Tag: Gun Rights

Gun Control and Racism

Anti-gunners often accuse gun rights activists of being middle-aged white racists. Unless you actually are one of the rare middle-aged white racists you laugh and call the anti-gunner a hypocrite. Why? Because the history of gun control has been almost entirely driven by racism and fear of minorities having the same rights of self-defense as whites:

As an adult I continued to fear and hate guns and to generally align myself with the gun control cause, but Jeff’s suggestion that the regulation of people’s access to guns is essentially conservative nagged at me, unresolved, until I read UCLA law professor Adam Winkler’s stunning new book Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America. At the heart of his narrative, Winkler convincingly argues that the people who began the movement against gun control operated not out of the National Rifle Association’s national headquarters in Washington, D.C., but out of a nondescript two-story brick building three blocks from where I sat staring at that pistol: 3106 Shattuck Avenue, in the heart of radical Berkeley. It was there, in 1967, at the headquarters of the Black Panther Party, that Huey Newton and Bobby Seale planned an armed march into the California State Capitol that “launched the modern gun-rights movement.”

Despite my feelings about guns, even as a child I admired that the Panthers made their name shortly after their founding in 1966 by patrolling West Oakland streets with rifles and shotguns and confronting police officers who were detaining blacks. It seemed to me that there was no more effective means of curbing the daily police brutality being meted out to the residents of Oakland’s ghetto. But I did not know until reading Gunfight that the Panthers’ armed patrols provoked the drafting of legislation that established today’s gun regulation apparatus, or that the champions of that legislation were as conservative as apple pie.

Whether your like or dislike the early actions of the Black Panthers it must be noted that their rise was a direct result of police brutalizing members of the black community. In other words if they didn’t come together as a community and fight against the state’s monopoly on initiating violence they would be subject to acts of violence without recourse. The Second Amendment was drafted for this exact reason, when the state becomes overly tyrannical an armed citizenry maintains the option of defending themselves from state actors. Members of the Black Panthers originally armed themselves to resist tyranny as all other options including the courts were entirely against them. Sadly the need for self-defense gave the state an excuse to advance gun control in the hopes of disarming blacks and rendering them easier to subjugate:

In 1967 Don Mulford, the Republican state assemblyman who represented the Panthers’ patrol zone and who had once famously denounced the Free Speech Movement and anti-war demonstrations at the University of California at Berkeley, introduced a bill inspired by the Panthers that prohibited the public carrying of loaded firearms, open and concealed.

[…]

Two months after the invasion of Sacramento, riots erupted in response to instances of police brutality in the black sections of Detroit and Newark. From rooftops, windows, and doorways, gunmen fired on police, National Guardsmen, and Army troops sent to quash the rebellions. Congress responded by passing the Gun Control Act of 1968 and its companion bill, the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act. Although Winkler chastises “extremists” on both sides of the current gun control debate who characterize their opponents as totalitarians, he does note that while drafting the 1968 bills, Sen. Thomas Dodd (D-Conn.) had the Library of Congress provide him with an English translation of the gun control regulations that the Nazis used to disarm Jews and political dissidents.

Yes the 1968 Gun Control Act is basically an English translation of the Nazi Gun Control Act. Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership published an excellent book that compares our 1968 Gun Control Act with the Nazi equivalent and they are almost the same (minus the fact our version doesn’t overtly target a minority group).

I think I’ll throw Gun Fight onto my reading list and, whenever I get around to actually reading and finishing it, I’ll post up my thoughts.

Again With the Race Card

Attorney General Eric Holder decided to take a card, a very specific card, from the Obama debate strategy book. With all the heat coming down on the Attorney general over Fast and Furious he’s now decided to play the race card:

Holder said some unspecified faction — what he refers to as the “more extreme segment” — is driven to criticize both him and President Barack Obama due to the color of their skin. Holder did not appear to elaborate on who he considered to make up the “more extreme segment.”

