What I Want to Know

So during the entire hearing of Senator Thune’s national carry reciprocity amendment the anti-gunners were screaming about states’ rights.

That’s all well and good, after all I’m all for state’s rights. But I want to know how the anti-gunners justify their hypocrisy.

See to the people that voted against Senator Thune’s amendment claiming it violated states’ rights are the same kinds of people who want to reestablish an “assault weapons” ban and are find with the National Firearms Act and the Gun Control Act. So why do states only have rights when the laws being brought up are pro-gun but the states don’t have rights when the laws being looked over are anti-gun in nature?

Probably because anti-gunners are hypocrites and liars by nature.

Even in Press Releases About a Victory the Anti-Gunners Lie

Seriously it’s bad enough to lie when you are trying to stop something but lying in a press release declaring a win is a whole different ball game…

http://anothergunguy.blogspot.com/2009/07/wet-pants-happiness-from-our-friend.html

Yes I’m not linking to the actual press release since I refuse to give those pricks any traffic. But the entire thing is posted on Another Gun Guy. Here is the blatant lie…

The amendment would have also undermined state assault weapons bans because it would have allowed permit holders to carry concealed assault weapons into the seven states that currently ban these guns.

This isn’t true at all. The amendment would have allowed people with carry permits to carry their gun in other states that allow carry permits as long as they obeyed the laws of the state they were in. That means if a state has a ban on “assault weapons” you couldn’t bring your AR-15 into the state. Not to mention most guns the Brady Bunch call “assault weapons” are rather large to be considered handguns. I’m just saying many states allow the carry of a handgun not a long gun.

Oh wait there is a bonus lie…

Concealed carry permit holders have already killed police officers, murdered innocent citizens, and committed mass shootings.

This is from they “study” they did. Study is quoted since I don’t believe a Google search constitutes a study. Either way I’d like to see the story of the permit holder who committed the mass shooting. That’s a new one.

How can anybody trust an organization that lies even when they are touting a win?

Source: http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2009/07/22/statements-from-antis/

Violence Policy Center “Study” Meets Operation Rolling Thunder

Gun rights examiner takes a look at the Violence Policy Center’s new “study” which shows 7 police officers and 44 civilians have been murdered by carry permit holders. As expected the study has more holes than a sieve…

http://www.examiner.com/x-3253-Minneapolis-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m7d21-Lies-damn-lies-and-VPC-statistics

Needless to say this line from the study sums it up…

Because of the secretive nature of concealed handgun permit laws, the VPC relied primarily on news accounts.

So they don’t even know if the perpetrators were actually permit holders. Great study there guys. Of course that’s not all that’s wrong with the study. Follow the link to find more.

Why We Win, We Use Facts

There is an amazing post over on The Smallest Minority. In it the writings of Marc Rubin are totally decimated. For those of you unaware Mr. Rubin wrong the following article…

http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-6572-NY-Obama-Administration-Examiner~y2009m4d22-There-is-no-2nd-amendment-right-to-own-a-gun-and-never-has-been

In it he said he made an argument that was irrefutable that the second amendment was never meant for the right of individuals to own guns. We’ll it was refuted quite well…

http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2009/07/refuting-irrefutable.html

Unlike Mr. Rubin’s “irrefutable” article this one cites sources and uses previous court outcomes to establish that the right to bear arms is for individuals and not the states.

New York Times Shitting Selves Over National Reciprocity Possibility

It looks like the New York Times will need to get a change of pants (note some people say this article requires registration to read it but I’ve not had that issue yet)…

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/21/opinion/21tue2.html

Like most anti-gun articles this one is filled with hysteria…

Passage of the amendment would make it much harder for law enforcement to distinguish between legal and illegal possession of a firearm. It would be a boon for illegal gun traffickers, making it easier to transport weapons across state lines without being caught.

If a state has concealed carry laws how is this going to make it any harder to determine if a person they see is carrying a gun legally or not? This doesn’t make any sense.

Let us use an example here. A cop in Minnesota is walking down the street and sees a person openly carrying a gun. Here in Minnesota this is perfectly legal with a permit to carry since we have no concealment requirement. How can he tell if that person has a license or not without asking? He can’t. Now take this a step further and say the person is from Utah and has a Utah issued carry permit. How can the cop known the person is out of state without asking? He can’t. So there is no change here whatsoever.

And how will this make it easier to cross state lines with guns? No permit or license is required to transport a gun from one state to another. If a police officer pulls somebody over who is transporting a firearm across state lines they can’t arrest the person for that since no law is being broken regardless if the person transporting the guns has a permit to carry a gun.

