What’s Their Purpose

Bitter over at Snowflakes in Hell pointed out another idiotic assortment of dribble that is trying to be passed off as a study. The adamantly anti-gun organization Violence Policy Center has released another one of their Google searches studies. This time they are “proving” that the NRA and its members are dangerous anti-government terrorists. The article advertising this study leads me to ask the question, what exactly is the Violence Policy Center’s purpose?

From what I gather through this article its not so much an anti-gun organization but a pro-government organization. Let’s look at some choice quotes:

The study offers examples of the NRA’s anti-government language, details NRA marketing to Tea Party supporters, and reveals links in nine states between NRA State Election Volunteer Coordinators, the Tea Party movement, and other factions of the “Patriot movement.”

Let me get this straight. You’re supposed to be afraid of the NRA and its supporters because some of those members are part of the tea party movement? Let’s jump into the way back machine here and remember what the original tea parties were about. They were about taxes. People attending these tea party events felt the government was stealing too much of their money in the form of taxes. They were (still are) paying more and want to pay less. Eventually the mass media tried spinning these events as anti-government movements and organized political parties (they were merely events at first). And now the tea party “movement” isn’t just about taxes but wanting small government in general. What’s wrong with that? A desire for small government was the basis on which this country was founded. Let’s rip into some more quotes:

The study finds that, echoing the language of the resurgent Patriot movement, the NRA routinely presents the election of Barack Obama as a virtually apocalyptic threat not only to gun ownership, but to the future of the United States itself.

Most people who vie for small government present the election of Barack Obama as a threat to the future of the United States. He’s the classic “progressive” big government guy which was made very apparent by the fact he did everything he could to ensure the mandatory health insurance bill was passed. Once again it seems that the Violence Policy Center is jockeying itself to be a pro-government organization instead of an anti-gun organization. But there’s more:

In a December 2009 direct-mail letter echoing the language of both the Tea Party movement and the Oath Keepers, the NRA urges the reader to join an “army whose highest allegiance is not to any individual or any political party but only to the cause of freedom.”

Are they seriously trying to spin this as a bad thing? So according to the Violence Policy Center the idea of our military having their allegiance to the concept of freedom is a bad thing? In my book that’s a great thing. I love the idea that of the army ignoring illegal orders such as confiscating guns from the sovereign individuals of the United States. I love the idea of our military refusing to enact marshal law. If that’s what our army is about I’m all for it. I guess the Violence Policy Center doesn’t feel the same way and believe our military should blindly obey the commands of our governing officials even if those orders violence the very Constitution this country was created on. But hey they’re not done yet:

The organization now also markets NRA clothing products emblazoned with the Gadsden “Don’t Tread on Me” flag, which has become the symbol of the Tea Party movement. The description for the NRA Gadsden tee shirt reads: “What goes around comes around. In the late 18th century, oppressed American patriots voiced their defiance of tyranny by exclaiming, ‘Don’t Tread on Me!’ Perhaps it’s time once again for Freedom-loving citizens to rally ’round the legendary slogan of the famous Gadsden flag.”

The Gadsden flag isn’t the “symbol of the Tea Party movement” but the symbol of those wanting smaller government. In fact according to this implication the Navy should be considered terrorists as they fly the Gadsden flag to this day.

I think the Violence Policy Center needs to take a look at what their real purpose is. It is becoming more and more obvious their position is the ensure government can do as it pleases without any restriction. After all we need to ban guns because members of the NRA hold libertarian ideals! Oh the humanity! There are people who believe that government shouldn’t be interfering with their everyday lives! What will they think of next?

No More Nerf Gun Fights

At least in Illinois. Days of our Trailers let us know that the city of Charleston, Illinois has decided kids having fun should be illegal and hence have banned the discharge of toy guns:

“WEAPONS: A. Discharge of Weapons: It shall be unlawful to discharge any firearm, air gun, BB gun, pistol, cannon, toy gun, bow, mechanically drawn bow, or any type of mechanical device projecting pellets, arrows, missiles or projectiles, leaden or otherwise or any other type of missile excepting in a regularly established shooting gallery or unless fired or discharged for ceremonial purposes with a weapon that may cause a report but does not deliver a projectile capable of causing serious injury and with the approval of the Chief of Police; provided, that this subsection shall not be construed to prohibit any officer of the law from discharging a firearm in the performance of his/her duty or for training purposes at an authorized police training facility; nor to any citizen for the discharge of a firearm when lawfully defending his person or property.”

If something could possibly be used in any manner to have fun we need to ban it immediately!

California Assemblywoman Trying to Ban Open Carry

Well the pants shitting hysteria is upon us. Apparently Assemblywoman Lori Saldana (there’s supposed to be some goofy mark above the ‘n’ in Saldana but if it isn’t in the ASCII table I ain’t fucking with it) thinks the open display of unloaded handguns is evil and needs to be stopped. And of course she is citing that incident where 20 people were murdered by open-carry protesters… oh wait that never happened so she’s using this as her justification:

Saldaña cited an open-carry event in Pacific Beach last year as alerting her to the need for a ban on displaying guns, even unloaded, in public. There, with thousands of people at the beach on a Saturday, about 60 members of the movement walked along the boardwalk.

The gall of those people to peaceably demonstrate in a public area! My God somebody could get ideas that we should respect peoples’ rights! This must be stomped down immediately. But there’s more:

“Guns are an intimidating presence,” Saldaña said. “The average citizen can’t tell the good guys from the bad guys.”

