Thursday, December 31, 2009

2009 Hall of Fame

1. Zach Wamp - The tweet heard around the world.

2. Chris Broughton - A triple play. First, he demonstrates why you can't trust MSNBC. Second, he demonstrates that 3%ers come in colors other than caucasian. And third, he helped keep open carry in the news after...

3. William Kostric - He brought open carry to the forefront of the national media and generally caused all the anti-gunners to get their knickers in a permanent twist. That works for me

4. Tom Coburn - Senator Coburn's amendment to the credit card bill ensured that state concealed carry laws applied to national park land in that states. So now whenever an Obama supporter claims that gun rights have "expanded" under Obama, you can reply by saying, "Only because Tom Coburn made him do it."

5. Paul Markel - For this quote about compromising with gun controllers and essentially being the polar opposite of Jim Darnell: "Can you placate a lion by letting him eat only your foot?"

And that quote should be the Quote of the Year for 2009. Every time the gun controllers beg and plea with you to give in to just one more restriction, remember that quote. Refuse to offer your foot. For 2010, be stubborn like a jackass and kick that lion in the mouth. Say no to any and all legislation that is not aimed solely at those who break the law.

2009 Hall of Shame

1. Jimmy Carter - Apparently thinks anyone who owns one of the most popular, yet least abused firearms in the nation wants "to kill policemen or go to a school or workplace to see how many victims we can accumulate before we are finally shot or take our own lives." Who would have thought a peanut farmer would have a peanut brain?

2. MSNBC - A black man carries a gun and becomes an angry white person through the magic of television.

3. Eric Holder - Mexico, a country with a corrupt government and an even more corrupt police force has GTS. Apparently, the solution is to ban American's guns. Because if you ban guns in America, the drug cartels (organizations that own speedboats, submarines, airplanes, and helicopters) will never be able to get guns anywhere else. It's brilliantly stupid. No wonder Eric's been put into Joe Biden's soundproof room.

4. Fort Benning - Terrorists also eat food. Therefore, anyone who eats food is a terrorist.

5. Jim Darnell - With friends like this, who needs Josh Sugarmann? A real, live, breathing concern troll. At least someone was smart enough to delete his tripe before it cost them their entire subscriber base.

Mark Twain once said, "The trouble isn't that there are too many fools, but that the lightning isn't distributed right." Personally, I don't think there is enough lightning.

So for 2010, may the lightning be both plentiful and accurate. Especially around Washington D.C.

5 Things to Leave Behind in 2009

1. "Common Sense" - Anything preceded by the phrase "Common Sense" is more often than not, not.

2. Freaking out over Open Carry - It's legal. Get over it. This goes for both anti-gunners and pro-gunners.

3. Caring about Mexico - It was a cesspool before the assault weapons ban, it was a cesspool during the assault weapons ban, and it continued to be a cesspool after the ban sunset. Reinstating the assault weapons ban will not fix a single problem in Mexico.

4. The notion that the Second Amendment is about the National Guard or any other government organized force - The Heller case has been ruled for over a year now and all 9 justices agreed that the Second Amendment is an individual right, not a collective right.

5. "I believe in the Second Amendment, but..." - At that point you should just stop talking, because you're about the render the first half of your sentence irrelevant.

Wednesday, December 30, 2009

Gov. Quinn makes another move in the right direction.

After passing a good "gun control" law, Gov. Quinn follows it up by doing something i'm a huge fan of: Keeping criminals locked up.

Via HuffPo
Gov. Pat Quinn announced today that he is ending a controversial prisons policy that accelerated good behavior credit for new inmates and led to some inmates spending just a few weeks in the state lockup.

Personally, i'm not a fan of good behavior programs. You're locked up because your bad behavior outside of prison was deemed a detriment to society. And since your good behavior inside of prison doesn't benefit society, it shouldn't be credited towards an early release back into society.

If you don't want to be in prison, try exhibiting good behavior outside of prison and avoid getting locked up in the first place.

Thursday, December 24, 2009

Let me introduce you to Rambo.

Strong language and general idiocy warning. Not work safe:

So the next time Bloomberg, Helmke, Sugarmann, et al. get on the cross, remember Rambo.

Rambo is the guy who won't register his guns. In fact, he legally is exempt from doing so. Rambo is the guy who won't get a concealed carry permit. Rambo is the guy who won't pay higher taxes on guns and ammunition.

Rambo is the guy who shoots The Children© (who are more often than not, younger versions of Rambo). Rambo is the guy the gun controllers will never write about, but count his crimes as one of the many sins of gun owners. Rambo is what the gun controllers will call "gun culture". Rambo is the one whose burden you will carry. Rambo is the last person who will ever be blamed for gun violence.

And most importantly, Rambo is probably the reason many people own and carry guns.

If you've got the stomach for more of this idiocy, continue. But keep in mind, the Rambos of the world are more than just gang members or criminals. They are just as much enemies of your freedoms as the most brazen gun controllers.

Friday, December 18, 2009

WA lawmakers seek to ban semi-automatic weapons.

Not that it has any chance of passing, it's worth mentioning just to point out that old lies die hard.

The ban would cover semiautomatics designed for military use that are capable of rapid-fire and can hold more than 10 rounds. Semiautomatics designed for sporting or hunting purposes wouldn't be banned.

"If they're used in the army, used in the war — that's what this ban is about," said Ralph Fascitelli, the board president of Washington Ceasefire.

First off, the Second Amendment wasn't drafted to protect sporting equipment. Historically, owning a gun for sporting purposes was a fringe benefit of owning a gun for more practical reasons such as putting food on the table and putting bad people on the ground. E.g., "I own a gun for putting holes Redcoats/Commies/Zombies. It just happens to be fun putting holes in barrel lids." Buying guns for purely sporting reasons is a recent development in history.

Second, the only semi-automatic weapons currently in use by the military are shotguns and handguns, many of which ironically fall outside of this proposed ban. Semi-automatic rifles have been used by civilians for over 100 years, despite no longer being standard issue for any military for quite some time. So to push this ban as somehow banning military weapons is disingenuous.

Then they engage in the "nuke fallacy":
"We don't allow people to own tanks or bazookas or machine guns, and very few people think that that's an unreasonable restriction," he said.

Despite the fact you can own a tank, tanks, bazookas, and machine guns have never been in common use outside of the military. In other words, those things really are military weapons. To liken semi-automatic rifles which have been designed and manufactured for civilian use to military weapons that were designed and manufactured for military use is a very big stretch.

She also said she doesn't believe such a ban would violate the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms.

Actually, depending on the way the ban is written, it could be a violation of the Second Amendment. If it's like the defunct Clinton ban, then it won't be a violation, as the ban only restricted a number of certain features. And if it's a Chicago/DC style ban, then it is mostly definitely a violation of the Second Amendment. And with the Heller ruling, the Second Amendment now protects weapons in common use, which includes many of the semi-automatic weapons they want to ban.

And she closes with:
"Did the framers of our Constitution ever envision something like a semi-automatic weapon?" she asked.

The framers of the Constitution were educated men. Just as most educated people today know that technology progresses with time, i'm certain the framers were no exception. Many of them lived to witness the progression of rifled barrels, so firearm innovation would be no surprise to them.

An additional bit of information comes via Dave Workman and the FBI's Uniform Crime Report. Apparently, only two people have been killed by rifles of any kind.

Since, Washington can't claim to be plagued with assault weapon violence, what is the true motivation behind this ban? Taking into account the name of this proposed ban (The Aaron Sullivan Public Safety and Police Protection Bill), could this be a case of memorializing someone with a bad law?

Anti-snitching = anti-gun = pro-criminal.

Stigma of 'snitching' creates a street code of silence that hampers Chicago cops.

