. Here’s the base logic the CIA uses:

How CIA staffers determine whether to target someone for lethal operations is a relatively straightforward, and yet largely unknown, story. The president does not review the individual names of people; Rizzo explains that he was the one who signed off. People in Washington talk about a “target list,” as former undersecretary of state Richard Armitage described the process at a recent event in Washington. In truth, there is probably no official CIA roster of those who are slated to die. “I never saw a list,” says a State Department official who has been involved in discussions about lethal operations, speaking without attribution because of the nature of the subject. Officials at the CIA select targets for “neutralization,” he explains. “There were individuals we were searching for, and we thought, it’s better now to neutralize that threat,” he says.

Emphasis mine. Basically the CIA likes to kill people before they could potentially threaten the United States. This logic sounds good on paper but is nothing more than a justification for conniving murder. If you or I were to use such logic to kill somebody we would be brought up on charges of murder and tossed into the klink. Yet when the state decides to commit preemptive murder without any form of public trial it’s considered justified and for the good of the American people.

Put into perspective this would be akin to you killing your neighbor because you are reasonably sure he may cause harm to you in the future. This isn’t considered self-defense as your neighbor hasn’t actually initiated violence against you. Anybody who has to be considered a future or potential threat hasn’t initiated violence and thus their murder shouldn’t be justifiable. If the CIA believes a person to be a threat or or that somebody has initiated violence against the United States why don’t they put that person on trial? Allow the public to determine whether or not the potential target is a threat instead of a few people who are just a wee bit biased.

Wait I forgot, if people were to know who was a threat they would… do something I guess because this information is always classified super top secret. Um mere serfs aren’t allowed to know who is a potential threat to us because… well because the state said so. Shut up slave!