Category: Gun Rights

New Contender for Dumbest Gun Control Statement

Once in a great while a new person steps up to the plate to challenge Carolyn McCarthy’s “I believe it is a shoulder thing that goes up.” response for dumbest gun control statement. Let me introduce you to Diana DeGette, a politician from Colorado. She has decided to take it upon herself to fill the large shoes left by McCarthy. She started off her challenge to McCarthy by stating that magazines are ammunition:

While participating in a public forum on gun control hosted by the Denver Post Tuesday, Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Col., said that the number of magazines will decrease over time as shooters fire bullets, CNS News reported.

“What’s the efficacy of banning these magazine clips? I will tell you, these are ammunition, they’re bullets, so the people who have those now, they’re going to shoot them,” she said.

She went on to say that “the number of these high capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will be shot and there won’t be any more available.”

Either nobody informed her that magazines can be reloaded or she’s trolling the living shit out of the shooting community. I would prefer to give her the benefit of the doubt and go with the latter but I’m fairly certain it’s the former. DeGette wasn’t satisfied with just one moronic statement though, she double down:

During a public forum on gun control hosted by the Denver Post Tuesday night, Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Col., mocked a senior citizen who wondered how he was supposed to defend himself under the state’s new gun laws, Jim Hoft reported at the Gateway Pundit.

The audio was not very clear, but the man can be heard talking about being at a disadvantage when facing an armed criminal.

“The good news for you, you live in Denver. The Denver PD would be there within minutes,” she said to laughter.

“You’d probably be dead anyway,” she added, smirking.

I think she may have taken the title from McCarthy. While stating that a barrel shroud is a “shoulder thing that goes up.” is pretty dumb it’s still little more than a lack of technical knowledge. DeGette not only demonstrated a lack of technical knowledge but she also told a elderly gentleman that his life wasn’t worth protecting. In all likelihood DeGette assumed that the gentleman was retired and therefore no longer profitable to the state, which makes him worthless in the eyes of politicians. Still, most politicians at least have the good taste not to publicly say such things. In three sentences DeGette was able to tell the man that he doesn’t need a firearm because he has the police and the police aren’t going to save him so he’ll be dead anyways.

I honestly don’t remember the last time I’ve seen a politicians say “Shut up slave.” so insensitively. DeGette is going to be a politician to watch in the coming months.

Gun Control Moving in Connecticut

Punishing the innocent is par for the course when politicians are involved. Even though all but one Connecticut denizen refrained from shooting up the school in Newtown the politicians of that state have decided to punish every resident gun owner:

The Connecticut deal includes a ban on new high-capacity ammunition magazines like the ones used in the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School that left 20 children and six educators dead. There are also new registration requirements for existing magazines that carry 10 or more bullets, something of a disappointment for some family members of Newtown victims who wanted an outright ban on the possession of all high-capacity magazines and traveled to the state Capitol on Monday to ask lawmakers for it.

The package also creates what lawmakers said is the nation’s first statewide dangerous weapon offender registry, creates a new “ammunition eligibility certificate,” imposes immediate universal background checks for all firearms sales, and extends the state’s assault weapons ban to 100 new types of firearms and requires that a weapon have only one of several features in order to be banned.

The newly banned weapons could no longer be bought or sold in Connecticut, and those legally owned already would have to be registered with the state, just like the high-capacity magazines.

Most of these restrictions are mirrored by proposed laws we’ve seen either federally or in other individual states. While the politicians and advocates of gun control claim these restrictions are common sense and necessary to prevent the next mass shooting the truth of the matter is much more sinister. What these laws will actually do, as most laws do, is put the law abiding at a severe disadvantage. Gun owners who want to maintain the status of being a lawful individual will be unable to purchase standard capacity magazines or 100 previously legal firearm models and must acquire a certificate just to legally purchase ammunition. On the other hand gun owners willing to ignore the law will now enjoy an advantage since they will still be able to acquire or manufacture standard capacity magazines and the 100 models of firearms that will soon be verboten.

