Category: Gun Rights

Minnesota Senate Doesn’t Want You to Defend Yourself

The Minnesota senate has sent a clear message to the citizens of the state; we don’t want you being able to legally defend yourself in your own home. They sent this message in the form of blocking the Defense of Dwelling and Person Act from being voted on. I’m not at all surprised by this as our “representatives” have never really been too keen on actually representing us.

So what is to be done now? Well you should certainly call senate members and let them know you’re not too happy with their decision to avoid giving you better tools to defend yourself. You can also remember this next election cycle and ensure these “representatives” no longer have jobs. Personally I don’t take getting fucked by politicians well and thus will work hard to ensure the clowns currently sitting in the Capitol won’t be coming back next election cycle.

The job of the government from a politician’s point of view is to fuck over the people as thoroughly as possible.

Anti-Gunners Say the Darnedest Thing

Wow anti-gunners say amazingly stupid things. I’ve pointed out how most of the claims made by anti-gunners are downright false so for this exercise I’ll just let you watch the movie, smile, and realize these people may actually believe their “blood in the streets” claims even though none of them have come to fruition:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDOyqvE4o8I]

I’m amazed that much stupidity could be compressed into a single video.

Anti-Gunners are Getting Cheap

Gun “buy back” programs (which are ill named as you can’t buy something back unless you previously owned it) are one of the dumbest ideas that government agencies have ever conjured up to fight crime. Anybody with working cognitive capabilities could tell you that criminals aren’t the ones who will turn in their firearms for the measly offering made by the state. Well it appears as though one police department has figured out that many guns that have been turned in are actually non-functional shit. That’s their claimed reason for offering less money at least although I’d say it’s likely they are just getting cheap:

Instead of offering $50 per gun, the city will pay $50 per person.

This is being done to discourage people who might misuse the program as a way to unload defective weapons, said Martha Earnhardt, a spokeswoman for the Montgomery Department of Public Safety. A news release about the buyback program states that the city specifically forbids gun dealers from participating in the buyback.

If you have a firearm you wish to rid yourself of be smart and sell it to somebody who will give you fair market value for it. Most firearms are worth more than $50.00 and frankly I find the actions being performed by departments doing these gun “buy back” programs to be fraudulent. They are taking advantage of people who haven’t a clue what firearms are worth which is something the state often decries when private individuals do it.

Personally I find handing over completely broken and non-fixable firearms to the state a great idea. It’s kind of like getting stolen money back, you dump a broken gun and receive $50.00 of your taxpayer money back. On top of that no functional firearm is needlessly destroyed.

A tip of the hat goes to The Truth About Guns for bringing this article to light.

California Legislature Working on Banning the Open Carry of Unloaded Firearms

It seems as through the branches of the California government at working together to ensure citizens of that state stay defenseless peasants. First it is ruled that an unloaded firearm is effective for self-defense because it can be loaded and on the legislature front the California Assembly just gave the go-ahead to a bill that would ban the open carry of unloaded firearms:

Unfortunately, the California Assembly sided with the anti-gun extremists and passed Assembly Bill 144, the open carry ban bill, by a 45 to 29 vote. This bill now goes to the state Senate and will be assigned to the state Senate Public Safety Committee. Please call and e-mail members of the Senate Public Safety Committee and urge them not to fall for the rhetoric anti-gun extremists are touting about the open carrying of a firearm causing more violence.

The article has the contact information for members of the Senate Public Safety Committee. This is also where I usually make a smart ass remark about how Californians should flee the People’s Republic and come to free America but I don’t think the term free America is any longer valid. At least I can still say that some states of the Union are OK with the citizenry having a means of self-defense.

What the California government should do is ensure anybody who wants to carry a gun for self-defense is able to. Why? I’d normally write a spiel about the value of human life and why each person has a right to preserve their life but I don’t think the “representatives” in California care much for that argument. Here’s something they may care about though; dead people can’t pay taxes. The state of California is insolvent and needs money but if they don’t have citizens to pay taxes they’ll have less income. Criminals usually aren’t too keen on paying taxes so California really needs to rely on the lawful citizens. Giving these lawful citizens a legal means of self-defense will ensure they have the best possible tool available to preserve their lives and thus continue to be good revenue sources for the state.

