Category: Gun Rights

Herp Derp

Seriously whenever I hear somebody go on an anti-gun rant anymore all I really hear coming out of their mouths is, “Herp, derp, duuuhhhrrrr, I… like… turtles.”

A college student tries to make an argument against campus carry and ends up sounding a little… special:

The students and faculty on any campus should strictly focus on academic pursuits. Security teams hired by the college should likewise focus on the constant protection of those students and faculty. We all have a role in the big picture.

Yes students and faculty should strictly focus on academic pursuits and not even venture into developing a social life, exercising, working a job to pay rent, etc. The remark about the security team is where I felt this student went a little retarded. By that very logic nobody would need to carry a gun because the police will protect you! Of course the police can’t be everywhere and neither can a campus security team which is why the phrase, “When seconds count the police are only minutes away” was coined. In a situation involving a crazy asshole shooting up a campus you don’t have time to wait for a security team if the crazy asshole happens to be in the same classroom as you.

It isn’t logical to deploy a security force on a college campus whose mission is to provide a safe environment only to minimize their ability by disarming them.

Who in the fuck said anything about disarming the security teams on campus? Allowing concealed carry on campus means students and faculty can carry firearms, it doesn’t require the on campus security teams be disarmed in the process.

There are college campuses of various sizes all across the country that have professionally-trained and properly armed officers on their security teams.

And there are campus in the country that allow students and faculty to carry their firearms on the premises. How many school shootings have you heard of occurring in Utah?

The Students for Concealed Carry on Campus is a grass-roots organization that supports concealed carry. Their website lists a number of “common arguments” for allowing licensed adults to carry on campus. They attempt to answer each argument with a very rational explanation. It really is just rationalization. That’s what I mean when I say there are two sides to the issue.

Ah yes the argument of an anti-gunners, “The other side is just trying to rationalize their side of the argument by using stupid facts and logic and other stuff that hurts my brain. I, being anti-gun of course, don’t rationalize my beliefs and just tell you you’re wrong if you disagree with me because seeing guns makes me lose control of my bowels.” Let’s look up rationalize in the dictionary:

  • apologize: defend, explain, clear away, or make excuses for by reasoning; “rationalize the child’s seemingly crazy behavior”; “he rationalized his lack of success”
  • cut: weed out unwanted or unnecessary things; “We had to lose weight, so we cut the sugar from our diet”
  • structure and run according to rational or scientific principles in order to achieve desired results; “We rationalized the factory’s production and raised profits”
  • think rationally; employ logic or reason; “When one wonders why one is doing certain things, one should rationalize”</li
  • remove irrational quantities from; “This function can be rationalized”

Looking at the various definitions it seems rationalization is what you want to do. At least I prefer to remove irrational quantities and think rationally by employing logic and reason.

Regardless of any rationalization by the SCCC, allowing more guns on campus will logically result in a higher probability that a gun will be used against the campus population.

Utah… look it up. After you do tell me how many mass shootings have occurred on their campuses since they enacted their law allowing students and faculty to carry firearms on campus.

According to SCCC data, about 10 percent of adults are licensed and carry concealed guns nationwide. If I knew one out of every 10 people on campus was packing heat, I would be distracted—period.

That’s your problem—period. If you’re distracted by the thought of law-abiding citizens carrying firearms you should be distracted by the potential people currently carrying guns on campus illegally.

It’s one thing for someone to take the state’s course to become licensed. It is something else entirely to predict how a student with four hours of safety training will react under fire.

They’ll react a damned side better than a student under fire without any means of self-defense that’s for sure (and by that I mean they’ll have a chance at staying alive).

Students and faculty carrying concealed guns would be no less vulnerable to the crazy, armed madman who comes on campus bent on destruction than they are now. There would just be more guns involved, more bullets flying and a greater probability that someone is unintentionally injured or killed.

Actually they are less vulnerable because they have the means of stopping the crazy, armed madman. Having a concealed weapon doesn’t mean you are impervious to bullets, it means you have a chance to fight and win. That tipping of the scales further into your favor does make you less vulnerable.

Honestly, no one would expect a 22-year-old accounting major to suddenly transform into a commando and make all the right decisions in a “kill or be killed” situation that could easily be over in less than a minute.

No one does expect a 22-year-old accounting major to suddenly transform into a commando. You don’t need to be an elite commando to put two rounds into another man’s chest. I also love his optimism that the campus security teams will be able to end the situation easily in under a minute. Are they always geared up and do they have teleportation devices on their persons?

I can’t buy the concept that someone with no experience of defending himself against violent crime can suddenly protect himself and others, just because he is the one with the concealed gun.

Strangely enough many people with concealed carry permits also take additional training in self-defense. Even if they don’t having a firearm at least evens the odds of survival which is the whole fucking point.

I don’t want that pressure on me, and I don’t want to put it on my friends and professors.

Maybe you should stop to consider the fact that your friends and faculty may want that “pressure” (pressure to have a means of fighting back that is). If you don’t want that pressure that’s fine, nobody is making you carry a firearm. It’s not called mandatory carry, it’s a choice you can make and those who advocate for campus carry simply want that choice.