“This is a way to get at the president because of the way I can be identified with him,” Holder said, according to the Times. “Both due to the nature of our relationship and, you know, the fact that we’re both African-American.”

Right, because none of the criticism or the demands you resign have anything to do with your little false flag operation that involved smuggling guns into Mexico and arming the cartels. I have bad news Holder, your little game to advance gun control in this country failed miserably and many of us our a wee bit upset about the entire thing.

Honestly Holder should be grateful that members of Congress are only asking him to resign, I’d be demanding criminal charges if I was in Washington.

Too Many Idiots

The Brady Campaign has been trying to build up hype for their next failed attempt to create a movement of victim disarmament. You may not have heard anything about it as nobody pays much attention to the Brady Campaign anymore but Miguel over at Gun Free Zone had his ear to the ground and found the Brady Campaign’s new site, Too Many Victims (of Gun Violence, people killed by other violent crimes need not apply). Here’s a link you can copy and paste to visit the site:

http://www.bradycampaign.org/toomanyvictims/

Yeah I know it’s kind of petty to not link directly to their site, but I don’t link directly to sites of white supremacists either. If you’re advocating the creation of victims you’re not getting any link love from me.

Basically it’s a site created so people can go post memorials of people killed by guns. As Miguel pointed out the Brady Campaign doesn’t give two shits about victims of other violent crimes. If your family member was stabbed to death that’s just too bad, find somewhere else to post his memory.

The other thing the Brady folks are doing is encouraging people to host vigils for the victims of violent crimes involving firearms (if you were a victim of rape you can just take your sob story right over there with the rest of the people who were victimized in other violent crimes). Conveniently they have a very sparse list of planned vigils (which can be visited at the following link):

http://www.bradycampaign.org/toomanyvictims/local-vigils/

Notice how most of the planned vigils don’t even have a date or location set yet, I’m guessing they never will. Sadly the only one going on in Minnesota is why the fuck up in Duluth so I’ll not be able to verify if five or six people attended.

I’m going to find it difficult to surpress me desire to troll this site. Miguel brought up the idea of posting “memorials” for criminals who were shot by their would be victims. My question is whether or not these vigils are open carry events. There is also the question regarding whether or not the Brady Bunch are so cold and calloused as to remove memorials of victims of violent crimes not involving firearms. Do Brady shills employees verify the memorials are for real people? There is certainly the potential of creating some very funny memorials for non-existant or fictional individuals (some James Bond villains would be good candidates).

Now that I’ve given you all these bad ideas I want to urge you to take the high road and do your best to resist trolling this site. Ff we don’t give it any traffic nobody will (seriously, we’re the only people who visit anti-gun websites and we do is just to laugh).

Either way the lack of factual evidence to back up their claims has lead to the anti-gunners to rely entirely on emotional manipulation. This new initiative by the Brady Bunch is a sickening demonstration of their selectiveness in opposing violence. They don’t care about violent crime, only gun crime.

Ron Paul Calls for Criminal Charges Against Eric Holder

At least one person in Washington DC is still on the up and up. Ron Paul has officially come out and said Eric Holder should be criminally charged for his involvement in Fast and Furious:

Congress is currently investigating Fast & Furious. Attorney General Eric Holder has already been caught making at least one false statement under oath.

Gun rights advocates have been asking why Republicans aren’t calling for criminal charges against Eric Holder. Many have criticized FOX News for giving the story little coverage. CBS national news has been breaking most of the new details related to Fast & Furious. Recently Eric Holder yelled at a reporter at an event in DC. He blamed the media for public outrage over Fast & Furious, and told a reporter “you guys need to stop it.”

Today, Texas Congressman Ron Paul became the first GOP president candidate to call for criminal charges against Eric Holder.

Speaking to syndicated radio talk show host Alex Jones, Paul called for Holder to be “immediately fired.” Paul went on to say “I think it was criminal,” and called the operation a “false flag.” He said that there needs to be an immediate investigation into Holder himself, and said Holder “deserves charges.”

