Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee has likely cost himself the election this time. As covered in the CNN political blog, Huckabee went pheasent hunting to show that he was "one of the regular guys" and stated "This is what happens…You vote for me, you live. You don't…there you go."
Huckabee has made a death threat to everyone that doesn't vote for him in 2008. That's like Reverend Phlager when he made his famous public screwup of calling for the snuffing of an Illinois gun store owner, and all legislators that don't support his view on gun control.
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Idiocy on D.C.
I've read some pretty stupid arguments during my limited time as a supporter and advocate of gun rights, but I'm willing to say that this guy takes the cake.
John Mashek makes some pretty unconvincing arguments in his editoral in the Heller Case. Here's just a few of his idiotic points:
"The Supreme Court will decide next year whether the District of Columbia can restrict handguns in a city with a big murder rate problem."
This isn't about whether or not a city, or a district, or even a government can restrict guns in a location where there's a high muder rate, it's about whether or not a government is restricted by the Second Amendment and prohibited from banning gun ownership outright, just as D.C. has done, citing their high crime and murder rate as justification for taking away rights.
Another piece of information for Mashek. If a governmental organization can decide that a high murder rate is reason enough to take away rights, what could they decide next? Maybe decide that they can take away rights after a public assembly turned violent and a riot broke out? Or maybe they could even decide that a loss of revenue could be grounds for a gun ban; the logic to that one being that if people don't have guns to buy ammunition for then they can spend their money elsewhere.
Also, D.C. used the argument of a high murder rate for instituting the ban 31 years ago, they're still using the same argument as just cause to keep the ban in place 31 years ago. So if they've got a high murder rate, even after banning handgun ownership and lawful gun use for more than three decades, what exactly has the ban accomplished in its time?
"Conservatives are supposed to be for states' rights. While D.C. is not a state, the city council is a ruling body and it has stood behind this law for over three decades."
Now hold up just a minute right there. It doesn't matter if D.C. is a state or not, it's still American soil and bound to the American Constitution. If D.C. is arguing that they're not a state and exempt from having to obey the Constitution then they're basically arguing that they're a foreign nation. And if that were the case then the Federal Government can't control America, since we're on two different national soils. D.C. is cutting off their nose to spite their face with that argument.
"The NRA and its fellow travelers want to make sure that there are guns, guns, and more guns on America's streets, in D.C. and elsewhere."
Wrong again Mashek! The NRA and it's four million members are not in support of guns everywhere in America and requiring that every single one of the 300 million citizens of the United States walking down the street with a nuclear warhead strapped to their back, marked with "Second Amendment Approved", that's not the case at all!
The NRA is about the right of the people -the individual right, not the state or collective right- to have the most effective method of personal and self-defense available to them, and not taken away by some government entity for just any reason that they decide works.
"The NRA argument has a gaping hole. It says citizens have a right to protect themselves with weapons at home. The problem is that many have no plan to keep those weapons locked up in homes."
What exactly is this? What does it matter if people don't plan to keep their guns locked up in safes and inaccessible to them during a time when they need them the most? Last time I read my copy of the Bill of Rights there was no language supporting the concept of mandated storage methods.
Mashek fails to understand many points with this. The first point is that accidental homicides with firearms are dropping dramatically each year, and it's not because of gun safes and gun locks, it's because people are actually learning safety. The number of kids killed every year is going down and down and down, and it's because more parents are actually teaching their kids that guns are dangerous and that they aren't toys to be played with.
Finally on this point, in his statement, Mashek ignores the fact that states like New York and California, with mandated safe storage requirements, have much higher crime rates than states that don't require their people to keep their guns locked up in a 2" thick gun safe with a 15 digit combination lock so absolutely nobody can ever have access to their guns, no matter what.
This is a dangerous world, and until we stop treating the criminals like victims and the victims like they've done something worth punishing, it's going to continue to be dangerous and only get worse. You wanna reduce violent crime? Reduce the number of criminals that are allowed to be out and free while Joe Average is locked up for a technicality.
John Mashek makes some pretty unconvincing arguments in his editoral in the Heller Case. Here's just a few of his idiotic points:
"The Supreme Court will decide next year whether the District of Columbia can restrict handguns in a city with a big murder rate problem."
This isn't about whether or not a city, or a district, or even a government can restrict guns in a location where there's a high muder rate, it's about whether or not a government is restricted by the Second Amendment and prohibited from banning gun ownership outright, just as D.C. has done, citing their high crime and murder rate as justification for taking away rights.
Another piece of information for Mashek. If a governmental organization can decide that a high murder rate is reason enough to take away rights, what could they decide next? Maybe decide that they can take away rights after a public assembly turned violent and a riot broke out? Or maybe they could even decide that a loss of revenue could be grounds for a gun ban; the logic to that one being that if people don't have guns to buy ammunition for then they can spend their money elsewhere.
Also, D.C. used the argument of a high murder rate for instituting the ban 31 years ago, they're still using the same argument as just cause to keep the ban in place 31 years ago. So if they've got a high murder rate, even after banning handgun ownership and lawful gun use for more than three decades, what exactly has the ban accomplished in its time?
"Conservatives are supposed to be for states' rights. While D.C. is not a state, the city council is a ruling body and it has stood behind this law for over three decades."
Now hold up just a minute right there. It doesn't matter if D.C. is a state or not, it's still American soil and bound to the American Constitution. If D.C. is arguing that they're not a state and exempt from having to obey the Constitution then they're basically arguing that they're a foreign nation. And if that were the case then the Federal Government can't control America, since we're on two different national soils. D.C. is cutting off their nose to spite their face with that argument.