Furthermore…

Proponents of Senator Thune’s attempt to create the equivalent of a national concealed carry system claim it would reduce crime. But the evidence shows otherwise. Between May 2007 and April 2009, people holding concealed handgun permits killed at least seven police officers and 44 private citizens, according to a new study by the Violence Policy Center, a gun control advocacy organization. Other examples of crimes committed by concealed-carry licensees are plentiful.

So in two years people holding carry permits have killed at most (not at least because you know if there was the chance of it being more they’d use the higher number) seven police officers and 44 citizens. Of the hundreds of thousands of permit holders out there only 51 people have been killed in two years. That’s a much lower number than the number of people police wrongfully shoot per year, heck probably per month. Furthermore there is no citation of the study and no mention why these 51 people were killed (i.e. was there a belief of the carry permit holders that their life was in danger).

But being from the Violence Policy Center who is a paid shill for the Brady Campaign I can see why these numbers are meaningless. They’ve been known to sensationalize things a wee bit more than there are stars in the sky.

Let us continue…

For Alaska to permit residents who have committed repeated violent misdemeanors or who have committed misdemeanor sex offenses against minors to carry a concealed weapon is terrible public policy. For the Senate to extend that permit to 47 other states would be the height of irresponsibility, as well as a breathtaking violation of legitimate states’ rights.

Actually the state of Alaska allows their citizens to carry guns without a permit hence anybody there can carry a gun so long as they can legally own one. What is being said here is that a person who has committed violent misdemeanors or misdemeanor sex offenses against minors (note how both are misdemeanors) can purchase a gun.

And then they bring in the states’ rights argument which I feel is irrelevant. See the right to bear arms is spelled out in the Bill of Rights which is a list of rights considered natural and inalienable. Every state of the union must follow the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Hence the right to carry a gun is constitutional not state given. As stated in our Constitution any laws not spelled out in it are reserved for the states and citizens. Well the right to bear arms is spelled out hence it’s not reserved for the states but given to every citizen.

LOGIC?! Oh noes!!!!!!!!

Rights Still Hold Around Obamessiah

Good news for John Noble the man brought up on charges for carrying a legal firearm too close to the Obamessiah…

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09199/984795-57.stm

He’s been acquitted. Apparently we still have some rights as citizens even if we are within an unspecified range of the president. Of course the judge still had some words…

In my lifetime, there have been a number of assassinations of presidents and presidential candidates. A number of presidents were shot at. I’m very cognizant of that the defendant’s actions were very foolish. But not all foolish actions are criminal acts.

I don’t see how doing a peaceable demonstration is foolish myself. The man was simply standing outside of the rally with a bible and a legal firearm stating how he felt about the Obamessiah’s remark about people clinging to their guns and religion. He made no threats to anybody and didn’t disrupt the rally in any way. I’m sure if he had done the same thing while carrying a hammer nobody would have cared.

It is nice to see that you can be found innocent if you haven’t broken any laws.

Three Britain Gun Ban Barrier Failures in a Row

Cripes! Another shooting in the country where their gun controls laws are supposed to be so strict no gun violence can occur…

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/bradford/8156243.stm

The person who was shot was an officer no less. Of course being the gun ban is stopping criminals from using guns most officers in Oceania aren’t armed. And why would you want to arm people who are charged with brining criminals to justice anyways? It’s not like there is a need for them to have to defend themselves or anything.

Yet Another Person Shot in Britain

Wow the criminals in Oceania are dumb. They are using guns to shoot people even though hand guns are illegal…

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/8155039.stm

This is just so shocking to me. I mean possessing and using hand guns are there which means criminals shouldn’t be using them. I mean it’s not like a criminal is going to break a second law when they are doing already criminal activity. That’s just not right.

Seriously they need more wizards to fix that magical gun ban barrier.

That Magical Gun Ban Barrier has More Holes Than a Sieve

So yet another firearm was found in the nation of Oceania…

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/glasgow_and_west/8156276.stm

It was found while police were searching for guns and drugs in the home of a man accused of performing a drive by shooting. I’m still shocked that this could happen, don’t the criminals there realize that guns are illegal!

Another Failure in Britain’s Magical Gun Ban Barrier

I think the government over in Oceania better hire more magical wizards to strengthen the gun ban barrier because there was another impossible failure…

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/8153183.stm

From the article…

A 21-year-old man was shot in the head, face and chest by a masked gunman in a south London kebab shop.

I still don’t know how this could happen. Didn’t the criminal hear that guns are illegal? I mean you can’t break a law to commit a crime that’s illegal. This article makes it seem as though gun bans don’t actually stop gun violence.