Obama reelected. Now what?

In case you've been under a rock for the past few days, President Obama has been reelected. And before the votes were even counted, the usual suspects were up to their usual activities.

And with Obama unfettered by any need to be relected, we can finally take him for his word when he says things like, "Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced." Will that ban come through congress? Probably not. But if it does, I do not think he will hesitate to sign it. Or will that ban come in the form of an executive order like the Dream Act? We will find out soon enough. Just wait for the next high profile shooting. It will be the perfect catalyst for him to say, "After today's tragedy, i've decided to take executive action and ban the further sale and manufacture of high-capacity magazines."

President Obama will also have a chance to appoint at least one Supreme Court Justice. I've already explained how that's bad news.

As gun owners, we definitely live in interesting times. The vast, gun-ignorant majority that propelled Obama to victory will no doubt support any anti-gun effort of the Democratic party as long as it's couched in enough fuzzy, feel-good language about stopping crime, saving children, etc. Therefore, it's more important than ever for us to engage in outreach to the gun-ignorant, counter the lies of the gun controllers/banners, and make our presence known to our congress critters.

Supreme Court possibilities if Obama is reelected.

I've highlighted some of the standouts on the list.

via CNN:

1. Kamala Harris, California attorney general - Anti-gun. Anti-Heller decision.

2. Judge Paul Watford, 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, San Francisco

3. Judge Jacqueline Hong-Ngoc Nguyen, 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, San Francisco

4. Kathryn Ruemmler, White House counsel - Served as a Fast and Furious apologist for the White House. 

5. Mary Murguia, 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, San Francisco

6. Lisa Madigan, Illinois attorney general - A consistent harrasser of gun owners. Thinks gun ownership should be a matter of public record, thus an advocate of gun owner registration.

7. Judge Diane Wood, 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, Chicago - Supporter of gun registration.

8. Judge Merrick Garland, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit - Supporter of gun registration. Clintonite.

All you need to know about the presidential election.

Taken from the October 16, 2012 Presidential Debate

Barack Obama:

And so what I'm trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally. Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced.

Mitt Romney:

Yeah, I'm not in favor of new pieces of legislation on -- on guns and taking guns away or making certain guns illegal.

Both Romney and Obama are masters of the Non-Answer, but it seems a real answer escaped both of them that night: Obama wants to ban scary looking guns that are responsible for fewer than 2% of the homicides in this country and are peacefully used by millions of shooters for recreation, hunting and competition. Mitt Romney does not.

With those few words, they have both made my decision on who to vote for that much easier. Hopefully that decision was made that much easier for you as well.

Zero tolerance, zero sense.

I wish I could say this happened in New Jersey, New York, California, Chicago, or some other anti-gun stronghold, but this happened in good ol' Nebraska:

A deaf preschooler in Grand Island, Nebraska, has been prohibited from signing his own name because school administrators believe the gesture he uses looks too much like a gun.

"He's deaf, and his name sign, they say, is a violation of their weapons policy," Hunter Spanjer's father Brian told Channel 10/11.

Hunter uses Signing Exact English or SEE — a form of manual communication that uses modified ASL handshapes in an effort to better mimic the spoken English language.
"Anybody that I have talked to thinks this is absolutely ridiculous," Hunter's grandmother told the news outlet. "This is not threatening in any way."

The preschool, which has a strict zero-tolerance policy toward "any instrument...that looks like a weapon," would not discuss the matter, but said they were working with the parents on a compromise.

Working on a compromise? There should be no compromise. The policy is stupid and it should be a scrapped. Guns are guns. Fingers are not guns. Drawings of guns are not guns. Sticks are not guns. If something can't come out of the end of it and hurt someone, it's not a gun. It's that simple. That should be the new policy.

"The right to bear arms is the best thing to have over here.”

Northeast Oklahoma City apartment complex sweep nets eight arrests:

“It's like the devil's playground,” said Jashell Royal, 21. “Kids can't play at the park. The last time I was there, someone was running around shooting. Literally, they're crazy over here,” she said.

While the complex houses mainly women and children, boyfriends and brothers often move in with them surreptitiously and cause problems for the residents and visitors.

“If you don't have a job and have kids, it's the best place to be, but it's also the most harmful place to be,” Royal said.

She said she has been harassed by groups of men at the complex. Royal said they rove the complex in the early morning and late at night, especially when the complex's office closes for the day or when security officers aren't around.