"The NRA and its fellow travelers want to make sure that there are guns, guns, and more guns on America's streets, in D.C. and elsewhere."
Wrong again Mashek! The NRA and it's four million members are not in support of guns everywhere in America and requiring that every single one of the 300 million citizens of the United States walking down the street with a nuclear warhead strapped to their back, marked with "Second Amendment Approved", that's not the case at all!
The NRA is about the right of the people -the individual right, not the state or collective right- to have the most effective method of personal and self-defense available to them, and not taken away by some government entity for just any reason that they decide works.
"The NRA argument has a gaping hole. It says citizens have a right to protect themselves with weapons at home. The problem is that many have no plan to keep those weapons locked up in homes."
What exactly is this? What does it matter if people don't plan to keep their guns locked up in safes and inaccessible to them during a time when they need them the most? Last time I read my copy of the Bill of Rights there was no language supporting the concept of mandated storage methods.
Mashek fails to understand many points with this. The first point is that accidental homicides with firearms are dropping dramatically each year, and it's not because of gun safes and gun locks, it's because people are actually learning safety. The number of kids killed every year is going down and down and down, and it's because more parents are actually teaching their kids that guns are dangerous and that they aren't toys to be played with.
Finally on this point, in his statement, Mashek ignores the fact that states like New York and California, with mandated safe storage requirements, have much higher crime rates than states that don't require their people to keep their guns locked up in a 2" thick gun safe with a 15 digit combination lock so absolutely nobody can ever have access to their guns, no matter what.
This is a dangerous world, and until we stop treating the criminals like victims and the victims like they've done something worth punishing, it's going to continue to be dangerous and only get worse. You wanna reduce violent crime? Reduce the number of criminals that are allowed to be out and free while Joe Average is locked up for a technicality.
"The Supreme Court should respect D.C.'s right to ban handguns, as a strong majority in the city feels that way."
Look Mashek, this isn't one of those reality TV shows where the people call in and vote for who they want to see make it to the next episode! This is a country, we're talking about rights here. Rights are something you can't give away, rights are something that you can't just have limited because you want to. Rights were granted to us by God and are not something any other human being can rip away from us! Our rights predate the Constitution and the founding of America!
This isn't a matter that one district is allowed to decide. I don't care even if all of D.C. except for one single person did support the gun ban, that doesn't matter. A lot of public support doesn't mean that a law is right. The issue at hand here is whether or not a law is Constitutional. And trust me, the gun ban in D.C. certainly isn't.
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Mall shooting in Nebraska
Well as we know yesterday there was a shooting at the Omaha Mall in Nebraska, done by a 19 year old who killed eight people, wounded several others, and then killed himself.
Before the calls for more gun control "to prevent future tragedies like this from ever happening again" let's stop and remember a few things here:
1. The gun was stolen from the boy's father-in-law; the same one that supposedly kicked him out of the house before. Even if there were laws mandating that all guns be registered, that wouldn't have done any good. Even if the sale of new guns could be banned, he still would've had access to it. Even if there were laws mandating that all guns MUST be secured and inaccessible my a minor, the dude was 19 years old and could've easily gotten past just about anything; even a gun safe.
Before the calls for more gun control "to prevent future tragedies like this from ever happening again" let's stop and remember a few things here:
1. The gun was stolen from the boy's father-in-law; the same one that supposedly kicked him out of the house before. Even if there were laws mandating that all guns be registered, that wouldn't have done any good. Even if the sale of new guns could be banned, he still would've had access to it. Even if there were laws mandating that all guns MUST be secured and inaccessible my a minor, the dude was 19 years old and could've easily gotten past just about anything; even a gun safe.
2. The Westroads Mall, just like every other mall in America, is a gun-free zone, otherwise known as a "victim disarmerment zone", where nobody, not even security guards or off duty police officers may be armed for any reason at all. Malls are privately owned property and the owners are free to bar any weapons from their property, and that's exactly what they did. Keep in mind this is the same case for the Utah Mall schooting back in February, carried out by an 18 year old with a shotgun. Only difference was there was an off-duty officer there to confront the shooter; even though he was breaking the law and violating mall policy. Link.
3. CNN can't get their story straight at all. First they were calling the weapon used an "SKS assault rifle", now they're calling it an "AK-47 assault weapon". Lemme tell you something, if you can't tell the obvious difference between an AK-47 and an SKS then you shouldn't be reporting on the story at all. They're both completely different in design and look almost absolutely nothing alike.
Keep those facts in mind when the news people start relaying this story to you.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Supreme Court WILL hear the Heller Case
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/
It's official ladies and gentlemen, the Supreme Court of the United States will be taking up the Park (Now Heller) Case to issue a ruling on whether or not the gun laws of Washintgon D.C. are unconstitutional under the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution.
This is the big one. This is the decision that people on both sides of the gun control aisle have been waiting for since early this year. And now after so long, after so much misleading and argument and misunderstanding, we're finally going to get an answer...unfortunately it won't even begin until sometime in early 2008.
Now a lot of people are gonna be nervous about this, probably developing ulcers and getting their stomachs in a knot (the gun banners are gonna be the same way, they've got just as much to lose as we do). But it's out of our hands now, all we can do is sit back and watch and see what happens.
What could happen? I don't know. Nobody knows. It's going to be one of those wait and see things and there's no other way around that fact. However as for the possibilities, these are what I forsee as possible outcomes:
1. The Supreme Court could determine that Heller has no standing in the case and dismiss it without even approaching the Second Amendment.
