Category: Gun Rights

Criticize the TSA, Lose Your Gun

The Department of Child Molestation Transportation Security Administration (TSA) are assholes and everybody knows it. Not only do they molest you when you refuse to go through their DNA shredding scanners but they also offer no security.

Yet another pilot decided enough is enough and openly criticized the TSA and pointed out some honest issues with the department’s “security” measures. The pilot is one who actually increases security as he was permitted to carry a firearm in the cockpit of the plane. “Was” is the operative word through:

The 50-year-old pilot, who lives outside Sacramento, asked that neither he nor his airline be identified. He has worked for the airline for more than a decade and was deputized by the TSA to carry a gun in the cockpit.

He is also a helicopter test pilot in the Army Reserve and flew missions for the United Nations in Macedonia.

Three days after he posted a series of six video clips recorded with a cell phone camera at San Francisco International Airport, four federal air marshals and two sheriff’s deputies arrived at his house to confiscate his federally-issued firearm. The pilot recorded that event as well and provided all the video to News10.

And that’s not all. Not only was his federally issued firearm confiscated but so was his personal carry firearm and CCW license:

At the same time as the federal marshals took the pilot’s gun, a deputy sheriff asked him to surrender his state-issued permit to carry a concealed weapon.

A follow-up letter from the sheriff’s department said the CCW permit would be reevaluated following the outcome of the federal investigation.

Did I mention this happened in Commiefornia? Nope? Well I’m sure you derived that when you read the sheriff put the pilot’s carry permit on hold and demanded the forfeiture of his personal carry weapon. Let that be a lesson to you, when you criticize the benevolence of the government they will take your shit.

Canadian Gun Confiscation

Sadly Canada never managed to abolish its long gun registry and thus any firearm you own in that country is known the the government. Many people often ask what’s the harm in the government knowing what you have unless you have something to hide? The problem with gun registration is that it leads to confiscation every single time.

Take for instance the current kerfuffle in Canada. The Canadian government has reclassified the Norinco Type 97A and are trying to confiscate them (at least they’re willing to pay $1,400 per rifle but you don’t have a choice in whether or not you’re willing to sell the gun):

Several gun owners are refusing to surrender a semi-automatic rifle that was imported from China and bought legally before the RCMP retroactively declared it a prohibited weapon.

15 97A owners are taking the government to court over the reclassification. Of course Canada isn’t the only country that reclassifies firearms on a whim, recently our own ATF decided to reclassify pistol grip equipped shotguns without a stock. Thankfully we don’t have a long gun registry so the ATF’s only method of confiscation is to visit every gun store in the country, dig through all the stores’ 4473 forms, and try to classify whether or not each shotgun sold had a pistol grip without a stock. That’s still too easy for my comfort but at least it requires some semblance of work.

Violent Crime Trend

According to the anti-gunners an increase in the number of guns on the street means an increase in violent crime. Using their logic the violent crime rate should be increasing and more states have passed right to carry laws. Strangely enough the exact opposite has happened:

The FBI is reporting a similar message nationwide for the first six months of 2010. The agency says the nation saw a 6.2 percent decrease in the number of reported violent crimes and a 2.8 percent decrease in the number of reported property crimes compared to the first half of 2009.

It seems the increase number of guns on the street hasn’t caused an increase in violent crime… interesting.

ATF Looking for Emergency Powers

Two phrase when combined scare the shit out of me; emergency powers and federal government. The ATF is look for emergency powers:

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has proposed that it be given emergency authority for six months, beginning January 5, to require about 8,500 firearms dealers along the border with Mexico “to alert authorities when they sell within five consecutive business days two or more semiautomatic rifles greater than .22 caliber with detachable magazines.” A Washington Post story reporting on the BATFE proposal described that definition as being applicable to “so-called assault weapons,” but it would also apply to many rifles that have never been labeled with that term.

The funny thing about emergency powers for federal agencies is the fact those temporary powers have a habit of becoming permanent. Likewise the number of guns going from the United States into Mexico isn’t that high. Why would drug cartels pay full price for semi-automatic rifles when they can get fully automatic AK-47s from neighbors to the south for far less? Of course the ATF has never been one to use logic nor common sense when doing anything.