Kudos to Ron Paul for demanding what nobody else has and brining up the fact that Fast and Furious was a false flag operation to advance gun control. Holder’s false flag operation has lead to the death of both American and Mexican citizens just so the current administration could fabricate a scenario to advocate for more gun control.

Watch Eric Holder Squirm

There are few things as sweet as watching Attorney General Eric Holder squirm:

What a pompous ass. He literally state his refusal to provide Congress with documents related to Fast and Furious. Thank Odin that Issa has a spine and refused to simply let Holder get away with pulling such a maneuver unchallenged. The Department of Justice knows they were caught trying to advance gun control by smuggling weapons into Mexica and they’re trying their damnedest to cover the entire mess up.

While many people are calling for Holder’s resignation or impeachment I want to see that asshole in prison. This video demonstrates his complete disregard for law and order by his blatant attempt to cover up his botched gun smuggling operation. Were you or I to withhold evidence during a trial we would likely be ruled in contempt of court and held in a cage until we finally provided the desired information.

And to Think, Anti-Gunners Want to Prohibit People on the Terror Watch List from Owning Guns

From the horses fucking mouth:

POSITION: As a way to strengthen the Brady background check system, the Brady Campaign supports closing the Terror Gap.

PROBLEM: There is a gaping hole in our nation’s firearm laws that terrorists can exploit. Federal authorities can’t stop sales of guns – including military-style assault weapons – by federally licensed gun dealers to known or suspected terrorists because of gaps in current law. Our definitions of those prohibited from purchasing guns from federally licensed dealers do not include those known and suspected terrorists.

[…]

SOLUTION: Congress must pass the bill to close the Terror Gap to stop known or suspected terrorists from buying guns.

GET ACTIVE: Contact your Representative and Senators to urge them to support the Terror Gap bill.

I’ve been completely opposed to this because many innocent people appear on those lists. Now we’ve learned that the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) has been permitted to leave people acquitted of terrorist-related offenses on their lists:

The Federal Bureau of Investigation is permitted to include people on the government’s terrorist watch list even if they have been acquitted of terrorism-related offenses or the charges are dropped, according to newly released documents.

[…]

The 91 pages of newly disclosed files include a December 2010 guidance memorandum to F.B.I. field offices showing that even a not-guilty verdict may not always be enough to get someone off the list, if agents maintain they still have “reasonable suspicion” that the person might have ties to terrorism.

There you have it, if your name appears on the list and you’re later acquitted the FBI can simply leave your name on there so long as they have “reasonable suspicion.” This means, beyond any doubt, that what anti-gunners are advocating is the removal of people’s right to keep and bear arms even if those people are innocent of any crime.

You know what’s rather funny about this? I’ve been saying due process is dead in this country for a while now and am often called paranoid for it. This document proves without any doubt that due process is in fact dead in this country. Welcome to the United Police State of America.

By the way, in case this document gets removed I’ve uploaded a copy to my server, which can be accessed here [PDF].

Pot Meet Kettle

Joan Peterson of the Brady Campaign may give me writing material for years to come. In her latest piece of hypocrisy she rants about carry permit holders wanting to have a legal means of defending themselves while on college campus. First I would like to point out that Joan is a fellow Minnesotan and therefore lives in a state that allows campus carry (a college can prohibit it if they choose, but such prohibitions only apply to students and faculty) and had zero incidents. Let the fun begin!

Then another VCDL member says that the “government should not be the enemy of honest people and that’s the situation we’ve got here.” Really? Is that the situation?

Yes. We’re talking about the same government who decided to run guns into Mexico to fabricate justification for additional gun control. It’s obvious that the government isn’t on the side of the law abiding so they are, by default, the enemy of honest people.

The fact that the Universities do not want loaded guns to be carried around on their campuses, as actually the majority of people agree about, does not make them the enemy of honest people.

First of all if the university is public what they want is irrelevant. I would also like to see a citation for your claim that a majority of people agree that guns shouldn’t be allowed on campus.