“It's real scary because everyone over here has kids,” she said.

“The right to bear arms is the best thing to have over here,” Royal said.

Unfortunately, that right is denied if you live in public housing.

I drive by this place every day and I try to drive by as quickly as possible. I can recall one time I nearly ran over a man who was running across the street while being pursued by a man wielding a handgun. I am glad they are cleaning the place out, but it would make me even happier if those who lived there had their Second Amendment rights.

You have a right to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

Exhibit A:

This image spread through the typical anti-gun channels like wildfire without a single thought to whether it was accurate or not. To the astute observer, that selection of guns would be recognized as a list of guns available in one of the installments of the Call of Duty game franchise; A game that apparently includes several non-automatic weapons such as a revolver, sawed off shotgun, and na AA-12 shotgun which isn't even available to civilians.

Obama reaffirms his desire for an assault weapons ban.

Obama: AK-47s belong on battlefield, not streets

“I – like most Americans – believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms,” Obama said. “I think we recognize the traditions of gun ownership passed on from generation to generation, that hunting and shooting are part of a cherished national heritage. “But I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers and not in the hands of crooks. They belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities,” he added.

The real Obama is back. The one that made me start this blog. Things have been slow around here, but not it looks like I will have plenty to write about between now and election night and perhaps beyond.

Snuffy Pfleger is mad.

AN ANGRY PFLEGER TO OBAMA: 'YOU WILL NOT IGNORE VIOLENCE IN CHICAGO'

Referring to the deadly shooting in Aurora, Colorado where accused James Holmes, a 24-year-old former doctoral student killed 12 people and wounded 58 others, Father Michael L. Pfleger Sunday said while he loves President Barack Obama “you will not ignore the violence in Chicago.” Pfleger asked everyone to call President Barack Obama at 202-456-1111, and ask him to reinstate the assault weapons ban and to help reduce the violence in Chicago.

Does Snuffy not realize that Chicago has an assault weapons ban? Does Snuffy also not realize that Chicago has a higher violent crime rate than most cities where assault weapons aren't banned?

Something tells me he didn't really think this through.

Protest the NRA.

Protest!

I wonder if it will be anything like the protest they had at the NRA's Annual Meeting.

Lautenberg set to ressurect magazine ban.

via HuffPo:

Mayor Michael Bloomberg set the tone when he urged the two presidential candidates to outline their policies with respect to federal gun laws. And now, Sen. Frank Lautenberg's (D-N.J.) office is saying that he plans to reintroduce legislation that would curtail the ability of a shooter to fire at length without reloading.
"If reports are correct and a high-capacity gun magazine was used to commit these awful murders, Senator Lautenberg will absolutely renew his effort to limit the availability of this dangerous firearm attachment," Lautenberg's communications director Caley Gray told The Huffington Post.

I guess it's never too early to start politicking a tragedy.

One thing I am curious about is this: Of the many Democrats and Democrat apologists who dismissed Operation #fastandfurious (which is responsible for hundreds of deaths), how many of them will manage to muster up outrage over this shooting? I'm going to say 100% of them.

And it begins.

A gunman opened fire early Friday at a suburban Denver movie theater, leaving 14 people dead and at least 50 others injured, Aurora Police Chief Dan Oates said.

A horrible situation and red meat for the gun controllers/banners. Expect the usual arguments from the usual suspects (mental health screening, assault weapons, assault clips) and some new ones(civiliam access to body armor,smoke/tear gas). And with this being an election year, expect the talking heads to push guns into the election debate.


UPDATE: Piers Morgan goes first.

More Americans will buy guns after this, to defend themselves, and so the dangerous spiral descends. When/how does it stop? #Colorado
— Piers Morgan (@piersmorgan) July 20, 2012

Larry King with a glaring error

We remain one of the few countries in the world where anyone in the world can get a gun. in this case a machine gun. This is absurd
— Larry King(@kingsthings) July 20, 2012

Wait. What? This isn't supposed to happen.

TORONTO (Reuters) - Two people were killed and 23 injured when a Toronto street party ended in gunfire late on Monday, raising fears of violent retaliation in Canada's largest city. ... The shooting raised fears about gun violence in a city that takes pride in its relatively low crime rate compared with U.S. urban centers. Canada has very strict laws controlling the use of handguns, and violent crime is usually rare. ... The murders were the 27th and 28th this year in Toronto. Detroit, a far smaller U.S. city, had 184 murders by mid-July.