2. The Supreme Court could finaly determine that the Second Amendment IS an individual right and not that collective nonsense that's been spreading for the last 40 some odd years and poisoning the minds of people. In doing so it could strike down all of the laws D.C. has that're being challenged, such as the so called "safe storage" and licensing provisona.
3. The Supreme Court could still determine that the Second Amendment is an individual right and the suspended licensing program would be made to go away, but the storage provisions could be kept and be cited as a "reasonable restriction" for the safety of others.
4. The Surprme Court could determine that the Second Amendment is indeed a collective right and only applies to preassembled groups of individuals, such at the National Guard, and that they can only bear arms while on duty and never at any other time.
Two things that have to be remembered though.
1. This case will only determine what happens on Federal levels, not state and local levels. Regardless of how the ruling happens the only ones to be affected directly will be D.C. and the Federal Government; indirectly states could be free to do the same if they chose to, but they may not be able to since State Supeme Courts have held that their local keep and bear arms provisions is individual in nature.
2. Even if outcome #4 happens it doesn't mean that gun owners are beat yet. We make up one third or more of the American people, we have a lot of influence when we flex our collective muscles (such as the outcome in New Jersey when the anti-gun candidates never made it to office during election). If the Supreme Court decided that the Second Amendment didn't apply to us on an individual level, then we could very well put pressure on Congress until they made an amendment that stated "The right of the people of the United States to keep and bear arms for all lawful uses is recognized to be an individual right and as such subject to the same treatment as the other Amendments in the Bill of Rights" and clarified that owning guns is an individual right and has nothing to do with organizing as militia members to face tyrants, or to join the National Guard, or any of that bull.
The battle has just started, and it's far from over. And even when it looks like it's over, gun owners won't be beaten; no matter how hard we're stomped down, we always resurface and come back strong.
It's official ladies and gentlemen, the Supreme Court of the United States will be taking up the Park (Now Heller) Case to issue a ruling on whether or not the gun laws of Washintgon D.C. are unconstitutional under the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution.
This is the big one. This is the decision that people on both sides of the gun control aisle have been waiting for since early this year. And now after so long, after so much misleading and argument and misunderstanding, we're finally going to get an answer...unfortunately it won't even begin until sometime in early 2008.
Now a lot of people are gonna be nervous about this, probably developing ulcers and getting their stomachs in a knot (the gun banners are gonna be the same way, they've got just as much to lose as we do). But it's out of our hands now, all we can do is sit back and watch and see what happens.
What could happen? I don't know. Nobody knows. It's going to be one of those wait and see things and there's no other way around that fact. However as for the possibilities, these are what I forsee as possible outcomes:
1. The Supreme Court could determine that Heller has no standing in the case and dismiss it without even approaching the Second Amendment.
2. The Supreme Court could finaly determine that the Second Amendment IS an individual right and not that collective nonsense that's been spreading for the last 40 some odd years and poisoning the minds of people. In doing so it could strike down all of the laws D.C. has that're being challenged, such as the so called "safe storage" and licensing provisona.
3. The Supreme Court could still determine that the Second Amendment is an individual right and the suspended licensing program would be made to go away, but the storage provisions could be kept and be cited as a "reasonable restriction" for the safety of others.
4. The Surprme Court could determine that the Second Amendment is indeed a collective right and only applies to preassembled groups of individuals, such at the National Guard, and that they can only bear arms while on duty and never at any other time.
Two things that have to be remembered though.
1. This case will only determine what happens on Federal levels, not state and local levels. Regardless of how the ruling happens the only ones to be affected directly will be D.C. and the Federal Government; indirectly states could be free to do the same if they chose to, but they may not be able to since State Supeme Courts have held that their local keep and bear arms provisions is individual in nature.
2. Even if outcome #4 happens it doesn't mean that gun owners are beat yet. We make up one third or more of the American people, we have a lot of influence when we flex our collective muscles (such as the outcome in New Jersey when the anti-gun candidates never made it to office during election). If the Supreme Court decided that the Second Amendment didn't apply to us on an individual level, then we could very well put pressure on Congress until they made an amendment that stated "The right of the people of the United States to keep and bear arms for all lawful uses is recognized to be an individual right and as such subject to the same treatment as the other Amendments in the Bill of Rights" and clarified that owning guns is an individual right and has nothing to do with organizing as militia members to face tyrants, or to join the National Guard, or any of that bull.
The battle has just started, and it's far from over. And even when it looks like it's over, gun owners won't be beaten; no matter how hard we're stomped down, we always resurface and come back strong.
Monday, November 19, 2007
Blaming toys for violent crime and killing
In the latest attempt to place blame elsewhere for our problem of violent criminals and killers, the Washington Post has decided to turn its sight on guns once more; except they're going one step further and blaming toy guns.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/09/AR2007110900598_pf.html
In their article the Post decrys the release of a new Nintendo Wii accessory, the Wii Zapper. They also go further and complain about the original BB guns from the late 1880s, and super soakers that could be filled with amonia.
The claim is that letting children play with toy guns, like they've been doing for many decades, is encouraging them to be violent and getting them adjusted to the idea of using real guns and killing people for fun.
Nevermind the fact that in this article they specifically state that findings about a link between violent videogames and real world violence are unfounded, the Washington Post seems to think that this is irrelevant.
Instead of blaming inanimate pieces of plastic that are designed for good clean fun, why isn't the Post blaming our lax justice system that will let a sex offender be on probation because he's "too short for prison".