I am a big fan of the U.S. Constitution.

You can’t go on an anti-gun tear and then say you’re a fan of the United States Constitution. That’s an oxymoron if there ever was one.

There is not a more civilized place to be than on a college campus. That said—I like to think we have a better chance of remaining civilized and safe, if we don’t get used to the “wild west” approach to campus security.

Yeah, because we know gun-free zones have never been locations of shootings… oh wait.

Where Not to Eat

I do love convinced so when somebody offers a list of places to avoid I’m often quite grateful. If you live in Tennessee Uncle posted a site that lists restaurants that ban firearms.

Personally after looking at their site I believe they’re trying to get restaurants to ban guns but really I think the site will be used more by gunnies to find places to avoid. I find it strange that there are movements out there to to bar non-felons with no history of mental illnesses or domestic violence from frequenting establishments. Even strange in my opinion is the fact some establishments agree with these movements. If I ever own a business I’d prefer customers whom I knew to not be felons and have no prior history of mental illness or acts of domestic violence.

Mark Dayton on Guns

I’ve mentioned governor candidate Tom Emmers on here several times so far but have spoken little about his main opponent Mark Dayton.

Well it’s about time I got off of my lazy ass and posted some information on Dayton when it comes to the right to keep and bear arms. During a debate Emmers asked Dayton about his National Rifle Association (NRA) ‘F’ rating:

Tom Emmer: I do. I do. Ah, Senator Dayton you talk about deathbed conversions. Ive explained why I do the things I do. Ah, if you could just explain to me and everybody else here in the state of Minnesota, how is it that you can have an F rating from the NRA and you can sit up here and tell us that you’re gonna defend sportsmen’s rights, you’re gonna defend my right and my children’s right to hunt and fish in this state when you got an F from the NRA? Have you had one of your own ah, deathbed conversions? Well, we wont call it deathbed, but one of your own conversions that you’re sharing with us today?

Fair enough question. Dayton attempting to be a master of spin decided to make the following rebuttal:

Mark Dayton: Well, I had a D rating from the NRA in 1982 when I ran for the Senate. I had a two- an A rating in 2000. There were two principal votes you can look em up ah, when I was a Senator. One was ah, banning Cop Killer bullets. And, ah, one reason that I have the endorsement of the Minneapolis Police and Peace Officers Association, Representative, is because I respect the law enforcement men and women. I was on a ride-along last week to, as Ive been several times with a police officer in St. Paul. And those guys wear bulletproof vests every time they go out there. Men and women. And anybody who wants to go out there and see them put their lives on the line to protect us.

Dayton claims that he received his ‘F’ rating because he voted for a ban on “cop-killer bullets.” The funny thing is there is no such thing as “cop-killer bullets” do I did some digging. Since I’m willing to put a tremendous amount of work into avoid work I found somebody else who already did the digging for me. On the Let Freedom Ring site a great post was written going over what Dayton actually voted on to receive his ‘F’ rating.

He voted for an amendment to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act presented by the late Ted Kennedy. The amendment would have given the Attorney General the right to ban rifle ammunition he considered armor piercing:

SEC. 5. ARMOR PIERCING AMMUNITION.

(a) EXPANSION OF DEFINITION OF ARMOR PIERCING AMMUNITION.–Section 921(a)(17)(B) of title 18, United States Code, is amended–

(1) in clause (i), by striking “or” at the end;

(2) in clause (ii), by striking the period at the end and inserting a semicolon; and

(3) by adding at the end the following:

“(iii) a projectile that may be used in a handgun and that the Attorney General determines, pursuant to section 926(d), to be capable of penetrating body armor; or

“(iv) a projectile for a centerfire rifle, designed or marketed as having armor piercing capability, that the Attorney General determines, pursuant to section 926(d), to be more likely to penetrate body armor than standard ammunition of the same caliber.”.

In summary if the Attorney General determines a rifle cartridge to be more likely to penetrate body armor than “standard ammunition” he could label it armor piercing and make it a prohibited. That’s a damned side different than banning “cop-killer bullets.”

I did some additional searching to see what else came up and I found a few interesting things. Apparently at one time he was against registration but later was for some registration and licensing (namely of handguns). He also voted against legislation that would protect firearm manufacturers from lawsuits placed against them claiming said manufacturers are responsible for gun violence (kind of like suing an automobile manufacturer because somebody killed another person will driving under the influence).

Finally Dayton is for laws that prohibit firearms the possession of firearms within 1,000 feet of school property. Anybody who’s read this site or any other gun blog for any length of time knows that “gun-free zones” are ineffective and should be renamed “defenseless easy prey zones.” There is a reason many mass shootings occur on school grounds, the attackers know everybody there is unarmed and therefore easy prey.

Mark Dayton isn’t good on guns. He’s stated he owns firearms and is pro-hunting but hasn’t made any statement (that I’ve found) about being pro-self-defense, pro-right to carry, or in favor of castle doctrine (which his main opponent Tom Emmers is in favor of). I guess that’s yet another reason I won’t be voting for him.

