My Views on Gun Rights Restrictions

A buddy of mine ask me a very good question, do I support any form of gun control. My answer is a definite no. I don’t support any form of gun control. But simply saying no never really answers the important part of the question, which is why.

Let us look back at the reason we have a right to bear arms in the United States. This country was founded upon us declaring independence from the British and them trying to stomp us into submission. We declared our independence because Britain was tyrannizing our fair colonies. They tried to disarm us because they knew we were getting to the point of revolt. And then a funny thing happened, we got to the point of revolt.

Upon writing the Bill of Rights the second amendment was the right to bear arms. The reason was simple, our founding fathers wanted the citizens of the new found nation to have the the ability to defend he fledgling nation. This defense was meant to be against both foreign and domestic threats. That means if our government was ever to turn tyrannical the people could overthrow them all over again. To that end I feel it was implied that American citizens should be able to own armaments equal to those of the military. In this modern age that includes machine guns.

I’m against gun registration. The reason for this is simple and was demonstrated by Britain in 1997. Gun registration is a ploy, it doesn’t keep criminals from getting guns and it rarely helps law enforcement determine who used a gun in a crime. What it does do is let the government know who has guns. Britain all but completely banned (in the case of what little didn’t get banned their severely restricted) private firearm ownership. It’s illegal to own any handgun in Britain. Before this the government required registration of all firearms, the fact is they knew where to go to confiscate the guns when they banned them. To top it all off violent crime has been skyrocketing in Britain every since the ban on guns.

Another example of this which is probably more popular is this one. Many decades ago there was a failing country. This country’s economy was in shambles, it was cheaper to burn the national currency then use it to by firewood. Eventually a man with answers was given power. He turned the economy around and helped regain the country’s previous standing in the world. The citizens were quite happy with him. Anyways this leader eventually wanted each citizen to register any firearms that they own. Of course being the man who saved their country the citizens decided to go along with it. Not too shortly after wards the government confiscated every registered gun. This country was Germany and the government at the time was the Nazis. And don’t claim Godwin’s Law here. It specifically states that you can use valid references to Hitler and the Nazi party. After the guns were confiscated of course World War 2 broke out and the Jewish population was being exterminated.

This is a perfect case of a government tyrannizing their people and the people being unable to do anything about it. It’s hard to defend yourself and your fellow countrymen when you haven’t the same tools as those doing the tyrannizing. I know a lot of people say that could never happen here in the United States. To that I say bull shit, it can happen anywhere.

The first thing people generally ask me when I say I’m against all forms of gun control is why I’m for violent criminals having guns. I’m not. I flat out don’t want any violent criminal to have any means of harming somebody else. These people have proven themselves ill suited to live in our society already. But I’m even more against the idea of punishing the lawful citizens.

In order to do background checks there needs to be three things. The first is a group to perform the checks, the second is data on everybody who is to be checked, the third is the reason to check. The first is almost always the government. The second is the scary part. Information on everybody needs to be kept, especially dealing with any past criminal behavior. Of course you only need to keep data on actual criminals, but here is the kicker data is often entered wrong. Hell you could have a prohibition against owning a firearm on your file right now and not even know it. All because somebody accidentally entered the wrong name in a database. Of course to be useful this data also has to be difficult to expunge. The third thing would obviously be the act of buying a gun. Once again we have the party doing the checking knowing who is doing the activity they are checking. That means they know the person has one or more guns. Once again we return to the above two stories.

You can’t stop criminals from getting guns. If you put laws on the books that require people get background checks you will only be having law abiding people getting the background checks. A criminal by definition is somebody who breaks the law. If somebody is willing to commit a violent crime there is no way another law requiring them to submit to a background check to get a gun is going to stop them. They will just steal what they need from a law abiding citizen. In fact this is what happens today. Most crimes involving guns are committed by criminals with stolen guns. Background checks won’t stop this, it will only hamper law abiding citizens.

The law point I’ll make is my belief that all living creatures have a right to self defense. This also means that creatures can defend themselves with any tools necessary. You only have to look at nature to see life isn’t fair. There is no way a salmon is capable of defending itself against the claws of a grizzly bear. But if the salmon had a means it would most certainly deploy it.