Insuring the Future

Insurance has become one of the go to tools for statists. When they want to control a market they begin making regulations regarding insurance. In Minnesota you are required to hold insurance in order to operate a motor vehicle, the federal government has mandated that every American acquire health insurance or face a fine, and gun control advocates are pushing to require all gun owners acquire insurance:

A group of congressional Democrats has signed on to new legislation that would mandate liability insurance for all gun owners in the United States — and fine those who refuse to purchase it as much as $10,000.

The Daily Caller reports that New York Rep. Carolyn Maloney’s Firearm Risk Protection Act says that all gun buyers — before they buy — purchase and show proof of “a qualified liability insurance policy,” and that those caught owning a weapon without the insurance are subject to harsh fines.

I’m sure the “qualified liability insurance” policies would cost an arm and a leg by design. It amazes me how many different avenues gun control advocates will try just to control what other can legally possess. Since they were unable to get outright bans on certain firearms and firearm accessories they have moved to erecting barriers between prospective gun owners and legal gun ownership. This move also reveals just how much gun control is about control. Mandating gun owners buy insurance does nothing to reduce gun violence. One can’t even fabricate a link between mandating insurance and reducing violence.

Taxing Self-Defense

Do you want to protect yourself? If you live in Cook County you must now pay the state yet another fee in order to enjoy the privilege of self-defense:

Buying a gun in Cook County officially became more expensive this week.

A new $25 tax on every gun purchased in the county took effect Monday as part of County Board President Toni Preckwinkle’s plan to pay for the violence she says crowds jails and drives up health care costs.

“Gun violence is a real problem for us,” Preckwinkle said when she proposed the tax in October. “It’s a problem for us in our criminal justice system and it’s a problem for us in our health care system, and I make no apologies for the proposal.”

When this tax was first proposed I pointed out that it had nothing to do with stopping violence. What this tax is aimed at is erecting another barrier between non-state individuals and the ability to defend themselves. Your life, in the eyes of the state, is less than worthless. The only way your life becomes worth anything to the state is to surrender a portion of your wealth to it. When you do that the state may be benevolent enough to allow you to preserve it but only so it can continue to extract wealth from you.

I do have some good news for those of you living in Cook County, there is an easy way to get around this tax. Instead of buying a firearm from a dealer in Cook County buy one on the “black” market. Buying on the “black” market allows you to avoid all of the hoops state-licensed dealers are forced to make you jump through and you can avoid buying a permission slip from the state to protect your life.

Why is Every Collection an Arsenal

Whenever the mainstream media uses the term “arsenal” I’m always left baffled. Take the recent “arsenal” uncovered Connecticut shooter’s home:

The young man who killed 27 people in a massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, owned an arsenal of weapons and ammunition, court papers show.

More than 1,000 rounds of ammunition, a bayonet, several swords and knives were among the items found in a search of Adam Lanza’s home.

1,000 rounds of ammunition? I keep more than that around for most of the popular calibers I shoot. A bayonet? I own several. Swords and knives? I do have knives but I must sadly report that I currently own no swords. Still, these stories seems to be written primarily to scare non-gun owners. If somebody doesn’t own any guns and doesn’t shoot competitively I’m sure 1,000 rounds of ammunition sounds like a lot. For those of us that own guns and shoot competitively 1,000 rounds won’t even get us through a season. Honestly, this news item is really not news, the guy owned ammunition, most of which he didn’t use in the shooting (while you can own 10,000 rounds of ammunition you can’t carry it all on your person). Yet mainstream media sources always try to focus their stories on making situation look more dangerous than they really are. The amount of weaponry housed at the home of the Connecticut shooter is irrelevant because he didn’t use any of those weapons to commit his heinous crime. My only explanation is that the media focuses on these things in an underhanded move to demonize gun owners in the eyes of non-gun owners. The implication appears to be that anybody who owns 1,000 rounds of ammunition, a bayonet, swords, and knives is a potential violent murderer and should be turned over to the Stasi immediately.