Though the streets have long been governed by a code of conduct that discourages cooperating with cops, the anti-snitching mind-set gained momentum with the release of an underground DVD in 2004. Its staying power was enhanced through song lyrics, apparel and Web sites such as

As if Chicago didn't have enough problems to burden the rest of the country with, add to it the idiotic "anti-snitching" movement. But how is the anti-snitching movement anti-gun?

Any behavior that enables criminality, whether it's people on the street not snitching, politicians protecting gang members from harsh sentencing, women not being more selective with who they mate with, or men not sticking around to properly raise their children, will always result in more calls for gun control.

The so-called "leaders" of these broken, dysfunctional communities will never turn to the people they lead and say, "Hey, perhaps we need to start looking at ourselves." No. Instead, they will blame the responsible, upstanding members of society, including gun owners, for all their social ills.

If some kid on the south side of Chicago decides to join a gang and shoot another kid, who will be blamed? Is it the fault of the kid who procured the firearm and pulled the trigger? Nope. Is it the fault of his father who decided he'd rather be in a gang himself than raise his child? Nope. Is it the fault of the mother who knew the father was no good before she got in bed with him? Nope. Will it be the fault of the community members who refused to snitch? Nope. Will it be the fault of the decades worth of liberal, welfare-state politics that created this entrenchment of social dysfunction? Of course not. Is it the fault of some guy 300 miles away who bought a semi-automatic handgun at a gun show? You betcha!

And Mike Bloomberg, Richard Daley, Paul Helmke, and Josh Sugarmann are banking on the fact that a large portion of this country is stupid enough to believe it. That is why every time there is a shooting by some dysfunctional youth, from a dysfunctional home, in a dysfunction community, ran by dysfunctional leaders, the first thing they do is wag their fingers in contempt at... Well... The functional people. Namely, gun owners. And when they call for more gun control legislation, they always look to the functional communities to make the sacrifice. After all, it's for The Children©.

And while it's nice to have politicians and groups like the NRA to stand up against further burdening the law abiding people of this country, why will none of them stand up and state the real cause of the problem? Is it because they fear being politically incorrect? Has this country finally reached the point where we're afraid to blame people for their actions? Staying quiet on the matter is only going to encourage the very behavior that needs to be stopped.

So not only do the members of these broken communities need to start snitching, our politicians need to start snitching as well. Silence has never solved any problem.

Tuesday, December 15, 2009

Oath Keeping in action.

Taken from the Oath Keepers' "Declaration Of Orders We Will Not Obey".

1. We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.

The attempt to disarm the people on April 19, 1775 was the spark of open conflict in the American Revolution. That vile attempt was an act of war, and the American people fought back in justified, righteous self-defense of their natural rights. Any such order today would also be an act of war against the American people, and thus an act of treason. We will not make war on our own people, and we will not commit treason by obeying any such treasonous order.

Nor will we assist, or support any such attempt to disarm the people by other government entities, either state or federal.

Via the St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner, here is an example of Oath Keeping in action.

The Larimer County Sheriff will refuse to help enforce any concealed carry ban at CSU, student government officials said Wednesday, but permit holders packing heat and the Sheriff's office have little to worry about if student government has any say in the matter.

At its weekly Senate meeting, the Associated Students of CSU passed a resolution supporting the school's existing policy allowing concealed weapons on campus by a vote of 21-3, with one senator abstaining.

[ . . . ]

During discussion of the resolution, Sen. David Ambrose, who helped draft the document, read an e-mail statement by Larimer County Sheriff Jim Alderden saying Alderden's office would "not hold or detain a valid permit holder who violates that policy, nor would his department have anything to do with enforcing that policy."

Alderden also said he did not believe unelected university officials have any authority to enact such a ban, which would "directly counter" Colorado law.

Good job, Sheriff Alderden.

Now if the time ever comes when the government, either state or federal, attempts to deny people the right of self-defense, let's hope Sheriff Alderden and other LEOs take that same stand.

Saturday, December 12, 2009

Another shooting in the fiefdom of Bloomberg.

At least this time, it's the criminal that was shot.

Of course, the media couldn't wait to sling the hyperbole by giving reports of machine pistol wielding street peddlers when in reality the weapon in question was nothing more than a semi-automatic handgun stolen from a woman in Virginia.

Neither the Tiahrt Amendment nor lack of registration prevented law enforcement from tracing the gun to its original owner. But that's not going to stop Money Mike from getting on the cross.

Tuesday, December 8, 2009

If she lived in England...

She'd be the criminal and the guy breaking into her home would have been the victim. Actually, if she had lived in England, she probably wouldn't have even had a gun. Luckily, she didn't live in England and the worst outcome never came to be.

The police weren't able to reach her in time, so she had to use a firearm to defend herself from a violent intruder. Those who think gun owners are trigger-happy and just waiting to shoot someone over the smallest sleight should listen to this 911 call.

Far from an angry man with a gun, this woman exercised great restraint towards her intruder. The only angry man in this situation was the one without the gun. Unsurprisingly, this angry man had a criminal record.

So it's not angry men with guns who are a problem. It's angry people period, those with guns and without guns who are the threat to society. The inability to recognize this fact is the failing of the pro gun-control pseudo-intellectual types.

Sunday, December 6, 2009

A good "gun control" law.

Why? Because, it focuses on the criminal, not the tool, and avoids further erosion the rights of law-abiding people:

Gov. Pat Quinn signed a law today to require prison time for street gang members convicted of possessing a loaded gun in a public area.

Essentially, it's not so much a gun control law as it is a criminal control law. Of course the Brady Campaign, VPC, and other usual suspects are deafeningly silent on this development as it does not aid them in their goal to disarm the populace.

Maybe there is hope for Illinois now that they no longer have Barack Obama standing up for criminals (See: "No extra penalty for gang association")

Personally, I would revise the law to not only include loaded guns, but unloaded guns and ammunition as well. I would also add a mandatory sentence length of at least 20 years to ensure that by the time they are released, their gang associates on the outside are either dead or have done something productive with their lives.

Saturday, December 5, 2009

Sugarmann: Too early to call Kansas CCW a success because no one has been shot.

Yes. That is his real justification.

In 3 years of allowing concealed weapons, Kansas CCW holders have failed to shoot people over parking spaces and fender benders (that's according to Josh's own data, to which he contests that the real numbers have to be higher). Therefore, Josh Sugarmann thinks it's too early to call Kansas CCW a success. But as soon as a CCW holder shoots someone (and it will eventually happen due to the "law of averages"), I have no reason to believe Josh Sugarmann won't think it's too early to declare CCW a failure. Or as Josh succinctly puts it, "... past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results."

And that is why his logic is truly baffling, if there is even logic to be found here. It's akin to saying, "It's too early to call the fire department a success because it's only a matter of time until a fireman commits arson."

Josh Sugarmann's "score keeping" (with rather low scores relative to the total number of CCW holders) is nothing more than another one his many attempts to attack the lawful possession and carrying of firearms.

Despite Josh Sugarmann's attacks, in the entire history of CCW, not a single state has so much as pondered legislation to repeal their CCW laws. That's because crimes committed by CCW holders, such as the ones Sugarmann documents, are extreme rarities. Statistically irrelevant and non-issue.

Friday, December 4, 2009

A man robbed not once, but twice.

Here is a tale from the formerly Great Britain.

A pensioner who left two children "very frightened" after he went to his door with a gun because he heard a noise outside has been fined £367.

That doesn't sound so bad, right? You're probably envisioning some dusty old codger waving a rifle around at a bunch of kids try to retrieve their ball from his yard. Who wouldn't want to fine someone like that.

At an earlier hearing fiscal depute Ruth Ross-Davie said: "It was about 9pm when Knight was in his home and he heard a noise outside of his door and his response to that was to take one of his guns out with a view to frightening whoever was making a noise outside of his door.

