Tag: Gun Rights

Republican Party Loses Its Monopoly on Members Saying Stupid Things Regarding Women and Rape

During the last election the Republican Party had an apparent monopoly on members saying stupid things regarding women and rape. Earlier this week the Republican Party lost its monopoly when a Colorado Democrat declared that women shouldn’t have firearms because they may shoot somebody because they wrongly feared that the person was going to rape them:

“It’s why we have call boxes; it’s why we have safe zones; it’s why we have the whistles — because you just don’t know who you’re gonna be shooting at. And you don’t know if you feel like you’re gonna be raped, or if you feel like someone’s been following you around or if you feel like you’re in trouble when you may actually not be, that you pop out that gun and you pop … pop a round at somebody,” Salazar said.

In the opinion of Salazar women shouldn’t have a firearm because they were mere slaves to their emotions. What makes Salazar’s statement even dumber is the fact he believes call boxes, safe zones, and rape whistles are effective defenses against rape. A call box does you no good if you can’t reach it, safe zones exist in name only, and rape whistles do nothing to actively deter a rapist. Of course Salazar’s sentiment isn’t unusual for a statist. Statists generally believe that the average person is too irrational or stupid to make their own decisions and must have their decisions made by the state. In fact Salazar’s apology does nothing to indicate he believes otherwise:

Salazar apologized on Monday in a statement.

“I’m sorry if I offended anyone,” Salazar said in the statement. ”That was absolutely not my intention. We were having a public policy debate on whether or not guns makes people safer on campus. I don’t believe they do. That was the point I was trying to make. If anyone thinks I’m not sensitive to the dangers women face, they’re wrong. I am a husband and father of two beautiful girls, and I’ve spent the last decade defending women’s rights as a civil rights attorney. Again, I’m deeply sorry if I offended anyone with my comments.”

Note that he wasn’t sorry for implying women are too irrational to possess a firearm, he was merely sorry that he said something that was found offensive by some people. These are the types of people who are referred to as leaders by so many. We’re told that these people know what’s best for us and that if they make a mistake we’re supposed to beg them to reconsider. When you listen to the people who comprise the state and look at the decisions they make it’s almost impossible to justify statism.

According to Chicago Police Superintendent McCarthy Gun Rights are a Danger to the Public

Surprising nobody the Superintended of the Chicago Police Department (CPD) stated that gun rights are a danger to public safety:

On a Sunday talk show, as reported by the Illinois State Rifle Association, police Superintendent Garry F. McCarthy said that firearm owners who lobby their representatives, or who donate money to political campaigns, for pro-Second Amendment issues are guilty of corruption and of endangering public safety.

This is only one step away from labeling gun rights advocates of terrorists, which McCarthy will likely do sometime in the near future. Regardless of labels it’s hard to take McCarthy seriously on public safety. He heads the police department of a city where homicide rates are increasing in spite of the general decline experienced nationwide, officers won’t respond to 911 calls unless they decided an immediate threat to life exists, and reports homicides that occur indoors and outdoors separately in order to make the numbers look better. If McCarthy had any valid incite regarding public safety you would think the homicide rate in Chicago would be decreasing, police officers would respond to 911 calls, and homicides would be uniformly reported. It’s also hard to take McCarthy’s accusation of corruption seriously when he advocates for the disarmament of the general populace but fails to provide them protection. Demanding that the general populace be at the mercy of Chicago’s criminal element creates a valid reason to accuse him of being on the mob’s take.

Current Gun Control Bills Being Proposed in Minnesota

Minnesota Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance (MNGOCRA) has put together a list of gun control bills currently being proposed at the State Capitol along with MNGOCRA’s rating for how bad the bills are for gun owners. As it currently stands the “assault weapon” and standard capacity magazine bans are tabled but prohibiting private sales will be rigorously pursed:

The Minnesota Senate will not act to ban assault weapons or high-capacity ammunition clips this year, a DFL leader said Monday.

Sen. Ron Latz, DFL-St. Louis Park, who is chairing the Senate’s gun hearings this week, said he will focus on closing the loopholes in background checks and leave the issue of banning weapons or ammunition to Congress.

