Tags Posts tagged with "Gun control"

Gun control

by -
0 20

Typically, when you hear someone talk about gun control, they try to moderate it by using terms that don’t make them sound like the type of nutcase who blindly trusts government to do the right thing (which is what they are). They’ll use terms like “common sense gun control” or “common sense gun reform.”

The first question that you have to ask is “What is common sense?” because, in my experience, common sense is actually pretty uncommon, and they probably don’t have it. It’s when you start pushing them for specifics (or when they think that you’re on their side) that the disturbing truth comes out.

A perfect example is Mark Glaze who is the former executive director of Michael Bloomberg’s organization, Mayors Against Illegal Guns (as if any mayors are for illegal guns). Glaze wrote a piece for a new anti-gun group called Guns Down. The NRA Institute for Legislative Action tells us about Glaze’s article:

Writing on behalf of a new gun control group called Guns Down, Glaze endorsed mandatory firearm owner licensing, alluded to a “government buy-back” for commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms, and called for restrictions that would prevent even the law-abiding from accessing guns.

In a departure from Everytown’s messaging, Glaze downplayed the importance of background checks, claiming that they “alone aren’t the answer.” According to Glaze, “To truly tackle the gun violence epidemic, lawmakers must go further – after the guns themselves.”

Glaze’s central thesis, and Guns Down’s organizing principle, is that there are too many guns in private hands the U.S.; regardless of whether those guns are lawfully or unlawfully possessed. This oversimplified view of gun ownership harkens back to the handgun prohibitionist messaging of the 1970s and 80s.

Think about that for a moment. Glaze is advocating “mandatory firearm owner licensing.” In other words, he says that you don’t have a Constitutional right to have your firearm. He thinks that you don’t have a right to have a firearm unless the government gives you that right.

Now, we can get into a long argument about where rights come from, but I’ll just mention that the Founding Fathers believed that our rights, including the 2nd Amendment, are inalienable. In other words, our rights don’t come from government; we have them because we are human beings.

Radicals like Glaze need to wake up to the reality of the fallacy of thinking gun control brings safety, and they need to stop treating government like God, as if government is where rights originate from. It’s that kind of ridiculous thinking that caused our Founding Fathers to fight off King George in the first place.

by -
0 20

Given the negative news about the U.S. court system’s hostility towards the rights of Americans to own firearms, it’s understandable if you expect every news article about the courts involving guns to be a frustrating read promoting gun control.

Fortunately, though, there are a few rulings coming through the court system in which the courts actually understand the 2nd Amendment and uphold an Americans right to bear arms. Yes, even when the case comes from notoriously anti-gun New York. Chris Eger writes,

The U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals this week said a New York woman who had her firearms picked up by the local sheriff five years ago should be granted a hearing to get them back.

The decision involves Christine Panzella who had her guns seized while she was the subject of a protective order filed by her ex-husband. Now with the order out of effect since 2013, the Nassau County Sheriff’s Department says she can’t get them back without a hearing. This week a three-judge panel upheld a lower court’s decision on appeal and unanimously said there is no apparent reason why she shouldn’t receive a hearing to get her firearms returned by the agency.

Five days after her ex-husband filed a protective order in New York Family Court against Panzella in June 2012, deputies arrived at her home to deliver it and in the process seized her pistol license along with two rifles and three shotguns, although the court did not specifically order their confiscation. The guns were locked up in the armory of the Nassau County Correctional Center, where they remain.

The temporary order expired and her ex eventually withdrew the filing in March 2013, leading county officials to return her pistol license. Since she is not prohibited from possessing firearms, Panzella has since purchased a new pistol. However, the county has a policy of not returning long arms seized from an individual unless they are given a court order to do so, and the family court does not have the authority to release them.

To get her guns back, in October 2013, Panzella filed suit against the county and sheriff citing her 14th Amendment due process rights and Second Amendment right to bear arms were being violated.

Panzella won her case. The county then (for whatever illogical and unlawful reason) appealed the decision which was struck down by the 2nd Circuit Court.

