Chronicling the depravities of the State.
In the realm of no shit Sherlock we have this study…
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-10296992-94.html?tag=nl.e703
Apparently texting while driving increases your chances of crashing 23 fold. Who knew? I mean come on how can doing something that makes you take your eyes off the road increase your chances of having an accident? Man I’m glad this study was done to finally put this argument to rest.
If you couldn’t tell that last sentence was sarcasm.
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.
Honestly this kind of thing just pisses me off…
http://www.wcnc.com/news/topstories/stories/wcnc-072109-mrn-freemarketwarrior.63b5bce2.html
To sum up the story a many opens a Republican oriented political merchandise kiosk in a mall. Somebody writes in and complains so he gets booted out. But it’s the accusation made against the owner, Loren Spivack, that pisses me off the most here.
As most of you know I’m not a Republican nor anywhere near one. I disagree with much of what Mr. Spivack says on his merchandise. But for God’s sake this line is the real offensive thing here…
At least one passerby found them racist and bigoted, and took time to tell the mall in a letter and a letter to the editor of the Charlotte Observer.
I am really fucking tired of people who worship the Obamessiah screaming racism every time somebody else criticizes the man. Most people who are criticizing him aren’t racist but actually don’t agree with his policies. I happen to be one of those people.
And this is where I go into rant mode for a few seconds. The people complaining in this story are what I call “progressive” liberals. Don’t mistake these “progressive” liberals with actual liberals whom are willing to have an honest debate, kindly disagree with your views, and not scream racism when you criticize Dear Leader. No these “progressive” liberals are well described by Eric Shelton on the Handgun Podcast.
They are great at feeling but not very good at thinking. Their arguments are always emotion based and never fact based. They will scream things about needing to ban guns because just one innocent child being shot is too many (which is true but the fact that 2,500,000 times a year guns are used to save peoples’ lives far outweighs any single tragedy). But worst of all these people are also hypocrites which are my least favorite kind of people.
They will scream until their blue in the face about how tolerant they are of others. This tolerance ends the second you don’t agree completely with them of course. They claim they want equality for all and will do anything to fight racism and bigotry. Where are they when a conservative man is being discriminated against? Oh that’s right since that person doesn’t share their views they don’t deserve to have a business.
Now I agree the mall owner has every right to decide can and can’t rent space in his mall. It’s his private property and he has the freedom to do what he wishes with it. My complaint here is the accusation that the kiosk owner is racist because he doesn’t agree with the Obamessiah.
You know I think I can sum up this entire article with the following picture from Sunday’s episode of No Agenda…
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/
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!!!!!!!!
I found this one thanks for Mark Vanderberg…
http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/20063353/detail.html
John Noble was in proximity (not in) a rally for the Obamessiah. He was doing a silent protest holding a bible and having his gun, which he was legal to carry, near the rally. As the article states…
He has said he did nothing wrong by trying to show that “Pennsylvanians do, in fact ‘cling to their guns and religion” — referring to a comment Obama made during another campaign event in April 2008.
The jury asked for a break after debating for five hours. My question is why the Hell is there a debate at all? This man didn’t break any laws. He wasn’t at the rally, he was outside of it. He was legal to carry the gun. He wasn’t disturbing anybody regardless of what the gun fearing pricks think. No this man is on trail for exercising his first and second amendment rights.
I hope the jury gets a good nights sleep and comes back and realizes that this man is not guilty of anything other than being a free American exercising his rights.
The Obama administration is going to hold a 60 day review to see if we should changed or flat out get rid of the terror alert color codes…
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124756456595737981.html
I’m glad the new administration is working on their promised change finally.
Only in Britain people…
Parents are not being allowed to attend their kids’ events because of the pedophile scare. Yes you heard that right because of potential pedophiles parent are not being allowed to attend their own kids’ events.
And because I like pointing out bad quotes…
“I would have taken time off work to support my child. It would have meant a lot to me. I’m all for measures to protect the safety of children but lines must be drawn and common sense must prevail.”
This in itself is a very good concept the problem is that it’s coming from Oceania where common sense doesn’t exist. I mean this is the same country who decided to fight crime by disarming the law abiding populace and placed closed circuit television cameras on every street corner.
I found a great post over on The Firearms Blog showing why the Mexican drug cartels aren’t buying their guns from America…
http://hosted.verticalresponse.com/442059/100c35fa92/1641502434/35c8c21797/
It comes down to simple economics. Why would a drug cartel spend anywhere from $850.00 to $1,100.00 for a semi-automatic AR-15 when they could spent less than $100.00 on a fully automatic AK-47? Furthermore other countries are more than willing to sell the guns to Mexico whereas extra work must be done to get them from America.
I saw this article not too long ago…
http://www.asahi.com/english/Herald-asahi/TKY200907020073.html
The Japanese police swept in to arrest a person who held a rifle on television. They didn’t load, aim, or fire the gun they simply held it.
Shiga prefectural police regard the incident, in which a hunter with a gun permit allowed TV personality Noburo Harada, 57, to momentarily handle the rifle during the show, as a serious breach of a law concerning the storage and management of firearms.
So much so, in fact, that on June 12, the prefectural police referred the case to prosecutors. As a result, the hunter, aged 49, along with a 60-year-old TV producer and a 37-year-old director of the show, could face charges of violating the swords and firearms control law.
Cripes!