Tag: Gun Rights

More Proof Mayors Against Illegal Guns Isn’t

One nice thing about the fight against Mayor Bloomberg’s posse is they keep handing us ammunition (don’t mind the pun) to use against them. Even though the group says they are against illegal guns they really mean they are against gun ownership in general. Case in point Bloomberg spoke about against the bill that would allow you to bring your gun on Amtrak trains so long as you follow a process very similar to how you do it on airplanes. And of course he provides this great hypocritical quote:

Bloomberg says he’s not trying to infringe on anyone’s rights.

“This has nothing to do with the Second Amendment right to bear arms and everything to do with keeping our country safe from terrorists,” he said, according to the Post.

No Bloomy this has nothing to do with terrorism. See he fails to realize the fact that this isn’t allowing people to just bring their guns on board but to do it in a manner similar to how airports do it. In other words in checked luggage separate from passengers. But here is the real kicker if you were allowed to bring your gun on board in carry on luggage if some terrorist scumbags tried something you could defend yourself and the rest of the people on the train by using your gun to stop the bad guys. Of course this also has NOTHING to do with illegal guns and EVERYTHING to do with legally owned guns. Senator Roger Wicker explains what this bill is really about:

“Americans should not have their Second Amendment rights restricted for any reason,” Wicker said in a statement. “Particularly if they choose to travel on America’s federally subsidized rail line.”

Exactly, if I’m traveling on a system that is receiving tax money from the federal government they no longer have a right to deny my constitutional rights while using their service. See Amtrak isn’t a private entity they are a government subsidized entity and that in my opinion changes the rules completely.

Oh well this is yet another article you can show to any mayor who is a member of Bloomberg’s posse as an example that the group isn’t fighting what it’s name suggests.

Another Person Doesn’t Get It

So I was reading the Star Tribune at work today and noticed a letter to the editor that didn’t make any sense. To give those of you outside of Minnesota some perspective the Star Tribune has to nick names, the Red Star and the Star and Sickle. They are a very “progressive” liberal leaning paper as are a majority of their readers. Well this letter made me realize people still don’t get the reason behind the second amendment:

Earlier this month, Josh Hendrickson brought two concealed guns to the Obama rally in Minneapolis, apparently to make a point about the Second Amendment. Other than being dressed in army fatigues and packing a .40 caliber Glock 22 gun and a Kel Tec 380 gun, he was just another (self-described) laid-back guy who loves kids and his country right? Really? When there’s already a conceal-and-carry law, what’s the point?

This type of behavior is yet another example of the extreme lengths the hard-core gun-rights activists seem committed to in the interest of furthering their cause. I’m a hunter and have been for the last 45 years. I am also a supporter of gun rights. It’s precisely this type of extremist behavior that tends to undermine our future as hunters.

As a hunter, I feel it’s important to make a distinction between the more extreme side of the gun-rights lobby that supports such things as assault rifles, conceal-and-carry laws, etc., from the right to bear arms for hunting. There’s a more effective, less extreme approach to the gun-rights issue, such as the basic preservation of hunters’ rights to bear arms, but I seldom hear fellow hunters make this point.

I’m going to assume he meant to say “assault weapons” as assault rifles are heavily regulated i this country but alas he believes supporting the right to own military pattern semi-automatic rifles and an ability to effectively defend yourself are extreme? Strange. Then he mentions the right to bear arms for hunting and strangely enough many people hunt with those guns labeled by the anti-gun crowd as “assault weapons.”

Of course he talks about how since there are conceal and carry laws the point of bringing firearms to rallies meaningless. This isn’t the point of what these people are doing, they are raising awareness of our eroding second amendment rights in general. It’s not only about concealed carry laws but all gun laws in general. More to the point it’s about abolishing gun control laws and restoring the true meaning to the second amendment.

This is the type of person we don’t need, a person who says they’re for the second amendment but only so far as it extends to hunting. These are the types of people that are OK with stomping on other peoples’ rights so long as the rights they enjoy are left alone. I have a name for these people, assholes.