“The assault weapons ban and high-capacity magazine ban proposals are highly divisive,” said Latz, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Legions of concerned gun owners turned out for three days of hearings on gun issues last week, and Latz said such bans also do not have strong support from law enforcement.

On the other hand, he said, the idea of filling loopholes in background checks has strong public and police support, and he believes it can pass this year.

“Law enforcement does have broad consensus in favor of universal background checks, closing loopholes in existing statutes,” he said. “I want to focus on what has broad public support.”

In all likelihood the politicians weren’t intending to pursuer the “assault weapon” and standard capacity magazine bans in a serious manner. Those bills were probably the bait whereas the prohibition against private sales is the switch. The state has a history of presenting very bad legislation, getting the serfs to beg them for leniency, and then presenting legislation that appears to be less egregious. It’s an effective strategy because it allows the state to grab more power will making the serfs breathe a sigh of relief because things didn’t turn out as bad as they could have.

With that said, the “assault weapon” and standard capacity magazine bans may be pursued during a lame duck session or as an amendment to a “must pass” bill at a later date. One thing is certain, the state isn’t going to allow the serfs to remain armed permanently. Armed serfs are harder to expropriate from and the state exists to expropriate.

Colorado House Passes Four Gun Control Bills

It appears that gun control is advancing in Colorado:

Limits on the size of ammunition magazines and universal background checks passed the Colorado House on Monday, during a second day of emotional debates that has drawn attention from the White House as lawmakers try to address recent mass shootings.

The bills were among four that the Democratic-controlled House passed amid strong resistance from Republicans, who were joined by a few Democrats to make some of the votes close.

I’m not going to advocate that gun owners in Colorado start betting state Senators to vote against the bills, obviously that tactic hasn’t delivered any goods so far. Instead I’m going to urge gun owners in Colorado to make it known that they will not comply with any new gun control laws. Few things stand to embarrass a politician more than blatant disobedience by the general populace. Such blatant disobedience helps to tear down the illusion that the state enjoys the support of the people and the state needs to keep that illusion alive. Because of this need the state is less likely to pass legislation that it knows will be openly ignored by the general populace. I believe it would be more productive to inform Senators in Colorado that they can pass gun control laws but those laws will be openly disobeyed.

Missouri Law Makers Looking to Confiscate Firearms

It appears as though law makers in Missouri are looking to confiscate firearms:

Missouri Democrats introduced an anti-gun bill which would turn law-abiding firearm owners into criminals. They will have 90 days to turn in their guns if the legislation is passed.

Here’s part of the Democratic proposal in Missouri:

4. Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution:

(1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;

(2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or

(3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations.

5. Unlawful manufacture, import, possession, purchase, sale, or transfer of an assault weapon or a large capacity magazine is a class C felony.

Why do so many gun control advocates continue to claim they’re not coming for our guns? It has become blatantly obvious that they are coming for our guns. Of course the state can say it has the power to confiscate anything it wants but that doesn’t mean people have to comply.

As a side note I just want to point out that more news organizations should provide helpful links to the text of bills being discussed in their stories. It’s greatly appreciated.

Olympic Arms No Longer Selling to Employees of the State of New York

It’s too bad Olympic Arms is currently unable to meet current demand for their rifles because their recent announcement makes me want to buy something from them:

Press Release: Olympic Arms, Inc. Announces New York State Sales Policy

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Olympic Arms is a staunch believer in and defender of the Constitution of the United States, and with special attention paid to the Bill of Rights that succinctly enumerates the security of our Divinely given Rights. One of those Rights is that to Keep and Bear Arms.

Legislation recently passed in the State of New York outlaws the AR15 and many other firearms, and will make it illegal for the good and free citizens of New York to own a large selection of legal and safe firearms and magazines. We feel as though the passage of this legislation exceeds the authority granted to the government of New York by its citizens, and violates the Constitution of the United States, ignoring such SCOTUS rulings as District of Columbia v. Heller – 554, U.S. 570 of 2008, McDonald v. Chicago – 561 U.S. 3025 of 2010, and specifically the case of United States v. Miller – 307 U.S. 174 of 1939.