The same goes for the human race. The main problem with humans is our greatest predator is ourselves. That means we are generally preyed upon by creatures with the same capabilities as us. If you have a criminal with a gun wanting to kill an unarmed man there is nothing the unarmed man can do buy die. The victim can try calling the police, but it’s true what they say when seconds count the police are only minutes away. Not give that unarmed man a gun as well. He now has a fighting chance, a means of self defense.

There are a lot of unpleasant people in this world. The majority are good people though. Why should the good people who follow the law not be allowed to have the ability to defend themselves against the criminals? Even if carrying a gun is illegal criminals will do it. In fact it’s illegal to carry a gun in Chicago yet many criminals do it. Making laws restricting the right of people to carry guns in which to defend themselves only unarms the innocent. We should never punish the innocent, we should punish the guilty. And defending yourself against an aggressor is not a crime, it’s a right.

Criminals generally prey on the weak. Even since 2005 Minnesota citizens have been able to get permits to carry pistols, in fact I have one. Also ever since 2005 the rate of violent crime has been declining. Why is this? Most likely because criminals don’t like going against armed people.

To quote Sammy “The Bull” Gravano, a noted gangster, “Gun control? It’s the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. I’m a bad guy; I’m always gonna have a gun. Safety locks? You will pull the trigger with a lock on, and I’ll pull the trigger. We’ll see who wins.”

He clearly states two things, first is he wants you to be unarmed, and second he’s going to have a gun no matter what.

That’s my view on gun rights restrictions. I feel everybody who either supports or doesn’t support gun rights restrictions should take a good amount of time and think of why. After all you really can’t stand for something unless you have a reason.

Wind Farms Cause Crime… Time to Ban Them!

I found an interesting story in The Financial Times today…

Mafia Link to Sicily Wind Farms Probed

Apparently the mafia in Sicily have been linked to many of the wind power farms that have been going up in the area. This itself isn’t surprising nor even news but it gives me an interesting point to make, once again with guns.

See many people say we need to ban guns because they are used by criminals. I always found this logic stupid since that would mean banning pretty much everything. But this little story make the point oh so well.

See a majority of anti-gun people are “progressive” liberals (But note that not all “progressive” liberals are anti-gun, I’m not trying to start any such flame war). And most “progressive” liberals believe we need clean energy sources that aren’t nuclear. Wind power is kind of the defacto clean energy source.

Thanks to this little tie in we can now use the same argument the anti-gunners use but for something they love. See wind power is being used by criminals. In fact not just criminals but the bloody mafia. They are using these wind farms to make money. Hence I have a proposal, we need to cut off this source of income to them by banning all forms of wind power immediately!

At the very least we need to control it. I propose we make laws requiring anybody building a wind mill to have to register it and go through a thorough background check. If you want to build more then one wind mill, well call it a wind farm, you need a special federal license. We’ll call it a Federal Windmill License or FWL for short. These FWLs will be controlled by a new agency called the Bureau of Wind Energy or BWE. The BWE will enforce all things dealing with wind energy and will be given unconstitutional authority to abuse people who disobey all wind energy control laws.

Furthermore we may want to look into outright banning certain wind mills. Some wind mills can produce over 100 kWh of energy with the correct wind speeds. These are obviously going to be more profitable for the mafia so must be banned. And yes I know the mafia isn’t making their profit off of the energy produced but damn it we need to do SOMETHING! Also wind mills above a certain height should be strictly regulated, requiring a large tax stamp and BWE approval to build.

See how stupid that sounds when applied to wind energy? Why then do we allow the same stupidity to be applied to guns? There is no constitutional right to clean energy but there is one to bear arms. Yet the right to bear arms is far more heavily restricted.

22 Shot Dead in 24 Hours… In a Gun Free Zone

And tragic but eye opening article…

http://secondcitycop.blogspot.com/2009/04/22-shot-in-under-24-hours.html

22 people have been shot dead in 24 hours. Sounds like the Brady Campaign’s wet dream come true, tragedy to exploit in order to press for more gun control laws. But wait it happened in Chicago which is a gun free zone.