New York Looking to Prohibit Children from Gun Shows

New York is doing its best to win the Most Tyrannical Fiefdom in the United States award. Unfortunately for its government that award doesn’t exist so all of their efforts are for naught. After prohibiting magazines that hold more than seven rounds, banning rifles that have one esthetic feature from a list of cool esthetic features, and setting up a hotline for people to turn over their gun owning neighbors to the Stasi the politicians are looking to prohibit children from attending gun shows:

A bill just introduced in the state Assembly would bar children younger than 12 from entering a gun show in New York. The bill was put forward by Assemblywoman Linda Rosenthal, who hails from that trackless wilderness and sportsmen’s paradise known as Manhattan.

“Children should be learning to read and write, not to shoot a firearm,” Rosenthal says in a statement, as if the two skills were mutually exclusive. “Today in New York State, however, a child of any age can gain unfettered access to gun shows. We as a society have placed reasonable restrictions on the ages at which children may watch violent films” — clearly, Rosenthal does not have premium cable — “or play video games that involve hyper-real gunplay; however, there are no age limits on gun shows. My bill will change that.”

Children should be learning what they want to learn. When I was a kid (damn I sound old saying that) I was learning to read, write, repair computers, and shoot firearms. You know what? I can do three of those four things very well and my writing is as deplorable as most (although, I admit, it’s pretty shitty). I’m not sure where Rosenthal gets off saying that our society has placed restrictions on the ages at which children can watch violent films, the Motion Picture Association of American (MPAA) ratings are voluntarily followed by movie theaters, they are not enforced by law. There are also no laws preventing children from playing video games, in fact I played a lot of violent video games when I was a child. Did I mention that I attended a few gun shows? I basically did everything that Rosenthal said I couldn’t.

I can tell Rosenthal one thing, if I ever have a child and want to take him or her to a gun show no bureaucrat sitting in a marble building or costume-clad thug is going to stop me.

Cuomo Claims to Push for Lighter Firearm Restrictions, Ends Up Lying Through His Teeth

After banning magazines that can hold more than seven rounds and offering rewards to individuals willing to turn their neighbors in to the stasi, Cuomo is now saying that he will push to reduce the restrictions he signed into law. I’m not sure what his definition of restriction is but it differs vastly from my own:

The gun-control law, approved in January, banned the sale of magazines that hold more than seven rounds of ammunition. But, Mr. Cuomo said Wednesday, seven-round magazines are not widely manufactured. And, although the new gun law provided an exemption for the use of 10-round magazines at firing ranges and competitions, it did not provide a legal way for gun owners to purchase such magazines.

As a result, he said, he and legislative leaders were negotiating language that would continue to allow the sale of magazines holding up to 10 rounds, but still forbid New Yorkers from loading more than 7 rounds into those magazines.

“There is no such thing as a seven-bullet magazine,” Mr. Cuomo said at a news conference. “That doesn’t exist. So you really have no practical option.”

How does legalizing the sale of 10-round magazines but still prohibiting storing more than seven rounds in it a lesser restriction? You can buy the magazine but if you load more than seven rounds in it you will still find yourself in a cage (or dead if you don’t go quietly with the costume-clad thug send to kidnap you). I’m guessing Cuomo thinks gun owners should get down on their knees and kiss his ass in the hopes of getting a very minor liberty back. The only correct response is to give him a swift kick in the ass and making sure the same mistake isn’t repeated by electing another person to the position of governor (seriously, you don’t need or want rulers because they’ll just screw you over).

Turn Your Neighbor Over to the Stasi, Receive a Reward

According to information received by Sebastian at Shall Not Be Questioned the state of New York is encouraging denizens to turn in their firearm owning neighbors:

The state has established a toll-free tip line – 1-855-GUNSNYS (1-855- 486-7697) to encourage residents to report illegal firearm possession. The tip line also allows for information to be submitted via text – individuals can text GUNTIP and their message to CRIMES (274637). While the state will provide the administrative support and fund the rewards, the investigation and validity of the tip will be up to each local department.

[…]

If the information leads to an arrest for the illegal possession of a firearm, the “tipster” will be awarded $500. DCJS staff will handle all of the financial transactions.

