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

The New York Times is wrong.

The New York Times has always been one of the biggest anti-gun media outlets, but you'd think that with guns now being the "in" think, they'd at least put a little more thought into their gun articles.

Take for example, this glaring error, not even a full paragraph in:

No one knows how many more firearms were purchased through the gun-show loophole that enables black marketeering.

First, there is no "gun show loophole". The private sale of a firearm from one person to another is explicitly excluded in the word of the law from being subject to background checks. That is not a loophole. With that being said, second, private sales of firearms are legal. Therefore, there is no "black marketeering". If there is any "black marketeering" going on, (i.e: knowingly selling a firearm to a prohibited person), there is no "loophole" that protects the seller or buyer. Both have broken the law, plain and simple.

Our security theater has become a dark comedy.

The TSA, like all the other government alphabet soup agencies, isn't known for it's common sense or critical thinking skills.

Let's think about this logically. If someone were intent on taking a gun onto an airplane, are they going to keep it in plain site, stuck to the side of a bag? And that's ignoring the fact that the gun stuck on the bag isn't even the size of a real gun.

This is a prime example of good, old fashioned, bureaucratic stupidity. And what is an act of stupidity without it's peanut gallery cheering it on? I was going to repost some of her more idiotic comments and rip them apart here, but then I realized there are just too many. Seriously... Between her and Baldr Odinson, you've gotta have a pair of waders.