Arguments for Campus Carry

One movement in the self-defense realm that’s been pushing forward is removing the prohibition several states have on carry a firearm on college campuses. Although the anti-gunners claim this will lead to blood in the classrooms they can show no evidence of that fact while tragedies like the Virginia Tech shooting could have been stopped much sooner had somebody on campus been armed and able to deal with the shooter.

Let’s get back to the anti-gunner’s argument of blood in the classrooms shall we? I think it’s fairly easy for them to support their argument as they only need to point to one incident where legalizing the carrying for firearms on a college campus lead to a shooting. Unfortunately for them they’re going to have a hard time demonstrating that:

In response to claims that allowing guns on campus would result in a less safe learning environment, SCCC notes there is yet to be a single reported incident at the more 70 campuses that already allow concealed carry by licensed individuals.

Herein lies the problem with arguments against expanding right to carry laws. Ever since this discussion has bubbled to the surface the anti-gunners have been claiming that expanded carry laws will lead to blood in the streets but as of yet they can’t actually point to any number of instances where this has occurred. It must really stick in their craws that the device they irrationally fear isn’t actually dangerous in of itself. I know it will come as a shocker to those arguing against the right to bear arms but the only way a gun is dangerous is if it’s in the hands of a bad person and bad people will ignore any laws restricting their possession of firearms.

If you look at the history of major shootings in the United States a large majority happen in so-called “gun-free zones.” The cowards who perform these heinous crimes are cowards who fear somebody stopping them before they’re able to kill a desired number of people. When presented with resistance most of these cowards end up saving us the effort by killing themselves. Allowing legally armed individuals to carry their firearms on campus would remove another “gun-free zone” from the books and likely lower the chances of shootings occurring there. What it hasn’t lead to are shootings on college campuses (just ask Utah who allow campus carry but haven’t had to deal with any mass shootings on college campuses).

So Stupid That It Could Only Come From California

California is the land of really stupid laws and court ruling thus I’m not surprised a ruling stating that unloaded guns are adequate for self-defense originated from that horrible state:

A federal judge ruled Monday there is no constitutional right to carry a hidden gun in public — a decision that dealt a setback to gun-rights advocates who had challenged how much discretion California law enforcement officials have in issuing concealed weapons permits.

Do I really have to point out the fact that a constitutional right isn’t a right if it’s regulated by the government? Color me not surprised that the state would rule a right can be regulated by itself. Still the stupidity is much deeper with this ruling than a simple claim of a right not really being a right:

Gura had argued that Prieto’s policy gives the sheriff arbitrary discretion over a fundamental constitutional right to bear arms.

England countered that California law currently lets gun owners carry an unloaded weapon so it can be quickly loaded and used in self-defense if needed.

That’s the counter argument that was considered acceptable? I guess when you’re being attacked by somebody who intends to murder you you’re supposed to say, “Oh pardon me Mr. Attacker could you give me a second or two to load my gun so that I may properly defend myself?” That argument is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever read and I’ve read works by John Maynard Keynes.

I’m not even remotely shocked that such a ruling can out of California as the state seems to have some hatred of its citizens’ lives.

Minnesota House passed The Defense of Dwelling and Person Act

It appears as through not every legislature is worthless as the Minnesota House ended up passing the Defense of Dwelling and Person Act. The vote ended up being 79 to 50 which isn’t as good as I would have hoped but it’s far better than the bill not passing. Now the Senate has to vote on it and Governor Dayton has to give it his signature. Although I hope this passes I’m willing to bet money that Dayton is going to veto it.

Make sure to send a message to the politicians who voted in favor of this bill and thank them. While you’re doing that also find a few minutes to contact the politicians who voted against the bill and let them kindly know that they’re unlikely to return to their position come next election cycle.

Why I Carry Part 10,174

Criminals who prey upon other individuals are scums and almost every one of them are cowards to boot. They try to find the weakest possible targets in the hopes of accomplishing their goals of either obtaining material goods or fulfilling their need for violence. The area of Minneapolis traditionally known as Uptown has been suffering a rash of violent attacks:

A group of violent robbers struck six Uptown pedestrians three nights in a row within a six-block area, beating people into concussions with fists, kicks and, in at least one case, a set of brass knuckles, while taking phones and wallets, Minneapolis police said.