Let me run this quick multiple choice question past you that should help the average citizen identify friend from foe.

You see a man walking down the street openly carrying a handgun. Is he:
A) Shooting at you?
B) Not shooting at you?

If you answered ‘A’ he’s a bad guy, if you answered ‘B’ he’s a good guy (as far as you’re concerned of course, if he’s not shooting at you he’s not a concern of yours).

Anyways the bill is Assembly Bill 1934. 1934? That number sounds familiars. Oh yeah it’s the year the National Firearms Act was enacted. A coincidence but a funny one regardless. Those of you in California need to stomp this law and a few others worming their way through your legislation down, HARD. I know your representatives don’t listen to you but make it damned clear if they pass anti-gun bills they won’t be getting another term. And follow that by actively working against them to ensure they don’t get another term.

Oh to close this we have a quote from a police officers:

Said Emeryville Chief James, “We view open carry as an officer safety issue. Officers are taught from Day One at the academy that guns are a threat. … We teach tactically how to respond to that threat.”

Holy shit how do the police deal with the guns other cops are carrying? After all the police are all openly carrying their firearms therefore all of your officers must treat each other as a threat. We know you can’t trust the uniform since people impersonate police officers quite often.

How It’s Done

Apparently some anti-gunner tried to claim most gun owners weren’t law abiding citizens by pointing out the fact that criminals who use guns are technically gun owners. Robb Allen pulls out the facts and does that math thing to show even considering criminals who use guns most gun owners are still law abiding citizens.

Aren’t facts a bitch? Logic truly is the anti-gunner’s worst nightmare.

Reinforcements Have Arrived

A while ago Montana passed this country’s first Firearms Freedom Act. So under Montana law any gun produced in and made exclusively for sale and use in Montana are exempt from federal laws. Well the ATF decided to have none of that and brought legal repercussions against the state. Well Says Uncle let us know that reinforcements have arrived in the form of Utah, Wyoming, and South Dakota. All three states, who also have firearms freedom acts of their own, filed friends of the count briefs on the side of Montana.

Although I wouldn’t put money on Montana winning (after all states have no sovereignty anymore) I would absolutely love it if they did. The federal government has been using the interstate commerce clause to strip the states of rights for a long while now. It’s about time the states stood up and said if goods and produced and sold within their borders it’s not interstate commerce and the federal government should keep their noses out of it.

Castle Doctrine Bill in Wisconsin

I just saw this come over the NRA-ILA site this morning. A bill has been presented in Wisconsin that would enact castle doctrine.

Currently the bill, AB 193, is sitting in the Assembly Rules Committee. I know little about Wisconsin politics but those of you living there may want to find out who’s on that committee and urge them to vote yes on this bill so it can get out to a vote by the state representatives.

In case you’re new to the self defense terminology castle doctrine means you are able to defend your home from invaders without fear of legal repercussions. In states without castle doctrine (such as Wisconsin and Minnesota) if a criminal breaks into your home and you injure him (in other words you defended your home) the invader can take legal action against you (although it’s not a guarantee that the invader will win it’s still legal headaches for the home owner regardless).

Apparently The UN Believes It’s The ATF

Snowflakes in Hell brings a story that is rather interesting. Yesterday the National Shooting Sports Foundation posted a news item brining to light that the United Nations is filing firearm trace requests. They posted a trace request originating from the United Nations [Be forewarned it’s a PDF document].

This is troubling because of two facts. First of all the United Nations is all for disarming civilian populations. That shouldn’t be a surprise when you stop to realize the United Nations is composed of multiple world governments, most of which either severely restrict or outright ban civilians from owning firearms. Second the United Nations apparently believe they have the same authority in this country as the ATF.

The trace request is for a H&K P7 that the French apparently found (more likely surrendered). What’s funny is the request states the company should cooperate due to a United Nations resolution. These resolutions are binding to signing government bodies not the civilian population. That means if the United Nations wants a trace performed they need to go to our federal government not the private company that manufactures the pistol. I hope H&K decides the UN sucks and that H&K hates them. The United Nations is the last organization we want to give an inch to because they’ll take at least a light year.

Because It’s Worked So Well Before

An unsurprising story from Africa appeared on the BBC today. Apparently there’s violence in South Sudan. I know what a shocker right? Of course this next part doesn’t make sense:

This is why the south’s semi-autonomous government has launched an ambitious initiative to control the violence.

In Jonglei, the biggest and most violent state in the south, teams of officials have been touring remote areas for the past three months, telling cattle-herders to hand in their guns.

So there’s massive violence and the solution is to… disarm the cattle herders. Yeah because disarmament has worked so well in other countries to curb violence. Wait a minute that’s a complete crock. Disarmament only makes live easier on the lawless who refuse to turn in their arms. That does beg the question why would any of the cattle herder turn in their means of self defense against the lawless? Well because:

Those who refuse face five years in prison or a fine of 20 cows.

The classic government mechanism for disarmament. Give us your guns or we’ll take them and either send you to jail or steal even more of your property. Of course:

“We found people were already fed up with these arms, so they co-operated with the civil authorities,” said Jonglei State Governor Kuol Manyang.

I’m guessing the reason you’ve found co-operative people isn’t because those people are sick of their guns but because you’re forcing them to turn in their guns. When citizens do this in place of government it’s called theft.