It’s beyond me why this sheriff’s department thought that they had any kind of legal standing to keep Panzella’s weapons even though they were seized without court order and there was no legal reason to to keep her from owning guns (they probably were going from the also-illegal thinking of civil forfeiture). Fortunately, though, even some courts rule on cases from anti-gun strongholds in ways that support the Constitution and our right to bear arms.

by -
34 485

Growing up in the 1980s, when I hear someone talk about a red light, I’m probably going to think of the song “Roxanne” by The Police as I am a traffic light. (If you’re unfamiliar with “Roxanne,” it references the red lights districts of Holland where red lights are turned on outside of a room when a prostitute is… um… open for business.).

Now, anti-gunners have gotten the idiotic idea that shining red lights outside of their homes will somehow deter gun violence. It’s, possibly, the most idiotic gun control idea that I’ve ever heard. Angry Patriot writes,

 It’s long been obvious that your average liberal does not understand human nature, and especially doesn’t understand the mindset of criminals.

Their latest idea proves that the average liberal honestly feels like they are impervious to becoming a victim of crime. Liberals have begun to indicate their home is gun free with red porch lights.

(hat tip to here for the lead)

I can’t be the only person who immediately realized why this is a bad idea. Once those with criminal intent realize that these homes are literally safe zones for them to do whatever they want, which homes do you think that they will target? It’s obviously the homes that they will almost certainly be able to walk out of uninjured and unconfronted.

Angry Patriot points out another oddity about this campaign:

There’s another odd element to this idea that I just can’t shake. This liberal meme implies that the people putting out these red lights are “activists.” Since when does changing your light bulb amount to political activism?

This just goes to show that to liberals; political activism is no longer about making good arguments and exercising your freedom of speech. Instead, political activism is about social pressure. I can just imagine liberals everywhere trying to convince their neighbors that they don’t want to be the only home on the block that hasn’t switched over to red lighting.

This “activism” also comes from the immature line of thinking that if enough patriots see enough people with red lights in their home, they will somehow start to think the Second Amendment isn’t that important after all.

It’s sheer lunacy to think that this will do anything but get anti-gunners robbed, assaulted, and killed, and, while I disagree with what they are trying to do, I do think that it’s sad that more people will suffer because of this silliness. I hope, for their sake, that this campaign disappears quickly.

by -
0 156

Anti-gunners want people to believe that we don’t need the Second Amendment to the Constitution. And, in a way, they are right, but not for the reason that they think.

You see the Second Amendment explicitly states that the Federal government doesn’t have a right to prevent you and me from owning and responsibly using firearms, but there are two other Amendments to the Constitution that cover the Second Amendment and more. They are the Ninth and the Tenth Amendment. Mike Maharrey explains,

As I explained in my Constitution 101 article on the Second Amendment, the Constitution only delegates specific powers to the federal government. The enumeration of certain powers logically excludes all powers not listed. Designato unius est exclusio alterius is a legal maxim meaning, “the designation of one is the exclusion of the other.” You will find no authority to regulate firearms or ban certain types of weapons in the Constitution. The supporters of the Constitution consistently argued that the federal government would not possess the authority to exercise any power not explicitly given.

As a condition of ratification many states insisted on a Bill of Rights, including amendments to make this rule of construction explicit. The result was the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

So, even if the Second Amendment was never ratified, or if we accept the very narrow application preferred by progressives, the federal government still cannot infringe on the individual right to self-defense.

The Ninth Amendment was ratified to ensure that listing certain rights in the Bill of Rights would not be construed as all-inclusive.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Madison’s proposal for what became the Ninth Amendment makes clear the intent was to amplify the limits of federal power – specifically to ensure the enumeration of certain rights was not taken to imply the federal government could violate rights that were not mentioned.

Maharrey continues,

That brings us to the Tenth Amendment. It works together with the Ninth Amendment to explicitly define the limits of federal power.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Because the Constitution does not delegate gun control to the federal government, and because the Ninth Amendment makes it clear that the federal government cannot infringe on individual liberties – even those not listed in the Bill of Rights – any regulation or laws regarding guns remains the province of state governments, as dictated and limited by their constitutions.