A quick checklist of Toronto gun control laws: 1. Assault weapons ban? Check. 2. De facto ccarry ban? Check. 3. Liscensing of gun owners? Check. 4. Registration of guns? Check. It seems none of that worked that day.

Too little, too late.

Today, Eric Holder was held in contempt of congress.

 This means absolutely nothing. It is nothing more than symbolic gesture for congress critters to score cheap, pro-gun points. Eric Holder will continue on as an anti-gun attorney general. He won't be held legally accountable for the laws that were broken. He won't resign. He won't be fired. In fact, it will be business as usual. He's free to continue his career of making poor decisions, blaming guns, and shirking responsibility.

Congress should have stood against Holder years ago before people died.

Gun Walking for Dummies... And MSNBC'ers.

	“Wide Receiver”	“Fast and Furious”
Coordinated with Mexican authorities.	YES	NO
Authorized by Mexican authorities.	YES	NO
Legal under Mexican law.	YES	NO
Killed Mexican citizens.	NO	YES
Killed Border Patrol agents.	NO	YES
Stopped when the guns went missing.	YES	NO
Used as pretext for increased gun control.	NO	YES

I will admit, that last one can't be objectively proven, but knowing the record and beliefs of Eric Holder and Barack Obama, it wouldn't surprise me if it were true.

Chicago is deadlier than Kabul.

From HuffPo:

The war zone-like statistics are not new. As WBEZ reports, while some 2,000 U.S. troops have been killed in Afghanistan since 2001, more than 5,000 people have been killed by gun fire in Chicago during that time, based on Department of Defense and FBI data.

At least they are beginning to realize what the real root of their murder problem is:

The city has repeatedly said "fracturing" street gangs are responsible for the bulk of the recent gun violence. The city has deployed specialized undercover officers to units on the city's West and South Sides, as well as saturating area neighborhoods with uniformed cops.

All in all, it looks like Chicago's strict gun laws are working.

Microstamping.

Here is the video. Below it will be some highlights and my thoughts:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

1:08 - Dan Gross says this is just about catching the bad guys. That is not true. Microstamping will only be able to lead law enforcement to the original, legal purchaser of the firearm who is not always the person who committed the crime.

1:29 - S. E. Cupp leaves out the fact that gun registration is not universal. If what Bloomberg says is true about most of New York's "crime guns" coming from other states (states that aren't even considering microstamping or gun registration), microstamping will not help solve most New York crimes. Microstamping will only be somewhat effective if the gun used in the crime was bought in New York.

2:09 - Guy in a suit says gun owners are accused of crimes just because they have guns. I don't know where he gets that notion. Maybe that's the way things work under the fascist system of Bloomberg, but in the free parts of the country, that's simply not true. And even if it were, microstamping wouldn't change that. Again, microstamping can only allow you to trace a gun back to it's orginal, legal purchaser and they could just as easily (if not more easily) be falsely accused of a crime as someone who doesn't have a microstamping gun. If anything, microstamping would create an environment of gun owners being "guilty until proven innocent" as S. E. Cupp says.

3:10 - Dan Gross mentions a cap of $12.50 per gun for making it microstamping. He mentions this in relation to the cost of saving lives. The problem here is the microstamping can't save lives. In fact, it can only be effective after the crime has been committed and a life possibly ended. Again, says it will help catch bad guys. As explained previously, the bad guy isn't always the person who purchased the gun.

3:55 - Alex Wagner talks about gun advocates claiming that microstamping amounts to a gun ban. That much is true. A microstamping mandate essentially creates a de facto ban on firearms made by companies that can't afford to or simply don't want to implement microstamping technology.

5:37 - Dan Gross mentions anti-law eforcement paranoia. Speaking of law enforcement, I wonder if he can explain why guns purchased by law enforcement agencies will be exempt from microstamping laws? Is it the cost? Is it because it negatively impacts the reliability of firearms? Do they believe law enforcement officials don't commit crimes?

6:54 - Dan Gross pushes the false narrative that neither he nor the Brady Campaign advocate gun bans. Complete and utter BS. Taken verbatim from the Brady Campaign's FAQ page:

Our prioirites are requiring Brady criminal background checks on all gun sales; banning military-style assault weapons; and strengthening law enforcement's efforts to stop the illegal gun market, like limiting the number of guns that can be bought at one time.