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Boston police given authority to violate the 4th Amendment
Boston police are launching a program that will call upon parents in high-crime neighborhoods to allow detectives into their homes, without a warrant, to search for guns in their children's bedrooms.
Help me out here, what exactly is wrong with this idea?
You can bet that's gonna go over real well can't you? Police can now violate your 4th Amendment rights because you live in a high-crime neighborhood. No more obtaining a warrant, just asking to search your home and use intimidation to get inside. They can also violate the 5th Amendment under this program, because they're allowed to take guns without any due process; just come right in and take what they want, no questions asked, no paperwork needed.
This isn't going to turn out very well at all. The police aren't obligated to obtain a search warrant, they're not going to actually be arresting any criminals, they're just going to be barging in and confiscating whatever guns they find. And since this is a warrantless search and seizure program, the police have no obligation to give the guns back.
Anytime you hear somebody say "There are checks and balances to keep the government from taking over" or "Something like that could never happen in America", look them straight in the eye and let them know about stories like this.
Friday, November 9, 2007
Outrage in Oregon
I'm sure a good percentage of you are familiar with the name Shirley Katz; she's the Oregon state teacher that wants to carry her LEGALLY OWNED gun at her place of work -a public school- as allowed by Oregon state law. She's gone to battle with the school board over the issue and basically been treated like the bad guy for wanting to exercise a Constitutional right, and to protect herself from her exhusband, and her students from another school killer.
Today the judge hearing the case issued a very bad ruling, stating that the school policy trumps both state law and the state constitution.
Think about that for a minute. The policy of a school is allowed to supercede the LAW OF THE STATE and the STATE CONSTITUTION! This judge is saying that no matter what the state declares, the school is allowed to void any law it wants by passing whatever policy it wants. He's basically saying that the school is the ruling majority and the state must become obedient to whatever it wishes.
Thankfully, the case is being appealed - hopefully to a better judge with more common sense!
If you live in Oregon, or even if you don't live in Oregon, you should be outraged at the decision of this liberal activist of a judge. Never should a school be allowed to decide that the law of the state doesn't apply to it.
If you know this judge, be sure to "thank" him. Let him know that you're glad he showed his true colors and what he really stands for. Let him know that you'll always remember this decision of his.
Today the judge hearing the case issued a very bad ruling, stating that the school policy trumps both state law and the state constitution.
Think about that for a minute. The policy of a school is allowed to supercede the LAW OF THE STATE and the STATE CONSTITUTION! This judge is saying that no matter what the state declares, the school is allowed to void any law it wants by passing whatever policy it wants. He's basically saying that the school is the ruling majority and the state must become obedient to whatever it wishes.
Thankfully, the case is being appealed - hopefully to a better judge with more common sense!
If you live in Oregon, or even if you don't live in Oregon, you should be outraged at the decision of this liberal activist of a judge. Never should a school be allowed to decide that the law of the state doesn't apply to it.
If you know this judge, be sure to "thank" him. Let him know that you're glad he showed his true colors and what he really stands for. Let him know that you'll always remember this decision of his.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Stupid people in New York
You've probably heard well before now, but New York Governor, Elliot Spitzer, wants to grant all illegal immigrants valid driver's licenses.
Isn't that just like him, the rest of the country is trying to get rid of illegal immigrants and he's setting up a safe haven that would allow them to stay here.
You don't need directions to see where this is going at all. Governor Spitzer is planning something that'll likely put a lot of people in danger. By giving illegal immigrants a valid piece of identification in America, the same time of identification that anybody over 16 has, he's gonna be making it possible for them to buy guns in New York state.
Of course he claims that such a thing would never happen, because according to him you need "Federal ID" to buy a gun in America.
Hey Spitzer! Wake up and smell the reality! There's no such thing as "Federal ID", at least not yet. And you sure don't need it for buying a gun in America, all you need is a driver's license to prove you're an American citizen. That's the way the law has been for almost 40 years now, where have you been Spitzer?
I'm sure that my former mayor, Bloomberg, is gonna be loving this. He's waging a war on what he claims are "illegal guns" and he's trying to "gets guns off the streets" and "out of the hands of criminals", and here the Governor is giving potential criminals from south of the border the opportunity to get guns for crimes.
Nice to see things haven't changed (as far as sanity/insanity and a lack of common sense goes) from when I left two years ago.
Isn't that just like him, the rest of the country is trying to get rid of illegal immigrants and he's setting up a safe haven that would allow them to stay here.
You don't need directions to see where this is going at all. Governor Spitzer is planning something that'll likely put a lot of people in danger. By giving illegal immigrants a valid piece of identification in America, the same time of identification that anybody over 16 has, he's gonna be making it possible for them to buy guns in New York state.
Of course he claims that such a thing would never happen, because according to him you need "Federal ID" to buy a gun in America.
Hey Spitzer! Wake up and smell the reality! There's no such thing as "Federal ID", at least not yet. And you sure don't need it for buying a gun in America, all you need is a driver's license to prove you're an American citizen. That's the way the law has been for almost 40 years now, where have you been Spitzer?
I'm sure that my former mayor, Bloomberg, is gonna be loving this. He's waging a war on what he claims are "illegal guns" and he's trying to "gets guns off the streets" and "out of the hands of criminals", and here the Governor is giving potential criminals from south of the border the opportunity to get guns for crimes.
Nice to see things haven't changed (as far as sanity/insanity and a lack of common sense goes) from when I left two years ago.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
More media bias against guns
I read this news article today, and I just got me mad. Once again we see CNN trying to paint guns as something they're not; remember the deception they did about making a fully-automatic AK-47 look like it was covered by the 1994 Clinton Gun Ban? They're up to their old trick again.