So anyone who wants to have reasonable gun laws is the enemy of honest people. How can you explain that with any facts behind the statement? Dishonesty in action.

Emphasis mine. It’s curious that a person who makes numerous claims not backed by any citations should demand facts from her opposition. Dishonesty indeed.

So the man who talked about sexual assaults on college campuses is right to bring up that problem. But what does it have to do with the gun debate? He didn’t say. He must be implying that women should shoot their attackers dead.

Actually Joan you shoot your attacker to stop them. That is to say if they when they cease their assault on your person you stop shooting. Anyways…

I’m not sure that’s the way to solve that problem and campuses have other programs in place to deal with sexual assault even though this guy is claiming that campuses are sweeping the problem under the rug. What proof does he have of that? Hyperbole in action.

If you’re sure that granting women the ability to defend themselves against an attack isn’t the way to solve the problem what is? You claim there are programs in place to deal with sexual assault but don’t mention what they are. What proof do you have that such programs exist? Hyperbole in action.

Because the University wants to keep guns off of its’ campus, it trusts criminals?

Again, what a public university wants it irrelevant.

Can you back that up with any facts or is that an emotional statement?

This coming from a woman who has made several claims without providing any facts.

I think he is implying that the people who don’t want guns on campus are saying that he and others like him are considered to be violent criminals because they want to carry their guns on campus. It’s the other way around.

It’s the other way around? Really? Please do explain.

The people who think students should have guns on campus seem to be thinking there is a violent criminal lurking in every shadow necessitating their need for a gun wherever they go.

What an insinuation. People who believe students should be allowed to legally carry guns on campus don’t believe a violent criminal is lurking around every corner, they simply realize the potential for violent criminals enter the campus and desire that students be given the option of having a means of self-defense. I don’t ensure the spare tire under my truck is inflated periodically because I think there are nails strewn across every street, I realize the potential that there may be a nail on the street and I want to ability to drive away if one of my tires in punctured.

Here’s another example of the gulf between the sides of the gun issue. Now that Newt Gingrich is soaring in the polls, many are critical of his views and his character. This one is coming from an unlikely source- the NRA- who makes claims about the Brady Law that are simply not true in order to criticize Gingrich.

[…]

Really? The Brady Law is a national gun registry? No it’s not.

Yes really:

Police suspect the siblings are carrying “an arsenal of weapons,” after tracing prior background checks run by gun sellers and confirming that Ryan bought an AK-47 assault rifle at a pawn shop two years ago. Authorities say the rifle is similar to the one used in the bank robbery. Similar checks also show Stanley owns guns.

While the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) is required to destroy all data of approved Nation Criminal Instant Background Check System (NICS) within 24 hours I’m left to ask how they were able to determine somebody legally purchased an AK-47 two years after the purchase using a prior trace. Seems a bit suspicious to me. We lack any proof that the FBI actually complies with the data destruction laws so we’re left to simply guess.

And the Lautenberg amendment (keeping guns away from domestic abusers) means taking away gun rights for spanking your child? Not true.

I take it Joan has never witnessed a domestic abuse case. They’re based heavily on hearsay so in such a case it can be construed that a person did beat their child even though they merely spanked the child. If they get convicted on such charges they lose their right to keep and bear arms. While you can claim that the spirit of the Lautenberg Amendment was never meant to do that it is ultimately irrelevant because it can be used to do that.

And we disagree about a lot of things but it sure is hard to disagree about the fact that when guns are available in times of stress, sometimes people shoot others they love and even themselves. This story should be bold printed in every newspaper in the country.

So are we to assume that a single incident implies a trend? In that case:

A mother of two children says she shot her ex-husband in self-defense in the trailer they shared in Hayden, Ala. Authories in Blound County say Elsie Thomas shot Matt Allen with a small shotgun after he threatened her with a handgun. Sheriff Loyd Arrington told Fox 6 reporter Karen Church that he will not be pressing charges against Thomas at this time because he believes she acted in self-defense. See the attached video for the whole story.

