Category: Gun Rights

What Do You Do When You’re Organization Is Shown to Be Ineffective

Let’s say you’re the head of an organization that has shown to be completely ineffective in its mission. You ineffectiveness has been demonstrated so often that you can no longer hide it and now donations from believers in your cause are drying up. What is one last desperate maneuver you can make in the hopes of staving off death? Well, if You’re the Brady Campaign you claim the President is passing super secret gun control laws:

During the meeting, President Obama dropped in and, according to Sarah Brady, brought up the issue of gun control, “to fill us in that it was very much on his agenda,” she said.

“I just want you to know that we are working on it,” Brady recalled the president telling them. “We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.”

This could be an effective strategy to drum up money because it makes it appear as though the Brady Campaign has influence with the President and the results of this influence will go unnoticed but will accomplish a desired goal. Basically this strategy would allow the Brady Campaign to make up success. Instead of having to point at newly passed laws to demonstrate success the Brady Campaign could use changing Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF) regulations as “under the radar” gun control measures influenced by none other than the Brady Campaign. This isn’t as hard to do either as the ATF is rather schizophrenic about their regulations and like to change them on a whim without actually telling anybody.

Unfortunately for them pro-gun people keep a constant eye on them and call their organization out when they try to make idiotic maneuvers like this. Sorry Sarah Brady but we caught this little attempt to appear relevant.

Living Up to Their Reputation

Miguel over at Gun Free Zone noted something kind of funny; the deceptively named Mayors Against Illegal Guns is being deceptive by claiming their truck would tour Miami at one time but showed up at another. Are they worried about a little counter-protesting or maybe the truck of truth pulling up behind them? Who knows but being deceptive certainly is par for the course with Bloomberg’s little organization.

This May Comes As a Shock

The BBC has an article about the movement here in the United States to enact laws allowing people with legally recognized ability to carry a firearm to do so on college campuses. Like most issues involving guns you have those who are for the right of the people to carry and thus defend themselves and then you have the side that is wrong. The article interviews David Burnett, the president of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, as well as some Brady Campaign shill show should know better. What interested me was the following quote by the Brady Campaign shill (literally in this case):

“You think you know what you would do. But, honestly, you will lose your mind if you are involved in something like that.”

Colin took four bullets from the Virginia Tech shooter back in 2007. “One above my left knee,” he explained, “in both my hips, and through my right shoulder.”

Colin was a defenseless victim of the Virgina Tech shooter and still advocates that he and every other student remain defenseless. If I believed he had malicious intent instead of just being stupid I’d almost think he believed that everybody else should get shot because he was shot.

The fact of the matter is had somebody at Virginia Tech had access to a firearm they could have stopped that scumbag shooter before he murdered those 10 people in Colin’s French class.

“These people are afraid. I totally understand that. I was there. But their fear is misdirected.

“If that idea (that carrying a gun makes you safer) was true, we’d already be the safest place in the world.

This is a false type of logic. What Colin just implied was because A implies B and B implies C then A implies C. I can point out that there has been no case of liberalized (using the classical definition of liberal) carry laws leading to an increase in violent crime. On the other hand I can point to states such as Florida where liberalized carry laws were following immediately by a lowering of the violent crime rate. Thus it can be said that liberalized carry laws imply either lower or no change in violent crime rates but not an increase in violent crime rates. The implication is not causality though as there could be any number of other factors that lead to the lower violent crime rates. What can be stated though is liberalized carry laws do not cause higher violent crime rates.

The other mistake Colin makes is trying to imply liberalized carry laws are for the safety of society. I’ve already explained how liberalized carry laws don’t lead to an increase in violent crime but these laws also aren’t meant to benefit all of society but to benefit individuals. Liberalized carry laws allow individuals to carry a means of defending themselves. This individual benefit, like most individual benefits, can end up positively effecting society as a whole but the basis of this benefit is to help individual people.

Since everybody isn’t carrying a gun liberalized carry laws don’t make all of society safer. Since I carry a gun liberalized carry laws have made me safer though. This increase in my safety has lead to no negative impact to the safety and quality of life of other people around me. Thus the law has a net positive effect as in benefits somebody and doesn’t negatively impact anybody (besides the criminals who are trying to negatively impact individuals of course).

Due to these statements I put forth the fact that anti-gunners like Colin have absolutely no leg to stand one.

Legislation Moving to Ban Firearms from the Minnesota State Capitol

Well that worthless piece of shit Paymar is at it again and has introduced yet another pointless anti-gun bill. This time he’s introduced a bill to ban those of us with carry permits from carrying at the state capitol building.

As it currently sits people with Minnesota carry permits are able to carry at the capitol building if they submit a letter of notification. In the years since Minnesota passed right to carry legislation not a single incident has been raised because of this yet Paymar is willing to waste our time trying to ban it because he’s an asshole. What’s his reasoning? Well he’s jumping on the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords bandwagon (rather late I might add):

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Michael Paymar, comes on the heels of a report last month that found potential threats lurking around the Capitol Complex.