I do find the last line interesting. If they’re claiming the emergency powers would only apply to “assault weapons” why not use that legalese instead of trying to term any semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine as an “assault rifle?”

Mexican Gun Canard Strikes Again

The Washington Post has yet another article about all the evil scary guns being trafficked across the United States border into Mexico. The problem is the problem, it’s not really what they claim it is:

To back up its assertion that the U.S. is the source of most of Mexico’s guns (“statistics . . . show that 80 to 90 percent of the weapons seized in Mexico are first sold in the United States”), the Post cites the claim that “Federal authorities say that more than 60,000 U.S. guns of all types have been recovered in Mexico in the past four years.” This is a wild exaggeration. The Post is referring to an oft-cited U.S. Government Accountability Office study which shows that, of the guns seized in Mexico and given to the ATF for tracing from 2004 through 2008, approximately 87 percent originated in the U.S.

But this number says nothing about the percentage of guns seized in Mexico that originated in the U.S., because the U.S. does not trace – because they are not of U.S. origin, and so are not submitted by Mexican authorities to the U.S. for tracing – the majority of guns seized in Mexico. According to the GAO, the number of guns seized in Mexico that have been traced back to the U.S. has ranged from 5,260 in 2005 to 1,950 in 2006 to 3,060 in 2007 to 6,700 in 2008. That is a total of about 17,000, nowhere close to 60,000.

Oh, I’m sorry did your bullshit get discredited again Mr. Anti-Gunner? We in the gun rights community seem to be making a habit of that. Then again if you didn’t lie you’d have no leg to stand on so I guess I see why you’re doing it (It’s because you’re assholes isn’t it?).

But They’ll Just Take Your Gun and Shoot You

The anti-gunners parrot it again and again, “If you carry a gun an attacker will just take it and use it against you.” They refuse to understand that such an event is rare and scenarios such as this are far more likely:

As they were trying to tie up the store owner, the 52-year-old took out a handgun from his waistband and fatally shot one of the suspects, Smith said. The store owner then grabbed a shotgun and shot and killed the two other suspects in the ensuring gunbattle, Smith said.

Well one man successfully defending his store from three thugs usually isn’t that common, the store owner was obviously exceptionally high on the awesome scale. What is more common are stories of people successfully using firearms to defend themselves than stories about criminals who taking somebody’s gun and shoot them with it.

How is This Man a Supreme Court Justice

A piece has been posted about Supreme Court Justice Breyer and his views on the right to keep and bear arms:

Breyer wrote the dissent and was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. He said historians would side with him in the case because they have concluded that Founding Father James Madison was more worried that the Constitution may not be ratified than he was about granting individuals the right to bear arms.

Madison “was worried about opponents who would think Congress would call up state militias and nationalize them. ‘That can’t happen,’ said Madison,” said Breyer, adding that historians characterize Madison’s priority as, “I’ve got to get this document ratified.”

Therefore, Madison included the Second Amendment to appease the states, Breyer said.

I think somebody needs to look a little more into our history (in fact here’s a good book and no that’s not an affiliate link). The right to keep and bear arms originated from the fact the citizenry were seen as the ultimate check against government tyranny. Arming the citizenry was combined with using a militia system instead of a standing army (which the founders saw as a threat to liberty).

In order for the citizenry to be a check against government tyranny the citizenry must be equally or better armed than the government. This is no longer the case as we have a standing army and restrictions against what a mere citizen such as you and me and obtain. Maybe coincidentally our government has become more and more tyrannical since World War II and the passing of the National Firearms Act (which restricted civilian access to machine guns, explosives, and other fun things).

Breyer claims to cite history but like most history taught in schools today it is revisionist history. If you look at the writing of our founders they were adamant that people have the right to keep and bear arms. They talked time and time again about the right of the people to rise up and revolt against a tyrannical government. Our founders used European countries as examples of what happens when citizens are denied the right to keep and bear arms. Nowhere did any founder father claim the second amendment was inserted only to appears the states.

