Oh Canada...

While Canada laughs at us, perhaps they should take a moment to quietly weep for themselves:

"Ian Thomson…woke up to the sound of three masked men firebombing his Port Colborne, Ont., home…So Mr. Thomson, a former firearms instructor, grabbed one of his Smith & Wesson revolvers from his safe, loaded it and headed outside dressed in only his underwear.
“He exited his house and fired his revolver two, maybe three times, we’re not sure. Then these firebombing culprits, they ran off,” said his lawyer, Edward Burlew."

The result?

"The Crown has recommended Mr. Thomson go to jail, his lawyer said.
His collection of seven guns, five pistols and two rifles was seized, along with his firearms licence."

So while Canada is laughing at us, perhaps we should thank them for making a good argument in favor of Castle Doctrine and an even better argument against firearm registration. Had Mr. Thomson lived in a place with Castle Doctrine, he would never see the inside of a jail cell and had he lived in a place where there is no gun registration, he'd still have his guns and the ability to protect himself and his property.

However, all is not lost for Canada. There are some Canadians who get it:
Our endangered right to self-defence
Canadian Unlicensed Firearms Owners Association

Open letter to Chief Bill Citty.

Rather than repost the whole letter, you can better read it here.

It was in response to comments made by Oklahoma City Chief Only One and potential Oath Breaker, Bill Citty in response to the shooting of police officer Katie Lawson by two illegal immigrants.

This is something very unusual for Oklahoma. Gun banners are a rare breed here. More interesting was a subsequent city council meeting where councilmen Sam Bowman and Pete White applauded Citty's comments. Who knew we had so many closet gun banners in high places? This is what complacency does. Brian Walters was the sole councilman to stand up for the 2nd Amendment.

In Oklahoma, rarely are guns a political issue. As a result, candidates are rarely if ever questioned on their views on guns and gun rights. It looks like that needs to change.

The real Barack Obama will stand up. (in a few weeks)

While Barack Obama The Gun Banner was missing from the SOTU Address, he will soon make an appearance within the next two weeks.

via Newsweek:

Obama didn’t mention guns in his speech because of the omnipresent controversy surrounding the Second Amendment and gun control. Tuesday’s speech was designed to be more about the economy and how, as Obama repeated nine times, the U.S. could “win the future.”
But in the next two weeks, the White House will unveil a new gun-control effort in which it will urge Congress to strengthen current laws, which now allow some mentally unstable people, such as alleged Arizona shooter Jared Loughner, to obtain certain assault weapons, in some cases without even a background check.

Glock's shareholders quiver in anticipation.

Anti-gunners scrambling to poison the well.

You know you've lost the debate when the premise of your argument is a fallacy.

Joan Peterson the Brady Campaign:

"The Second Amendment says nothing about the right to large capacity magazines for the purpose of killing as many people as possible without reloading."

Paul Helmke of the Brady Campaign:

"...it was a clearly dangerous man who had way too easy access to a gun with a high-capacity ammunition magazine -- good only for killing many people quickly. "

Baldr Odionson of Ceasefire Oregon:

"OTC medication and high performance cars are not *intended* for killing large numbers of people, unlike those weapons and extended magazine clips."

That's just a few examples, but it's easy to see where this is heading. The post-Tuscon gun-banner agenda is now to push forward the belief that a magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition is a magic talisman of evil. That one can have no other reason for owning one than to kill large numbers of people.

So what is the antidote for this poison? It's very simple: There are millions of 30+ round capacity magazines in circulation and the vast majority are used for lawful purposes. Magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition are simply not a problem. The fact that it took such an extraordinary event to even start talk of a magazine ban is telling.

Will the real Barack Obama stand up?

Tonight is the State of the Union Address. When it comes to guns, Barack Obama has two choices: He can continue down his current path of hiding from and avoiding his pre-POTUS roots as a big-city gun banner OR we will witness the resurgence of the real Barack Obama. The anti concealed-carry, anti "assault weapon", Fudd-pandering elitist this blog was created to examine.

Watch this space.

UPDATE: In terms of gun control, the SOTU Address was a non-event. President Obama said nothing about guns and the only people who noticed were the members of gun banner brigade and George Stephanopoulos.

