Tag: Logic an Anti-Gunner’s Worst Nightmare

Impossible Shooting in Japan

This is impossible. There was a shooting in Japan. How can this be? They have some of the strictest gun control laws on the books combined with a police state. It’s also like the anti-gunners are wrong or something. From the story:

At least two people have been killed and two others injured when a gunman opened fire at a bar in western Japan, officials say.

Well I guess we’re back to the real world again where gun control doesn’t prevent violence. Instead criminals will get firearms and those who are disarmed due to obedience of the law will simply find themselves as targets unable to defend themselves. Haven’t there been enough examples of gun control failures to show it doesn’t work yet? Oh and to make a point:

Police are investigating the gunman’s motive. Shootings are rare in Japan, where there are tough gun control laws.

Such attacks are often linked to gangsters known in Japan as yakuza.

Yes shootings are rare in the police state of Japan but those that do occur are linked to *gasp* criminals! I’m noticing a pattern here.

Violent Anti-Gunners

Says Uncle shows us the difference between peaceful pro-gun people and violent anti-gunners. The violent anti-gunner said the following:

In several of my comments, I made derogatory remarks directed at the trolls. I said some nasty stuff. Some colorful language was used. I stand by that language. I also stand by my offer to face them one on one and punch these idiots in their faces. That’s how I roll.

Meanwhile Uncle the peaceful pro-gun activist retorts with:

If he threatened me, I’d go to a local judge and get a restraining order taken out against him. That’s how I roll. Because I don’t have something to prove. To my wife.

Once again pro-gun people prove that we’re peaceful individuals who resort to violence only when absolutely necessary.

Beautifully Put Post About Felons and Guns

I have to give Robb Allen some serious props here. He wrote a great post about felons and gun ownership. Much like myself he opposes stripping a person of their second amendment rights just because their a felon. Not because he wants to see felons with guns but because felonies are a joke now, not limited to serious crimes.

As I’ve stated before I’m a fan of you do the crime you do the time. Once you’ve done the time that’s it, your punishment should be over. With that said if you’ve done a seriously horrible crime you should received an equally horrible punishment. In other words if you murdered several people in cold blood you shouldn’t be seeing the light of day again. On the other hand if you wrote a bad check over $500.00 you shouldn’t have your rights stripped from you.

If somebody is perceived as a danger to society to such an extent it is desire to bar that person from obtaining weapons, why is that person out of prison?

Those Progressives Sure Are a Violent Bunch

For all the claims of loving peace and hating violence those progressives (Not to be confused with liberals.) sure like their violence. Walls of the City shows us what one of these progressives had to say about carry permits:

You, however, have demonstrated considerable irresponsibility in your arguments and in your personal attacks on this blogger, who also happens to be my wife. Send me your home address and I’ll come to your house and punch your fucking face in. Unless you are a pussy who can’t fight without a gun in his hand.

Yes apparently this particular progressive seems to find guns a pussy’s weapon. But if you’re not a pussy he’s willing to come to your home and punch you in the face. My question is why is he only willing to come over to somebody’s home and punch the person in the face if that person doesn’t have a gun? Oh wait I remember now because violent attackers don’t like armed resistance. I want to thank the person who made that comment for reaffirming two things. Progressives are violent and why I own guns.

Obviously This Girl Should be Barred Her Second Amendment Rights

A couple posts ago I talked about how I felt felons shouldn’t be barred their right to bear arms. As it sits right snow in this country anybody convicted of a felony can no longer own or use a firearm legally. One problem is the list of felony charges is every increasing and many have nothing to do with violent behavior.

Listening to the latest episode of This Week in Tech I came across this story. From the story:

A birthday party that included a trip to see “The Twilight Saga: New Moon” could send 22 year old Samantha Tumpach to prison for three years.

So she taped a few minutes of a shitty movie based on a shitty book. What kind of charge do you get for that?

The managers at the theater contacted the police and Tumpach was arrested. She spent two days in jail and now has felony charges to face for illegally copying a movie.

Yup a felony. Tell me why this girl should be barred her right to bear arms. I’m waiting. She’s done nothing violent but thanks to the Gun Control Act of 1968 she, if prosecuted, will be barred her rights because she recorded a few minutes of a movie on a her camcorder. Yeah I guess all felons should be prevented from purchasing firearms.