That report, which did not recommend barring guns, was spurred by the attempted assassination of U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson this January.

“Back when Tucson happened … I just thought if we do nothing, I just think that’s unconscionable,” said Paymar, DFL-St. Paul.

Let me get this straight. You are worried somebody might come to the capitol building to shoot a “representative.” Somehow you believe if a law is passed that prohibits people with issued carry permits from carrying there this kind of scenario is impossible. You believe this even though the number of shootings committed by permit holders in Minnesota is almost non-existent. You also appear to believe somebody willing to commit murder is just going to ignore a law prohibiting them from legally carrying a firearm. In other words you’re an idiot.

Oh, by the way Tony Cornish is a pretty stand up guy:

One of them is Public Safety Committee Chairman Tony Cornish, R-Good Thunder, who called the bill a “terrible idea” and “dead on arrival” during an interview on the House floor Monday.

“It’s a longstanding practice to carry guns at the Capitol,” said an armed Cornish, who is also a police chief. “And we’ve never had any problems with it.”

He has a brain, unlike Paymar. Oh, did also I mention this bill presented by Paymar is going to cost Minnesota more money even though we’re already in debt up to our eyeballs?

The bill appropriates $6 million in bonding money for tunnel improvements and an unspecified amount for metal detectors. The report said the state should consider metal detectors at the Capitol, but did not explicitly recommend them.

Yeah because that’s a good idea. Let’s spend money we don’t have to fix a problem we don’t have. That’s your government at work.

Important Self-Defense Bill Introduced in Minnesota

I guess it’s my turn to utilized the activism page. The Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance has just dropped word that H.F. 1467 has been introduced into the Minnesota House. The bill is a sweeping reform to Minnesota’s self-defense laws and would enact the following changes:

Enacts Stand Your Ground – Stand your ground legislation removes the requirement for an intended victim of a violent crime to flee the area where you have a right to be.

Enacts Castle Doctrine – Similar to the above except this applies specifically to your own property. As it currently stands if somebody breaks into your home you have a legal obligation to attempt to flee before using force to defend yourself. A person should not be required to flee their own home because a malicious person has illegal broken in.

Prohibits the Confiscation of Firearms in a State of Emergency – This would prohibit the government from confiscating the firearms of gun owners when a state of emergency has been declared. During Hurricane Katrina the National Guard confiscated the firearms on New Orleans residents leaving them defenseless. A time of emergency is one of the most important times to have access to a means of self-defense.

Extends the Validity of Purchase Permits to Five Years – In Minnesota you are required to get either a permit to purchase or a permit to carry in order to buy a handgun or a military style semi-automatic rifle. A permit to purchase is only valid for one year while a carry permit is valid for five. This would make a permit to purchase valid for the same period of time as a carry permit.

Recognition of All Out of State Carry Permits – This would make the state of Minnesota recognize carry permits from all other states. A person shouldn’t be barred their right to self-defense just because they entered our fine state.

The members of the House Public Safety committee need to be contacted and asked to support this bill. This numbers and e-mail addresses are located on the first link.

Anti-Gunners Finally Win One

Apparently the anti-gunners are rather desperate for victories and are cheering their latest one… in a few years. They managed to get a rider removed that would have abolished all funding for the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to establish any form of long gun registry:

The amendment, offered by Reps. Dan Boren (D-Okla.) and Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.), would have prevented federal funds from being used by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) to track bulk sales of long guns in southwestern states. Up until late moments in the negotiations, sources familiar with the discussions say, it remained in the text of the final continuing resolution.

It’s sickening but honestly I don’t feel it’s that big of a victory. As it currently sits federal laws prohibition the establishment of a long gun registry anyways so this would have simply been extra insurance. What I did find hilarious was the following:

“ATF is already chronically underfunded and has been without a confirmed director since 2006 as a result of inaction by past sessions of Congress,” New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a co-chair of the coalition Mayors Against Illegal Guns, said in a statement. “We welcome this sign that leaders in Washington may be ready to step up and help law enforcement save lives.”

Yeah the ATF is underfunded, especially with the cost of fuel going up. Soon they aren’t going to be able to afford driving down to gun shops sitting on the border and telling them to sell guns to sketchy individuals in order to supply the drug cartels with money. How will the ATF be able to function if they can’t afford to help run guns?

Bend over Californians

If you live in California you might as well bend over and prepare to have three rights removing bills rammed clear up your ass. The California Senate and Assembly Public Safety Committees just approved three anti-gun bills (although they tossed you guys a bone with one pro-gun bill) which will be going to the next leven in California’s legislative process:

Yesterday, the California Senate and Assembly Public Safety Committees heard three anti-guns bills and one pro-gun bill. The anti-gun bills were: Senate Bill 124 would ban virtually all handgun and rifle ammunition and cartridges, Assembly Bill 144 would ban open carry of firearms and Assembly Bill 809 would require long gun registration. The pro-gun bill was Assembly Bill 1402 would make a technical clean-up of California’s deadly weapons laws.