Simply put, no matter how you care to interpret the Second Amendment, based on a constitutional reading guided by Amendment IX and X, the federal government possesses zero authority to enforce any type of gun laws, or infringe on the right to self-defense in any way whatsoever.

So, to put it in layman’s terms, the Constitution specifically says that, if the Constitution doesn’t plainly and directly grant a power to the Federal government, then the Federal government does not have that power, and, because the Constitution does not explicitly say that the Federal government has the right to prevent people from owning and using firearms, then the Federal government cannot take that right away from us.

This is something that you’ll probably never hear from an anti-gunner propagandist, and, to be fair, they’ve probably never heard it either (as evidenced by their illiteracy about the Constitution on gun issues), but, if they want to get silly with their notion of what a “well regulated militia” is, then just point them to these two Amendments. If they have a shred of honesty in them, they’ll simply admit that they don’t have any kind of legal standing for their gun control nonsense.

by -
14 705

If there is one thing that you can say about hardline gun control advocates is that they are consistent in their unwavering support of gun control. No matter how much logic gets thrown their way or how much evidence that is shown to them, they remain steadfast loyal gun control advocates.

They are completely devoted to their misguided religious faith in the benefits of gun control.

So, you’ll understand our shock when a left coast newspaper (which would be expected to be stumping for Bloomberg’s gun control nonsense) printed an op-ed piece admitting that gun control does not work. We had to sit down when we read that, too.

The op-ed by Jay Ambrose, an op-ed columnist for Tribune News Service, was printed in The Mercury News (a California newspaper) on June 22, 2017. Ambrose wrote,

Whenever there is a shooting, liberals have an answer that is not an answer, namely the charade of more gun control. Fine, try it, and maybe some voodoo along the way but it doesn’t work very well. There are better alternatives and what’s truly absurd in this debate is the demeaning expression “gun nuts.”

What about “gun control nuts?”

What about people who seem to think murders will go down if fewer guns are sold even though a major crime drop starting in the 1990s was accompanied by a huge increase in the number of guns?

What about people apparently not knowing that we have 300 million guns in this country and getting hold of one will continue to be easy short of mass confiscation that will not and should not happen? Criminals, by the way, mostly get their guns from such means as the black market or a family gift, not through store purchases.

Ambrose lays out the details about how banning guns in both the U.K. and in Russia resulted in increased murder rates and that more people are killed with knives and with fists than with guns.

In fact, Ambrose lays out all of the facts that intelligent gun owners already know. It’s just refreshing to see those facts printed in a newspaper in a staunchly anti-gun environment.

We just hope that a few people can open their eyes enough to read Ambrose’s op-ed piece and grasp the truth: gun control doesn’t reduce violence. Gun control increases violence.

by -
2 443

Maybe it’s an old-fashioned sentiment, but many people actually believe that people should do the right thing because it’s the right thing. That’s not to say that they begrudge someone making a good income, but, if that person says they are doing what they do for moral reasons, then that person’s actions should follow that up.

Which makes you wonder why some gun control advocates really take that political position because, apparently, being a gun control advocate pays well. In fact, it looks like it pays very well.

Take a recent news story about a home owned by Shannon Watts. You may not be familiar with her, but you’ve probably heard about her organization, Moms Demand. Miguel over at writes about this:

Take a look at this humble 4 bedroom, 5 bathroom side of the mountain abode located tat 1145 Timber Ln Boulder, CO 80304. […]

However, it is not for sale, it was bought in 2014 by measly $2,275,000 (Yes, that is seven figures) and according to Boulder County records, the owners are:

Yes! John and Shannon R Watts formerly of Zionsville IN!

I am not gonna say that all those trinkets, t-shirts and fundraisers from Moms Demand went to pay for this palatial Rockies’ place. I am sure their old art gallery business was sold at a premium because it made crazy money in Indiana.

And to say that it pays to be the puppet of Michael Bloomberg would be pure unfounded speculation, so don’t.

