Category: Gun Rights

In New York Dictators have More Right than You

Welcome to Mayor Bloomberg’s home, New York. Here the only people allowed to carry guns are the police, criminals, and foreign dictators. The latest episode of No Agenda started out with Adam Curry talking about the gun toting body cards of Libya’s own dictator. It seems Moammar Khadafy travels with an entourage of 40 to 50 armed women. Furthermore they will be in Manhattan for the United Nations General Assembly.

I hope you feel good about New York now because you, as a regular citizen, have less rights in that city than foreign dictators.

Why Firearm Registration is a Bad Idea

Rob Allen reminds us again why gun registration is a bad thing. It has nothing to do with controlling illegal guns or protecting the public. The only thing gun registration facilitates is later confiscation by the government when they decide you no longer should own guns.

A classic example is Nazi controller Germany. And before somebody goes shooting their mouth off about Godwin’s law you better look it up (it only applies when incorrectly comparing your opponent to Adolf Hitler or Nazis, not when bringing up historical facts). But the Nazis required the registration of firearms before World War II then subsequently confiscated them. Had the persecuted population of Germany (Jewish, gypsies, homosexuals, and pretty much anybody else they could blame for something) been armed it would have been much more difficult for the Nazis to enact their “final solution.” I’ll close this out with a great quote by the lat Jeff Cooper:

The rifle is a weapon. Let there be no mistake about that. It is a tool of power, and thus dependent completely upon the moral stature of its user. It is equally useful in securing meat for the table, destroying group enemies on the battlefield, and resisting tyranny. In fact, it is the only means of resisting tyranny, since a citizenry armed with rifles simply cannot be tyrannized.

Gun confiscation is the opening act to tyranny because without an unarmed populace tyranny can not exist.

Who Needs Guns for Protection When You Have Paper

That the question governor of self-defense hating Illinois asks. Via The War on Guns comes a story about a new bill that was passed in Illinois meant to help victims protect themselves. At least that’s what they say it means but in actuality it doesn’t. Recently passed House Bill 693 will allows the following:

“By allowing victims to obtain an order of protection early on from their predators, the problem may be resolved before it reaches that next level.”

Yup their idea of providing protection is to make obtaining a piece of paper easier. This is coming from the same state that says the best methods women can use to defend themselves are vomit, scream, or surrender. Notice how none of those three options will really defend somebody against an attacker?

I have a proposition for a method Illinois can enable to help people protect themselves against predators. Pass a bill that not only allows citizens of Illinois to legally carry a firearm but also make it a shall issue law. That piece of paper known as a restraining order won’t do shit if the predator decided to attack you. On the other hand I’m yet to meet somebody who won’t reconsider their actions when a gun is aimed at them and I’m yes to meet somebody who can continue an attack when they are dead.

Providing a means for the government to offer defense to people is useless if the government won’t provide body guards to those protected people 24/7. Passing laws that enable people to take responsibility for their well being into their own hands is worthwhile.

Remember it’s Citizen’s Guns that Cause Crime

I was browsing the BBC and noticed an interesting article in the UK section. It’s actually a movie about a man who illegally made guns for gangs. I just don’t understand this though since guns are all but illegal in the UK this man shouldn’t have been doing this, after all it’s against the law. Also remember that the guns of citizens were confiscated because that was the supposed cause of crime. Once you take everybody’s guns the problem of gun crime is solved after all, oh wait this guy proved that wrong.

More Proof Mayors Against Illegal Guns Isn’t

One nice thing about the fight against Mayor Bloomberg’s posse is they keep handing us ammunition (don’t mind the pun) to use against them. Even though the group says they are against illegal guns they really mean they are against gun ownership in general. Case in point Bloomberg spoke about against the bill that would allow you to bring your gun on Amtrak trains so long as you follow a process very similar to how you do it on airplanes. And of course he provides this great hypocritical quote:

Bloomberg says he’s not trying to infringe on anyone’s rights.

“This has nothing to do with the Second Amendment right to bear arms and everything to do with keeping our country safe from terrorists,” he said, according to the Post.

No Bloomy this has nothing to do with terrorism. See he fails to realize the fact that this isn’t allowing people to just bring their guns on board but to do it in a manner similar to how airports do it. In other words in checked luggage separate from passengers. But here is the real kicker if you were allowed to bring your gun on board in carry on luggage if some terrorist scumbags tried something you could defend yourself and the rest of the people on the train by using your gun to stop the bad guys. Of course this also has NOTHING to do with illegal guns and EVERYTHING to do with legally owned guns. Senator Roger Wicker explains what this bill is really about:

“Americans should not have their Second Amendment rights restricted for any reason,” Wicker said in a statement. “Particularly if they choose to travel on America’s federally subsidized rail line.”

Exactly, if I’m traveling on a system that is receiving tax money from the federal government they no longer have a right to deny my constitutional rights while using their service. See Amtrak isn’t a private entity they are a government subsidized entity and that in my opinion changes the rules completely.

Oh well this is yet another article you can show to any mayor who is a member of Bloomberg’s posse as an example that the group isn’t fighting what it’s name suggests.