And of course, this article is just chock full of errors and obviously anti-gun bias. Let's examine them shall we.
First this quote: "It's not nice we have to arm ourselves like the soldiers in Iraq," said Sgt. Laurie Pfeil, who supervises a sheriff's road patrol in Palm Beach County and is now certified to carry a semiautomatic AR-15 rifle on the job. It's the civilian version of the military's M-16 used by U.S. soldiers in Iraq.
This Sergeant obviously knows nothing about guns, or simply doesn't care. AR-15s are nothing like the M-16s used by the troops in Iraq except for their appearance, that's it. The M-16s are capable of firing three bullets with a single pull of the trigger, an AR-15 can't possibly do that.
Second, this sentence: He lays the blame squarely on lawmakers who allowed the assault weapons ban to expire in 2004.
The Clinton Gun Ban has nothing to do with this issue. Even when the law was still in effect you could legally buy a fully tricked out AK-47, AR-15 or any other firearm you wanted that had a bayonet lug, a folding stock, flash hider, pistol grip and 20-30 round magazine, and it would be perfectly legal. The only thing the law did was stop the manufacture of new models during that ten year period. That's it, nothing else at all!
Third: Designed to be fired from the hip, assault rifles such as the AK-47 can spray at a rate of up to 600 rounds a minute in full automatic mode. It is the weapon of choice for guerillas and gangsters.
What the hell? Since when were such rifles designed to be fired from the hip? And what's that got to do with anything?
Furthermore, what's the potential rate of fire have to do with anything? So you can fire 600 rounds in a minute, so what? Do you have a 600 round magazine? Do you realize how long it'd take to change out all those magazines to equal 600 rounds?
And another thing, a 600 RPM firing rate on automatic mode, that doesn't really amount to anything since these weapons DON'T HAVE AN AUTOMATIC MODE!
Forth: Cops prefer to squeeze off single shots in semiautomatic mode because it makes for more accurate shooting. Some semiautomatic weapon's can fire with pinpoint accuracy from as far as 100 yards away.
So these rifles are both accurate and inaccurate at the exact same time. That's a contradiction in terms and should negate the entire sentence. but just for argument's sake let's examine it.
When was the last time you ever managed to see any rifle, even a hunting rifle with a heavy bull barrel and long ranged magnified scope, manage to hit an inch-wide target at 100 yards?
"Pinpoint accuracy" is something reserved for very high-quality match-grade rifles that cost thousands of dollars and are used for sporting events. These guns are made to very high tolerances; so high that even a little bit of dirt will make them jam. The average firearms for the civilian market, as far as accuracy goes, is designed for 2-6" at 100 yards.
Fifth: The magazines used by law enforcement typically carry 20 or 30 rounds, adding to the ability to better respond under fire.
You're always hearing calls for restrictions on "high-capacity magazines" because "they contribute to mass killings" and other crap like that. Yet here they say that they're the kind used by police. Either that means these magazines have nothing to do with killing, or the police are being given weapons and munitions to be used for killing innocent people. Which is it?
Sixth: There's no doubt that urban street warfare, aided by a proliferation of cheap automatic weapons, has come even to Palm Beach County, once high society's vacation mecca and a retirement destination for northern snowbirds.
If criminals really are getting automatic weapons, then they're importing them illegally from outside the country and breaking all laws on the books, because they can't get them here in America. So obviously renewing a ban on them won't do any good now will it?
Seventh: Assault weapons have been used to kill eight people and wound 25 here over the last two years.
Eight people in the last two years? Four people a year? Help me out with this one, I'm failing to see the national emergency that's going on here.
Eighth: "They don't have .38s anymore. They have AK-47s. ...They have automatic weapons now," said Sgt. Pfeil.
Again, not automatic weapons, or at least not legally obtained ones at any store in America. Just doesn't work that way.
Ninth: "The streets of South Florida are being flooded by AK-47s and assault weapons from old Soviet bloc countries. It's driven the price down, making the availability greater," said Chief Timoney.
According to that statement the guns the criminals are getting are being imported from the Soviet Union. And those guns are banned from importation.
Tenth: Chief Timoney says he started noticing an increase since the federal assault weapon ban lapsed in 2004. Since then, he says homicides in the city of Miami involving assault weapons have been up -- 18 percent last year and 20 percent this year.
The 1994 law did absolutely nothing that would've prevented these killings from occurring, bringing it back won't do anything either.
When was the last time a law banning or restricting something ever did anything to stop a criminal even in the slightestt?
You would think that CNN would've learned from the last time around, when they were called out by Wayne LaPierre and bitch slapped live on the news for their lying about the Clinton Gun Ban. But it just seems that they can't help but lie and lie and lie!
And of course, this article is just chock full of errors and obviously anti-gun bias. Let's examine them shall we.
First this quote: "It's not nice we have to arm ourselves like the soldiers in Iraq," said Sgt. Laurie Pfeil, who supervises a sheriff's road patrol in Palm Beach County and is now certified to carry a semiautomatic AR-15 rifle on the job. It's the civilian version of the military's M-16 used by U.S. soldiers in Iraq.
This Sergeant obviously knows nothing about guns, or simply doesn't care. AR-15s are nothing like the M-16s used by the troops in Iraq except for their appearance, that's it. The M-16s are capable of firing three bullets with a single pull of the trigger, an AR-15 can't possibly do that.