In other words turn your neighbor over to the Stasi and you’ll receive a reward. This doesn’t surprise me as the state always attempts to recruit members of the general populace into its surveillance ranks. This is also an example of divide and conquer. The politicians in New York know that gun owners are likely to stick together and will also ignore the new firearm restrictions. In order to enforce the politician’s decrees the enforcers must segregate gun owners from the general population and the most effective means of doing that is to incentivize the general population to move against gun owners. It’s the same tactic the Nazis used (go ahead, try to incite Godwin’s Law, it doesn’t apply to accurate historical comparisons) to encourage individuals to turn in their neighbors that were hiding Jews.

History has many lessons to teach us but it seems few are willing to learn. When the state starts offering incentives to turn over neighbors you must realize they aren’t going to stop with just one group. Eventually they will be offering cash rewards that will encourage your neighbors to turn you in. In a police state, like the one we live in today, the golden rule is don’t talk to the police.

I will close with the following thought: hotlines only have a limited number of lines that can be open simultaneously. There are a lot of people in this world who have phones. If they all continuously called the hotline with bogus tips (or just report every police officer sighting, since they carry firearms that violate New York’s new restrictions) it would render the hotline entirely ineffective. Bonus points would probably have to be given to anybody who setup an auto-dialer to continuously call the hotline from multiple phone numbers.

Colorado Falls

I don’t think anybody was surprised to hear that John Hickenlooper signed the asinine Colorado gun control bill:

The governor of Colorado signed bills Wednesday that put sweeping new restrictions on sales of firearms and ammunition in a state with a pioneer tradition of gun ownership and self-reliance.

The bills thrust Colorado into the national spotlight as a potential test of how far the country might be willing to go with new gun restrictions after the horror of mass killings at an Aurora movie theater and a Connecticut elementary school.

The approval by Gov. John Hickenlooper came exactly eight months after dozens of people were shot at the theater, and the day after the executive director of the state Corrections Department was shot and killed at his home.

The bills require background checks for private and online gun sales and ban ammunition magazines that hold more than 15 rounds.

I’ve read several blogs urging Colorado gun owners to start tooling up for the 2014 election. Don’t worry, I’m not going to waste your time urging you to beg politicians next year to restore some of your liberties. I do want to see denizens of Colorado tooling up, just not for politics. Once again I’m going to bring up what I’m calling Plan B, the decentralized production of verboten firearms and accessories. But there is something those of us living outside of Colorado can do for those suffering under that state’s regime, get verboten products into their hands. Magpul has been trying their best to flood the Colorado market with standard capacity magazines but their operation doesn’t have to stop just because they’re leaving the state. Those of us living outside of Colorado can still put standard capacity magazines into the hands of Colorado gun owners and we should.

Yes, I’m urging gun owners to break the law. Just because some dude wearing a suit and sitting behind a fancy desk in a large marble building says something is a law doesn’t mean it’s just. When the state makes an unjust decree it is right to actively disobey it. If you’re living in Colorado don’t waste your time begging politicians for freedom, even if they grant it to you you’ll face the threat of future politicians taking it away. Instead render their power irrelevant, let them know you will not obey them, let them know that the people no longer view their decrees as legitimate. The only way you’ll gain freedom is if you take it.

Minnesota House to Drop Universal Background Checks

It appears that the gun control advocates in Minnesota are setting their sights lower and lower:

The House Democrat pushing for broader restrictions to Minnesota gun laws has abandoned imposing universal background checks for firearm sales.

Rep. Michael Paymar of St. Paul says he’s switching to a plan that would expand background checks to sales at gun shows but not to private sales and transfers.

I’m not sure how Paymar plans to expand background checks to gun shows but not private sales since the only sales that don’t require a background check at gun shows are private ones. Trying to find the logic in a politician’s statement is harder than finding unicorns. Why the sudden change of heart? It appears that the change in heart, at least in part, is due to the alternative gun control bill that was offered by gun rights activists:

Paymar says he also plans to include many provisions from the alternate package of less-restrictive gun measures that would tighten the state’s current background check system, add to the parameters of who cannot legally own a gun and help county attorneys crack down on illegal gun owners.

It just goes to show that gun control advocates are more than happy to compromise so long as that compromise involves more gun control. I don’t know why Minnesota gun owners are expected to suffer more gun control, especially since none of us were involve in the tragedy that sparked the recent gun control debate, but suffer we apparently will.