How did Breye become a Supreme Court Justice? It certainly wasn’t because of his understanding of history.

Thank God

Well that’s a relief (that I didn’t even know was a potential problem), Super Douche Bloomberg said he won’t run for president. I didn’t even know this was a rumor circulating:

The mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg, has said there is “no way, no how” he is going to run for the US presidency in 2012.

Of course now I’m worried he will run for president as he’s a great one for saying one thing and doing another (outside of politics it’s called lying in politics it’s called politics). That’s the last thing we need in this country, a very hardcore anti-rights activist in the White House.

Gun and Literacy

Wow I just found some comedy gold via Snowflakes in Hell. It seems the Brady Campaign let one of their people off of the leash and she is spouting all sorts of bullshit.

The latest claim being made is people who shoot one another are equally distributed among the educated and uneducated. The Brady Shill also claims that most of these people weren’t criminals until they shot somebody. Sebastian smacks the Brady Shill upside the head with some actual facts which decimate the anti-gunner argument.

I wanted to make a statement on the Brady Shill’s following claim though:

Most homicides occur among people who know each other and often the shooter was not a criminal until he/she pulled the trigger.

Sebastian’s post shows this isn’t true at all. My question though is how is this statement relevant (to anything)? A fact to bring up is there isn’t a single first time criminal who was a criminal before committing their first crime. For example a person with no criminal history embezzles money from his company, he was not a criminal until he embezzled the money. A 14 year-old kid with no criminal history hacks into a state department computer, he was not a criminal until breaking into that system.

The Brady Shill seems to imply a desire to ban all potential devices that can be used by people to commit their first crime. Shall we ban automobiles? The first “crime” many teenagers commit is speeding when they get their driver license. Many teens weren’t criminals until the first time they exceeded the speed limit, so by the Brady Shill’s logic we need to control automobiles.

I believe in practicing what you preach so I believe it would be a good move by Brady Shill to prove her conviction and get rid of her computer. After all many malicious hackers were never criminals until they used a computer.

Joel Rosenberg Arrested

If you converse with many carry advocates in Minnesota you probably know the name Joel Rosenberg. He’s the author or Everything You Need to Know About (Legally) Carrying a Handgun in Minnesota and a carry permit instructor. Yesterday he was arrested on charges of having possession of a weapon in a courthouse. The story doesn’t seem as straight forward as it’s being reported by the Red Star as this article has a bit more detail.

Either way it seems he carried his gun into Minneapolis City Hall and was requested to leave. According to a stated court order Minneapolis City Hall is a gun-free zone because it connects with the Government Center. I’m not sure how that works as Minneapolis often seems to have laws of their own that little or no sense.

With how convoluted this story is (it seems to be a bunch of he said she said) I haven’t a clue what to think. Although I don’t believe the Minneapolis City Hall can’t arbitrarily declare themselves a gun-free zone I’m not sure if any courthouse integrates into it and thus effects the law. It’s also stated that Mr. Rosenberg refused to leave upon the request of the police officer citing state law. I applaud anybody willing to stand up to an officer on a power trip but frankly I’m one to leave upon request without argument. It’s not that I feel like giving into an officer incorrectly enforcing a law, I just like to avoid conflict with other people when possible. What is really odd though is the story states Mr. Rosenberg was at City Hall on November 5th, allowed to leave, and was arrested yesterday, December 8th.

Mr. Rosenberg posted an open letter regarding the incident which the WCCO mentioned. Personally I find the wording in that letter inflammatory and rather poorly done. Multiple lines can be pulled out of context and perceived as threats. Let this be a note to everybody, be careful of the wording you use when conversing about firearms and self-defense topics. If you ever get involved in a situation you can guarantee some lawyer and the media will dig through your post history and try to use anything you’ve stated against you.

Either way this is going to be an interesting case to say the least.

EDIT 2010-12-09 10:30: Can and can’t are quite different and apparently I don’t know this. I changed “Minneapolis City Hall can arbitrarily” to “Minneapolis City Hall can’t arbitrarily.”