Tag: Gun Rights

In Lieu of Real Arguments the Brady Campaign has Resorted to Falsely Claiming Gun Owners are Drunkards

You have to hand it to the Brady Bunch, they want to keep that sweet Joyce Foundation money flowing to avoid getting real jobs and they’re willing to use any tactic to retain that funding. The Brady Campaign released a “research” paper that concludes basically that gun owners are drunks and thus can’t be trusted with firearm. So what’s wrong with their research? Well for starters the data was cherry picked so heavily that they could make millions on a harvest. The “report” makes the following claim:

Altogether, 15 474 respondents provided information on firearm exposure. After adjustment for demographics and state of residence, firearm owners were more likely than those with no firearms at home to have ≥5 drinks on one occasion (OR 1.32; 95% CI 1.16 to 1.50), to drink and drive (OR 1.79; 95% CI 1.34 to 2.39) and to have ≥60 drinks per month (OR 1.45; 95% CI 1.14 to 1.83). Heavy alcohol use was most common among firearm owners who also engaged in behaviours such as carrying a firearm for protection against other people and keeping a firearm at home that was both loaded and not locked away.

In many states that allow for a right to self-defense drinking while carrying is a big no-no. Here in Minnesota you can carry so long as your blood alcohol level remains no higher than .04 (half of the legal limit for driving). Combine those facts with the fact that carry permit holders are some of the most law-abiding people out there and you can put the puzzle together. As the rate of crimes committed by carry permit holders is generally lower than other people and carrying while intoxicated is heavily restricted or completely prohibited in most states you can logically conclude that there are few people able to legally carry a firearm who carry while drunk.

The article on No Lawyer – Only Guns and Money also point out the fact that Utah ranks dead last on the Brady Campaign’s list of freedom hating states yet is mostly Mormon and Mormons have a prohibition against alcohol consumption. Thus there seems to be a lack of correlation between the Brady Campaign’s rating of “safe” states and alcohol consumption (and thus less opportunity for carry permit holders to carry while intoxicated). Oh and Utah has an extremely low rate of alcohol-related deaths to boot.

Basically if you cherry pick your numbers well enough you can create a report that says anything. If I worked hard enough at it I could release a report that demonstrates a correlation between being anti-gun and being a Nazi sympathizer.

I find hit hilarious though that the Brady Campaign can find any factual numbers to back up their claims that more restrictive gun laws lead to safer communities so they’ve resort to simply trying to run a smear campaign against gun owners. The next report they release will probably demonstrate how gun owners like to kick babies and murder cute baby bunnies while torching retirement homes. After that they’ll probably resort to simply calling us poopy-heads. Honestly you guys at the Brady Campaign should just quit before you embarrass yourselves any further. There is nothing bad about admitting when you’re wrong, we’ve all made mistakes. The difference is admitting your failures allows you to keep your dignity while attempting to do everything possible to avoid admitting failure just makes you look petty and pathetic.

Wisconsin Senate Passes Carry Bill

The Wisconsin Senate voted on plan B and passed it with a 25 to 8 vote:

The final vote was 25-8, with all 19 Republicans and six Democrats supporting it, and the other eight Democrats opposed.

The bill is expected to pass the Assembly and Governor Walker has already expressed support for carry legislation. Things are looking up this time around for Wisconsin which will join the 48 other states that allow some form on concealed carry (then Illinois will remain the only holdout). One “representative” against this bill actually made a great argument for expanding on the bill:

Some Democrats pointed to the exemptions as proof that allowing concealed carry does introduce a new set of dangers.

“If this bill helps make Wisconsin safer, then why are there any exceptions?” said Sen. Tim Cullen, D-Janesville. “Are some citizens of Wisconsin protected by this bill and others aren’t? If you go to the county fair are you not as safe as if you go to Summerfest?”

I completely agree with the statement, all exemptions should be removed from the bill and people in Wisconsin should be allowed to have a means of self-defense regardless of where they are. I hope this bill goes through and shortly afterward another bill goes through that removes the exemptions that are listed in the current legislation.

The ATF Has Been Busy

It looks like the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF) have been busy in their operation to supply guns to Mexican drug cartels. Apparently the ATF have allowed over 1,700 guns to fall into the hands of known criminals:

At least 195 of the weapons have been traced to Mexico, found mainly at crime scenes, but ATF agents quoted in the report said more than 1,700 firearms were trafficked “to known criminals or cartel elements south of the border and elsewhere” under the operation.

“I cannot see anyone who has one iota of concern for human life being OK with this,” Agent John Dodson told committee interviewers.

I’m guessing they’ve allowed far more than 1,700 to cross into drug cartel hands but I’m also a cynical ass when it comes to government. The entire gun walker operation is interesting to me because of its implications. The ATF have been asking for increased enforcement powers because gun from the United States apparently have been crossing the border. The source of those guns is the interesting thing though as it seems to be the ATF itself. It would not be unprecedented for a government agency to manufacture a crisis and then use it to obtain more power for itself (like the FBI providing fake bombs to people and then egging them on to blow something up with said bomb).