OK. That makes sense. A guy hears noise outside of his house and goes to investigate. Not the wisest thing to do, but understandable.

Apparently, the boys were "very frightened". Surely, Knight was waving the gun in the air and pointing it at these two boys, right? Well... No.

The court heard the two boys saw Knight even though he did not see them and were "very frightened".

Surely, Mr Knight had a good reason for toting this dangerous weapon around his house.

He added that the weapon Knight had taken out was a Winchester Rifle with a long barrel and was not capable of firing.

Mr Robertson said Knight, who has poor eye sight, had become paranoid after he was robbed and his neighbours were robbed in their own home.

That seems like a good reason to have a gun. Although, i'd want a functioning firearm. So far, Knight hasn't done anything that I would consider worthy of legal punishment.

The defence agent added Knight knew that whatever provocation he had taken the wrong course of action.
The court also heard Knight was planning to sell his home and move into sheltered accommodation.

Of course it was the wrong course of action. This is England. Anything involving a gun, even a non-functioning gun, is the wrong course of action.

Sheriff Elizabeth Jarvie QC told Knight she took account of his previous good record and the unusual circumstances in the case.
She added that his fine would have been £500 but she had discounted it to reflect his early guilty plea.

Knight's guns have also been forfeited.

And there you have it. An old man who has been robbed hears a noise outside his house, arms himself with a non-functioning gun, and goes to investigate it only to be robbed by his government.

Tuesday, December 1, 2009

This is why you lock them up. Part III

By now, everyone has heard of Maurice Clemons. The now dead child molesting ex-con who was a person of interest in the execution of 4 Seattle area police officers. Naturally, the gun controllers begin their "blood dance". But some in the media are smart enough to see the real problem.

Clemons is just another in a long line of violent, repeat offenders, who if still locked up up, would have never been able to commit their latest heinous crime.

Increased restrictions on guns might have saved the lives of those four police officers. Keep in mind, Clemons was already breaking numerous firearm laws by simply possessing a firearm. However, the surefire way to have prevented those officers' deaths and even Clemons own death was to never have let Clemons out in the first place. Anyone with a record as long and brutal as his should have stayed locked up.

Thursday, November 26, 2009

The "Terror Gap".

The newest scheme being pushed is the closure of the "Terror Gap". As marketed by the gun-controllers, this will "Prevent Sales Of Guns To Terror Suspects". And what is a "Terror Suspect"?

Ted Kennedy was a "Terror Suspect". So are countless other people who have done absolutely nothing. The closing of the Terror Gap is essentially the elimination of due process. People who have committed no crime will be denied their Second Amendment rights. They will not be notified if they are on the list. They cannot petition the government to know if they are on the list. Most of the people on the list will never know they are on the list.

If the gun controllers really have a problem with suspected terrorists buying guns, why not do the intellectually honest thing and arrest them? If you can't trust someone to buy a gun or ride on a plane, you can't trust them to buy gasoline, a moving van, or a bag of fertilizer. You can't trust them to walk free, period. So arrest every person on the list, put them on trial, and use our system of due process to determine whether they should walk free with all their rights intact or stay locked up.

I don't endorse the above, because I think the concept of "secret watch lists" is completely useless in preventing terrorist acts (See: Fort Hood). But at least it would show that the gun controllers are actually concerned about potential terrorists and not just guns (as usual).

Friday, November 20, 2009

This is why you lock them up. Part II

A tragic shooting in Money Mike's backyard: Bronx girl, 15, shot in head walking home.

Naturally, this will be followed by cries for Common Sense® gun control, all for The Children® of course. But what won't be discussed is the criminal histories of those responsible for the shooting:

- 14 arrests since Dec. 2002
- Charges include: weapons possession, harassment, grand larceny, burglary, assault and endangering the welfare of a child.
- In April 2006, Taylor allegedly pushed his ex-girlfriend into a wall, grabbed her hair and bit her back. Her young children were home and saw the attack. He left girlfriend’s apartment, but returned and kicked and banged on door.

- No prior arrests

- Nine arrests since Feb. 2007
- Charges include: weapons possession, menacing, drug possession and sale, gang assault
- In July, armed with a handgun, he allegedly threatened his aunt, Zelita Mighty, and told her: “I’ll make one phone call and all this will be smashed up.”

- Six arrests since May 2005
- Charges include: assault, menacing, harassment, grand larceny, robbery, drug possession and sale
- In October, he allegedly told a cop who asked him and friends to disperse from a scene: “F--- you. I’m not leaving.” He then resisted arrest, swung at the cop, caused a cut and swelling.

- Five arrests since Sept. 2007
- Charges include: weapons possession, drug possession, gang assault, robbery, drug sales.

Excluding, Gentles who has no record, none of these people should have been walking free. The most law-abiding among them still had 5 arrests and all them have records of assault. And these are all arrests within the past 7 years. That means on average, each of these criminals is being arrested twice a year.

There is a serious problem in a system where a person can be arrested nearly twice a year for 7 years and still walk free. Had all of the responsible parties been locked up for a minimum of 5-10 years after their third arrest, this shooting would have never occurred.

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

Jim Darnell: Zumbo II

The original article has been nuked, but its ghost remains in the Google cache..

I’m a strong Second Amendment rights person. I stand against fire arms registration and government control and confiscation of our guns. But I strongly feel that the firearm manufacturers of our country are making a big mistake in producing the AR-15 sporting rifles.

And he goes on to describe how the AR-15 is such a scary looking weapon.

These modern sporting rifles are inflammatory in looks — they don’t look like modern hunting rifles. They are military in looks. They look like they were produced to kill men, not deer.

And my reply to him is, "And?" A lot of the Fudd-types forget that one of the many uses of a firearm is to kill people. As a "strong Second Amendment rights person", he should realize that the Second Amendment is not about hunting.

Granted, the new AR-15’s are compact, light, rugged and accurate. They make excellent hunting rifles. The problem is their inflammatory looks.

And? If someone is inflammed by the looks of someone else's property, that's a personal problem.

I don’t think the argument is valid. After WW II, crazy terrorists weren’t running through the streets firing 1903 bolt action Springfields into the air.

No Arab terrorists were on the daily newscasts blasting people with the semi-automatic Garand after WW II.

It’s the AK-47 and its long history with revolution, riots and terrorism that’s the problem.

Well, it looks like the terrorists won in Jim Darnell's world. They have sufficiently terrorized him into fearing inanimate objects. And why pick on Arab terrorists? What about those American terrorists who blasted people with their Garands?

So why endanger our Second Amendment rights by manufacturing and defending a modern hunting rifle that has such an inflammatory design? It plays right into the hands of the anti-gun movement. They love the looks of the AR-15. It’s easy to enrage the average American against such an “assault rifle.”

Because the Second Amendment is a right, not a privilege. There is no obligation to appease those who would deny you any portion of that right. Just as we do not kowtow to the insecurities of racist bigots to avoid endangering our Fourteenth Amendment rights, neither should we kowtow to the antigun bigots to avoid endangering our Second Amendment rights.

And here is a picture, just for you Jim Darnell:

Looks like it's time to give up your inflammatory looking terrorist deer rifle.

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

City Sees Assault Weapons Increase on Streets.

And what is the city in question?

The gun-free, utopia of Chicago of course.

That in itself isn't so unexpected. We all know that gun control doesn't work and that the unattended consequence of increased restrictions on firearms is almost always an increase in the illicit trade and use of firearms.

What's particularly troubling is the way the story is reported. NBC Chicago engaging in the same hatchet job reporting CNN was caught in years ago: Talking about assault weapons while showing video of fully automatic weapons.

View more news videos at:

Either NBC Chicago is intentionally confusing the public, looking for high ratings, or they are just plain idiots who can't do basic fact checking. I personally think it's a combination of all the above. This doesn't excuse the ATF though. They should know better, but then again, they've never been on the side of honesty or integrity.