Just saying.

We just got an appeal from our local food shelf and homeless shelter. Here is a quote: ” According to the National Center on Family Homelessness, families with children are the fasted growing population among the homeless. Children now make up 40% of the homeless population”. Don’t even get me started about this national disgrace. Actually gun deaths pale in comparison to what is happening to the poor and middle classes in this country. Shame on all of us for letting people starve, go homeless, or become so desperate that they think of shooting their families and themselves to avoid the suffering.

Wait… what? Let me rephrase what Joan just did, “OK people guns mean people under street are more likely to shoot their loved ones. Children are homeless!” If there is supposed to be an implied connection I’m not quite sure what it is.

It is possible to have honest discussions and honest disagreements based on facts.

I agree. Here’s mine [PDF], where are yours?

It must be said that I rarely read anything said about me on the gun blogs because it is so hateful.

So I guess this means you’re not willing to enter a debate with me? Shucks.

But the pro gun folks have come unglued by my last post for some reason.

Although you won’t read this I’ll statt it for the record, we didn’t like your last post because you lied numerous times in it.

I must be doing something right, though, when the undies of the gun guys are all in a bundle over the “ramblings” of a poor woman who is actually “insane”.

Actually, for me, it has more to do with the fact that you are a resident in the same state as me. That makes this a bit more entertaining but I digress. From here she jacks herself off (that may not be the right phrase but she has never provided proof that she’s a woman and we all know she’s big on requiring proof) about all the things she’s done in her life. Congratulations I guess. If you want a cookie or something just say so.

Obviously our world views are quite different from each other. But attacking those with whom you disagree with insults, derision and hateful language is immature and small to put it mildly.

Pot meet the kettle, it is also black.

I prefer to associate with people who have integrity, honor, are polite and tolerant and care about their fellow citizens enough to want them to be safe from being shot to death.

And I prefer to associate with people who have integrity, honor, are polite, and tolerant and care about their fellow citizens enough to want them to be free of tyrannical government control.

Because I believe this is possible without carrying guns around on my person wherever I go or have an arsenal in case of a tyrannical government take-over, does not mean that I am desperate and despotic.

I agree, it merely means your naive.

Because I believe that common sense legislation can help prevent people from being shot does not mean I am delusional.

I submit, for consideration, that “common sense legislation” is an oxymoron.

One person wondered why there weren’t as many comments on my blog lately. You can see why. I just don’t publish this stuff for obvious reasons.

How do we know you’re not censoring opposing viewpoints? Where’s the proof that you’re all of the sudden such a fan of? Let me explain why there aren’t many comments on my blog, it’s because I don’t have millions of page hits a day. I’m perfectly OK with my mediocre, at best, numbers and have no need to make excuses for them.

ATF Planned to Use Fast and Furious to Advance Gun Control from the Start

To quote Spider Jerusalem, “Paranoids are just people with all the facts.” When news of Fast and Furious first broke many in the gun community theorized it to be a plan for the government to advance gun control. Others called those of us who theorized this crazy, paranoid, or conspiracy theorists. Well guess what? Those people can suck on it:

ATF officials didn’t intend to publicly disclose their own role in letting Mexican cartels obtain the weapons, but emails show they discussed using the sales, including sales encouraged by ATF, to justify a new gun regulation called “Demand Letter 3”. That would require some U.S. gun shops to report the sale of multiple rifles or “long guns.” Demand Letter 3 was so named because it would be the third ATF program demanding gun dealers report tracing information.

On July 14, 2010 after ATF headquarters in Washington D.C. received an update on Fast and Furious, ATF Field Ops Assistant Director Mark Chait emailed Bill Newell, ATF’s Phoenix Special Agent in Charge of Fast and Furious:

“Bill – can you see if these guns were all purchased from the same (licensed gun dealer) and at one time. We are looking at anecdotal cases to support a demand letter on long gun multiple sales. Thanks.”

