Tag: Gun Rights

Somebody Needs a Truck Load of Fresh Knickers

Because Lois Romano just shit hers. I found yet another interesting story via Snowflakes in Hell that amounts to normal pants shitting hysteria by an anti-gunner. I don’t know where to begin with this one so I’ll do the logical thing and start with the top. She starts of talking about Governor Corzine signing New Jersey’s one gun a month strangling bill. That’s probably the only fact in the entire article, the rest is emotional nonsense. Let us being:

f the New Jersey government was thinking of the good of the citizens of New Jersey and our federal lawmakers were thinking of the good of the citizens of our entire nation, they would be working day and night to see how to get rid of the guns in our country instead of allowing more to be on our streets.

So she is stating we should get rid of all guns in this country. Of course the Constitution doesn’t allow for that and cities such as Chicago and Washington D.C. that have strict gun bans aren’t free of shootings or even remotely close to it. In fact ask England how their gun ban is working out (Hint, if you read this blog you know it’s not). Next up:

The Second Amendment to our Constitution was signed into law on Dec. 15, 1791. I’m sure those signers are turning over in their graves as to how our government has allowed this amendment to be interpreted.

The Second Amendment was written as follows: “A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

I’m sighing and shaking my head again. Yet another dumb ass that is trying to use the militia argument. I’m not going into this again, as I’ve explained it a couple of times. Are your pants full of shit yet? Well if not she has more scare tactics:

I cannot see how these words mean that there should be “gun shows” where anyone can buy an Uzi, a missile launcher or any other weapon that our military uses. Why has our government allowed so many guns to be in our country? There were over 9,000 murders by shootings in our country last year. In England and other countries in Europe the number of murders by shooting in all these countries totaled less than 50.

OK stop the boat, where the Hell can I find a gun show that has missile launchers for sale? I’ve seen expended missile tubes before but those are from fire once and throw away weapon systems. Hence the tubes are useless beyond a collector’s item. Hell I want to see any gun show that offers any weapon our military uses beyond the M9 pistol. You can’t buy modern machine guns even if you go through the ATF bull shit and I don’t think our military uses anything that was produced before 1986 anymore. And possession of such a weapon without the tax stamp is a felony and hence illegal already.

And yes according to England’s own study the number of murder involving firearms was 38:

Firearm offences can be broken down by injury and this shows there were 38 firearm offences
recorded by the police that resulted in a fatal injury (i.e. homicides) in 2008/09, 15 offences
fewer than in 2007/08.

That does look good on paper. In fact it makes it appear as though gun control works as England has an almost complete ban on guns. Oh wait let us look at the overall violent crime rate in England. What’s that it’s two times that of the United State’s? In addition to that the study that was just linked to shows there is absolutely no correlation between less guns and less violent crime, in fact the opposite appears be to true:

It turns out that in nations where guns are less available, criminals manage to get them anyway. After decades of ever-stricter gun controls, England banned handguns and confiscated them from all permit holders in 1997. Yet by 2000, England had the industrialized world’s highest violent crime rate — twice that of the U.S. Despite the confiscation of law-abiding Englishmen’s handguns, a 2002 report of England’s National Crime Intelligence Service lamented that while “Britain has some of the strictest gun laws in the world, [i]t appears that anyone who wishes to obtain a firearm [illegally] will have little difficulty in doing so.”

So although the number of murders involving guns has went down in England after their gun ban violent crime as a whole increase. This may have something to do with the fact criminals feel safer going after prey that is unarmed. Let’s continue with the pants shitting hysteria:

We are not living in the days of lawlessness. We have police departments in every town and city in our country. We have federal law enforcement officers. We have the National Guard in case of civil riots. We do not need to have every citizen carrying a gun. Some states even allow people to walk around with their loaded guns.

When seconds count the police are minutes away. It takes much less time for a thug to murder you then it does for the police to figure out where you are and get to your location. Maybe if the police had personal teleportation devices that wouldn’t be the case but sad to say they don’t. Hence for those minutes it takes them to get there you are on your own. If I’m my own against a criminal I want something to at least equalize the struggle, that’s exactly what a gun does.