Of course, Miguel is being very tongue-in-cheek. This nice, innocent, “mother of five” who just wants to make the world a better place seems to be doing pretty well and not living among the teeming masses who can’t afford to pay over $2 million for a home.

When you see stuff like this, you don’t even have to be very cynical to think that maybe, just maybe, all those gun control supporters are getting fleeced because maybe, just maybe, it’s not actually about wanting to make a difference, but it’s about selling something to people that they’ll buy.

And, by the looks of it, people sure have been suckered into buying Shannon Watts’s propaganda.

by -
21 647

Gun control advocates keep saying that making it harder to legally buy guns will reduce violent crime. They say it again and again and again. It’s like they took a page from the Adolf Hitler playbook who was reported to have said that if you tell a lie often enough, people will believe it.

Well, Seattle bought the lie hook, line, and sinker. They passed a “gun violence” tax in 2015 on sales of guns and ammunition in Seattle city limits. Mike Miller writes,

Proponents of the law, which went into effect on January 1, 2016, argued that neither would happen and the law would generate from $300,000 to $500,000 on an annual basis, which, in 2016, was earmarked to “fund a study of gunshot victims, including medical and behavioral interventions.”

Now, some people will be surprised what happened since the tax was put into effect. Gun stores began to close and gun and ammunition sales are down in Seattle, so gun control advocates got that out of this tax (which is, presumably, what they wanted). Of course, they probably think that reducing gun and ammunition sales will reduce violence.

They were wrong. Miller again writes,

According to the Seattle Police Department, the number of gun shootings with injuries is up 54 percent and gun deaths have doubled during the first five months of 2017, as compared to the same period before the law went into effect. […]

Dave Workman, senior editor of GunMag, rhetorically asked “how much data do you need?”, adding “The data says the law has failed to prevent what they promised it would prevent.”

City officials wouldn’t reveal the amount of revenue generated by the law in 2016, saying only that it was “under $200,000.”

So, the next time that you hear some gun grabber babble on about how reducing legal gun sales or reducing legal ammunition sales will reduce violence, just point them to the facts of the Seattle “experiment.” Gun sales and ammunition sales reduce violence, and that is the truth.

by -
11 663

I can’t begin to tell you how sick I am of hearing how “we have to get guns off the streets to protect the children.” It apparently never crosses the mind of a gun-grabber that crazy people are targeting schools precisely because those schools are “gun free zones” where not even faculty are allowed to carry in order to protect those children.

Then gun grabbers want to expand this faulty logic to entire cities, states, and countries. And the result where they succeed with these plans is that innocent people get hurt because criminals don’t follow the law. Criminals know where and how to get guns and will use them whether it is legal or not. Jenn Jacques writes about another tragic incident,

Reports are coming in from Chicago that at least two children have been shot outside of an elementary school on city’s Far South Side.

According to police dispatch reports, the shooting reportedly happened at Warren Elementary School, 9239 S. Jeffrey, in the Calumet Heights neighborhood, at 1:45 p.m. CST this afternoon [June 16, 2017].

The two students were outside on the playground when they heard gunshots in the street, and ran into the school for cover.

Before they could get into the school, the students both sustained non-life threatening injuries. A 7-year-old girl was shot in the thigh and a 13-year-old girl was shot in the hand.

Police scanner traffic said “numerous casings” were found at the scene with at least one witness describing the shooting as a “drive-by”.

A ‘person of ‘ is in custody and being questioned by investigators.

The wounded students were taken in serious condition to Comer Children’s Hospital and are expected to survive.

So, in case any gun control supporter is reading this, let’s be completely clear about this: this shooting happened at an elementary school (a gun free zone) in Chicago (which has some of the strictest gun control measures in the country), and innocent children were still hurt. What makes you think banning guns anywhere else in the country will prevent this kind of insanity from happening?

The simple, unpleasant truth is that gun control won’t stop these kinds of horrible things from happening, but a gun owner on the scene can prevent these types of shootings from becoming mass shootings by stopping the nutcase from firing any more rounds.

Gun control doesn’t stop shootings; responsible gun owners do.

by -
14 621

File this under the: “How does this make any sense to anyone?” file.