Second, this sentence: He lays the blame squarely on lawmakers who allowed the assault weapons ban to expire in 2004.
The Clinton Gun Ban has nothing to do with this issue. Even when the law was still in effect you could legally buy a fully tricked out AK-47, AR-15 or any other firearm you wanted that had a bayonet lug, a folding stock, flash hider, pistol grip and 20-30 round magazine, and it would be perfectly legal. The only thing the law did was stop the manufacture of new models during that ten year period. That's it, nothing else at all!
Third: Designed to be fired from the hip, assault rifles such as the AK-47 can spray at a rate of up to 600 rounds a minute in full automatic mode. It is the weapon of choice for guerillas and gangsters.
What the hell? Since when were such rifles designed to be fired from the hip? And what's that got to do with anything?
Furthermore, what's the potential rate of fire have to do with anything? So you can fire 600 rounds in a minute, so what? Do you have a 600 round magazine? Do you realize how long it'd take to change out all those magazines to equal 600 rounds?
And another thing, a 600 RPM firing rate on automatic mode, that doesn't really amount to anything since these weapons DON'T HAVE AN AUTOMATIC MODE!
Forth: Cops prefer to squeeze off single shots in semiautomatic mode because it makes for more accurate shooting. Some semiautomatic weapon's can fire with pinpoint accuracy from as far as 100 yards away.
So these rifles are both accurate and inaccurate at the exact same time. That's a contradiction in terms and should negate the entire sentence. but just for argument's sake let's examine it.
When was the last time you ever managed to see any rifle, even a hunting rifle with a heavy bull barrel and long ranged magnified scope, manage to hit an inch-wide target at 100 yards?
"Pinpoint accuracy" is something reserved for very high-quality match-grade rifles that cost thousands of dollars and are used for sporting events. These guns are made to very high tolerances; so high that even a little bit of dirt will make them jam. The average firearms for the civilian market, as far as accuracy goes, is designed for 2-6" at 100 yards.
Fifth: The magazines used by law enforcement typically carry 20 or 30 rounds, adding to the ability to better respond under fire.
You're always hearing calls for restrictions on "high-capacity magazines" because "they contribute to mass killings" and other crap like that. Yet here they say that they're the kind used by police. Either that means these magazines have nothing to do with killing, or the police are being given weapons and munitions to be used for killing innocent people. Which is it?
Sixth: There's no doubt that urban street warfare, aided by a proliferation of cheap automatic weapons, has come even to Palm Beach County, once high society's vacation mecca and a retirement destination for northern snowbirds.
If criminals really are getting automatic weapons, then they're importing them illegally from outside the country and breaking all laws on the books, because they can't get them here in America. So obviously renewing a ban on them won't do any good now will it?
Seventh: Assault weapons have been used to kill eight people and wound 25 here over the last two years.
Eight people in the last two years? Four people a year? Help me out with this one, I'm failing to see the national emergency that's going on here.
Eighth: "They don't have .38s anymore. They have AK-47s. ...They have automatic weapons now," said Sgt. Pfeil.
Again, not automatic weapons, or at least not legally obtained ones at any store in America. Just doesn't work that way.
Ninth: "The streets of South Florida are being flooded by AK-47s and assault weapons from old Soviet bloc countries. It's driven the price down, making the availability greater," said Chief Timoney.
According to that statement the guns the criminals are getting are being imported from the Soviet Union. And those guns are banned from importation.
Tenth: Chief Timoney says he started noticing an increase since the federal assault weapon ban lapsed in 2004. Since then, he says homicides in the city of Miami involving assault weapons have been up -- 18 percent last year and 20 percent this year.
The 1994 law did absolutely nothing that would've prevented these killings from occurring, bringing it back won't do anything either.
When was the last time a law banning or restricting something ever did anything to stop a criminal even in the slightestt?
You would think that CNN would've learned from the last time around, when they were called out by Wayne LaPierre and bitch slapped live on the news for their lying about the Clinton Gun Ban. But it just seems that they can't help but lie and lie and lie!
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Irony in California
Last week in California, Governor Schwarzenegger signed into law Assembly Bill 821, which bans the use of lead ammunition for hunting in the condor range, because the claim was that condors were suffering from lead poisoning. This was based purely on animal rights extremist, anti-hunting rhetoric rather than actual science.
Currently there's a raging wildfire in California, and the reports indicate that the fires are threatening the condor population and coule wipe them out.
Personally I find this ironic. California has banned lead ammunition for hunting because some people said it was threatening the condors with extinction. In less than a week's time they've now got a forest fire which might do just that. Basically they traded a non-threat for a genuine threat.
The Fool's Gold State just can't seem to win. Anytime they pass a ban, nature hits them hard within a very short amount of time afterwards.
Currently there's a raging wildfire in California, and the reports indicate that the fires are threatening the condor population and coule wipe them out.
Personally I find this ironic. California has banned lead ammunition for hunting because some people said it was threatening the condors with extinction. In less than a week's time they've now got a forest fire which might do just that. Basically they traded a non-threat for a genuine threat.
The Fool's Gold State just can't seem to win. Anytime they pass a ban, nature hits them hard within a very short amount of time afterwards.
Monday, October 15, 2007
It's a dark day in California
Well I'm sure you've all seen the news. Today California Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, signed two very controversial gun control bills despite the overwhelming argument against them. He signed Assembly Bill 1471, a firearms micro-stamping bill, and Assembly Bill 821 a lead ammunition ban bill.
If you're wondering what these do, hold on while I explain them.