I like her mention that some states allow citizens to carry around loaded guns. In fact 48 states do with Wisconsin and Illinois being the only two hold outs (Although Wisconsin legally allows open carry). If gun crime had increased after passing carry laws I promise you the laws would have been repealed, but that’s not the case. In fact most states notice a drop in crime rate after passing carry laws. And so it continues:

There are about 35 adults living on my street. If we each purchase a gun a month, in one year there will be at least 420 guns on my street. This will never happen because we are all law-abiding, sane people and trust our police department to maintain law and order in our little town. On the other hand, there are those who will be happy to be able to gather this number of guns by legal means or not.

I’m glad you trust your police department. I trust mine as well. I trust them to show up after the crime has been committed and try to figure out who did it and where they went. That is their job after all, to dispense justice after a crime has been committed. Also what does it matter if you own 10, 20, or even 1,000 guns? You can use at most two (A pistol in each hand, which is dreadfully useless) at one time and there is a limit to the number you can carry on your person.

And she mentions people will gather these guns by legal means or not. Well I have to say I’ve got bad news for you, if somebody is currently willing to get guns illegally making guns illegal won’t stop them. Ask England. Since England has an almost complete ban on guns there should be no crimes involving guns correct? Too bad that’s not the case. Luckily we’re almost at the end, because the smell of shit is really starting to stink here:

It doesn’t matter if these stores check out the credentials of the prospective buyer. We all know that the number of forged credentials probably outnumber the legitimate number of credentials in our country.

I’d like to know where you came up with that. According to the FBI in 2008 12,709,023 background checks were performed. In order for what Lois said to be true at least 6,354,512 of those credentials would have to be forged. She is saying that the most likely event is over 6 million credentials were forged in 2008 by gun buyers. If there were the case you would think the FBI would stumble upon that and investigate. Having over 50% of their NICS checks end up being done through forged identities would indicate a MASSIVE organized crime effort. I’d really like her to produce a source that gave her the opinion she has. Anyways we have one last paragraph that she wrote:

So now I probably will be getting calls from NRA members telling me that guns don’t kill people. My answer to them is, “People kill people using guns!”

Oh my God, people kill people using guns! Guess what people kill people using knives, cars, poison, lamps, sticks, stones, weed whackers, water, stairs, and almost anything else that exists. Her implication with that saying is since people kill people with guns then we must ban guns. Likewise that means she wants to ban everything people can use to kill other people. Well she better cut off her arms and legs then sew her mouth shut (Actually it would be nice if she did) since all of those can be used to kill people as well.

Yet another emotional anti-gun debate that doesn’t hold up once facts are injected into the claims. Too bad and so sad, thank you for play.

Blaming “Assault Weapons” for Pittsburgh Shooting Took Longer then I Expected

Well it has begun, the blaming of “assault weapons” for the gym shooting in Pittsburgh. Via Says Uncle I came across this story. Apparently after throwing in a bid for Delaware senator Joseph Sestak is howling for a reinstatement of the “assault weapons” ban. From his mouth to our ears:

“As we continue to see the effects of the violence in our state and nation, we must enact legislation banning assault weapons with the necessary sense of urgency,” said Sestak. “The senseless shootings of so many innocent victims during an aerobics class in Allegheny County, and of the three police officers in Pittsburgh this past April, are heartbreaking reminders that we must immediately address the loss of the common-sense ban earlier this decade.”

Notice anything strange here? Maybe this part of the article will sum it up:

n a release Thursday, Sestak pointed to an Aug. 4 shooting in Allegheny County, where George Sodini, 48, of Scott Township, used two 9 mm semi-automatics and a .45-caliber revolver to kill three women and wound nine others in an aerobics class before taking his own life.

Hmm, something isn’t quite right here. I’m not quite sure what it is though. Oh yeah that’s it! None of those listed guns fall under the “assault weapons” category. So let me get this straight Mr. Sestak wants to become a United States senator and he’s starting his campaign with lies almost immediately. Most people trying to get an office at least pretend to tell the truth right away.

Likewise his idea to solve a problem is to completely ignore the problem and enact a totally unrelated law. Wow I can picture him on the senate floor demanding we enact a law that would stop or allow abortions in order to fight illegal immigration. With logic like that who needs enemies to fuck up the country?

Senator Wicker Introduces Bill to End Gun Restriction on Train Travel

Another pro-second amendment bill is being introduced, this time by Senator Roger Wicker of Mississippi. The Bill, titled the Amtrak Secure Transportation of Firearms Act, would require Amtrak to enact regulations akin to those held by airlines for transportation of firearms.