For those of you who don’t know Chicago has a complete ban on handguns and sever (pretty much a complete ban) on long guns. The mayors have said less guns equals less crime. Sadly the article points to the real reality, gun free zones only take guns away from law abiding citizens.

Due to Chicago’s restrictions law abiding citizens have no means of defending themselves. Meanwhile criminals have the run of the place because they have the only guns beyond the ill-equipped police. These kinds of tragedies shouldn’t happen, and in fact most likely wouldn’t in a place where people could defend themselves.

Think about it, people claim gun free zones are safer because people can’t bring guns in. In reality this means law abiding citizens can’t bring in guns. A criminal by definition is a person who breaks the law. A person willing to break one law such as murder is not going to hesitate to break another law such as not bringing a gun into a gun free zone.

Many criminals who wish to commit mass shootings chose these gun free zones because they know the people there will be unable to defend themselves. These people are generally cowards who surrender or kill themselves at the first sign of confrontation.

How man tragedies do we have to suffer until law makers realize gun free zones like the entire city of Chicago are costing lives? Columbine, Virginia Tech, the recent shootings in Germany, all three events occurred in gun free zones. All three of these events could also have been stopped early if there were armed citizens these who could have confronted the aggressors.

Not a University Student or Faculty? Have a Concealed Carry License? You can Carry on Campus! At Least in Minnesota

I was talking to somebody today who mentioned it is illegal to carry on a state college campus period. It was then that I realized that many people, even those with concealed carry licenses, don’t know the entirety of Minnesota’s permit to carry a pistol law. At the end of this note I have pasted in the law dealing with carrying on school property but I’m mainly interested in pointing out sections i and f…

(i) a public or private elementary, middle, or secondary school building and its improved grounds, whether leased or owned by the school;

(f) Notwithstanding section 471.634, a school district or other entity composed exclusively of school districts may not regulate firearms, ammunition, or their respective components, when possessed or carried by nonstudents or nonemployees, in a manner that is inconsistent with this subdivision.

So under Minnesota law a licensed person can not carry on any K-12 school. But no mention of universities is made. Then section f states that school districts may not regular anybody who isn’t a student or a faculty member of that school. Hence universities can not prevent you from carrying your gun on their campus if you have a permit so long as you aren’t a student or employee.

So those of us with state issued permits to carry pistols can go onto college campuses armed after graduation. This is a good thing to know if you plan on visiting anybody on campus after you complete your degree or participate in any alumni events.

Here is the entirety of the Minnesota carry law dealing with school property…

Subd. 1d.Possession on school property; penalty.

(a) Except as provided under paragraphs (c) and (e), whoever possesses, stores, or keeps a dangerous weapon or uses or brandishes a replica firearm or a BB gun while knowingly on school property is guilty of a felony and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than two years or to payment of a fine of not more than $5,000, or both.

(b) Whoever possesses, stores, or keeps a replica firearm or a BB gun on school property is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.

(c) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) or (b), it is a misdemeanor for a person authorized to carry a firearm under the provisions of a permit or otherwise to carry a firearm on or about the person’s clothes or person in a location the person knows is school property. Notwithstanding section 609.531, a firearm carried in violation of this paragraph is not subject to forfeiture.

(d) As used in this subdivision:

(1) “BB gun” means a device that fires or ejects a shot measuring .18 of an inch or less in diameter;

(2) “dangerous weapon” has the meaning given it in section 609.02, subdivision 6;

(3) “replica firearm” has the meaning given it in section 609.713; and

(4) “school property” means:

(i) a public or private elementary, middle, or secondary school building and its improved grounds, whether leased or owned by the school;

(ii) a child care center licensed under chapter 245A during the period children are present and participating in a child care program;

(iii) the area within a school bus when that bus is being used by a school to transport one or more elementary, middle, or secondary school students to and from school-related activities, including curricular, cocurricular, noncurricular, extracurricular, and supplementary activities; and

(iv) that portion of a building or facility under the temporary, exclusive control of a public or private school, a school district, or an association of such entities where conspicuous signs are prominently posted at each entrance that give actual notice to persons of the school-related use.