North Dakota Remains Logical Impossibility

Says Uncle shows that North Dakota remains an complete paradox unable to exist in the real world. See according to the FBI statistics North Dakota had a total of three homicides in 2008. A gun wasn’t used in any of those homicides meaning there were zero gun related murders in North Dakota.

Seems odd considering North Dakota is rated 44 our of 50 in the Brady Bunch’s gun control list (in this case the higher the number the less gun control laws a state has). Being guns are supposed to cause crime and according to released FBI data on the number of NICS checks performed in 2009 [PDF Link] there were 309,269 firearm purchases made. To put that further in perspective North Dakota has a population of 641,481 which at the very least there may be almost 1 gun for every 2 people in the state. With that many guns and such a low Brady gun control rating the number of homicides performed with guns in that state should be far in excess of zero.

The New York Times Proves Once Again They Hate Gun Owners

We all know and hate the New York Times. What other paper can you find that constantly berates gun owners as some kind of social sum that should be eliminated? But here is a shocker presented by Snowflakes in Hell, the New York Times is actually being more anti-gun than the Brady Campaign itself. Seriously wow.

See the senate just vote in favor of a bill that will allow those of us traveling with guns to travel on Amtrak. Of course we have to follow the same policies as we do when traveling on airplanes with firearms. But according to the New York Times that’s crazy and is showing preferential treatment to gun owners:

Proponents said the change was needed to put Amtrak back to its pre-9/11 gun policy and equate it with airline security measures that allow unloaded, locked handguns in checked baggage. This is lunatic reasoning for a nation supposedly sensitized by the 9/11 attacks. Why should gun owners be treated as privileged travelers?

Yeah I’ll refer you back to Snowflakes in Hell on this quote. But I never really though that having to check a gun on an airplane was a privilege. In fact I’ve always seen it as a nuisance. Oh and for shits and giggles:

If the Senate wants to pass a bill on Amtrak, it should provide the money to hire more security guards and create a real passenger rail system. Generally, it should just stop its demeaning homage to the gun lobby.

Considering the federal government already does pay to keep Amtrak afloat I think Amtrak should be required to allow us to exercise our second amendment rights while riding aboard. After all we shouldn’t have our federal government funding infractions against this country’s own constitution. Just a thought.

But Gun Control was Supposed to Make Us Safer

The anti-gun crowd is always telling us how much safer we will be with stricter gun laws. Well Days of our Trailers looked into the matter and found out it’s not true.

Get this the violent crime rate in this country has dropped the second year in a row. Illinois on the other hand experienced an increase in their murder rate. But the real icing on the cake is if you take Chicago’s statistics out of the equation Illinois’s murder rate would have dropped.

That’s right thanks to Chicago alone the entire state of Illinois shows an increase in its murder rate. That shouldn’t be possible since Chicago has very strict gun control laws. What do the anti-gunners have to say about that?

Bloomberg’s Posse is a Little Screwed

So the NRA has a fact sheet on Bloomberg’s posse calling themselves the Mayors Against Illegal Guns. In this fact sheet is a list of mayors who have quit that is pretty long. Under that is a list of people who are not actually mayors of the localities as the group advertises. I count 28 names under that section which is quite a few incorrectly added names to their member role sheet.

This list is very complete and even has a section for mayors in the group who were convicted of crimes. I must say if Bloomberg wants to use his deceptively named group to attack the NRA he better start an offensive quickly. The NRA is curb stomping them with facts, which we know anti-gunners have a hard time with. Then again I think Bloomberg’s biggest failure here was the name he selected for his group. Although it did help initial membership by claiming it was against illegal guns as the groups true purpose is exposed many mayors are leaving. Don’t deceive your base membership, they won’t like it.

The NRA certainly is doing a good job with the fact sheet alone and pointing out the futility of Bloomberg’s posse and their crusade against guns.

Shocking Story of the Day Gun Buybacks Don’t Stop Violence

I know the title of the article is already making you shit your pants in confused hysteria. Bear with me because this news comes from the child hating NRA but it looks legitimate. Studies have found out that gun buyback programs don’t actually stop violence.