Another Person Doesn’t Get It

So I was reading the Star Tribune at work today and noticed a letter to the editor that didn’t make any sense. To give those of you outside of Minnesota some perspective the Star Tribune has to nick names, the Red Star and the Star and Sickle. They are a very “progressive” liberal leaning paper as are a majority of their readers. Well this letter made me realize people still don’t get the reason behind the second amendment:

Earlier this month, Josh Hendrickson brought two concealed guns to the Obama rally in Minneapolis, apparently to make a point about the Second Amendment. Other than being dressed in army fatigues and packing a .40 caliber Glock 22 gun and a Kel Tec 380 gun, he was just another (self-described) laid-back guy who loves kids and his country right? Really? When there’s already a conceal-and-carry law, what’s the point?

This type of behavior is yet another example of the extreme lengths the hard-core gun-rights activists seem committed to in the interest of furthering their cause. I’m a hunter and have been for the last 45 years. I am also a supporter of gun rights. It’s precisely this type of extremist behavior that tends to undermine our future as hunters.

As a hunter, I feel it’s important to make a distinction between the more extreme side of the gun-rights lobby that supports such things as assault rifles, conceal-and-carry laws, etc., from the right to bear arms for hunting. There’s a more effective, less extreme approach to the gun-rights issue, such as the basic preservation of hunters’ rights to bear arms, but I seldom hear fellow hunters make this point.

I’m going to assume he meant to say “assault weapons” as assault rifles are heavily regulated i this country but alas he believes supporting the right to own military pattern semi-automatic rifles and an ability to effectively defend yourself are extreme? Strange. Then he mentions the right to bear arms for hunting and strangely enough many people hunt with those guns labeled by the anti-gun crowd as “assault weapons.”

Of course he talks about how since there are conceal and carry laws the point of bringing firearms to rallies meaningless. This isn’t the point of what these people are doing, they are raising awareness of our eroding second amendment rights in general. It’s not only about concealed carry laws but all gun laws in general. More to the point it’s about abolishing gun control laws and restoring the true meaning to the second amendment.

This is the type of person we don’t need, a person who says they’re for the second amendment but only so far as it extends to hunting. These are the types of people that are OK with stomping on other peoples’ rights so long as the rights they enjoy are left alone. I have a name for these people, assholes.

North Dakota Remains Logical Impossibility

Says Uncle shows that North Dakota remains an complete paradox unable to exist in the real world. See according to the FBI statistics North Dakota had a total of three homicides in 2008. A gun wasn’t used in any of those homicides meaning there were zero gun related murders in North Dakota.

Seems odd considering North Dakota is rated 44 our of 50 in the Brady Bunch’s gun control list (in this case the higher the number the less gun control laws a state has). Being guns are supposed to cause crime and according to released FBI data on the number of NICS checks performed in 2009 [PDF Link] there were 309,269 firearm purchases made. To put that further in perspective North Dakota has a population of 641,481 which at the very least there may be almost 1 gun for every 2 people in the state. With that many guns and such a low Brady gun control rating the number of homicides performed with guns in that state should be far in excess of zero.

The New York Times Proves Once Again They Hate Gun Owners

We all know and hate the New York Times. What other paper can you find that constantly berates gun owners as some kind of social sum that should be eliminated? But here is a shocker presented by Snowflakes in Hell, the New York Times is actually being more anti-gun than the Brady Campaign itself. Seriously wow.

See the senate just vote in favor of a bill that will allow those of us traveling with guns to travel on Amtrak. Of course we have to follow the same policies as we do when traveling on airplanes with firearms. But according to the New York Times that’s crazy and is showing preferential treatment to gun owners:

Proponents said the change was needed to put Amtrak back to its pre-9/11 gun policy and equate it with airline security measures that allow unloaded, locked handguns in checked baggage. This is lunatic reasoning for a nation supposedly sensitized by the 9/11 attacks. Why should gun owners be treated as privileged travelers?

Yeah I’ll refer you back to Snowflakes in Hell on this quote. But I never really though that having to check a gun on an airplane was a privilege. In fact I’ve always seen it as a nuisance. Oh and for shits and giggles:

If the Senate wants to pass a bill on Amtrak, it should provide the money to hire more security guards and create a real passenger rail system. Generally, it should just stop its demeaning homage to the gun lobby.

Considering the federal government already does pay to keep Amtrak afloat I think Amtrak should be required to allow us to exercise our second amendment rights while riding aboard. After all we shouldn’t have our federal government funding infractions against this country’s own constitution. Just a thought.

But Gun Control was Supposed to Make Us Safer

The anti-gun crowd is always telling us how much safer we will be with stricter gun laws. Well Days of our Trailers looked into the matter and found out it’s not true.

Get this the violent crime rate in this country has dropped the second year in a row. Illinois on the other hand experienced an increase in their murder rate. But the real icing on the cake is if you take Chicago’s statistics out of the equation Illinois’s murder rate would have dropped.

That’s right thanks to Chicago alone the entire state of Illinois shows an increase in its murder rate. That shouldn’t be possible since Chicago has very strict gun control laws. What do the anti-gunners have to say about that?