Due the passing of this legislation, Olympic Arms would like to announce that the State of New York, any Law Enforcement Departments, Law Enforcement Officers, First Responders within the State of New York, or any New York State government entity or employee of such an entity – will no longer be served as customers.

In short, Olympic Arms will no longer be doing business with the State of New York or any governmental entity or employee of such governmental entity within the State of New York – henceforth and until such legislation is repealed, and an apology made to the good people of the State of New York and the American people.

If the leaders of the State of New York are willing to limit the right of the free and law abiding citizens of New York to arm themselves as they see fit under the Rights enumerate to all citizens of the United State through the Second Amendment, we feel as though the legislators and government entities within the State of New York should have to abide by the same restrictions.

This action has caused a division of the people into classes: Those the government deems valuable enough to protect with modern firearms, and those whose lives have been deemed as having less value, and whom the government has decided do not deserve the right to protect themselves with the same firearms. Olympic Arms will not support such behavior or policy against any citizen of this great nation.

Olympic Arms invites all firearms manufacturers, distributors and firearms dealers to join us in this action to refuse to do business with the State of New York. We must stand together, or we shall surely fall divided.

Sincerely,

Brian Schuetz
President
Olympic Arms, Inc.

Emphasis mine. Were every firearm manufacture to follow Olympic Arms’s example New York politicians would likely find themselves having to repeal their recently passed gun control legislation or face the realization that their primary expropriators, the police, would be unable to expand their expropriation operations. After all, the state would find it very difficult to steal from the general population if they didn’t have an arsenal of weapons to backup their threats. Imagine the headaches that would be faced by various police departments in New York if Glock and Smith and Wesson refused to do business with them.

For now I will make a note to purchase an Olympic Arms rifle when they catch up on production.

State of the Union

Obama gave his State of the Union address last night. For those who didn’t watch it and don’t feel like reading it let me offer a summary. Obama spent a good deal of his time stating that the United States will be killing less brown people Afghanistan but more in Syria and Yemen. He also said that the United States is looking at killing a lot of brown people in North Korea. In addition to killing people Obama also discussed the economy, education, and gun control, all subjects he knows nothing about.

To give a one line summary of the address: A lot of people overseas are going to die and the people living in the United States are going to get shafted.

Registration Leads to Confiscation

A recent move by politicians in California demonstrates why I will never register one of my firearms:

All semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines would be banned, all guns would be registered and no ammunition could be bought without a special permit in California under a sweeping list of bills rolled out Thursday by state Senate Democrats.

The 10-bill package constitutes the single largest gun control push in decades in the Golden State, which already boasts some of the nation’s strictest gun laws. It joins equally controversial proposals from Assembly Democrats that would regulate and tax ammunition sales and consider taking the state’s 166,000 registered assault weapons from their owners.

Gun control advocates often claim that they want to compromise. When those of us in the gun rights movement refuse they claim we’re unreasonable. Truth be told gun owners have compromised numerous times and gun control advocates always want more. Gun owners compromised when they registered machine guns, short barreled rifles, and short barrled shotguns after the National Firearms Act was passed. After that gun control advocates demanded that gun owners cease interstate sales of firearms unless such sales were done through federally licensed dealers and agree that certain individuals be prohibited from owning firearms. Once again gun owners compromised and abided by the Gun Control Act. Then gun control advocates came for more, they wanted a ban on the transfer of all new machine guns. This compromise came when gun owners submitted to the Hughes Amendment to the Firearm Owners Protection Act. Still not satisfied, gun control advocates then demanded that all individuals wanting to buy firearms from federally licensed dealers submit to a background check, which gun owners compromised on by abiding to the terms passed into law by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act.

From where I stand it appears that gun control advocates are the unreasonable ones. Gun owners have compromised with gun control advocates time and time again and time and time against gun control advocates demand more. It’s impossible to make agreements with individuals that continue to move the goal posts. Gun owners in California compromised with gun control advocates when they registered their “assault weapons” and now gun control advocates are trying to use that compromise to sieze those registered firearms. This is why I won’t compromise with gun control advocates in any way, shape, or form.