What does this mean? Nothing really. Obama's position hasn't changed since he has taken office.

From the Today Show:

MATT LAUER: And real quickly, if you will, in the wake of those tragic shootings out in Tucson, there have been calls by some for tougher gun laws in this country. The mayor of New York City, at an event yesterday called on the President to use this opportunity to get tough on gun laws and to change the way background checks are done for gun purchasers. Will the President directly address gun control in tonight's speech?

VALERIE JARRETT: I'm not gonna preview for tonight what he is going to say in the speech, specifically, but what I will say is obviously we're gonna have an empty seat in the chamber. Congresswoman Giffords, although she is recovering, she has a long way to go. It is a reminder of how we have to work to bring down crime, how we have to work to build an environment of civility where we can disagree without leading to violence. And the President clearly has always stated that he supports the assault weapons ban. So I don't want to get to much into the details of tonight. But certainly an empty seat in the House is a reminder for everyone, not just there this evening, but around the country.

It's obvious that President Obama has realized that gun control (especially the assault weapon ban) is bad politics pushed by a small, yet vocal minority and he is not willing to risk the rest of his political agenda on the hunches of few anti-gun busybodies.

This is why you lock them up. Part VI

Same as usual: Criminal with an extensive violent history gets reduced sentence, commits yet another violent crime.

Johnny Simms, 22, had an extensive criminal record that included selling marijuana in high school, cocaine trafficking after getting out of jail, armed robbery and a homicide.

Simms violated his probation when he was again arrested in June 2010, this time for robbery with a deadly weapon and selling cocaine. He pleaded guilty and Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Julio Jimenez sentenced him to one year in prison plus five years' probation.

But Simms served only one month because he had earned credit for time served earlier in a Miami-Dade jail. He was released in September 2010 on five years of court-mandated ``administrative probation,'' a low-level form of supervision that does not require regular check-ins with authorities.

Simms hadn't been out a month before he was again implicated in a violent act.

Out of the 30k'ish gun deaths that occur every year, I wonder how many others can be traced back to incompetent judges giving out softball sentences?


More examples of people who should have stayed locked up:
This is why you lock them up, Part VI
This is why you lock them up. Part IV
This is why you lock them up. Part III
This is why you lock them up. Part II
This is why you lock them up.

Answering Joan Peterson and her friends.

More than likely my reply to her post will go down the hole of Reasoned Discourse, so I repost it here in verbatim:

"A brave man, Meacham, to dare to mention that he is a gun owner and a hunter and yet favors reasonable gun laws."

Meacham is not a gun owner. He is what is colloquially known among gun enthusiasts as a "Fudd". He only owns guns as a consequence of hunting. He is under the delusion that the 2nd Amendment protects hunting and sport shooting. He shares this delusion with your quoted friends, Barack Obama, Jimmy Carter, the Brady Campaign, and our two recently appointed Supreme Court justices. Thankfully, Fudds make up less than 15% of people who own guns

Personally, I am unconcerned with the opinions of Fudds when it comes to the issue of the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment is not about shooting Bambi and Thumper twice a year with your great grandpappy's muzzle loader. It's not about fine rifles and shotguns. It's not about sporting arms or collecting antiques.

The 2nd Amendment is the Appleseed Project. It is the ugly, black plastic covered, semi-automatic guns with the 30 round magazines. The 2nd Amendment protects the non-sporting arms and usable, modern guns. Specifically the ones that you shoot people with, not furry woodland critters.

"Maybe banning those magazines will reduce the demand from many that pistols and military style semi-auto assault weapons actually be banned. (This just might be a doable compromise)."

Baloney. After the last Assault Weapons ban was passed, the very next thing the gun banners did was draft Brady Bill II which included a ban on even more firearms.

I don't think you really know the meaning of compromise. Compromise doesn't mean you can take something from me and I should be glad to have what little you left me with. That's called "theft". Compromise is when both parties give and receive. If you want a magazine ban, you have to give us something in exchange.

Unsurprisingly, none of the gun control bloggers can name a single gun law they'd repeal in exchange for a gun law they want passed. So there won't be any support for a ban from me.

The smell of freshly laid Astroturf.