Anyone who advocates banning any type of gun is anti-gun. There is no way around it.


Summary:

1. Even when put up against a relative lightweight like S. E. Cupp, Dan Gross seems to be just as weak and uninspiring as his predecessor.

2. Microstamping is hogwash. It can be rendered useless with a $2 tool and a few minutes of time.

3. Why are anti-gunners so adamant about this useless technology? There are two reasons. One, some antigunners are True Believers who really think this technology will accomplish it's goals of making crimes easier to solve. Two, the other more sinister anti-gunners know that any ground gained is better than no ground gained. They know that if they can get this to pass, they'll have something to wave in front of George Soros and their other sugar daddies as proof that the anti-gun lobby isn't completely irrelevant.

9 killed, more than 50 hurt.

In Chicago of course. And the scariest part of all? This is an improvement:

June 11, 2012 (CHICAGO) (WLS) -- Chicago Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy says despite the weekend violence, the number of shootings is actually down compared to last year. Over the weekend, nine people were killed and more than 40 others were hurt in shootings across the city. The youngest victim to die over the weekend is Joseph Briggs, 16, who was shot to death at his home in the 6100-block of South Rockwell Street on Saturday night. He attended Gage Park High School.

Hunting with a suppressor may soon be legal in Oklahoma. (updated)

Who would be against noise pollution and protecting one's hearing? Not any rational person, that's for sure. That's why SB 1743 passed both the House and Senate relatively unopposed. via NRA-ILA:

Today, the Oklahoma House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly to legalize the use of suppressors while hunting through passage of Senate Bill 1743 by a 78 to 3 vote. Last week, SB 1743 passed in the state Senate by a 44 to 0 vote. This bill now heads to Governor Mary Fallin for her consideration and approval.

Another good pro-gun bill is soon to hit Governor Fallin's desk. Hopefully she keeps up her winning streak and signs this one as well.

BTW, these are the 3 house representatives who are in favor of noise pollution and ruining your hearing:
Paul Roan*
Mike Shelton*
Ben Sherrer

* These two also voted against the recently passed open carry bill. Make sure when election day comes, you alter your vote accordingly.

UPDATE (5/25/12)
Governor Fallin signed SB 1743.

Open Carry in Oklahoma.

Thanks to the hard work of gun owners and legislators, Oklahoma has now joined the overwhelming majority of the country and become an open carry state:

OKLAHOMA CITY - Governor Mary Fallin has signed into law Senate Bill 1733, a measure that allows Oklahoma citizens to openly carry firearms. Governor Mary Fallin signed the legislation on Tuesday, May 15. The bill permits those who are licensed, or already have been licensed, to carry a firearm under the Oklahoma Self Defense Act to openly carry a weapon or conceal it. It also allows property owners to openly carry a firearm on their property without a concealed carry permit for the purpose of self defense.

Additional thanks should go to Governor Mary Fallin for signing the bill. She has lived up to her A+ NRA rating and my expectations of her.

And no thanks at all should go to the following individuals who voted against the open carry bill:

From the House:
Roan
Shelton
Virgin

 From the Senate:
Adelson
 Burrage
 Laster
 Wilson
 Ballenger
 Eason-McIntyre
 Lerblance
 Bass
 Johnson, C.
 McAffrey

 Both my House and Senate reps voted against the bill. I will be altering my voting habits accordingly.

Sen. Constance Johnson is wrong about Open Carry.

In the US News Debate Forum, Democratic Oklahoma state senator Constance Johnson writes an argument against open carry claiming that it's an invitation to chaos. Like any other anti-gun argument, none of her argument is based on facts or statistics and is instead heavily based on speculation and fear of the chaos which has never manifested itself in any other open carry state.

 The reality is that Oklahoma's Open Carry law will change very little of our current self-defense law. It doesn't allow anyone to carry guns in any new public places. No new individuals will be allowed to carry a gun. It doesn't allow anyone to brandish a gun or shoot people for any reason. The law essentially makes a concealed carry license into a concealed/open carry license. All other laws still apply. There will be no more chaos after this law than before.

Where Chicago's problem begins.

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Jesse Jackson needs to stay in his lane.

Yesterday, Jesse Jackson brought his Professional Victim Roadshow to my beautiful state.