More People Submitted Notice to Carry at the Minnesota State Capitol

How can anybody be surprised by this news:

The number of people who have notified authorities they will be carrying loaded weapons in the state Capitol area has spiked since the DFL-controlled Legislature put gun-control on the agenda in the wake of the massacre of schoolchildren in Connecticut.

While there were 56 people filing such notifications all of last year, there have already been 148 notifications filed in the last month.

It is legal for a permit-holder to carry his or her loaded weapon into the state Capitol and most surrounding buildings — state Rep. Tony Cornish says he is armed every day, usually with a 40-caliber Glock with a high-capacity ammunition magazine. This past week, supporters of gun-owners’ rights have been a force at the nearby State Office Building, swamping committees that have been discussing background checks, bans on weapons and ammunition and other gun issues.

[…]

In all of 2012, when the pro-gun GOP held control of the Legislature, only 56 new notices were filed, according to a spokesman for the Department.

Based on this article it appears that the author is attempting to insinuate that the increase in notices is due solely to the Democratic Party taking control in the legislature. It’s not until the last paragraph that the real reason is mentioned:

Since Jan. 7, the day before DFLers took control and began talking about responding to the Connecticut shootings, there have been 148 notices filed. More More than 50 new notices were received from Feb. 1 to Feb. 6, which includes days the hearings were taking place in the State Office Building. That is nearly as much as were received all last year.

The sudden spike in notices wasn’t due to the Democrats taking control, it was due to the sudden push for gun control. People in the gun rights movement who carry everywhere and were planning to attend the hearing simply gave notice so they could do what they always do, legally carry a gun on their person. While the author notes that a mere 50 of the 148 notices this year were filed between February 1st and 6th he fails to note that the hearings were known about in January. Many people likely filed their notices as soon as the hearing dates were announced so they didn’t have to file their notices before entering the hearings.

In other words this story is really a non-story and required no more than one sentence to cover. What the author should have wrote was, “Gun rights activists who carry firearms everywhere carried their firearms when attending the hearings on gun control.”

Gun Control Advocates Should be Fighting to Disarm the Police

Gun control advocates claim they oppose gun violence yet only seem to want non-state agents disarmed. In fact gun control advocates want the state to keep its guns because people with guns are needed to take guns from people. In their holy war to convince others to become members of the gun control church the advocates of gun control make outlandish claims such as police officers are more responsible with firearms than the average person. Stories like this indicate otherwise:

Two women who were shot by Los Angeles police in Torrance early Thursday during a massive manhunt for an ex-LAPD officer were delivering newspapers, sources said.

The women, shot in the 19500 block of Redbeam Avenue, were taken to area hospitals, Torrance police Lt. Devin Chase said. They were not identified. One was shot in the hand and the other in the back, according to Jesse Escochea, who captured video of the victims being treated.

It was not immediately known what newspapers the women were delivering. After the shooting, the blue pickup was riddled with bullet holes and what appeared to be newspapers lay in the street alongside.

Here’s a picture of the aftermath:

Apparently the police didn’t feel the need to identify the occupants of the vehicle before firing over a dozen rounds into it. In all likelihood the officers involved in the shooting will go unpunished because they were fired on the truck under the guise of officer safety. Combining the words officer and safety generally grants immunity to any wrongdoing performed by a police officer.

The police prove to be more irresponsible than the average gun owner time and time again. I, nor anybody I know who carries a gun, would have fired rounds into a truck. In fact if I, or any other person who carries a gun, had fired rounds into a truck we would be locked in a cage and hearings would be held on newly proposed legislation to punish every other non-state gun owner. Most of the time police officers involved in shooting bystanders are granted administrative leave until the one week news cycle passes, at which point the officers involved return to work. How anybody can support disarming accountable individuals such as myself but not unaccountable individuals such as state agents is beyond my comprehension, especially when they claim to advocate my disarmament under the guise of stopping gun violence.