It seems that the newest strategy of the gun ban lobby is to create fake gun owners who agree with or propose the most asinine legislation.

Eh. Just judge for yourself. Some choice excerpts:

The basics on magazines: they are attached into a particular type of gun to provide an individual with a certain number of bullets without having to reload. A pistol, like the one I own, only has 5 in the chamber and does not use a magazine.

...

Just as we're not able to have certain type of bullets or silencers for safety reasons, high capacity magazines need to fall into this same category. One possible consensus - maybe we can propose that high capacity magazines are treated the same way as silencers/suppressors - if your state allows them (only 38 of the 50 do), you have to go through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to register for silencer ownership and have it registered. It doesn't mean that you can't have one in your gun collection - it's just registered through the ATF.

Clearly the opinion of someone who knows nothing about the NFA process or someone who knows about and simply has nefarious intent.

Just one more small sacrifice is all she wants.

Rep. "Shoulder Thing That Goes Up":

“I know what it’s like to have tragedy brought to your life in a split second by a madman with high-capacity ammunition magazines,” said Rep. McCarthy, whose husband was killed and son seriously wounded by a gunman on the Long Island Railroad in 1993. “I’m working to stop it from happening again. We need comprehensive reform to reduce the number of people hurt or killed by gunfire in America, but one simple way we can do that is by keeping the worst tools of mass murder away from the general public. This nation has come together before to support this simple, commonsense measure, and it is the law in several states right now. It is a small sacrifice that law-abiding gun owners can make once again in order to increase everyone’s safety.”

Well, Carolyn McCarthy isn't completely ignorant. While she may not know what a barrel shroud is, she does seem to know that guns owners have made at least one small sacrifice in the past. In fact, gun owners have made several small sacrifices in the past. We made a small sacrifice in 1934, in 1968, in 1986, and in 1994. And that's just at the federal level. That's not even getting into the various state level sacrifices like one-gun-a-month, registries, licenses, etc.

How many more small sacrifices must we make before she stops asking for them? You can only give so many small sacrifices before you have sacrificed everything. And don't think for a moment that that is not her goal. Death by a Thousand Cuts is her plan. McCarthy will not be satisfied by any sacrifice short of the full surrender of all of your Second Amendment rights.

The problem with polling people about guns...

The problem with polling people about guns is that most people know nothing about guns.

Example:

I see no reason to have Metal Jacket machine guns, military ordinance nor the kind of magazines that can turn a 9mm handgun into a mini machine gun.

I like go target shooting. I have no need of a gun for defense as I live in NYC. I rent a gun.The rules here work. Illegal weapons held by Felons, are our major problem.

Can you believe that's a person who has actually held and fired a gun? That is the kind of person they poll when they ask questions like:

Therefore the polls mean nothing. It is dirty data. For all intents and purposes, you might as well ask random people their thoughts on String Theory. You'll find that the majority of Americans know as much about that as they do guns.

My response to John Mecham, Head Fudd In Charge.

The bringing-about of order is the first and fundamental task of government. We accept limits on our rights for the sake of a larger social compact all the time. This pistol with this high-capacity clip is a tool of destruction. I say this as someone who does not want to give up my own guns — but who believes that with rights come responsibilities.


Yeah. We know you don't want to give up your own guns. Fudds never do. They are more than happy to throw other gun owners under the bus to protect their own guns.

Sorry Mr. Meacham, but I and lots of "assault weapon" owners are not going to be thrown under the bus again because of the actions of a few. If you don't believe me, just ask Bill Clinton. He tried to throw us under the bus and it cost Al Gore the presidency and handed the House over to Newt Gingrich. And there are more of us now than there were then. We're also better informed, better connected, and younger than our predecessors.

New Jersey: Ranked #2 by the Brady Campaign.

For all we're told about low Brady Ranked states being super deadly places where bullets are just flying around killing everything, you don't hear too many stories like this coming out of them.

After the shooting of a police officer by a repeat, violent offender, this happened:

More than 100 local, county, state and federal officers completed a house-to-house search overnight in the neighborhood where the shooting occurred, at times barging into homes at gunpoint and ordering inhabitants to get on the floor.