(e) This subdivision does not apply to:

(1) active licensed peace officers;

(2) military personnel or students participating in military training, who are on-duty, performing official duties;

(3) persons authorized to carry a pistol under section 624.714 while in a motor vehicle or outside of a motor vehicle to directly place a firearm in, or retrieve it from, the trunk or rear area of the vehicle;

(4) persons who keep or store in a motor vehicle pistols in accordance with section 624.714 or 624.715 or other firearms in accordance with section 97B.045;

(5) firearm safety or marksmanship courses or activities conducted on school property;

(6) possession of dangerous weapons, BB guns, or replica firearms by a ceremonial color guard;

(7) a gun or knife show held on school property;

(8) possession of dangerous weapons, BB guns, or replica firearms with written permission of the principal or other person having general control and supervision of the school or the director of a child care center; or

(9) persons who are on unimproved property owned or leased by a child care center, school, or school district unless the person knows that a student is currently present on the land for a school-related activity.

(f) Notwithstanding section 471.634, a school district or other entity composed exclusively of school districts may not regulate firearms, ammunition, or their respective components, when possessed or carried by nonstudents or nonemployees, in a manner that is inconsistent with this subdivision.

Professor Calls Cops on Student Who Gives Pro-Gun Speech

Another article brought to you by the bastion of free speech known as college campuses…

http://therecorderonline.net/2009/02/24/professor-called-police-after-student-presentation/?wtf

A processor called the police on a student who gave a speech in class. The student’s speech dealt with the idea of allowing students and faculty with concealed carry permits to carry on campus. He stated that school shootings such as the one that occurred at Virginia Tech could have been stopped much sooner if students and faculty had been armed.

Well the professor must not have agreed with him because he called the police. The student was told to report to the police which he did. When he arrived they began listing off all the guns he owned and asked in questions about where they were stored. The professor said he did this because the student’s speech made other students uncomfortable.

It’s nice to know that the first amendment is so well regarded on college campuses these days. Just talking about guns is apparently grounds for calling the police and having the student interrogated.

Can’t say I’m surprised. Heck I wouldn’t be surprised if this exact same scenario occurred at Winona State with how gun friendly they are /sarcasm.

Friday Minnesota Gun Registration is Heard

This just came across the wire from the NRA-ILA…

https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/revisor/pages/search_status/status_detail.php?b=House&f=HF0953&ssn=0&y=2009

Friday Minnesota is holding a hearing for HF 0953. This bill would require all transfers of pistols and “military style” rifles to be registered. This includes private citizen to citizen sales.

Let people know and get on the horn with your representatives and make a stink about it.

For thoroughness here is the contents of the e-mail…

“Minnesota Gun Registration Scheme to be Heard Friday!
Please Contact the Members of the House Crime Victims/Criminal Records Division!
On Friday, March 6, House File 953, introduced by State Representative Michael Paymar (DFL-64B), will be voted on by the House Crime Victims/Criminal Records Division Committee.

This bill was designed to not only regulate the sale of firearms at gun shows, but to regulate the sale of firearms between law-abiding persons, all across Minnesota. As a whole, HF 953 will only affect law-abiding gun owners, and in no way keeps guns out of the hands of criminals.

A particularly troublesome provision in HF 953 creates a de facto registration system by requiring records of all transfers to be maintained by the state. These records would be made available to all authorities, including for use in “civil” cases, which are often brought by anti-gun government officials and are designed to damage or interfere with lawful commerce in firearms.

HF 953 is a direct attack on Minnesota’s gun rights. It also removes the carry permit holders’ exemption from the purchase permit requirement for all handgun or semi-automatic rifle purchases, not just those completed at gun shows, and increases the waiting period from five to seven days.

Please contact the members of the Crime Victims/Criminal Records Division Committee TODAY and respectfully urge them to protect our Second Amendment rights and oppose this bill. Contact information can be found below.