Emphasis mine. Read that and let is sink in, let it sink in deep. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) were just caught red handed. We no longer have to theorize if Fast and Furious was meant to be a tool to advance gun control, e-mails obtained from the agency prove it. No ifs, no ands, and no buts; just pure proof that this entire scheme was, at least in part, meant to be a tool used by out government to justify further gun control.

Is this what Obama means when he said his administration was looking to advanced gun control under the radar? I’m not sure but certainly would not be surprised if this was the fact.

Let me put this as clearly as possible: your government doesn’t love you. Your government’s only interest is in controlling you and part of establishing that control is disarming the populace. They have attempted to do so openly for most of a century and now that they’re facing strong backlash as people no longer buy into their bullshit about the need to control guns to reduce crime they’re using more covert methods. They lied to you and tried to cover up their little mess when it all blew up. Fast and Furious was never meant to be made public and probably wouldn’t have been if it wasn’t for the unforeseen consequence of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry being murdered with one of these smuggled weapons.

The republic is dead, welcome to fascism.

Finally a Discussion of Economics and Gun Rights Wrapped Up Into One Post

It’s not often that I get to discuss my two favorite topics in one post but thanks to Joan Peterson’s lengthy rambling I finally get to talk about both of these topics. Sadly this makes it difficult to decide what category to place the post in but alas I’ll find some way to manage.

Joan rants for some length about the girl who was harassed by the Transportation Sexual Assaulters Security Administration (TSA) for having a purse with a stylized gun on it. While a sane person realizes the egregious nature of the TSA’s harassement Joan has a bunch of questions that can be easily answered by anybody with even a basic background in economics. As I hold this background I will take the responsibility of answering her barrage of questions:

Why should there even be a purse with this design?

Because there is a market. The beauty of the free market is its ability to fulfill the wants of society. As there are people who want a purse with a gun emblem on it a manufacturer has provided it. It’s really the same reason why very few manufacturers sell anti-gun themed clothing and accessories, nobody wants them. Where demand exists it is fulfilled, where demand doesn’t exist it remains unfulfilled.

Where do you get purses like this anyway? ( in case I want to buy one) I checked here, here, and here with no luck. Oh well.

How stereotypical can one person get? She’s looking for a purse with a gun on it and she checks Lone Star Western Decor, Western Cow Girl, and Country Road Handbags but never stops to consider checking the one place that sells almost everything, Amazon. Perhaps the purse is handmade by somebody who doesn’t have a website.

Maybe she got her purse at this site which seems to be having problems. It says that the site may be harmful to my computer. I wonder what that means?

It most likely means that the site was improperly flagged by Google’s phishing prevention database. This happens with alarming frequency.

But then, here , I may have found something similar to the purse in question in the story. Great. But I digress.

So ultimately you did find it? I’m now really confused what the point of that entire paragraph was supposed to be. Did you want to express the fact that you’re bad at using search engines? That really seems irrelevant to this discussion.

What is the purpose of carrying such a purse around? Is it to provoke people? To make a statement? To let people know that they should not mess with you? Is it just for fun?

The purpose of carrying such a purse is the same purpose as carrying any accessory, because the person carrying it likes it in some way. This enjoyment of the accessory may come from the statement it makes, the beauty of the design, the utility of the accessory, etc. As value is subjective the only person who can properly answer that question is the one who owns the accessory in question.

Why does a young girl think this is a good idea?

Likely it’s for the same reason I wear my shirt with the silhouette of Murray Rothbard and the text, “Enemy of the State” whenever I go through airport security. Agents of the TSA are thugs and one of the few ways we as Americans can rebel against their legalized sexual assault is through free speech. Unlike some people I refuse to blindly submit to force without comment. If I’m ever forced to enter one of those naked body scanners I’m opting out and making the biggest scene of doing so I can. After the TSA agent walks me around the corner I’m going to make obscene remarks to the agent who is tasked with sexually assaulting me.

Follow the motto of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, “Do not give in to evil but proceed ever more boldly against it.”

Did her parents know about this purse?