Either way they make Josh Sugarmann proud.

Friday, November 6, 2009

A Brady Flip Flop.

From the Brady Campaign Blog:

While some of our friends on the other side of the gun violence prevention issue can be forgiven some, er, irrational exuberance over yesterday’s election results, the reality is a little more mundane.

For better or worse, guns didn’t play a prominent role in the outcomes of any of the four high-profile races yesterday

What? Wait a minute. Isn't this the same Brady Campaign that was absolutely giddy, to the point of even gloating, over the election of Barack Obama, even though guns didn't play a prominent role in the outcome of his election?

Yep. That's them.

Lie #21: "...the fallacy that mass shooters will avoid venues where people are likely to be armed."

From the VPC via Gun Grabbers:

This shooting also demonstrates the fallacy that mass shooters will avoid venues where people are likely to be armed or that mass shooters can be stopped easily by armed individuals.

Perhaps Scott Vogel watches too many action movies or plays too much Grand Theft Auto, but in real life, soldiers don't walk around military bases armed. Military bases are just like any other large, federal institution. They are "Gun Free" Zones. Very big "Gun Free" Zones, where people are told to disarm before entering. Using my nearest military base as an example:

  • Unauthorized possession/transportation of firearms, dangerous weapons or fireworks/explosives onto military installations is a federal crime.
  • Concealed carry of firearms under the Oklahoma Self Defense Act is strictly prohibited while on the installation.

So try again, Scott Vogel. A shooting at a military base does not "demonstrate the fallacy that mass shooters will avoid venues where people are likely to be armed or that mass shooters can be stopped easily by armed individuals." If anything, it demonstrates the fallacy of the "Gun Free" Zone.

Lie #20 : This is how they will spin it.

It was only a matter of time before the Brady Campaign used the Fort Hood shooting to push their usual lies.

Brady Campaign: Fort Hood Killer Reportedly Chose “Cop Killer” Handgun

While no police officer has reportedly been killed by a suspect armed with a Five-Seven, it may now have taken the lives of U.S. soldiers. Today, several news sources are reporting that it was the Five-Seven that Nidal M. Hasan used in his shooting attack at Fort Hood in Texas Thursday.

Isn't this rich? A "cop killer" gun that they're not even sure has ever killed a cop.

I'd also like to ask Peter Hamm how a gun can be "designed to fire bullets through body armor." It's ammunition that determines if a bullet can penetrate body armor. Not the design of the gun.

The 5.7x28 mm round fired by the FN Five-Seven is essentially a high velocity .22 caliber rifle round similar to the .22 Hornet in ballistics. In it's consumer form, it cannot penetrate body armor. FN Herstal does make armor piercing ammunition in 5.7x28, but it is only available to law enforcement and military.

In early 2005, Brady Campaign staff purchased the weapon at a Virginia gun dealer and test-fired it. The bullets successfully penetrated a police Kevlar vest.

And as for the Brady Campaign's test firing of the gun at a kevlar vest, they fail to disclose the fact that the 5.7x28's design is that of a rifle round. By the nature of their design, all centerfire rifle rounds will penetrate the soft kevlar vests worn by law enforcement officers. That's because kevlar vests are not body armor. They are not designed to stop rifle rounds regardless of what kind of gun they come from. That makes the FN Five-Seven no more of a "cop killer" than any other handgun chambered in a rifle caliber or any other weapon that fires the 5.7x28 round.

Thursday, November 5, 2009

How will they spin it?

A soldier kills 12 people and injures dozens others at Fort Hood. How will the gun controllers spin this into a reason to further erode your rights?

They often say that only police and military should have access to certain types of firearms as if a uniform gives the wearer some sort of superhuman level of self-control. Time after time they are proven wrong. Sometimes with deadly results. Today was no exception.

Canada moves a step closer to scrapping it's long gun registry.

MPs vote to abolish long-gun registry.

Conservatives argue the registry has been a billion-dollar boondoggle, although a 2006 study by the auditor general found that eliminating the long-gun portion of the registry would only save taxpayers about $3 million a year.

That's a lot of money for roughly a 50% compliance rate.

Thursday, October 29, 2009

A good reason to carry a gun in a national park.

From HuffPo:

TORONTO — Two coyotes attacked a promising young musician as she was hiking alone in a national park in eastern Canada, and authorities said she died Wednesday of her injuries.

First mistake: Hiking alone.

Second mistake: Hiking unarmed.

Thursday, October 22, 2009

English police are re-arming themselves...

Motorcycle police with machine guns to patrol violent gang hot spots.
Motorcycle police armed with semi automatic pistols are to patrol the streets for the first time in a bid to combat shootings

Shootings in Sarah Brady paradise? What about all their common sense gun control? Handgun ban? Semi-auto ban? Licensing and registration? Are none of those things working?
They will be armed with Heckler & Koch MP5 single-fire carbine guns and Glock semi-automatic pistols.

It seems the English press has the same problem as the American press. A single-fire carbine is not a machine gun as stated in the title.
Gun crime in London has risen year on year with the number of offences in the month of September alone up by 30 per cent from 230 last year to 300 this year.

Over the past year, gun crime in the capital has soared by 17 per cent with 1,736 incidents reported in London between April and September this year - 252 more than the same period last year.

That seems about right. For the past decade the English have been reducing the number of guns in the hands of the law-abiding. If more guns equals less crime, then it's safe to say fewer guns equals more crime.

And I love the last line in the article:
'Are we heading down a slippery slope towards armed rather than community policing? I hope the Met will rethink this terrible decision immediately and think of a genuinely proactive way to prevent gun crime.'

Whether you're a cop or civilian, being unarmed is anything but proactive.

Monday, October 19, 2009

Saudi Arabia: More common sense than Chicago.

In order to curb the black market for guns, Saudi Arabia is doing the logical thing: Lifting the ban on personal gun ownership.

JEDDAH: A recent Ministry of Interior decision allowing Saudis to openly buy handguns and other personal firearms was applauded by some locals and denounced by others.

Ending Prohibition destroyed the bootlegging industry. Now, crime related to alcohol trafficking is nonexistent because the bootleggers could not afford to stay in business. Legalizing alcohol destroyed their profit margin.

And the same can apply to firearms. Restrictions and prohibitions on firearms and ammunition only create a thriving black market, where criminals prosper and become more powerful. We see this everywhere guns are restricted or prohibited.

Whether it's alcohol or firearms, nothing kills a black market faster than legalizing it. While there are still restrictions on alcohol, they are minimum. In most places in the US, all you have to do is show an ID. Guns are no different. Our gun laws, should be reduced to the bare minimum: background check when you buy from an FFL, keep private sales legal. With each additional restriction, you only put more money in the pockets of the criminals who run the black market.

Of course there are naysayers:
Amani Saleh, a 28-year-old assistant director, said she was horrid when local newspapers reported the news. “The society is already suffering from terrorist attacks and now we give them access to weapons?” said Saleh.

If you already have a terrorism problem, guns are the least of your worry. Anyone who can build a bomb can get a gun through illegal means. If anything, armed civilians can help fight terrorism.

New bill proposes fine for citizens who don't own guns.

While California is making gun ownership more burdensome and expensive, a Vermont legislator seeks to do the opposite: Make not owning a gun, more burdensome and expensive.

...a Vermont state legislator recently introduced a bill requiring all unarmed Vermont citizens to pay $500 for the privilege of not owning a gun.
Under the bill, adults who choose not to own a weapon would be required to register their name, address, Social Security number, and driver's license number with the state. Those of military age, with the exception of police and members of the armed forces, would be required to pay the $500 fine...

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, right? If you can burden people for making the choice of owning firearms, isn't only "fair" that you can burden people for not making the choice?