First the simple one, the ban on lead ammunition. This bans the use of lead-based ammunition in the condor range in California. The claim is that condors are dropping dead from lead poisoning, but the scientific information doesn't support this. Currently the only alternative available is copper ammunition, which is going to be prohitively expensive for hunters to use. Furthermore, copper is a hard metal, and it's going to have sharp edges. If a condor eats one of these their insides are going to be sliced apart and the condors are going to bleed to death on the inside.
The firearms microstamping bill is much more complex, but to make a long story short it's another attempt at ballistic imaging to "try and stop crime". Trouble is this concept is severely flawed. The microstamping technology is unfounded, it doesn't even exist today but it was still passed and has to be implimented by 2010 if any new semi-automatic handguns can be sold in California.
The problem with enforcing technology that doesn't currently exist is that it might never exist. This could easily be the ground for banning all semi-automatic handgun sales in the state of California, since those in charge of developing technology could just stop one day and decide not to do it.
Even worse, even if the technology can be implimented in a practical manner, it can be easily defeated. The firing pin, which is engraved under this bill, is easily the most fragile part of the firearm and is prone to breaking and needing replacement. Under the microstamping bill you'd have to special order a new firing pin with the serial number of your gun on it, and use of any other firing pin would be a crime.
Also, defacing any identifying mark on a firearm is a serious felony. And since the firing pin becomes an identifying mark, even shooting your gun could become a felony since it's going to become defaced.
And if that doesn't irk you, then this certainly will: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58130
"Mom" and "dad" along with "husband" and "wife" have been banned from all schools in California. Even worse girls will be FORCED to share their bathrooms and locker rooms with boys.
My advice to you is to write governor Schwarzenegger and vocally (but politely) voice your opposition and disappointment in his decision to declare war on the law-abiding gun owners, hunters and parents in California. Also remind him that you'll remember this when it comes time for reelection.
If you're wondering what these do, hold on while I explain them.
First the simple one, the ban on lead ammunition. This bans the use of lead-based ammunition in the condor range in California. The claim is that condors are dropping dead from lead poisoning, but the scientific information doesn't support this. Currently the only alternative available is copper ammunition, which is going to be prohitively expensive for hunters to use. Furthermore, copper is a hard metal, and it's going to have sharp edges. If a condor eats one of these their insides are going to be sliced apart and the condors are going to bleed to death on the inside.
The firearms microstamping bill is much more complex, but to make a long story short it's another attempt at ballistic imaging to "try and stop crime". Trouble is this concept is severely flawed. The microstamping technology is unfounded, it doesn't even exist today but it was still passed and has to be implimented by 2010 if any new semi-automatic handguns can be sold in California.
The problem with enforcing technology that doesn't currently exist is that it might never exist. This could easily be the ground for banning all semi-automatic handgun sales in the state of California, since those in charge of developing technology could just stop one day and decide not to do it.
Even worse, even if the technology can be implimented in a practical manner, it can be easily defeated. The firing pin, which is engraved under this bill, is easily the most fragile part of the firearm and is prone to breaking and needing replacement. Under the microstamping bill you'd have to special order a new firing pin with the serial number of your gun on it, and use of any other firing pin would be a crime.
Also, defacing any identifying mark on a firearm is a serious felony. And since the firing pin becomes an identifying mark, even shooting your gun could become a felony since it's going to become defaced.
And if that doesn't irk you, then this certainly will: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58130
"Mom" and "dad" along with "husband" and "wife" have been banned from all schools in California. Even worse girls will be FORCED to share their bathrooms and locker rooms with boys.
My advice to you is to write governor Schwarzenegger and vocally (but politely) voice your opposition and disappointment in his decision to declare war on the law-abiding gun owners, hunters and parents in California. Also remind him that you'll remember this when it comes time for reelection.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Vigilante justice in Tennesee? I don't think so!
Alright this isn't a Second Amendment related story, but it's a story that's really pissing me off so I've decided to comment on it.
http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2007/09/14/962818-tenn-men-accused-of-vigilante-justice
This is called vigilante justice, but that's just plain wrong. This isn't vigiliantism, this is more like a lynch mob! The kind of people who don't have the patience for courts and judges and sentencing, that's what these individuals were.
This is not vigilante justice! An example of vigilante justice would be a neighborhood watch organization, patroling the neighborhood because the police budget has been slashed drastically and the number of police officers has been reduced from 25 to 5.
An example of vigilante justice is a bystander intervening with a mugging and possibly saving somebody's life.
An example of vigilante justice is a homeowner apprehending a criminal that's breaking into his home or his neighbor's home, and detaining him until the police get there to actually arrest him.
An example of what ISN'T vigilante justice is two dumbasses deciding to burn down a man's home and killing his wife and child! This is an example of domestic terrorism!
Vigilantes are people that uphold the law and do the right thing, especially when the police aren't around, what vigilante's don't do is burn people's homes down for no good reason at all!
http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2007/09/14/962818-tenn-men-accused-of-vigilante-justice
This is called vigilante justice, but that's just plain wrong. This isn't vigiliantism, this is more like a lynch mob! The kind of people who don't have the patience for courts and judges and sentencing, that's what these individuals were.
This is not vigilante justice! An example of vigilante justice would be a neighborhood watch organization, patroling the neighborhood because the police budget has been slashed drastically and the number of police officers has been reduced from 25 to 5.
An example of vigilante justice is a bystander intervening with a mugging and possibly saving somebody's life.
An example of vigilante justice is a homeowner apprehending a criminal that's breaking into his home or his neighbor's home, and detaining him until the police get there to actually arrest him.