Considering purses aren’t very concealable I’m pretty sure her parents knew about it. If they didn’t they are two of the least perceptive people on the planet.

Who bought it for her and what were they thinking?

Perhaps she bought it herself because she liked the design.

Does it seem appropriate to you?

Yes.

The teen is pregnant so one has to wonder what role model this will be for her young child? There’s a message here and it’s not one of “peace on earth, good will towards men.” It’s the holiday season- just thought I’d throw that in.

What relevance does the girls pregnancy have to this debate? Oh yeah I almost forgot, character assassinations are favorite tools of the anti-gun crowd. When you lack facts to back your arguments all you can resort to is attacking the characters of those you ideologically oppose.

Having flown recently, I am so aware of what I can and cannot put into my carry-on bag and what I can and cannot wear when going through the security area. When someone says that it was a mistake when a gun is found in their carry-on, I say nonsense. If you own a firearm and intend to travel with it, you should know the rules. Even the NRA has good advice for people when traveling with their guns. There are plenty of warnings about firearms on planes for anyone who can read.

Once again I ask what the relevance of this statement is. The girl in question didn’t attempt to smuggle a firearm onboard an airplane, nor was the firearm image sewn onto her purse in any way realistic (if you don’t believe me click the first link in this post, it has a picture). Thus the girl didn’t break any of the TSA’s rules and they decided to arbitrarily harass this poor girl because some agent decided it would be a jolly good amount of fun to be a dick. People need to realize that a large majority of agents in the TSA didn’t take the job because they wanted to help keep Americans safe, they took the job because it’s an easy way to gain authority over other people without actually having to go through the training required to become a real police officer.

From here Joan goes on a long and pointless rant about those of us with carry permits. I’ll save you the hassle of reading it because it’s entirely hysterical and unbacked with any citations.

This statement was funny though:

Haven’t they learned that some of us, the majority actually since only 2-3% carry their guns around in this country, don’t want those guns around in public where we gather?

I’m sorry to inform you of this fact Joan but unless you own the property you have no say in what other people can do while on that property. If you want to prohibit people form having a means of self-defense while they’re at your home that’s your right as a property owner. Thankfully you and those who believe as you don’t have a say in what people can and can’t do while on public property. As I’ve explained before the government can’t rightly own property and therefore has no right to make restrictions upon people carrying while on any publicly owned property (they do make restrictions of course, but they have no right to do so).

Sometimes people who can’t be trusted want to take guns and other weapons or methods of killing innocent people on airplanes or in other public places.

And sometimes people who can’t be trusted want to write a blog and other material or methods of expressing false statements, lies, and slander. Luckily for you, Joan, this country has the right to free speech declared in the Constitution so you can continue blogging. I will also say it’s lucky that there is a Constitutional amendment protecting my right to keep and bear arms otherwise the lies and slander your ilk spew would have likely prohibited me from legally protecting myself.

The fact that the screeners at the Virginia airport wouldn’t allow the purse with a real looking gun in the design get on a plane makes me hope that they won’t miss the real thing when someone has it.

Have you ever seen a real gun before? If you have you should know that the gun on the girl’s purse was in no way realistic.

This TSA blog is an interesting read about what screeners find ( or don’t find) in carry-ons at airports. “Sometimes after reading the incident reports, it‘s as though they’re having a gun and knife convention at the airport. ” Grenades? Loose ammo? I thought these folks who carry their guns around in public were responsible law abiding citizens.

Notice the bigotry. TSA agents note that they’ve found guns, grenades, and loose ammunition on passengers. Joan doesn’t like people with carry permits. Even though the TSA statements never said the people found with those items held carry permits Joan instantly claims they did. That’s like asking a member of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) who most likely robbed a local store. As the KKK member doesn’t like people of color they’re likely to claim it was a person of African American decent even though they never actually saw who robbed the store nor read the police report.