As it stands right now Amtrak has a zero gun policy. Unlike the airlines that have regulations in place that allow you to transport you gun, Amtrak won’t even allow you to bring a gun that is unloaded and locked in a secure case. From the article:

The legislation states that if an Amtrak station accepts luggage for a specific route, passengers would be able to lawfully transport firearms and ammunition in secure baggage based on the following guidelines:

· Before checking the bag or boarding the train, the passenger must declare that the firearm or pistol is in his or her bag and is unloaded

· The firearm or pistol must be carried in a hard-sided container

· The hard-sided container must be locked and only the passenger has the combination or key for the container

Of course this won’t allow you to carry a gun even if your legally capable but it’s far better then the anti-gun zero ability policy currently in place. Apparently a similar amendment to a budge resolution was made earlier this year but was removed by the House.

How the Anti-Gunners Fight, Dirty

Another story I pulled from the NRA ILA. This time it’s an article in the Gun Rights Examiner that talks about the anti-gunner’s strategy.

This article is titled “New anti-gun strategy: Demonize CCW holders.” This sums up the anti-gunner’s strategy perfectly. Since they can’t fight with facts they fight with emotions and bigotry. Accusations such as more guns means more crime and armed citizens killed 44 people in a span of two years are made left and right. This except for the article really hit home though:

Nowadays, about the only form of acceptable overt social bigotry is against gun owners. The gun bigots argue that when one person with a gun does something heinous, all gun owners are expected to bear responsibility, and surrender their rights as though it would undo the crime.

This is quite true. If you say something that could be even remotely construed as bigotry you will have almost everybody throwing you against the wall. Just look at how Obama’s critics fight, they try to tag his opposition as racists. They do this because they know once a group are labeled racists nobody will listen to them. During the democratic presidential nominee race if you spoke against Hillary Clinton her supporters would accuse you of being sexist. Being a bigot against people of different religions, sexual orientations, races, creeds, ideals, and anything else is unacceptable. But bigotry against gun owners is perfectly acceptable.

If that’s not hypocrisy I don’t know what it.

Two Classes of Gun Owners

I found a good link off of the NRA ILA page. An article in the Newton Kansan says there will always be two class of gun owners, those who obey the law and those who do not:

No matter how many bills are considered in Congress, there always will be two distinct camps of gun-owners in America.

There will be responsible citizens who abide by the law, and there will be criminals whose actions will not be guided by the law. That’s just the way it is.

Truer words could not be spoken. No matter who many laws controlling guns are enacted there will be people who will ignore them. For instance felons can’t legally own guns in this country yet many felons have guns. It is illegal to shoot somebody with a gun outside of self defense situations yet there are people who do it. Making further laws isn’t going to help curb violence since those who will commit violent acts will also ignore laws claiming to curb it.

This article also talks about the recent national carry amendment:

We’re not sure of all the hullaballoo, however. Currently, if a Kansas gun-owner obtains a permit for concealed carry, that same permit allows them to carry in a number of other states, as well. If the same person obtains an identical permit from Utah, that permit covers the rest of the 48 states already allowing concealed carry.

So all this measure would have done was eliminate one of the two permits needed and, in the process, simplified the process. It wouldn’t have changed the fact each state — and each local jurisdiction, for that matter — can set its own rules for concealed carry. In some places, one has to have a gun in the trunk. Others allow it in the glove compartment.

Although claiming having a Kansas and Utah permit will allow you to carry in all 48 states that have carry laws. Some states won’t let you carry regardless of the permit you hold, that’s one problem national reciprocity would have cured. But he is correct in the fact the amendment would have gotten rid of the need to hold multiple permits. I currently have a Minnesota and New Hampshire permit. I need the New Hampshire one to travel to Wyoming through South Dakota. Furthermore I will have to obtain either a Utah or Florida permit to travel to many other states.

The amendment would have also allowed each state to continue enforcing their own set of rules. For instance New Mexico could still disallow carrying more than one gun (unless they overturned that particular law in recent history).

The massive number of gun laws are impossible to keep up on. I find that ironic since the Brady Bunch always say there are only a handful of gun laws on the books. If I travel to Wisconsin I can’t carry my gun unless I do so openly. On top of that the police will probably still arrest me and once I get in my car the gun is considered concealed and I must disarm again. When I disarm I must follow Wisconsin’s laws dealing with transporting a firearm. It’s a mess.