State Representative John Lesch (DFL) Chairman
Phone: 651-296-4224
Email: rep.john.lesch@house.mn

State Representative Ron Shimanski (R) Vice Chair
Phone: 651-296-1534
Email: rep.ron.shimanski@house.mn

State Representative Debra Hilstrom (DFL)
Phone: 651-296-3709
Email: rep.debra.hilstrom@house.mn

State Representative Kory Kath (DFL)
Phone: 651-296-5368
Email: rep.kory.kath@house.mn

State Representative Paul Kohls (R)
Phone: 651-296-4282
Email: rep.paul.kohls@house.mn

State Representative Jenifer Loon (R)
Phone: 651-296-7449
Email: rep.jenifer.loon@house.mn

State Representative Dave Olin (DFL)
Phone: 651-296-9635
Email: rep.dave.olin@house.mn

State Representative Michael Paymar (DFL)
Phone: 651-296-4199
Email: rep.michael.paymar@house.mn”

New Hampshire Goes States’ Rights

It looks like New Hampshire has just joined the small but growing number of states fighting the federal government for the right to govern themselves…

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=87987

The government of New Hampshire is telling the federal government where to stick is. They got all fired up “because plans for a federal handgun license, ‘hate crimes’ laws to regulate Christians’ speech about their own religious beliefs on homosexuality, President Obama’s youth corps for mandatory public service and the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” to “balance” talk radio are none of them constitutional.”

To this effect they have introduced this nice piece of legislature…

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2009/HCR0006.html

It pretty much establishes state rights based on Jeffersonian ideals. But the bullet point list is the part that sums this up nicely. This is a list of items gives a nice set of rules that the federal government can’t enforce…

1. Establishing martial law or a state of emergency within one of the States comprising the United States of America without the consent of the legislature of that State.

2. Requiring involuntary servitude, or governmental service other than a draft during a declared war, or pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

3. Requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of persons under the age of 18 other than pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

4. Surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government.

5. Any act regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press.

6. Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition;

I say go New Hampshire! I wish Minnesota would get behind this.

What Happened When Britain Banned Guns

So I came across the video today…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTq2NEUlhDE

I know it’s rather old but hey it’s new to me. But it gives a good picture of what happened at Britain when they went ahead and banned hand guns.

Violent crimes have roughly tripled since then. Police are now issued body armor (although I’m surprised they weren’t before… you know since they put themselves in harms way) because of the increase in criminals holding guns.

That’s right you can still get hand guns in Britain, so long as you’re a criminal. The black market is more then willing to provide for your needs. Just like in this country if a law impedes your ability to obtain a firearm, you simply get it through illegal means. Now the police are outgunned and citizens are at the mercy of the criminals. But wasn’t this handgun band suppose to make Britain safer?

Then of course you have people like the one mentioned in the video (Tony Martin). People broke into his household, he defend himself and his property, and now is sitting in jail under the charge of manslaughter. The surviving criminal (out of two, Tony got one) got a slap on the write and a little jail time for attempting the break in. And then he sued Tony for defending himself. That’s right the criminal is suing the person who’s house he was breaking into because the man decided not to stand aside and be a victim.

And now with our new administration who is composed heavily with people who have proven to be anti-gun in the past are coming into office here. We already know the president elect (tomorrow the president) was all for banning handguns in Illinois. Exactly what Britain did. Before they took it off it was clearly stated on change.gov that his administration wanted to put the poorly named assault weapons ban back into place, and make it permanent.

But I digress I don’t want to make this note all about Obama and friends’ track record. I want to make a point, gun control doesn’t work. It never will work. The only thing gun control does is disarm law abiding citizens and make the criminals’ jobs easier.

I think Sammy Gravano, a former big wig in the Gambino crime family said it best, “Gun control? It’s the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I’m a bad guy, I’m always gonna have a gun. Safety locks? You will pull the trigger with a lock on, and I’ll pull the trigger. We’ll see who wins.”

Just remember Britain whenever a gun control law comes across the old legislature machine and the politicians tell you it’s going to reduce crime and make the United States a safer place. It will make the United States a safer place… for the criminals.

North Dakota has 2 Murders in 2008… Neither Gun Related

Check this out…

http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2009/01/02/but-guns-cause-murder/

North Dakota only had two murders in the entire state last yeah. Funny enough both were stabbings.

The Brady Campaign Against Self Defense lists North Dakota as 44 out of 50 for state gun control laws. Strange how a state with so few gun control laws eends up having ZERO gun related murders.