I think it's a good idea. Those people who don't own guns are essentially making the state solely responsible for their safety, requiring more protection than gun owners. Naturally, they should pay the state for the extra protection. I do wish that he had worked fingerprinting in there.

This legislation will probably never pass (nearly everyone in VT owns a gun anyway), but it's a good discussion starter.

Sunday, October 18, 2009

Must be something in the water.

Another gang beating in another gun control haven.

PHILADELPHIA - The mother of a teenager attacked and beaten by a pack of 30 other teens is speaking out, and she's talking exclusively to Fox 29 about her son's ordeal.

I wonder if the gun-controllers will use this as another opportunity to call for more gun control.

Monday, October 12, 2009

Guns in a bar? Oh my.

A good old fashioned drug deal gone bad.

So what law would have prevented this?

Banning guns from bars? Considering all of the shooters were already criminals engaged in a criminal act, who were prohibited from not only carrying a firearm, but possessing one as well, I doubt they would respect a law respect a law banning on guns in bars anymore than they would respect the law that prohibits them from owning or carrying a gun.

Banning private sales aka closing the gun show "loophole"? Considering these guys can find illegal drugs to buy and sell, I seriously doubt they'd have much trouble finding guns at some place other than a gun show or the classified ads. The same goes for licensing and gun registration.

Assault weapons ban? It might have reduced the number of shots fired between the two of them, but it wouldn't have prevented the shooting.

Safe storage law? Only if their guns were stolen.

What would work? How about keeping criminals off the street? The shooters were previous "guests of the state", so why not make them very long term "guests"? The best solution for criminal recidivism is to not let them out so soon and so often.

Thursday, October 8, 2009

Cops, not guns are bad news for women. Bad for dogs too.

Officer Shoots Woman, Pit Bull Playing

"The young lady started hollering and just at that time a police officer was coming down and thought the dog was attacking the lady," witness Dennis Wallace said. "I can't say that I would do anything different. The (officer) drew down and started shooting. I couldn't say I wouldn't have done that."

The woman's parents said one of the bullets hit the ground and fragments ricocheted, wounding her in the upper body. She was taken by helicopter to Memorial Hermann Hospital, treated and released.

Sugar was also wounded. The dog's owner took Sugar to a vet and it is expected to recover.

I wish Sugar and the lady a speedy recovery.

Tuesday, October 6, 2009

Lie #19: Buy as many guns as you want. No questions asked?

"Right now in almost every state in the country, someone can go into a gun store and if they pass the background check, they can buy a hundred, a thousand, all the handguns they want... No questions asked as to why they need so many guns..."

Actually, dealers have to report multiple handgun sales to the ATF (ATF Form 3310.4) and if the number is unusually high (for example "a hundred"), then you will get a visit from the ATF. Even selling 2 handguns to the same person within 5 consecutive business days requires reporting to the ATF.

Someone gets it.

Milwaukee understands that the best way to handle criminals is to lock them up for the rest of their lives.

Least Competent Criminals

Kevin Ollie, 17, and Damien Cole, 19, completely failed in their attempted street robbery in Milwaukee, Wis., in August, when they accosted a young man and woman. The male "victim" drew his own gun, shot Ollie fatally and held Cole for the police. Later, Cole, though not the shooter, was charged with Ollie's death under the state's "felony murder" rule, which makes felons responsible if anyone at the scene should die as a result of the crime. Cole could get 55 years in prison. [WTMJ-TV (Milwaukee), 8-18-09]

By the time Cole gets out of prison, he will (hopefully) be too old to recede back into a life of crime like Donald Rice or Dustin Edelen. And most important of all, keeping him locked up will keep him from ending up like is accomplice: Dead at the hands of an armed citizen.

Friday, October 2, 2009

More Christians with guns.

Piece be with you: Detroit pastors pack heat - Faith-

DETROIT - The Rev. Lawrence Adams teaches his flock at the Westside Bible Church to turn the other cheek. Just in case, though, the 54-year-old retired police lieutenant also wears a handgun under his robe.Adams is one of several Detroit clergymen who have taken to packing heat in the pulpit.

I loved this quote:
"As a pastor, I'm referred to as a shepherd," Adams said. "Shepherds have the responsibility of watching over their flock. Do I want to hurt somebody? Absolutely not!"

I couldn't have said it better myself.

My favorite Ghandi quote.

It's not the one about guns, but this one:

"...that where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence."

Saturday, September 26, 2009

Creating the new Normal.

This is a video that's long overdue if you ask me:

Sadly, one of the many enemies of the 2nd Amendment is a subset of gun owners. Some people call them "Fudds" or "Zumbos". These are people who claim they own guns, but will always make sure to rail against "assault weapons" and the people who own them.

Some of their more popular refrains:

  • "You don't need a machine gun to hunt."
  • "Those weapons belong on the battle field."
  • "It takes more skill to hunt with my 1903 Remchester."
  • "A good hunter only needs one shot."
  • Etc.

Well, the NSSF has a new program aimed at those people, highlighting the sporting qualities of "assault weapons". In essence, creating a new Normal where the AR and other "black rifles" take their place in history next to the Remington 700s, M1 Carbines, Mauser K98s, Winchester 1894s, and other great rifles that have put food on tables, saved lives, and given countless hours of entertainment

I wonder what Jimmy Carter is going to say now?

Friday, September 25, 2009

Brady Campaign Rushes to save Mayors Against Illegal Guns...

You can see the e-mail here.

You have to wonder why the most well known anti-gun group is trying to rally it's troops to save a group that supposedly supports the Second Amendment. If anything, being associated with the Brady Campaign will draw more fire against MAIG.

Monday, September 21, 2009

Lie #18: "...individuals bringing loaded guns to town hall meetings..."

In the latest Gun Guys post entitled "Gunning for the President":

The nation, sadly, has become well acquainted with the phenomenon of individuals bringing loaded guns to town hall meetings, presidential speeches and other political events.

Here Gun Guys is engaging in the age-old practice of missing lies with truth in order to give them credibility.

No guns were brought into town hall meetings or presidential speeches, because they are prohibited by law from those events. However, "other political events" could refer to anything from protests to appearances by representatives at the local grocery store, where people did carry guns and legally so.

Thursday, September 17, 2009

This is why you lock them up.

On Mikeb302000's blog, I called it:
That may work with young, first-time offenders, but for older, habitual offenders, it's completely pointless. These are people who have made crime into a lifestyle and are more often than not, completely unrepentant for doing so. For those types of offenders, I say keep them locked up. Not only for the safety of society, but their own safety as well. Because it's only a matter of time before they come across an armed citizen who will guarantee they'll never go through the criminal justice system again.

And what happens? Repeat offender killed during the commission of a crime.

The new details shed more light on the circumstances that led up to the death of Donald D. Rice, 49, a repeat offender who had been released from jail over the weekend.

He didn't even wait a whole week before going back to his criminal lifestyle. And the guy bled to death after having his left hand severed with a sword. That's an agonizing way to die. And imagine if Rice had a gun and decided to shoot his sword wielding captor. That would have been a true tragedy.

Luckily that wasn't the case. For now, only the criminal has paid the price for the criminal's (and government's) stupidity. They are still deciding on whether to charge the sword wielding student. Even if they don't charge him, his life will never be the same again.

If you think rehabilitation will help career criminals, here is another criminal killed during the commission of a crime:

A suspected burglar who was shot to death by a Nichols Hills police officer Monday morning was an inmate on a work release program, according to department of correction records.

Here you have a criminal in a rehabilitation program still committing crimes. Again, luckily, only the criminal has paid the price for the criminal's (and government's) stupidity. Sadly, the police officer's life will never be the same again.

Sunday, September 13, 2009

" house is safe if it has a gun in it."

In the words of Gloria Steinem, feminist icon:

What we need is a big national movement, like MADD, that simply says no house is safe if it has a gun in it. That connects our home and our lives to the armaments everywhere.