OKLAHOMA CITY -- The Rev. Jesse Jackson says his Rainbow PUSH Coalition will organize to change gun laws in Oklahoma, where a shooting spree recently terrorized residents in a predominantly black section of Tulsa.

Jackson and members of the Oklahoma Legislative Black Caucus met Wednesday at the state Capitol and talked to reporters about concerns over the case and other recent violence. The civil rights activist called the Tulsa incident a "terrorist attack" that sent "traumatizing waves of fear across Tulsa and the state."

"We cannot allow the terrorists to steal our dreams," Jackson said.

...

Jackson's Chicago-based Rainbow PUSH Coalition is supporting a ban on assault weapons, while challenging both legislation that would allow open carry of guns in Oklahoma and a current law that lets residents in that state use deadly force when necessary to protect themselves against death or great bodily harm.

That is rich. If five guys getting shot is a "terrorist attack", what do you call this? Armageddon? Jesse really needs to concentrate on the "terrorist attacks" in his own city before he goes meddling in the business of others.

And speaking of terrorists, what is it going to take to make Jesse and the rest of his fellow race hustlers realize that the only terrorists terrorizing the black community are other black people? If I were to be shot as I walked out of my front door, 9 times out of 10, my killer would look like Trayvon Martin, not George Zimmerman. In other words, for every 10 black men killed, 9 of them were killed by other black men. That has nothing to do with open carry, assault weapons, or Stand Your Ground laws. It has everything to do with the break down of the black family unit, in which Jesse's liberal handlers had a hand in.

So please, Jesse: Stay in your own lane. Go home. You may find a few wrong headed supporters here, but for the most part, Oklahomans do not like you, do not like what you represent, and do not desire the "society" that you are peddling to us.

A musical interlude.

My reply to Rachel Maddow and her guest.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

It seems Rachel is completely oblivious to how Barack Obama has been and will be bad for gun owners.

First and foremost, Fast and Furious is the elephant in the room. It is the Obama/Holder/Emanuel gun doctrine in action. It is literally creating the serious crisis that won't go to waste. It is his administration's attempt at working under the radar as he promised his friends in the gun control/ban movement. The Obama administration is passing new laws while not only not enforcing the ones on the books, but intentionally breaking them by faciliating the illegal trafficking of firearms to Mexican drug cartels. That is a reason why Barack Obama cannot be given a second term.

Second, the Supreme Court. We've seen which direction one of President Obama's Supreme Court appointees leans when it comes to the Second Amendment. And it's not on the side of gun owners. I strongly suspect his second appointee is no different. And his third and possibly fourth appointees will be no better than the first. If gun owners wish to keep a Supreme Court that is friendly towards the Second Amendment, that is another reason why Barack Obama cannot be given a second term.

As for her guest, he seems to be completely off the rails, but i'll address him as well.

He says that Mitt Romney is calling a certain segment of the population to arms. I don't think Mitt did that. At least not in the literal sense. In the metaphorical sense? Perhaps. The notion that Mitt Romney is calling for gun owners to buy more guns and ammo is malarkey. We were going to do that anyway. A large number of us are simply looking at President Obama's record and beliefs, taking him for his word, and acting accordingly.

These guns and ammunition will not cause death in the streets. Millions upon millions of guns have been sold each year since the election of President Obama and the number of gun related homicides in the country has been relatively unchanged from it's 15-17k'ish number. If Mr. Burgess's claims were true, we'd have millions of gun related homicides per year. But we do not. In country with 80 million gun owners owning over 300 million firearms, the fact that only 0.0333% of those firearms cause injury or death is proof positive that our current laws (including Stand Your Ground work. To be incredibly blunt, trying to reduce that number falls into the realm of anal retentiveness.

And Ricky Burgess's rant on assault rifles is just standard anti-gun loonery. According to the FBI, you're twice as likely to be beaten to death with hands and feet than be murdered by anyone with a rifle of any kind, assault or not.

Mitt Romney is not the ideal Second Amendment supporter. He's really only a few check boxes away from having the same views on guns as Barack Obama. But a first term Mitt Romney is a lot less dangerous to gun owners than a second term Barack Obama.

That didn't take long at all.

Not even on the job for a full month and already telling lies:

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, a group that advocates for stricter gun control laws, claimed Monday that George Zimmerman, the man who shot Trayvon Martin, still has his gun despite press reports to the contrary.