Not only has the ATF lied to its employers (that would be us as we pay their wages) but they’ve also actively broke United States law which would get any regular Joe tossed into federal prison and labeled a felon for life. Regardless of how this fiasco turns out I’m guessing the ATF will receive nothing more than a stern talking to followed by a congratulations by some fuckhead “representative” for their work “fighting crime.”

Three Senators Lying In The Hopes of Enacting Gun Control Legislation

As the anti-gunners lack facts to back their arguments it’s no surprise that they resort to outright lying in order to push their agenda of taking away our right to self-defense. One of the lies that have been propagated in the last year is that the majority of firearms obtained by Mexican drug cartels comes from the United States. Although this bullshit has been proven false the anti-gunners still parrot it because they have nothing else to work with.

Combine the fact that only a small portion of firearms recovered in Mexico actually trace back to the United States with the fact that the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF) have been caught smuggling guns into Mexico for the drug cartels and we have the truth story; many guns recovered in Mexico that trace back to the United States were likely allowed to cross the border by government officials. This hasn’t stopped the usual suspects from going ahead and claiming once again that we need to ban semi-automatic rifles that look scary to anti-gunners in order to help the Mexican government:

“This report confirms what many of us already know to be true. … It is still too easy for Mexican drug lords to get their hands on deadly military-grade weapons within our borders,” said Sen. Charles Schumer of New York. “We need to redouble our efforts to keep violent firearms out of the hands of these traffickers.”

The senators, including Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, are calling for reinstatement of an assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 and better enforcement of a ban on the import of military style weapons.

I have a better idea that may help reduce the number of guns that cross the border from the United States into Mexico; stop letting the ATF smuggling guns into that country. Furthermore you guys could work on ending the drug war here in the United States which would effectively behead the Mexican drug cartels as the price of these drugs would plummet. This is what Portugal did and it worked out pretty well for them.

A Blueprint for Not Getting Elected

Do you want to run for Congress but ensure you don’t get elected? If that’s you then Mike Barkley is the man for you to emulate because he’s ensured that he’ll never get elected:

Now the Manteca resident is seeking the Democratic nomination for Congress with his primary campaign platform being the repeal of the Second Amendment and any pre-existing doctrine of natural law, common-law or laws under state constitutions that allow the right to keep and bear arm.

Barkley, though, has no qualms with individuals exercising the privilege to possess weapons to protect themsleves. To address that he’s proposing a constitutional amendment that would impose an annual tax on every firearm in a household. Taxes would start at $10 for the first firearm, $20 for the second firearm, $30 for the third firearm, $100 each for the fourth through ninth firearms and $1,000 each for any firearm in excess of nine.

Granted he’s running for California which is one of the only states where a person with such a position could possibly get elected but even there I doubt such a candidate would get elected (Californians please don’t take this as a challenge, I don’t need to have yet another reason to hate politics in your state). But repealing the second amendment and taxing the ever living shit out of gun owners isn’t the only stupid thing Mr. Barkley is recommending:

And under his proposed amendment should a firearm be lost or stolen it would result in a $1,000 penalty with the penalty rescinded or refunded if the firearm is recovered. But there’s a big caveat to that: If the firearm is used in the commission of a felony then an additional $1,000 penalty will be imposed.

Isn’t that a great position to have? First you turn the victim of a crime into a criminal by fining a victim of theft for the actions of the thief and then fine the victim again if the criminal performs another crime with the stolen gun. Hell with rock solid logic like that we’ll be looking to fine car owners if their vehicle gets stolen next.

Honestly with positions like this I don’t see Mr. Berkley has a legitimate candidate for Congress but I found these ideas stupid enough to be funny and thus worth posting about here. This is the kind of crazy shit anti-gunners come up with. They have such a hatred and/or fear of a mechanical device that they wish to punish everybody who owns one. Not only are they willing to take away our right to defend ourselves but they also want to turn victims of crimes into criminals.

It’s absolutely sickening to me that somebody would advocate punishing a victim of a crime. What’s next? Are we to fine people $1,000 because they were mugged? Should be fine the family members of murder victims? How far would such stupidity have to be carried before anti-gunners realized the idiocy of their concept?

Either way have fun not getting elected Mr. Berkley. Oh and your personal website (linked to in the article as I won’t link to that crap here) is shittier than mine which isn’t easy to pull off considering my lack of web design capabilities.

Department of Justice Officials a Bit Worried

It appears as though the administrators in the Department of Justice (DoJ) are a bit worried over the investigation into the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) smuggling guns into Mexico:

Officials at the Department of Justice are in “panic mode,” according to multiple sources, as word spreads that congressional testimony next week will paint a bleak and humiliating picture of Operation Fast and Furious, the botched undercover operation that left a trail of blood from Mexico to Washington, D.C.