The truth of the matter is there shouldn’t be any laws controlling guns because we have a constitutional right to bear arms that is stated not to be infringed. Well I can tell you first hand there are a lot of infringements against that right, far more then against any other right.

Media Bias and Health Care

We all know the media is bias on the Health Care Bill. We also know they are bias against gun owners. So when they can combine the two things get really nasty. There are a couple stories of people brining guns to various town hall meetings on government controlled health care (often called health care reform). The media is in a tirade about armed people trying to scare opponents into submission. In fact there is this article from the biased Huffington Post that is full of enough lies to convince you that’s all they had.

Reports indicate that “Tea Partiers” are also carrying concealed handguns into these events — yet few in the media have commented on the distorted view of the Second Amendment that is driving this call to arms.

So now we’re all tea partiers? That must be their new derogatory slang for those of us who describe to the ideas of liberty. Second of all there is no call to arms, there are people legally carrying guns for self defense at a place where people of opposing views may be willing to resort to violence.

The problem is that there are already a substantial number of well-armed Americans who believe our democratically-elected government has become oppressive. Indeed, last week Tea Partiers at a town hall meeting in Tampa, Florida, heckled Rep. Kathy Castor (D-FL) with repeated chants of “Tyranny!” Far from furthering democracy, however, these individuals have made important debate impossible, thereby limiting the political rights of all those who disagree with them.

Really? Screaming tyranny and believing, justifiable, that the government no longer works for them is somehow a bad thing? Not everybody involved in these tea parties are licensed carry holders anyways and no mention has been made about any of them having guns. This is a problem when the article is titled “Handguns and Health Care Reform.” This would be akin to me going off on a rant about the Mexican gun canard in this post.

And the pro-government health care people have made debate impossible by not allowing the other side to be heard. All the Obama town hall meetings that are televised never have questions form people against government controlled health care. The people against this bill are screaming because if they don’t they won’t be heard.

And this part is golden:

This year has already been marred by a series of horrific shootings involving individuals who hated our government and believed they had a constitutional right to strike against it: Richard Poplawski in Pittsburgh, James von Brunn in the District of Columbia, Scott Roeder in Wichita, Gilbert Ortez, Jr. in Texas, etc. With tensions escalating at town halls across the country, the overwhelming majority of Americans who wish to peacefully exercise their First Amendment rights must speak out against the violent, insurrectionist philosophy that has corrupted the Second Amendment.

Funny none of those mentioned people were striking against the government as far as I know. They were shooting innocent people. If they tried to kill a member of government then you can say they were using a belief that they could strike against the government.

There is no insurrectionist philosophy corrupting the second amendment. There are people who believe the government has become corrupt and also believe in the second amendment. But the second amendment isn’t being used exclusively, or even primarily, for insurrectionists. People legally carry guns are exercising their second amendment right, and when they speak at meetings they are also exercising their first amendment right.

I love how the anti-gunners try to paint a picture of violence over the second amendment and its supporters. These lies are the weapons of a coward who has no real argument against the object they oppose.

Mayor Bloomberg Looking for the Ultimate Fight

Wow I don’t know how I missed this article but apparent Mayor Bloomberg is starting an open war against the NRA. He’s going up against the NRA using his cronies in the Mayors Against Illegal Guns group that is nothing more than a group advocating restricting the second amendment.

This is going to be an interesting fight. On one hand you have the NRA and it’s 4 million members, but on the other hand you have a group of mayors with access to the politically wealthy and well connected of their cities. Well if it’s a fight they want it’s a fight they shall receive. The first volley came from their side in the form of a declaration of war while I think our first volley should be to dislodge their power base by ridding ourselves of mayors in this group. Although I have a policy against linking to anti-gun sites I’m officially going to break that here and now so I can provide a list of mayors in the organization provided by the organization itself. Of course being a Minnesotan I’m calling out the names of Minnesota mayors in this league here and now. They are:

Mayor Steve Lampi of Brooklyn Park
Mayor Elizabeth B. Kautz of Burnsville
Mayor Gary F. Van Eyll of Chaska
Mayor Gary Peterson of Columbia Heights
Mayor Don Ness of Duluth
Mayor R.T. Rybak of Minneapolis
Mayor Chris Coleman of St. Paul
Mayor Andrew G. Humphrey of Wayzata

These Minnesota mayors need to be gone. Remember the best way to take down an organization is by removing it’s power base. As it sits right now the NRA does have far more members but a majority of those members are us average Joe’s while the Majors Against Illegal Guns have the politically well connected and super rich.