“One month after the tragic killing of Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman still has his gun,” said group president Dan Gross in a press release. The statement then goes on to blame the National Rifle Association for laws that allowed Zimmerman to keep his weapon even after the shooting.

None of this appears to be true.

Welcome to the dance, Herr Gross. You're filling your predecessor's shoes well.

It's a good thing only police can carry guns in Chicago...

Otherwise, innocent people might get hurt.

Off duty cop gets into gun fight with a criminal (under shady circumstances), shoots criminal in the hand and also hits innocent woman in the head.



We're told by the gun controllers/banners that police officers have super duper elite training that makes them the only ones qualified to carry a gun. We're also told that gun-carrying, permit holding citizens are just a bunch of wannabe Dirty Harrys who will fill the streets with the blood of innocent bystanders.

But the facts are clear: 11% of police shootings kill an innocent person - about 2% of shootings by citizens kill an innocent person.

Further reading:
Calif. DA: Police killing of bystander justified
Police: Wounded bystander probably shot by deputy

Gun controllers/banners aren't just a threat to gun owners.

Even if you don't own a gun, if their beliefs become mainstream and accepted by the government, you can still be subjected to their idiocy and hoplophobia:



That is the problem with the gun controller/banner mentality. It is ultimately rooted in Authoritarianism. Therefore, it is a threat to all rights: Your right to privacy. Your right to free spech. Your right of due process.

Let this incident be a warning to those who are apathetic towards the 2nd Amendment. You can't afford to sit this fight out. It doesn't matter whether you own a gun or not. It will eventually affect you. We're seeing the genesis of this with our own Zero Tolerance policies. (In New Jersey, unsurprisingly)

*crickets*

Things are pretty quiet over at NGVAC ever since their monumental failure of a boycott.

Their last blog post: February 15, 2012
Their last tweet: February 15, 2012
Their last Facebook post: February 15, 2012

Did they reaally run out of steam that quickly? Or were they merely just another astroturf organization *cough*AHSA*cough*? I'm leaning towards the latter. My guess is the Brady Campaign is running low on PR capital, so rather than blemish the viability of their main organization with a failed boycott, they'd create a "crash test dummy" organization (composed of Brady flotsam) to test the waters. Then, if the boycott had worked, the Brady Campaign would join in.

It doesn't help that the Brady Campaign made sure to state that they weren't boycotting Starbucks (despite the fact they've been after Starbucks for a while). Reeks of a bit of "thou dost protest too much."

Canada scaps it's long gun registry.

Huzzah!

Public Safety Minister Vic Toews told reporters Wednesday, hours before the vote, that the government’s actions are long overdue.

“It does nothing to help put an end to gun crimes, nor has it saved one Canadian life,” he said.

“It criminalizes hard-working and law-abiding citizens such as farmers and sport shooters, and it has been a billion-dollar boondoggle left to us by the previous Liberal government.”

Gun registries do nothing more than fleece law-abiding gun owners of their money and facilitate the confiscation of their private property. They do nothing to prevent crime or increase public safety.

Jeff Larivee, whose wife was killed in the 1989 Montreal massacre, is a spokesman for the Coalition for Gun Control. He said he and many other Quebecers feel outrage at the Harper government’s determination to dismantle laws that, for many, serve as a memorial.

I've heard that sentiment before in regards to the Canadian long gun registry. I think it's kinda sick to advocate keeping a law around, not because it has results, but because it makes people feel good. As Weerd says, "They are neither rational, nor healthy people."

A new strategy... For failure.

From the latest alphabet soup gun banning group:

Because we outnumber the NRA’s extremist members by 50 to 1, NGAC’s economic lever gives our side a strategy the NRA cannot defeat. This is the first time they have faced such a situation.

...

By initiating targeted boycotts—Starbucks being the first because of their vigorous support of the Pro-Gun Agenda, as evidenced by their allowing open carry of guns in their stores, despite the fact that they have the legal right to ban them—we will create an economic lever and change the balance of power in this fight.

Today was their big day. How much economic leverage did they lever upon Starbucks? Well, not too much:

Assuming every person who liked their Facebook page would have spent an average of $10, Starbucks would have lost a whopping $2550. On the other hand, if every person who participated in the "buycott" spent $10 on average, not only would they recoup their $2550 loss, but make an extra $242,150. In other words, the Starbucks boycott was an irrelevant speck on their balance sheets.