The Second Amendment is Different From Other Rights

Via Sharp as a Marble we have a post on Walls of the City. It’s a list of different laws that would be on the books if other rights were shit all over as much as the second amendment. Here are some gems:

Anyone convicted of a felony or convicted of misdemeanor domestic abuse or assault is not allowed freedom of speech or religion and must rely on the government to provide speech and religion for them.
(1968 gun control act)

Many people in the gun rights community don’t like to touch this particular law. It’s probably due to the fact that nobody wants to be seen as supporting felons or people who abused their spouse. Personally I’m against either restriction and I’ll tell you why.

If you are worried a person who committed a heinous crime (well not just heinous crimes are felonies anymore, practically everything is becoming one) is going to commit an act of violence why the Hell is he out of prison? A huge majority of crimes are committed by repeat offenders which seems to imply somebody who has already committed a crime is more than willing to break another law (obtaining a gun while being a felon) to assist in a repeat offense.

Than you have those charged with domestic violence. If you’ve ever known somebody accused of domestic abuse you know the situation is probably anything but cut and dry. I have friends who have been accused by their significant other of physical abuse. Personally I refuse to take sides in such an argument but I can say the situation is dicey and the truth is usually impossible to drill down to. The fact that somebody can have their rights ripped away from them without absolute cut and dry evidence is a slippery slope to say the least.

But the bottom line is I’m against stripping anybody of any civil right.

Before engaging in new free speech you must pass an instant background check by a government authorized free speech dealer. Sorry, if your name is like someone else prohibited from speech and religion, it is up to you to prove you’re not that person.
(NICS instant background check and Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993)

Sounds pretty stupid when applied to free speech doesn’t it? How about to a right of trial by jury? Maybe you should be required to go through an instant background check before you have the right to not have your property searched without an issued warrant.

Any religions, peaceable assemblies, camera, computer, telephone or free speech enabling device made before 1986 is available to use by the general public. Any made after 1986 is only available to law enforcement.
(Closing of the NFA machine gun registry in 1986 by Regan with the Firearms Owner’s Protection Act)

Pretty straight forward. Once against sounds rather unreasonable when applied to religion and free speech.

Of course some gun control zealot will spew out a river of bullshit claiming you can’t compare the second amendment to any other amendment. This of course implies that the founding fathers of this country meant what they said with every right listed in the Bill of Rights except the second item posted. Seems odd that they would have made a random exception without noting it anywhere.

Microstamping Hearing in Wisconsin

Snowflakes in Hell posted an article that again proves two things. First California is the gun control lobby’s testing ground and two if something passes there you can expect to see it coming to a state near you.

Remember microstamping? Yeah that technology that can’t be reliably implemented even though is going to be required soon in California. Well it looks like the anti-freedom zealots are trying to push it through in my backyard, Wisconsin. I wouldn’t be so worried for my Wisconsin friends by their firearm laws already suck pretty hard. If you live in that state get ready to fight this.

Strange Success Metric

Ah yes the Brady Campaign. They claim to be against violence but in fact they are against firearm ownership. How do we know this? Well Joe Huffman looks at their rating of success. According to Helmke stopping people from buying firearms is their success metric, not whether their bullshit reduced violence.

Incorrect Response

Another story via Says Uncle today. This one is aggravating to say the least.

What was the official response to the Fort Hood tragedy? Allow our soldiers to carry on base so they could defend themselves should another nutcase decide to start shooting the place up? No. Instead we get this:

Soldiers assigned to Fort Hood will have to register their personal firearms with the director of emergency services, he added. Fort Hood is home to some 50,000 active-duty soldiers and 18,000 of the soldiers’ family members.

The lack of logic of that response leaves me dumbfounded. So the directory of emergency services will now know who on base owns personal firearms and who types of firearms they are. So if one of them decides to go on a shooting spree they’ll have a better idea of what gun was used after many of our country’s finest are slain in a gun free zone.

How the Hell is this going to help anything?

Banning Rights of Those on the Terrorist Watch List

There has been a lot of stink from the anti-gun crowd saying we need to close the “terror gap.” It’s funny how everything is a gap to these people. What they really mean is we need to deny constitutional rights to people without do process. I think everybody knows now that the terrorist watch list is a secret list of names that you don’t actually have to do anything to get on.

Well Days of Our Trailers did a great post about the terrorist watch list. From his sourced posted there is a 35% error rate of the names on that list according to a Department of Justice audit. Of course I’m sure the gun control crowd doesn’t really care about that. After all they’re only OK with you having the rights they think you should have.