If they want a fight we shall give it to them.

Microstamping Failing in California

I found some hilarious news on the NRA ILA site dealing with the Peoples Republic of California. Apparently that fancy microstamping law isn’t doing so well. Not only has California’s Attorney General not signed it into law but nobody is working to implement it. And why hasn’t the Attorney General signed the law? For good reason:

The microstamping process was invented 15 years ago by Todd Lizotte, a New Hampshire engineer who patented the process under the trademark NanoMark Technologies. Because the technology was available nowhere else, the Legislature required the attorney general to certify that it was available “to more than one (gun) manufacturer unencumbered by any patent restrictions.”

That hasn’t happened yet.

“We’re continuing to review the legislation, but the certification requirements have not yet been met,” Christine Gasparac, the attorney general’s press secretary, said last week.

The relevant patents are not yet in the public domain, Gasparac explained.

“Nothing can move forward until the patent issue has been resolved,” she said.

The patent system is a bitch, huh? Too bad and so sad.

This is bad news for the Brady Bunch. If they can’t get this crap done in Communist California you can’t get it done anywhere. Furthermore I’m still waiting to hear how stamping the casings of a cartridge are going to help police track the shooter. First of all there are no spent casings from revolvers and spent casing from pistols can be picked up. Likewise the microstamping device can be filed off and most importantly most of the guns used in crimes or stolen and hence the trace will come back to the original owner not the criminal who used the gun. On a side note I wonder if this technology has been tested on steel and aluminum cased ammunition.

Correlation vs. Causality

You know how the Brady Bunch love to claim how the “assault weapons” ban lowered gun related deaths? Well they determined this through statistics which can be nothing more than lying through numbers. How did they lie? Simple they used a correlation to determine causality. I saw this article on Says Uncle that shows the correlation between the “assault weapons” ban and various weapons used in homicides.

The data shows that after 1994 firearm related deaths did go down (actually it started in 1993). The Brady Bunch use this as definitive proof that the “assault weapons” ban worked. Too bad for them correlation doesn’t imply causality. If you hit the link and check out the graphs you’ll notices that deaths by stabbing and suffocation as well as a few others also started dropping in 1994. This would lead to two possible reasons when in relation to the “assault weapons” ban. The first explanation is if the ban worked for firearms than there must have been equal bans on stabbing weapons and objects used in suffocations. The other explanation is there is a reasons other than the Brady Bill that caused the drop.

The second explanation seems more likely considering after the ban sunset in 2004 there was no dramatic increase in firearm related deaths. This is why the definitions of correlation and causality are so important. The anti-gunners lie through knowingly using research (for them that constitutes a Google search) numbers incorrectly.

Mexico Wants U.S. To Reinstate “Assault Weapon” Ban

From the NRA ILA comes an article on ABC news. During the North American Leaders conference Mexico will be urging the United States to reinstitute the improperly named “assault weapon” ban.

I would like to see the assault weapons ban reinstated – it’s not philosophical, it’s because of what we have seen on the ground…There is a direct correlation between the assault ban and expiring in 2004 and the numbers – simply the sheer numbers – of assault weapons that we seize in Mexico…We are both cognizant of what can and cannot be done right now – we will softly, diplomatically…continue to say that this is an important issue for us but I think the real perspectives of this moving on Capitol Hill these days are slim to say the least.

So let me get this straight because of our law expiring Mexico is having an issue with American purchased semi-automatic military lookalike rifles? Right. I’m sure the drug cartels in Mexico are purchasing semi-automatic AR-15 rifles from America and smuggling them back as opposed to left over stockpile of fully automatic rifles and grenade available for much cheaper in Central America.

Maybe if these dumb asses would get rid of the corruption plaguing their own government and do a half assed attempt at security their borders they wouldn’t have to worry about us. Then again they need somebody to point the finger at to cover up their own government’s sheer incompetence and the United States is the internationally recognized evil leader in the business of being evil.