It seems Gloria is a student of the often debunked Kellerman study.

And what is "safe"? Ms. Steinem thinks safe is being disarmed. Most of the commenters at Feministing disagree with her:

...nothing equalizes the physical power discrepancy between a large man and a small woman like a gun.

Apparently, they didn't get the memo that "guns are bad news for women".

Monday, September 7, 2009

Jews and Guns.

Now this is a good attitude:

"Jews are not like Christians. If I turn my cheek, I'm coming around to make a kick." Stuart Rosenberg, who provides martial arts training for the group, said: "Our idea is you can't be spiritual if you're dead. You have to be able to fight back to live another day."

Now compare that to this attitude:
As for the debate over guns, in a short post at Beliefnet, Rabbi Brad Hirschfield, author, radio and TV talk show host, and President of CLAL-The National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership, asked: “Whatever one thinks about guns, gun ownership, or gun laws, do we really need any more religious leaders officiating over a marriage between faith and firearms?”

Of course, Brad also weighs in on the armed rabbis.

Saturday, September 5, 2009

Gun manufacturers and safety.

One of the many anti-gun canards is that gun manufacturers need the federal government to set design standards and recall dangerous products.

It seems like the gun and ammo manufacturers do a pretty good job of it themselves. I mean, when is the last time a car manufacturer reimbursed the buyer of a flawed car 100% without being taken to court?

Wednesday, August 26, 2009

Christians and Guns?

From USA Today:

Police in a small Oklahoma farming community are warning local religious leaders to secure their churches after a pastor was brutally stabbed while awaiting parishioners in her church.

I really hesitated to post this for personal reasons, but with recent conversations about Christians and guns, I decided to go ahead.

The rumor is that this pastor was killed in a manner consistent with being targeted for her religious beliefs and the police are warning other local pastors they may be targeted as well.

I have to wonder what the reaction would be if the other pastors and parishioners all decided to arm themselves. We've seen how the anti-gunners react to guns in churches. From the Gun Guys blog, we can gather that it would be "chilling" and "An Insult To All Faiths and Religions". And had this pastor been shot instead of stabbed, we'd see the usual cries for more "common sense" gun laws.

They are thinking about bringing guns to church:

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

Brady Campaign e-mail.

I've been a member of the Brady Campaign's mailing list for quite a while. The bulk of their mail is generic fear mongering and solicitations for money, but every so often I get something that just makes me think to myself, "Are they for real?" Here is one such e-mail. Emphasis mine:

You won't believe what I saw at the NRA

Dear ******,

I finished my internship at the Brady Center and it was an amazing summer. We beat the NRA in the U.S. Senate and defeated them in court in Pittsburgh and in Washington, D.C.

It was so exciting to be a part of these victories. As a Brady member, you must be very proud.

From what Brady staff told me, donor support is critical to our victories. So I want to encourage you to continue to support the Brady Center and make a tax-deductible gift today.

After our victories against the NRA, I wanted to see first-hand why so many in Congress are still afraid to stand up to the gun lobby. So the other Brady interns and I drove out to the NRA headquarters in Virginia to see what we are up against. What an experience!

The NRA's two-tower complex is filled with gun lobbyists, a museum and even a shooting range. But I couldn't find one word about the thousands of Americans killed every year by guns.

Likewise, if I were to take a trip to the Brady Headquarters (do they even have one?), i'd find absolutely no word about gun safety training or educational opportunities. And personally, I find that more disturbing considering the Brady Campaign purports itself as being concerned with the safety of the public.

The receptionist told us that the NRA won't allow him to have a gun at work, even if he wanted one. The NRA apparently thinks it's safer with its own staff unarmed in NRA headquarters. Yet the NRA is working to force loaded guns into our own workplaces, schools, and communities.

Given the Brady Campaign's tendency towards falsities, I find this highly unlikely. Especially considering nearly every NRA sponsored event allows open or concealed carry (depending on the states laws). The only time anyone is forced to disarm is if there is a presidential or vice-presidential candidate present.

Help stop the NRA's "guns for anyone, anywhere" agenda with a tax-deductible contribution to the Brady Center.

There is one of those falsities.

On our way out, we asked for a copy of the NRA's tax forms to see just how much money they have. Over $350 million in one year! Brady's budget is a fraction of that, but we still beat them because of the support of members like you who say "enough is enough."

My summer showed me how we can beat the NRA despite all its money and high-paid lobbyists. I hope you will support the Brady Center's life-saving work with a tax-deductible donation today.

I wonder if the Brady Campaign has ever put any honest thought towards why their budget is a fraction of the NRA's? Perhaps it's because the NRA just has more people on it's side.

Another gun-toting, racist tea-bagger at a rally...

Oh wait.

Much like Chris B's skin, this is something else you'll never see on MSNBC.
Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Monday, August 24, 2009

HUMMER dealer goes into the gun business.

It's no secret the HUMMER brand is circling the drain. So who can blame them for wanting to augment their truck sales with one of the hottest selling items in the country?

GM could learn a lesson from them. Instead of banking their entire future on the Volt, why not build guns? They've done it before.

Tuesday, August 18, 2009

MSspiNBC's creative video editing.

MSNBC crops a video of a black man carrying a rifle in order to push their agenda that it's racist white men bringing guns to town hall rallies.

Here is the complete picture:
Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Hypocrisy: First Family Enjoys "No Guns In Parks" Rule.

From the Brady Campaign:
"Thanks to successful litigation by the Brady Campaign and major national parks organizations, the Obama family will be able to enjoy their upcoming visits to America's national parks protected, not only by Secret Service, but also by the Reagan Administration policy that keeps loaded guns in the hands of civilians out of national parklands.

And what exactly is the Secret Service protecting the Obama family with? Pointy sticks? Rocks? Bear spray? Loud screaming? I doubt it.

"Unfortunately, because Congress passed and President Obama signed legislation allowing weapons in national parks beginning in February, other families will be unable to enjoy the same level of security next year when loaded firearms, including semi-automatics, will be permitted in most national parks across the country.

You're right. Other families won't be able to enjoy the same level of security next year. Other families won't have armed Secret Service agents within arms reach. Unlike the Obama family, they'll have to depend on themselves for protection.

Apparently, the Brady Campaign thinks the Obama family is worthier of protection than the family of civilians. This is a good example of the elitism of gun control.

Monday, August 17, 2009

Registration and discrimination.

The question is why not treat handguns like machine guns? The process to purchase a machine gun (according to the NFA and related amendments) Let's assume that the NFA works in preventing crimes committed with machine guns. Why would any law-abiding gun owner protest the registration of handguns?

One of my biggest objections to gun registration and licensing of any kind is that it opens up the doors for discrimination.

Registration usually requires chief law enforcement officer permission meaning county sheriffs and police chiefs would essentially have the final say over whether one had the right to own a handgun or not. Gun registration can be used as a tool by biased law enforcement officers to dissuade would-be gun owners. Especially those who are racial, sexual, or religious minorities.

ABC News: Another drive-by piece on concealed carry.

This relatively short piece on restaurant carry in Tennessee(by Steve Osunsami) was surprisingly unbiased. They actually interviewed a woman whose husband was gunned down in a restaurant who said she had no problem with carry in restaurants. They also mentioned that restaurant owners are filing a lawsuit against the state to have the law repealed, even though they are still free to prohibit guns from their establishments via signs.

The rest of the story was stock video footage of a gun range, gun store counter, and lamentations of "Dirty Harrys" wanting to shoot up the place. One of those protesting restaurant carry was a restaurant owner who said he believed in the Second Amendment, but that guns should be kept at home, because it's not worth the "1-2%" that might shoot someone

Friday, August 14, 2009

Britain: Europe's most violent country.

The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.