Are Gestapo-style raids the price to pay for compromising with the gun controllers? Remember Brian Aitken? Is that part of the deal as well? One thing is for sure: That type of heavy-handed police behavior wouldn't work too well in Oklahoma. It might have something to do with being ranked 49th by the Brady Campaign.

Lie #25: "Contrary to the NRA’s claim that “fully automatic firearms” are not available at retail..."

From ThinkRegress:

If anyone is being deceptive, it is the NRA. Contrary to the NRA’s claim that “fully automatic firearms” are not available at retail, the NBC report includes video of a man purchasing an AK-47 at an Indiana gun dealer. He then used that weapon to murder a 14 year-old girl. Watch it

Old lies won't die. The man in the video is not buying an automatic weapon. I've described the process of buying an automatic weapon before.

The McCarthy Magazine Ban. (updated with draft of bill)

via Politico:

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy’s (D-N.Y.) bill also goes further than than the assault weapon ban that expired in 2004, outlawing the sale or transfer of clips that hold more than ten rounds, even those obtained before the law takes effect, according to a copy of the bill obtained by POLITICO.

The bill closes a loophole in the expired assault weapon ban that let gun owners buy high-capacity magazines made before the ban took effect in 1994.

The bill carries a penalty of up to 10 years in prison.

Luckily this bill is DOA. John Boehner has said "No" to any new gun control laws.

But just because the bill is DOA, it doesn't mean you should ignore it. If you've ever doubted how extreme the gun banners of congress could get, this is the perfect example. They want to throw you in prison for selling a plastic and metal box. Think about that for a moment.

This is why you can't compromise with the gun controllers. At least not when it comes to guns. Compromising can literally cost you your freedom and your rights. Don't believe me? Ask Brian Aitken.

UPDATE: Click the "read more" to see a draft of the bill. It's essentially the magazine ban portion of the '94 AWB, with the usual exemptions for Only Ones®, and the addition of outlawing the transfer of magazines made before the bill's enactment.

Sarah Brady speaks.

Maybe someone should tell her to look across the pond at Sarah Brady Paradise where Derrick Bird killed 12 people with a bolt action rifle and shotgun.

Time for the 4th Annual Pulling of the Race Card.

Every January the Gun Guys (really just one guy) pulls the race card. Don't believe me? It's literally a yearly ritual (1, 2, and 3). I guess since Gun Guys is now defunct, John Rosenthal decided to take their yearly ritual to HuffPo.

I'm beginning to find it quite insulting that every year the gun banners try to pander to black people (and various other bleeding hearts) with their, "Hey, can't you see those poor black folks are getting shotting up by the evil white man's guns?" message. Am I supposed to jump up and down screaming "Oh clawdy! Dem ebil guns is killin' mah chirren!" Uh... No.

I and most other black people know the real causes of crime and violence in our communities. Banning guns, restricting guns, or whatever gun control scheme they desire is just treating the symptom rather than the disease.

Maybe they'll get it next year, but like last year, I doubt it.

The fundamental difference.

Jim Kessler of Third Way via Salon:

"The two opposing lobbies are very different. The gun rights lobby consists of a grass-roots membership who are gun enthusiasts. The gun control lobby consists mainly of the family members of crime victims. And the number of gun enthusiasts dwarf the number of victims," he says.

At the end of the day, politics is nothing more than a game of numbers. Who has the most votes? Who can bring the most votes? How many votes will be lost because of voting a certain way? That's what's important to politicians. That's why voting is important. That's why contacting your politicians is important. And that's why John Boehner is saying no to passing any gun control legislation in response to the shooting of Gabby Giffords.

I have no doubt that Boehner has sat down, read the e-mails, weighed the pros and cons, crunched the numbers, and decided not to risk his reelection by passing gun control legislation. It's sad that politicians are more motivated by career aspirations than principal, but the outcome is still the same: A pro-gun politician will vote pro-gun because he has a lot of pro-gun constituents and an anti-gun politician will vote anti-gun because he has a lot of anti-gun constituents.