I can understand why they’re in “panic mode.” The DoJ is a government organization that has been caught doing something illegal and trying to blame somebody else. Whenever government agencies get caught in such a situation they can look forward to a very stern talking to by our “representatives” and possible a threat involving not specific punishment if the department gets caught again.

Although I think the hearings will be interesting I doubt much will come of it. The government doesn’t exactly have a history of punishing departments that get caught doing illegal things. Honestly it appears as through the government’s job is to create a situation, blame somebody else for the situation, and then swoop in and claim they are the only means of fixing the situation. Considering this point it’s likely the DoJ will get a public talking to about how they shouldn’t have done this and an accommodation for a job well done behind the curtain. Yes I’m cynical but I think I have good reasons for being so.

Wisconsin Carry Plan B

Wisconsin remains one of only two states in the Union that doesn’t allow citizens some form of concealed carry. Although pro-rights activists have been trying to fix this a certain previous governor enjoyed the use of veto power to ensure the serfs remained unable to defend themselves. The hope this time around is that Governor Walker won’t be as big of a fucking idiot as former Governor Doyle and thus concealed carry legislation will finally pass in Wisconsin.

The first bill attempted was the best of all worlds and would allow people living in Wisconsin to carry as a right without any required government permission. It appears as though that bill can’t pass thus the backup plan is being enacted which is the same bill but would required people in Wisconsin to get a permit in order to carry. It sounds like this bill may have enough support to get through and by the sounds of it Governor Walker is in support of Wisconsin residences being able to defend themselves. Here’s hoping the people in Wisconsin soon have the same rights as people living in a majority of the other states in the Union.

Joyce Foundation Bribing Journalist to Write Anti-Gun Studies

The Joyce Foundation, the same assholes who bankroll the Brady Campaign, are pretty well known in the pro-rights community for providing funding to almost anybody who will push their anti-rights agenda. The Buckeye Firearms Association has a nice writeup about the Joyce Foundation using money to get journalists to write anti-gun stories.

I’m not one who subscribes to the idea that journalists should be unbiased but I do feel perfectly fine with pointing out potential reasons for bias. There is a huge incentive for a journalist to write anti-gun stories if a large foundation is willing to float them Federal Reserve notes for doing it. This tactic is often used to get desired results from studies; somebody gives a bunch of researchers money, express to those researchers the preferred bias, and then has them set out to get a study that proves that preferred bias. You can prove anything if you twist the numbers enough which is evident when anti-gunners reveals their numbers of people killed by guns each year but only mention in the very tiny print that a huge chunk of those deaths were suicides (which are self-inflicted deaths and therefore really can’t be counted when talking about gun violence).

Needless to say the Joyce Foundation has been throwing money at anybody willing to do research that shows a bias against guns so the findings in the linked article aren’t at all surprising.

Even Though Gun Sales are Up Violent Crime is Down

Although this will come as no surprise to those who advocate the right to keep and bear arms the following news will have anti-gunners plugging their hears and screaming “LA LA LA LA I CAN’T HEAR YOU!”

According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) gun sales are up yet again in 2011 while the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) has reported that violent crime dropped yet again. Once again the facts demonstrate no correlation between an increase rate of firearm ownership and an increase in the rate of violent crime.

Once against a favorite argument parroted by anti-gunners is proven to be completely wrong.

Herman Cain OK With Restricting Second Amendment Rights

I think Herman Cain just got caught in a typical neo-con mistake; he tried expressing a libertarian belief without understanding libertarian philosophy. In a recent interview with Wolf Blitzer Mr. Cain stated that he believes it’s OK for individual states to enact gun control regulations:

BLITZER: How about gun control?

CAIN: I support the 2nd amendment.

B: So what’s the answer on gun control?

C: The answer is I support, strongly support, the 2nd amendment. I don’t support onerous legislation that’s going to restrict people’s rights in order to be able to protect themselves as guaranteed by the 2nd amendment.

B: Should states or local government be allowed to control guns, the gun situation, or should…

C: Yes

B: Yes?

C: Yes.

B: So the answer is yes?

C: The answer is yes, that should be a state’s decision.

This is a typical neo-con maneuver. Neo-cons love to pander to the libertarians because they feel giving those of us subscribing to the philosophy are easy votes to get. The problem is most of us are used to those running as Republicans paying lip service to libertarian philosophy and then going full neo-con when they get elected.

Ignoring the recent Super Court ruling in McDonald vs. Chicago libertarian philosophy would prohibition any government entity from interfering with the right to own a consumer good. A firearm ultimately is a consumer good and my ownership of that good doesn’t cause harm to another therefore no regulation should exist that bars me from owning a firearm. Mr. Cain took a concept often discussed favorably by libertarians, stopping the federal government from executing any power not specifically granted in the Constitution, and tried to use it in an attempt to avoid stating concrete support of the second amendment.

I already refused to support Mr. Cain as he was involved with the Federal Reserve but hearing his position on the second amendment just put another nail in the coffin of my support. The position he stated shows that Mr. Cain is going to play the typical neo-con game where he’ll pay lip service to libertarian ideals but deep down inside is just another statist.