Of particular note was this. Of course they are taking into account all violent crime and not just "gun crime" as the anti-gunners tend to do:
The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 92 and South Africa 1,609.

Some interesting numbers there. The US, being saturated in guns, has a lower "violence rate" than it's equally gun-saturated, yet more restrictive neighbor to the north. However, the island nation of Australia has a much lower violence rate than the island nation of the UK, despite their similar gun laws. Even more interesting is that the French are apparently more violent than the Americans. I guess I better think twice before making any jokes about selling French WWII rifles.

So what's the moral of this? If you want to be "safe" either live on a homogeneous island or let law-abiding people arm themselves.

Saturday, August 1, 2009

JPFO: The Seven Varieties of Gun Control Advocate.


Sadly, no examples are given of each variety. I've decided to try my hand at it.

ELITISTS - Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden, Dianne Feinstein, John Kerry, Jim Zumbo, Jimmy Carter, Rosie O'Donnell. To a lesser extent, Ray Schoenke. I'd also include any anti-gunner who openly owns and uses a gun. They are often found coming off of a canned hunt with a high-dollar shotgun slung over one shoulder, while looking down their nose at those who own those evil, unsporting assault weapons.

AUTHORITARIANS - Rahm Emmanuel, Richard Daley, Michael Bloomberg and the rest of the micro-dictators that compose the MAIG. They can often be found harassing law abiding people while engaging in illegal behavior of their own. After all, they are the authority. They can do nothing wrong.

CRIMINALS - Too many names to list. Just visit Chicago, Baltimore, Newark, Philadelphia, or DC on a warm night and see how crime thrives in these gun control paradises. I must also include in this category the criminal apologists/advocates such as Snuffy Pfleger, Al Sharpton, and even Barack Obama.

THE FEARFUL - Carolyn McCarthy, Sarah Brady, Bryan Miller. Pretty much any of the victim/survivor turned anti-gun activist crowd.

IDEOLOGICAL CHAMELEONS - A lot of coastal Republicans fall in this category. Michael Steele, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani.

SECURITY MONOPOLISTS - General "Weasley" Clark, Chief Cathy Lanier, Chief Eddie Compass.


Many of the people i've listed could fit multiple categories, but I put them where I think they fit most of the time. Of course i'm probably missing a lot of obvious people, so feel free to add your own.

Monday, July 27, 2009

Gunman opens fire on Md. cookout, injuring 12.

BALTIMORE - At least one gunman opened fire at a backyard cookout, wounding a dozen people, Baltimore police said Monday.

Maryland: Ranked #5 by the Brady Campaign for their "common sense" gun laws such as a ban on semi-automatic pistols and allowing the police to determine whether you have the privilege of defending yourself or not.

There is always talk of gun owners, store owners, manufacturers, and the "gun lobby" having a shared responsibility for gun violence, but where is the responsibility on the part of the civilian disarmament advocates? Can those 12 injured victims hold responsible the people and organizations who have lobbied to render them defenseless? If any of the victims had been denied a concealed carry permit (MD being a may-issue state), could they snuff out the police department?

Sunday, July 26, 2009

When kids and guns go right.

Not all interactions with children and guns end in tragedy:

PORT ALLEN, LA (WAFB) - A ten-year-old boy left home alone with his sister used his mother's gun to shoot an intruder in the face, police said.

HOUSTON—A teenage boy shot and killed an intruder in his Spring Branch home Thursday.

In both cases, had it been left up to the Violence Poverty Center, Brady Campaign, or even President Obama, these children would have been completely defenseless and possibly harmed or worse.

These two incidents also dispel the notion that "guns are not the answer, at least not for regular people." Guns were clearly the answer for these two "regular people". While training is good and should be encouraged, these and the thousands of other defensive gun uses prove that you don't have to be "highly trained" or even an adult to successfully defend yourself with a gun.

Saturday, July 25, 2009

Tom Coburn on states rights and gun control.

In a previous entry, I posted an e-mail from the Brady Campaign where they were attempting to point out the "hypocrisy" of those who supported the Thune Amendment:

"Extending these permits to other states would be risking public safety, as well as an astounding (and hypocritical for many Senators) violation of legitimate states' rights."

Senator Tom Coburn had a very good rebuttal to their claims:

"We had a vote in terms of honoring States rights in terms of the national park bill on guns. Twenty-nine of my colleagues, thirteen of whom now are 'defending States rights,' stepped all over States rights with their vote against the Coburn amendment when it came to allowing people to have supreme their State law in terms of national parks."

That basically confirms what I said in the previous blog entry. The Brady Campaign values states' rights when they can use it to obstruct pro-gun legislation, but is willing to trample states' rights in order to push anti-gun legislation.

Friday, July 24, 2009

Criminals, not guns, make domestic violence deadly.

A pretty gruesome story:

FONTANA -- A man is under arrest after police say he hacked his estranged wife to death with a machete.

The woman's body was found Wednesday in the back of Mimi's Hair Designs in Fontana where she worked.

Witnesses say there were 11 employees and a few customers in the salon when 39 year old Horacio Gonzalez came into the store with a machete and began stabbing his estranged wife.

Gonzalez was arrested just before 6 p.m. -- about two hours after the attack. He remains hospitalized after he apparently drank bleach, according to police Sergeant Jeff Decker.

Decker says Gonzalez , who is expected to survive, will be booked at West Valley Detention Center in Rancho Cucamonga on murder charges once he is released from the hospital.

Court records indicate his wife had a restraining order against Gonzalez because of domestic violence and filed for divorce in March.

A child custody hearing had been scheduled for next week.

Stories like this prove that you can completely remove guns from the equation and violence will still exist. Crazed ex-lovers will not become angels overnight simply because they don't have a gun. Domestic violence is a people problem, not a gun problem. Gun violence is a symptom of that problem. And you can't fix the problem by treating the symptoms.

You can license gun owners. You can register guns. You can require them to be locked up. You can make them child-proof, "smart", and low capacity. You can allow people to buy only one gun per month. You can make them as difficult to buy as possible or even outright ban them. And you've done nothing but change the method in which violent people will kill others and make it harder for those most at risk to defend themselves.

There is no moral superiority in being stabbed to death as opposed to shot. Nor is there any moral superiority in being defenseless in the face of those who are bigger, stronger, or better armed. So until the gun controllers realize that they aren't preventing violence, but only displacing it, i'm not convinced their pursuit is a moral one.

Wednesday, July 22, 2009

"Keep Sarah Palin's Gun Laws in Alaska"

...was the title of an e-mail I received from the Brady Campaign. The complete text follows:

Dear ******,

At noon Wednesday, the U.S. Senate will vote on legislation that would force states to allow dangerous individuals to carry loaded guns in public.

You can help us stop this legislation with a call now.

This dangerous legislation would reduce the gun laws in nearly all states to the "lowest common denominator" of the states with the weakest laws.

For example, Alaska permits residents who have committed repeated violent misdemeanors or who are sexual predators to carry a concealed weapon. They would be able to carry concealed loaded weapons in 47 other states under this new legislation.

Extending these permits to other states would be risking public safety, as well as an astounding (and hypocritical for many Senators) violation of legitimate states' rights.

The gun lobby's legislation, if passed, will make it more difficult for law enforcement to do their jobs.

Congress needs to say "NO" to the gun lobby. We don’t want to put our families and communities at more risk.

Standard Brady press. My biggest problem is with the title. Apparently they want to keep Sarah Palin's gun laws in Alaska (never mind the fact she didn't write them). How about this Brady Campaign: If we keep Sarah Palin's gun laws in Alaska, can we keep Carolyn McCarthy's gun laws in New York? Can we keep Diane Feinstein's gun laws in California? Can we keep Barack Obama's gun laws in Illinois?