Going back to Kessler's quote, how do we ensure that gun enthusiasts keep the greater numbers? Take someone shooting. It doesn't cost much. A .22 caliber rifle is cheaper than a videogame console and a brick of .22 ammo is cheaper than a trip to the movies. Hearing and eye protection is provided for free at some gun ranges. And while you're at it, ask them questions. Have they bought into the "assault weapon" or Mexico lies? If so, correct them.

Remember: Every person you take shooting is one more person inoculated against gun control propaganda.

Peter King's worthless proposal.

Via HuffPo:

Rep. Peter King, a Republican from New York, is planning to introduce legislation that would make it illegal to bring a gun within 1,000 feet of a government official, according to a person familiar with the congressman's intentions.

There's a problem there, Pete. How does one more minor law stop a person who is already bent on breaking a much more serious law, such as the law against murder?

In the "no duh" category: Glock sales are up.

Who didn't see this coming?

One-day sales of handguns in Arizona jumped 60 percent to 263 on Jan. 10 compared with 164 the corresponding Monday a year ago, the second-biggest increase of any state in the country, according to Federal Bureau of Investigation data.

When you talk about banning magazines that can hold over 10 rounds, everyone and their mother is going to go out and buy a magazine that holds over 10 rounds... And a Glock to put it in. I'm tempted to buy one along with a few 33 round magazines myself and I hate Glocks.

A SNAFU in the most literal meaning of the word.

From the great state of Maryland, (where my concealed carry permit is not honored, they only have may issue carry permits, and the Only Ones® can carry a gun anywhere they please) we have this story:

Officer William Torbit, 33, was shot and killed by his fellow officers who responded to his calls for help to break up a brawl outside of the Select Lounge Nightclub on Paca Street around 1:15 a.m. Sunday. Police say officers fired a total of 41 shots, killing two people and wounding four others.

These guys are definitely no Joe Zamudio.

Misdirection, thy name is Dupnik.

Apparently, Sheriff Dupnik (the guy who has been making his way around the media claiming how horrible Arizona is) has had prior contact with Jared Loughner for death threats against people.

In this day and age of Homeland Security Theater, wouldn't threatening to kill someone be considered a "Terroristic Threat"? You know, a crime that results in people being locked up?

Instead of being angry with Arizona for being so "bigoted", perhaps he should be angry with himself for letting a criminal walk the streets who would eventually go on to attempt to assassinate a sitting member of congress.

For the entire story read: Jared Loughner is a product of Sheriff Dupnik's office.

Tuscon, AZ: And it begins. (continuously updated)

First Mexico, now this.

Looks like the perfect storm is on the horizon. And don't doubt for a minute that The Usual Suspects are polishing their dancing shoes.

So what will happen next? We'll find out that the shooter had a "high powered semi-automatic assault weapon" with a "high capacity magazine" filled with "armor piercing bullets". The Usual Suspects will issue numerous press releases pushing for a federal ban of "high powered semi-automatic assault weapons". President Obama will say something remarkably vague as usual. One of his attack dogs (Clinton or Holder) will say something bold like, "We need more gun control." The NRA will release a form statement ("We're sorry for the loss, gun control won't work because the shooter already broke numerous gun control laws."). The talking heads of MSpiNBC will blame the Tea Party, Glenn Beck, and Sarah Palin. Then the real rabble will get roused and will write editorials calling for nationwide gun confiscations and bans on all guns. Conspiracy theories about false flag attacks will float about. Finally, everyone will run out and stock up on guns, ammo, and magazines.

All in all, this is the nightmare scenario for those who support the Second Amendment and the pay day of all pay days for The Usual Suspects. So gird your loins and dig in your heels, ladies and gentleman. This is going to be a long, ugly fight.

UPDATES:

Why police shoot guys with knives.

This is also another example of why repeat violent criminals should stay locked up.

Statesman.com

Maurice Pierce, who was once jailed in Austin's infamous 1991 yogurt shop murders and had remained a suspect in the unresolved case, was shot dead Thursday night after taking a police officer's knife and slashing the officer's trachea and carotid artery, police said Friday.

"I wonder what people who carry loaded guns are afraid of in the movie theaters?"

Joan Peterson:

I wonder what people who carry loaded guns are afraid of in the movie theaters?

I'd say they are afraid of large groups of vindictive youth beating the crap out of them.

via The Truth About Guns.