The three attacks occurred between 11:30 p.m. and 1 a.m., one attack each night starting in the early hours of Sunday morning, in an area bound by Hennepin and Lyndale Avenues, W. 32nd Street to W. 25th Street.

One of the punks also appeared to enjoy making inane threats against his victims:

“You want me to shoot you, bro?” he asked Houser, before running off. The three men drove away in a late model white minivan that was parked nearby.

Unfortunately for these thugs karma is a cold-hearted bitch:

The Uptown robbers struck again Tuesday night, only this time their victim was armed, police say.

Edward Curtis, 61, who described himself to police as an ex-Marine, fired several shots at a group of men who attacked him as he got out of his car near his apartment, according to police records. Curtis thinks he may have struck one of the men, said Minneapolis Police Lt. Mike Fossum.

“He had just parked his car in the parking lot,” said Fossum. “These guys blitzed him. They just started kicking his ass. He managed to get off three rounds.”

These brazen cowards weren’t so smart when faced with an individuals with the ability to defend himself. When facing multiple attackers a gun brings the odds of your survivability up greatly. After three similar successful attacks the criminals were sent running from their fourth attempt because Mr. Curtis was able to fight back.

Stories like these are why I’m such an advocate of the right to carry. Ultimately you are the one responsible for the defense of your life. The police won’t magically teleport to your location when needed and most people who witness an attack will keep out of it so you’re down to you and the tools you have available.

EDIT 2011-06-12 12:20: It was brought to my attention that I mixed the name Curtis and Fossum around. That’s been corrected. Thanks Nicole.

SAF Challenging Interstate Handgun Sale Ban

Here’s another story about the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) being awesome again. In the United States it’s currently not legal for a resident of one state to buy a handgun in another state. This is a rather stupid and arbitrary rule because as a resident of Minnesota I can purchase a long gun in Wisconsin (I’ve done this a couple of times) yet handguns are somehow so super scary that they are subject to entirely different rules. It seems SAF has had enough of this shit:

The Second Amendment Foundation today filed suit in U.S. District Court in Virginia challenging the constitutionality of federal and Virginia provisions barring handgun sales to non-residents.

SAF is joined in the lawsuit by Michelle Lane, a District of Columbia resident who cannot legally purchase handguns because there are no retail firearms dealers inside the District. The Supreme Court’s 2008 Heller ruling struck down the District’s handgun ban, confirming that individuals have a constitutional right to possess handguns.

I like this strategy. SAF has some smart people working on their legal team as evident by their victories in Heller vs. District of Columbia and McDonald vs. Chicago so I feel their chances of destroying this ban are pretty decent. Every gun owner should toss a few bucks their way so they can keep being awesome.

By That Standard

You’re never going to believe this but I went to the Red Star website and found more cannon fodder. Let’s take a look at a letter to the editor submitted by Gary Thompson of St. Paul:

The following label should be printed on all concealed-carry handgun purchases.

“WARNING: According to government statistics, the possession and carrying of this hand-held firearm will greatly multiply your chances of being shot by a spouse, other family member, acquaintance, neighbor, intruder, or even yourself. According to the Surgeon General, the consumption of even small amounts of alcohol or drugs by any of these persons, as in operating any machinery, will further multiply these chances.”

If a label can be put on cigarettes, one should be put on handguns.

By that standard the following warning label should be applied to automobiles:

“WARNING: According to government statistics, the possession and use of this automobile will greatly multiply your chances of getting into an automobile accident.”

The following warning should be applied to electrified households:

“WARNING: According to government statistics, the possession and use of this electrified house will greatly multiple your chances of getting electrocuted.”

How about households with running water:

“WARNING: According to government statistics, the possession and use of this household will greatly multiply your chances of drowning.”

I could go on and one with this but I think my point has been made; the absence of something will decrease any affect that thing can have on you. With that said your chances of getting assaulted, murdered, or raped by some thug is multiplied by the absence of a means of self-defense.