It's funny how the Brady Campaign values states' rights when they can use it to obstruct pro-gun legislation, but is willing to trample states' rights in order to push anti-gun legislation. Talk about hypocrisy...

As for the risk to public safety, why hasn't Sarah Palin's gun laws been repealed? I know why they haven't been repealed. It's because they aren't a significant problem. Concealed carry holders are by far more law-abiding than the public at large and even law enforcement officers.

The anti-gunner's reaction to nationwide concealed carry reciprocity is just another manifestation of their "blood in the streets" fantasy. In reality, the only places where the blood is flowing in the streets is where the anti-gunners have had the most success.

Monday, July 20, 2009

Snuffy Pfleger has a heart...

Just not for you.

At the sentencing of Michael Mario Pace, killer of Blair Holt:
St. Sabina Church Pastor and anti-violence crusader Father Michael Pfleger says this was, in a way, a double tragedy.

"There's another child, I said today, died in the courtroom," Pfleger said.

For contrast, this is what Pfleger says about people who actually obey the law:
"He's the owner of Chuck's. John Riggio. R-i-g-g-i-o. We're going to find you and snuff you out… you know you're going to hide like a rat. You're going to hide but like a rat we're going to catch you and pull you out."

Did you get that? Remorseless, cold blooded murderer gets 100 years behind bars? Tragedy. Law abiding person who sells guns? You need to be snuffed out.

Perhaps Snuffy can hire some of his parishioners to do the snuffing.

Buy a truck, get a free gun.

An old gimmick that gets scads of attention every time:

The interviewer sounded like she was reading straight from the Brady Campaign's Cliff's Notes:

  • "I can understand owning handgun, but why the evil scary semi-automatic weapon?"

  • "You can't defend yourself, because police carry guns and they get shot all the time!"

  • "I grew up in flyover country too and we owned guns, BUT we didn't own evil scary semi-automatic weapons..."

  • "You mentioned god and guns together...ZOMG! That's like so wrong!"

Par for the course for the anti-gun media.

And speaking of anti-gun media, apparently Walter Cronkite has died.

Friday, July 17, 2009

A dangerous miscalculation...

via OKCupid

I put this up because the question was interesting and also implies a paradox. If the people who most love guns were offered this choice, the rest of us could pass real gun control. Voila.

There isn't much of a paradox there, because the guy with the gun still gets to vote.

The map is fairly accurate in one way, however. The greenest states have already given up much of their right to bear arms. However the reddest states still have just as much of a right to vote as the greenest states.

Monday, July 13, 2009

Gun Guys:" ...they oppose any sort of gun control laws."

When you can't attack your opponents true position, create a false one.

Via Gun Grabbers

Because a significant portion of the pro-gun organizations and individuals that comprise the activist core of gun ownership in America do oppose "some sort of gun control laws." In fact, they oppose any sort of gun control laws.

It's almost as if Gun Guys is banking on the ignorance of their readers. They're hoping that their target demographic is completely unaware of the fact it was the NRA that advocated the passing of the NICS Improvement Act.

In reality, the majority of gun owners (even the activist core) are in favor of some gun controls... As long as they are effective in reducing crime, not just mala prohibita designed to increase the complexity and expense of owning and using a firearm.

Sunday, July 12, 2009

Racism and gun control meets again.

At Pandagon, a blog entry about creating sperm in a lab is as good a time as ever to complain about "paranoid, racist, NRA gun nuts". After all, they haven't had much opportunity to do so lately:

From what I can tell, all these came from the right wing press, so it isn’t hard to figure out what’s going on here. The more invested members of the dominant class are in maintaining their oppression of others, the more they have elaborate, paranoid fears that the Other will rise up and kill them one day. I have no doubt, hailing as I do from Redneckia, that the gun nut culture---at least the NRA paranoid version, not just people who like to own guns and shoot them at targets, but have no interest in worrying that Obama is going to take their guns away---stems from a deeply embedded racism. That’s why there’s so much nonsensical talk about the statistically low dangers of home invasion while you’re at home. Guess what race they imagine the home invader to be. It’s not conscious, but the ever-present fears of black criminality in this particular set of white people goes straight back to their own stranglehold on white privilege, which is so strong they assume that it will all end in violence.

Why else do you think the fears that Obama specifically will take their guns have such a hold on their imagination? You got that fear with Clinton, but not even close to the same degree. I’m lucky that I don’t spend much of my time around racist rednecks, but friends of mine who have to for work will say that yeah, it’s a fear they talk about non-fucking-stop.

Also check out the rest of their gun-related posts.

Aside from many of the posts being completely devoid of fact, it gives a good insight into the average leftist mentality behind gun control, where crime is of lesser concern than the evils of armed christian white men who all hate women and minorities.

Friday, July 3, 2009

No Guns For Queers.

JPFO has already put together an excellent video detailing how gun control disproportionately disarms black people.

It would be nice to see someone do a video about how gun control also disproportionately disarms gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgender people as well. Especially since two of America's gun control havens (New York city and San Francisco) are home to the largest GLBT populations.

I bring this up because of this story:
They stopped only when a passing motorist threatened to call the police. Throughout the attack, Leslie's assailants called her a "faggot" in Spanish. The attack left Leslie with multiple injuries, including bruises all over her body, and stitches in her scalp. Police called to the scene found Leslie nearly naked and bleeding on the sidewalk. They also recovered a belt buckle from the assailants that was covered in blood.

A lot of people cite incidents like the above as a good reason to pressure legislatures into making hate-crime legislation transgender inclusive. Unfortunately, hate-crime legislation only works after the crime has been committed, more often than not after the victim is dead. A better solution would be to ensure that all people have equal access to effective self-defense. Specifically, do away with "may-issue" licensing that only opens up the doors for discriminatory practices like "need assessments". Whether you're gay or straight, no one can determine whether you have a "need" to protect yourself or not.

Pink Pistols is an organization that helps GLBT "select a firearm, acquire a permit, and receive proper training in its safe and legal use for self-defense." As their motto says: Armed gays don't get based.

Saturday, June 27, 2009

Gun Guys leaving out details...

Gun Guys

(June 26, 2009, Chicago) – The Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence sharply criticized the Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA) and Illinois Carry for holding a public rally today calling for ending Chicago’s 27-year-old handgun ban only days after the tragic shooting of 9-year-old Chastity Turner who was gunned down while bathing her dog in front of her own home. Thirty-six Chicago Public School students were also killed during the ’09 school year in a continuing rash of gun violence.

Gun Guy's conveniently leave out the fact that Chastity Turner's shooters were 19 and 17 years of age and prohibited from purchasing, owning, or carrying a firearm of any kind in not only Chicago but the entire state of Illinois. Eliminating Chicago's handgun ban would have only made Chicago law consistent with the rest of the state. If would not have made it any easier (or harder for that matter) for the shooters to obtain a weapon.

In addition, gun homicides plague the African-American community. According to the Violence Policy Center the annual study, “Black Homicide Victimization in the United States” found that there were 7,425 black homicide victims in the United States. The homicide rate for black victims in the United States was 20.27 per 100,000. In comparison, the overall national homicide rate was 5.38 per 100,000 and the national homicide rate for whites was 3.14 per 100,000.

What both Gun Guys and the VPC fail to report is that black people are also more likely to live in large metropolitan areas with stricter gun laws and thus have a lower rate of firearm ownership.

Most troubling is the language, tone and materials that pro-gun groups are using to promote their rally in downtown Chicago. Ralph Connor, an African-American conservative who will speak at the rally, continues to preach a divisive message that “gun control is racist” and is eagerly promoting a film that features him, called "No Guns for Negroes.”

It appears that Ralph Connor is right. While current gun control legislation isn't written with racist intent, its results are most definitely racist. As a black person in America you are less likely to be able to lawfully purchase and carry a firearm and more likely to be a victim of homicide.

Wednesday, June 24, 2009