Like a Good Neighbor

High Bridge Arms is the only gun store left in hippie central known as San Francisco. For five decades they’ve sold guns at their location but now, seeing an opportunity, a few people from the neighborhood are doing everything they can to deny the owner’s permit renewal (in San Francisco apparently you need a permit to sell firearms, who would have guessed). There’s a hearing today on whether or not the permit will be renewed but I just have to roll my eyes at a few of the comments made by those interviewed:

“We just want to see something in that space the neighborhood could use,” Ross said. “A dry cleaners, a restaurant, a bar. We’d take anything where people go to be part of a community.”

Being High Bridge Arms has been in business for five decades it seems the neighborhood is finding plenty of use for the store. You want a place where people can be part of a community? Try a gun store. The clientele at gun stores are generally part of the gun owner and shooting community. What community do people going to a dry cleaner or a restaurant belong to? You also have to love the fact that those who oppose the store are cowards unwilling to talk:

“I’ve never had anyone who opposed our shop walk in and introduce themselves to me,” he said. “It’s not like I’m doing something morally objectionable or unconstitutional.”

If you don’t like how the shop is being run maybe you should go in and have a chat with the owner. Wait I forgot we’re talking about Hippyville where the only thing those concerned have against the store is the fact that they cell firearms. Here’s some more ignorance:

“Aside from being opposed to a gun store, we don’t really think a gun store supports the neighborhood,” she said. “Now we finally have an opportunity to say guns don’t belong in the neighborhood. He can do it, there’s no doubt. But it would be nice for him not to be there anymore.”

It doesn’t support the neighborhood? Really? I didn’t realize the owner was delinquent on his taxes. Actually now that I think about it this story isn’t about problems with the tax collectors so it seems the owner is paying taxes, which support the neighborhood. The shop also provides jobs and apparently drums up enough customers to stay in business for half a century. What more can you ask for? I guarantee you that no other business that moves in there is going to do anything else to support the neighborhood.

I would also argue that guns belong in every community. How else are you doing to defend yourself? Oh that’s right you’re local police department have magical teleportation devices that allow them to respond instantly to a call about a breaking and entering.

You also have to appreciate the underhanded insult. “He can do it, there’s no doubt. But it would be nice for him not to be there anymore” roughly translates into, “I have an irrational hatred of guns and therefore I fucking hate the owner of that store and wish him dead. He can do what he wants but if it were up to me I’d nail him to a damned cross and murder his friends and family!” Hm, my translator seems to have fritzed out at the very end there but that’s basically what is being said.

NRA Challenging Ban on 18-20 Year Olds Buying Handguns

The National Rifle Association (NRA) are challenging the ban on 18-20 year olds being prohibited from purchasing handguns from a federally licensed dealer:

The NRA is challenging federal laws that prohibit law-abiding Americans eighteen through twenty years of age from legally purchasing a handgun through a federally licensed firearm dealer. The case was filed Tuesday evening in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas Lubbock Division. James D’Cruz of Lubbock, TX is the plaintiff in this case.

Good on them. I’ve always found some things odd in this country. Take for example being an adult, in this country you are legally considered an adult at 18 years of age. Alas being an adult doesn’t mean you’re quite ready to be treated as such. In most states you can’t legally purchase or consume alcohol until you’re 21 and you are prohibited from purchasing a handgun from a federally licensed dealer until you reach the same age.

Strangely enough when you turn 18 you’re old enough to join the military where they often issue you handguns. Hell, at 18 you’re old enough to join the civilian police force who are issued handguns as well. Yet, even if you join military or a police force, you still can not legally go to a gun shop and purchase a handgun until you reached 21 years of age. Doesn’t make much sense does it?

I’m glad to see the NRA challenging this one.

Licensing Toy Guns

Australia is going for the gold today as they’ve landed on this site’s front page twice. New laws are being pushed in Australia that will require toy guns be licensed as real ones. Oh, and because there is no limited to stupidity this law will also involved other things:

The proposed changes will also impose restrictions on the ownership of laser pointers, tougher penalties for selling items such as crossbows, bullet proof vests and knuckledusters without the appropriate licence, and stricter rules on firearm storage. In certain circumstances, religion will be a lawful excuse for carrying a knife and police who take their service-issue firearms home will be exempted.

Be careful with those dangerous laser pointers, you could put somebody’s eye out with it. We also must appreciate that the police are like you and me only better so they are exempt from this legislation.

Give Credit Where Credit is Due

Unless you’re the National Rifle Association (NRA) apparently. The Gun Rights Examiner has a piece talking about how the NRA is taking credit for the recent McDonald vs. Chicago case that incorporated the Second Amendment. The case was bankrolled and petitioned to the Supreme Court by the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) but the NRA seems to ignore that fact when they talk about it. Both the NRA and the SAF had a case to bring to the Supreme Court and the head honchos of judiciary chose the SAF case. The NRA then petitioned and were granted shared time in the SAF case.

Needless to say in the NRA-ILA article that the Examiner was talking about didn’t both to mention SAF once. That is pretty dickish if I do say so myself. I think it’s about time I went and practiced my other privilege of being a member of the NRA, complain to the organization when they aren’t doing what they should be doing.