Lots of Complaining But What’s the Solution LaPierre

Via Uncle I came across a column by NRA president Wayne LaPierre. In the piece he warns about the dangers of Obama receiving a second term and explains many of the potential dangers:

And as I travel the country talking to fellow National Rifle Association members, gun owners, and Americans from all walks of life, it is clear to me that the next decisive date in American history will be November 6, 2012 – the day America must decide whether President Barack Obama deserves a second term in the White House.

I say this because so many Americans genuinely, and rightly, fear that something is deeply wrong in our great nation. We fear that the America we know and love is in danger of jumping the tracks and spiraling out of control. We see a President whose values and goals are, in many ways, the exact opposite of our beliefs and what generations of Americans have fought and died for.

This is why all gun owners and freedom-loving Americans must ask this question: “If Barack Obama wins a second term in office, will my freedom, and particularly my Second Amendment freedom, become more or less secure?”

And then, we must consider the facts.

[…]

This is why I’m asking every NRA member, every gun owner, and every patriotic American to view next year’s election through the lens of freedom. If we fail to draw a line in the sand and defend the future of our Second Amendment rights, then we will lose the one freedom that gives common men and women uncommon power to protect all freedoms. And then, it’s only a matter of time before every freedom in our Bill of Rights is scaled back, diluted or even destroyed.

That’s good and all but it’s nothing everybody isn’t already vehemently aware of. Here’s my question, what’s the National Rifle Association’s (NRA) solution? Let’s take a look at the last election and consider what ended up happening. Last election was set between John McCain and Barack Obama, neither of which were good news. Even though McCain proved himself to be no friend of gun owners the NRA gave him the endorsement. I’m sorry but there was no acceptable reason to get behind McCain considering his history and the NRA should have either endorsed a third-party candidate (fat chance) or simply said, “Both major players are horrible, we’re ducking out of this and focusing our efforts on a contingency plan.”

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) moved in with several high-profile court cases that went so far as to incorporate the second amendment. In other words even under dire circumstances SAF found a different route outside of the decision between rock and hard place. Considering the NRA has far more resources available to them they should have been the ones initiating the lawsuits and moving them through, instead they simply continued with the status quo of endorsing the “lesser” of two evils.

So far the Republicans haven’t selected a nominee and there is a chance for the NRA to make a stand. Of the Republican candidates there is only one who will stand up for the rights of gun owners (and everybody else) and candidate is Ron Paul. Instead of complaining about Obama for the entire column LaPierre could have taken a stance and said, “Due to the threat of Obama to the rights of gun owners the NRA is hereby endorsing Ron Paul for Republican Party presidential candidate.” Unfortunately it appears as though the NRA is going to keep playing it’s old game of simply endorsing the Republican candidate.

As it currently stands the Republican Party appears to be setting up Romney to win by simply ignoring Ron Paul and hyping up each other candidate only to have them torn down (so far they’ve done this to Bachmann, Perry, and Cain with Gingrich being the fourth one receiving this treatment). If the election domes down to Obama versus Obama II Romney will the NRA give Romney their endorsement? Will that be their way of fighting for the rights of gun owners?

SAF has the right idea, given the futility of getting true pro-gun candidates into office a new strategy had to be devised and utilizing the court system seems to be a fairly effective strategy. I believe the NRA should drop their tried and false approach of giving the “lesser” of two evils an endorsement and focus on a new and potentially more effective strategy. Perhaps they can start working with SAF from the start of each lawsuit instead of hoping in after all the real leg work as been done and claiming the credit. Maybe the NRA can say, “Well Obama and Romney are both bad for gun owner rights so we’re sitting this election out and concentrating on getting pro-gun Senate and House members in office.”

Yeah this is a rather long rant just to say, “Put up or shut up LaPierre” but I’m getting sick of constant compromises when it comes to my rights. Supporting the “lesser” of two evils doesn’t accomplish jack shit, it merely gives your endorsement to evil. When one strategy doesn’t work you need to be adaptive and move to a new strategy. If endorsing a real pro-gun candidate like Paul isn’t in the works then it’s time for something entirely different.