A proposed bill has the specific purpose of preventing residents from one Western state from being able to purchase more than one gun per month. Yes, we’re talking gun rationing.

Now, we’re not talking about concerns that there will be enough food or other resources for everyone like was used to justify rationing during World War II. We’re just talking rationing because, apparently, State Senator Antony Portantino (D-Pasadena) thinks it’s a good idea. Never mind that it, even if it passes, it won’t apply to him. Daniel Jennings gives us more details about this lunacy in California:

The California bill, sponsored by State Senator Antony Portantino (D-Pasadena), was labeled “firearms rationing” by the Firearms Policy Coalition.

“A person shall not make an application to purchase more than one firearm within any 30-day period,” SB 497 states.

The bill applies not only to pistols but also to rifles and shotguns.

It specifically exempts law enforcement agencies, correctional facilities, licensed firearms dealers, motion picture and television production companies, and licensed collectors.

Current California law makes it illegal for private citizens to purchase more than one handgun a month. SB 497 extends that restriction to rifles and shotguns.

“This bill would make the 30-day prohibition and the dealer delivery prohibition described above applicable to all types of firearms,” the legislative counsel’s digest of SB 497 states. Dealers who violate SB 497 can be prosecuted as criminals.

The Senate passed the bill by a vote of 25-13. To become law, it must pass the state Assembly and then be signed by Gov. Jerry Brown, who vetoed a similar bill in 2016.

What I want to know is what in the world that State Senator Portantino (and the other Senators that voted for the bill) hopes to accomplish with this bill. So, they stop someone from buying a second gun this month. The bill doesn’t stop someone from buying a gun right now (whch is all some nutcase needs to go commit a horrible crime), and the bill doesn’t stop a criminal from stealing or obtaining a gun by some other illegal manner.

All this bill will accomplish is that it will allow these State Senators to say that they helped to protect the children (without actually making any difference) and to place an unnecessary burden on law-abiding gun shops to have to to through the process of making sure a customer hasn’t already (legally) bought a gun of any kind this month before selling them a gun.

It’s ridiculous and a waste of time and money.

by -
11 810

I don’t know that I ever honestly thought that I would see this: a government which actually understands and supports the use of guns for one of their proper uses. No, I’m not talking about hunting (which is absolutely a proper use). I’m talking about self-defense.

Yes, there is a government that, in so many words, admitted what we have always known to be true: governments can’t stop evil people from doing things, so people one the scene need to be able to stop evil people from doing things. (In case you’re wondering, governments don’t prevent crime; they clean up the mess afterwards and attempt to punish the people who committed the crime. By that time, though, the damage has already been done.) Amanda Erickson gives us more information:

A couple of months ago, Czech President Milos Zeman made an unusual request: He urged citizens to arm themselves against […] terrorists.

[G]un purchases spiked.

Now the country’s interior ministry is pushing a constitutional change that would let citizens use guns against terrorists. Proponents say this could save lives if an attack occurs and police are delayed or unable to make their way to the scene. To become law, Parliament must approve the proposal; they’ll vote in the coming months.

The Czech Republic already has some of the most lenient gun policies in Europe. It’s home to about 800,000 registered firearms and 300,000 people with gun licenses. Obtaining a weapon is relatively easy: Residents must be 21, pass a gun knowledge check and have no criminal record. By law, Czechs can use their weapons to protect their property or when in danger, although they need to prove they faced a real threat.

Now, to be fair, there are two points to be made about this. First: the Czech President singled out a specific group that he labeled potential terrorists when, frankly, people should be arming themselves against all terrorists, not just a specific group which may not be active in that country at all. Second: Czechoslovakia is a member of the European Union which just voted to put into place stricter gun control measures. Because they are a member of the EU, the current administration in Czechoslovakia may not be able to keep their more lenient stand on gun control.

Still, it’s nice to hear government officials acknowledging that people need to be able to defend themselves even if it is only for appearances.


0 28
You can be forgiven if you've never heard of Rex firearms. Most people in the U.S. aren't familiar with the company despite being popular...