I really hope that this is the future of gun-controller/banner activism, because it works so well in favor of those who fully support 2nd Amendment rights. Why? Because, regardless of what inane activity they plan, whether it is lighting candles or not going to a place that they didn't go to to begin with, 2nd Amendment supporters will always be able to counter them with more warm bodies and, most importantly, more money.

Bought this and left a $2 bill tip.

Support Starbuck's on 2-14-12.

Sometimes good people have to break bad laws.

Law-Abiding Mexicans Taking Up Illegal Guns

American gun-controllers/banners take note: Your sociopathic desire to control people is doomed to fail. Even in a country overrun with draconian laws, corrupt government, rampant poverty, and cartel violence, good people find a way to arm and defend themselves.

For the American version, see: Sometimes good people have to break bad laws.

I was told this never happens.

I was always told by the gun controllers/banners that you shouldn't fear registering your guns, because no one is going to take your guns.

From the Canadian gun-controller/banner organization (pdf link):

Q — Will registration lead to confiscation?
Answer:
Gun control is not gun abolition and claims that it will lead to confiscation are not based in fact. In the vast majority of cases where specific types of firearms were prohibited because they were not deemed appropriate for hunting or target shooting, the owners were grand-fathered. This enabled them to keep those guns until their death and in the case of short-barrelled handguns, owners became a restricted class and were allowed to trade amongst themselves.

But that is exactly what is happening to our neighbors to the north. Registered guns are being confiscated because some pencil pusher decided that some of them looked scary.



Learn from the Canadians. Resist any gun registration scheme, regardless of how cheap, easy, or "common sense" the controllers/banners make it sound. Don't listen to their empty promises to not take anyone's guns. Gun registries are simply too easy and tempting to abuse and if you give them one, that's exactly what they will do.

#toomanyvictims by the numbers.

6000+ views:


168 views:


I guess this is just one more example of "We win, they lose. Now, let's get to work."

I wonder if the gun controllers/banners will be bold enough to make that claim if Barack Obama wins reelection. Or will they have the Common Sense to realize they've become irrelevant and powerless even amongst their own?

It's what they don't say that matters.

From Media Matters:

Major gun violence prevention groups are upfront about their support for law-abiding citizens to be able to keep firearms for their own protection. Here's what the website of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence says:

We believe that law-abiding citizens should be able to buy and keep firearms. And we believe there are sensible gun laws that we can and should insist upon when it comes to gun ownership.

And here's Mayors Against Illegal Guns:

We support the Second Amendment and the rights of citizens to own guns. We recognize that the vast majority of gun dealers and gun owners carefully follow the law. And we know that a policy that is appropriate for a small town in one region of the country is not necessarily appropriate for a big city in another region of the country.

Reading those quotes from the Brady Campaign and MAIG, I don't see anything that explicitly supports the right to keep firearms for self-defense.

The Brady Campaign says they "believe that law-abiding citizens should be able to buy and keep firearms." Buying and keeping a firearm is one thing. Being able to lawfully carry and/or use it for self-defense is another. For example, a modern day English subject can (under extraordinarily draconian restrictions) buy and keep a firearm. However the use of it in self-defense will result in a night in jail. And if you dare carry a firearm, you are automatically a criminal.

If you peruse the Brady Campaign's website, you won't find anything in support of self-defense in the home or outside of the home. On the contrary, you will find plenty against self-defense. For example, their opposition to HR 822 which would protect the right of self-defense across state lines and their opposition to Castle Doctrine which protects the right of self-defense in the home.

The story is no different for MAIG. Nothing on their website explicitly states that they support the right of self-defense inside or outside the home. MAIG is opposed to HR 822. MAIG founder Mike Bloomberg is also no fan of guns or gun owner's period.

So where is this upfront support for law-abiding citizens to be able to keep firearms for their own protection? Definitely not on their websites.

I vow to never forget the victims.

I vow to never forget the unarmed victims of not just "gun violence", but all violence. This candle is lit for those who couldn't defend themselves because they were in a "Gun Free Zone". This candle is lit for those who live in "May Issue" states. This candle is lit for the citizens of Illinois, New Jersey, California, New York City, and anyone else living in a place where the government forces you under threat of law to be a victim.

Please join those of us who refuse to be victims by lighting your own candle to stop violence.

#toomanyvictims