Of course we in the gun community already figured this out because of one fact that crops up with this guy buyback programs:

“It’s highly unlikely that a person who would use guns for violence would turn them in,” said Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminology professor who studies gun control.

Wait a minute you mean criminals not only will break the law but won’t turn in their tools when asked and given a cheap gift certificate? Truly shocking. Of course the local Sheriff chimed in:

Sheriff’s spokesman Dave Bristow concedes that would-be criminals are unlikely to surrender their guns. But he said the program might collect a gun that otherwise would one day be used in a crime.

“We’re trying to do something here that’s proactive,” he said. “Whether or not it works, how can you tell?”

So even he admits criminals probably won’t turn in guns, just law abiding citizens. And of course they are the ones we need to disarm after all because they may defend themselves. Of course he leaves a cop out in saying we can’t tell if it will work or not. But being Chicago has annual gun buybacks and one of the highest number of homicides in the country I think we can say pretty easily it doesn’t work. His further logic astounds me:

At a buyback event in May, the sheriff’s office collected 77 guns. Bristow said most of the guns were turned in by senior citizens. “Who’s to say that someone wouldn’t commit a burglary and steal that gun and then use it in a crime?” he said.

OK so you want people to turn in their guns because a criminal may steal them and use the stolen merchandise to commit a crime? In that case you should hold a car buyback program because some criminal may steal somebody’s car and use it as a getaway vehicle during the committing of a crime. If you have a burglary problem in your city maybe you should either work to stop that or let citizens take care of burglars themselves via their guns. Of course non-functional guns aren’t a threat but they get turned in:

A 2001 report on youth violence by the U.S. Surgeon General’s office says, “There is some evidence that most of the guns turned in are not functional and that most persons turning in guns have other guns at home.”

So really you aren’t getting functioning guns off of the street. After all why would somebody turn in a valuable gun for a pidley $50 to $100? Be we know gun buybacks aren’t about stopping violence at all but political imagery. Apparently we’re not the only ones:

Kleck said officials continue to hold buybacks because it allows them to look like they are reducing gun-related crime without angering people who support gun rights. “It’s a politically cost-free way of seeming to do something about the violence,” he said.

Yup it’s a method to show you’re doing something without actually doing anything. See hiring more police and having more patrols costs money. Giving out $50 to $100 per firearm costs relatively nothing in comparison. So what is the smart thing to do? Spend money on a solution or play security theatre? Well according to Manatee County in Florida the former.

No the NRA aren’t Bullying Children

Man you just have to love the mainstream media, you always know where they stand. I’m not sure if any of your heard but Florida has been looking into changing their state bird from the mockingbird. Well NRA board member Marion Hammer, a fan of the mockingbird, has been working hard to ensure things remain the same.

Likewise Florida let school children vote on a new bird. So the mainstream media is making it sound as if the NRA is not only directly fighting the change of the state bird but is also hating on children.

The problem is, as Sebastian on Snowflakes in Hell points out, neither accusation is true. See if you are member of an organization you can also do things independently of that organization. For instance I’m a member of the company I work at. According to the mainstream media that would imply my entire company is fighting for gun rights which isn’t true. See I’m working independently from the company that employs me. Just because one member of an organization does something doesn’t mean the entire organization is working with them.

Of course being the media is so anti-gun they love nothing more than making accusations against the big bad evil NRA who now also hate children.

Maybe Drunken Carrying is a Problem in New York

A few posts ago I mentioned Bloomberg was getting his knickers in a bunch over a non-issue, which is people drunkenly carrying firearms in New York. Well I found a good post on Snowflakes in Hell that adds legitimacy to Bloomberg’s hysterics.

William Powell is a 15 year veteran of the Queens (as in Brooklyn not Britain) police department. Well he was out and about off duty while drunkenly carrying a firearm which he accidentally shot off blowing a hold through his friend’s car. Of course guns don’t just go off unless you’re playing with them:

“He was wasted drunk,” said a source. “He said he was adjusting his gun and it went off.”

And here we’re always told police are the only ones responsible enough to carry a firearm. Some responsibility there.