The three anti-gun bills are absurd enough that I’d not worry about them passing in most places but California is the same state that passed a bill that required the recording of sale and a finger print from the purchaser of all handgun ammunition. Needless to say if you live in California you should making your moves against the three anti-gun bills. I highly doubt most of your “representatives” will listen to you but hey you can try. If that doesn’t work you can always move to one of the remaining free states although you probably need to move quickly before California goes full Soviet Union and bars anybody from leaving.

Why People Should Be Allowed to Carry a Gun

Anti-gunners often claim there is no need for regular serfs to carry firearms. They go on about how the chances of somebody being attacked it almost zero and if it does happen you can just call 911 and a police officer will be magically teleported to your location instantly. Those of us who promote the right to carry see things quite differently. Every person should have the right to defend themselves regardless of where they are and the best tool for self-defense is a firearm. A story was posted on the Red Star that gives an example of one fo those situations where a firearm would have been good to have:

A St. Catherine University student reported that while she was out for a walk Sunday three men ambushed her and were laughing as they sexually assaulted her near the Ford plant in St. Paul.

The woman was sexually assaulted by three thugs. Disparity of force was obviously against her as there were three versus her one. Sadly she had no means of defense available to her at the time and ended up becoming yet another crime statistic. Yes these situations are relatively rare but go ahead and tell somebody who has been a victim of such a crime that these events almost never happen. Bad people do bad things to good people.

A firearm is an force multiplier. In a situation where the scales are tipped completely against you having a firearm will tip the scales back towards your favor (maybe not back into your favor but at least the scale will have moved a bit in your direction). One person with a firearm and the training to use it can stand against three assailants. Maybe the armed person won’t win every time but at least there is a chance and honestly many situations can be defused by the insertion of armed resistance.

The golden rules are always be aware of your situation and surroundings and have a plan.

More of Your Tax Dollars at Work

When the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF) aren’t busy providing guns to Mexican drug cartels they’re working hard to raid small town gun shops:

Ludco Gun Shop owner Fred Ludington was arrested this morning on federal charges.

Ludington was charged with selling firearms to felons and non-Indiana residents.

There is a great sign on the desk of Ron Paul that states, “Don’t steal, the government hates competition.” Apparently this holds true in all regards as Mr. Ludington was in competition with the ATF who also like to provide guns to felons and non-Indiana residents. The result was predictable though as 70 agents… wait how many? Thor fucking God of Thunder on a pogo stick:

Special agent Kimberly Riddell, public information officer for the ATF, told The Star Press that 70 ATF agents, investigators and support personnel were at the shop, with assistance from the Indiana State Police.

It took 70 agents plus help from Indiana State Police to rob a single gun shop? I’d hate to see how many agents it would take to perform an bust against actual criminals. They would probably have to mobilize the National Fucking Guard for that kind of raid.

Did the Brady Campaign Buy Time on the Federal Reserve’s Printing Press

I think the Brady Campaign has found a means of making money, they’ve apparently purchased some time on the Federal Reserver’s printing press. At least that’s the only way I can imagine that they’ve been able to pay for a 30 second television advertisement:

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence released an ad today calling on President Obama to come out more forcefully in support of a ban on the sort of high-capacity ammunition clips used by alleged shooter Jared Loughner in the January Tucson massacre.

The Brady Campaign are trying to get standard capacity magazine banned from civilian ownership. According to them, and I’m quoting the advertisement, “a magazine that allows a gun to fire 32 shots in 16 seconds is only good for one thing: killing a lot of people – fast.” Strange though that they only want to ban them from civilian ownership and not police ownership. I’ve stated this before but I believe the Brady Campaign think the job of police officers is to kill a lot of people – fast. If this wasn’t the case shouldn’t they be demanding that such magazines be banned from police ownership as well?

The advertisement then goes on to eventually say, “Assault clips – they make everyone a target, Tell President Obama to ban assault clips.” Wait are we talking about banning standard capacity clips or magazines? These things aren’t interchangeable as a clip is functionally different than a magazine. If you’re going to demand something be banned then have the Thor damned courtesy to know what the fuck you’re talking about. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) the number of homicides committed with firearms has been on a general downward trend since 2004. That doesn’t make sense though because these “assault clips” allow criminals to kill far more people thus if the Brady Campaign’s accusation is correct the number of homicides committed with firearms should have been on a general upward trend since 2004.

I’m also going to bring up the simple fact that standard capacity magazines were illegal to manufacturer for civilian sale between 1994 and 2004. After the “assault weapon ban” sunset in 2004 they became legal again for us lowly serfs to own. So was there an increase in homicides committed with firearms since criminals could now legally purchase “assault clips that make everybody a target?”

Hopefully either the National Rifle Association (NRA) or the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) bring out an advertisement that calls these nitwits to task and explains how idiotic the anti-gunners are being.