An example of what ISN'T vigilante justice is two dumbasses deciding to burn down a man's home and killing his wife and child! This is an example of domestic terrorism!
Vigilantes are people that uphold the law and do the right thing, especially when the police aren't around, what vigilante's don't do is burn people's homes down for no good reason at all!
Friday, October 12, 2007
The Columbine Kid in Pennsylvania
By now I'm sure you've all been hearing about the 14 year old in Pennsylvania was planning a Columbine-esque attack on a local highschool, right? Probably a lot of irate people thinking that this is a prime example of needing more gun control in America, right? Well they're wrong! Let's look at it logically.
First, this kid was 14 years old, by law he couldn't own anything that he had in which weapons cache. The rifles, the swords, knives, airguns, nothing. You have to be a minimum of 16 to buy a knife and 18 to buy a rifle or shotgun, this kid was only 14. By law he was banned from buying any kind of weapon, so you can't get more restrictive than that.
There's the issue about the kid's mother buying him the 9mm rifle at a gun show. Again, not a case for more gun control. By Pennsylvania state law, each and every gun sale is required to involve a federally licensed firearms dealer; there's no such thing as a private sale in that state. So the mother's guilty of comitting a straw purchase, that's a Federal offense and will get you 10 years in prison.
Also Pennsylvania has gun registration, done in the form of police keeping records about all firearms transactions, so they know who bought what.
Pennsylvania also has laws against juvenile possession of firearms. They also have laws mandating that trigger locks come with every gun sold.
Second, along with all these weapons the kid also had a hand painted nazi flag, tapes about the Columbine massacre, and functioning hand grenades, which he was making by himself. It seems that he fully intended to do damage no matter what, so it's not as simple as saying "if guns were banned this never would've happened", because this kid would've still had knives and bombs. He could've done like the Columbine killers and rigged up propane tank explosives. But that's beside the point.
The mother is currently facing at least six criminal charges, (unlawful transfer of a fiream, possession of a firearm by a minor, corruption of a minor, endangering the welfare of a child and two counts of reckless endangerment) which can get her in a lot of trouble and earn her a lot of prison time of the prosecutors follow through with the law rather than just plea bargaining away the charges like they never even existed.
All kinds of law were not just broken, but grossly violated here with complete disregard. Does anybody think that another law or two might've done any good?
First, this kid was 14 years old, by law he couldn't own anything that he had in which weapons cache. The rifles, the swords, knives, airguns, nothing. You have to be a minimum of 16 to buy a knife and 18 to buy a rifle or shotgun, this kid was only 14. By law he was banned from buying any kind of weapon, so you can't get more restrictive than that.
There's the issue about the kid's mother buying him the 9mm rifle at a gun show. Again, not a case for more gun control. By Pennsylvania state law, each and every gun sale is required to involve a federally licensed firearms dealer; there's no such thing as a private sale in that state. So the mother's guilty of comitting a straw purchase, that's a Federal offense and will get you 10 years in prison.
Also Pennsylvania has gun registration, done in the form of police keeping records about all firearms transactions, so they know who bought what.
Pennsylvania also has laws against juvenile possession of firearms. They also have laws mandating that trigger locks come with every gun sold.
Second, along with all these weapons the kid also had a hand painted nazi flag, tapes about the Columbine massacre, and functioning hand grenades, which he was making by himself. It seems that he fully intended to do damage no matter what, so it's not as simple as saying "if guns were banned this never would've happened", because this kid would've still had knives and bombs. He could've done like the Columbine killers and rigged up propane tank explosives. But that's beside the point.
The mother is currently facing at least six criminal charges, (unlawful transfer of a fiream, possession of a firearm by a minor, corruption of a minor, endangering the welfare of a child and two counts of reckless endangerment) which can get her in a lot of trouble and earn her a lot of prison time of the prosecutors follow through with the law rather than just plea bargaining away the charges like they never even existed.
All kinds of law were not just broken, but grossly violated here with complete disregard. Does anybody think that another law or two might've done any good?
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
First post - disgusted with misinformation
I'm sure that it's been mentioned many times at many places, this news brief about police forces having to upgrade their arsenals to deal with criminals armed with "assault weapons", and I know this gets tossed around like a volleyball at the beach, but I'm bringing my own take to the table.
First, I reccomend that you visit this link to get the gist of what's being talked about: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/01/eveningnews/main3316672.shtml
Second, I reccomend that you watch the video because it's very informative about the misinformation that's being treated as the truth.
Alright, the police are making various claims about semi-automatic rifles, among them being that AK-47s are flooding the streets and putting them in jeapordy and that's why that they need to be banned; to keep the officers safe.
That's all well and good, if you want to take things at face value and believe everything that's told to you and you want to drink the purple koolaid, but in the real world that just doesn't fly.
In the video they have this scene pictured clearly:
Now in this picture I'm seeing a ton of handguns, several semi-automatic rifles, a pump-action shotgun, one muzzle loading firearm, and not a single AK-47 to be seen. There are two SKS rifles and one AR-15, but not a single AK-47 anywhere.
Wouldn't you think that if the AK-47 was flooding the streets, they'd at least have one pictured here amongst the confiscated firearms?
Next, the video also shows fully-automatic weapons being fired. What's the problem with this? Semi-automatic firearms can't fire like that no matter what you try; you can't even convert one to automatic firing capabilities because the internal components are made entirely different and they're not compatible.
Besides, automatic weapons fall under an entirely different jurisdiction and are controlled in a very strict manner. To this date there's only been one murder with a legally owned machinegun, and that was carried out by a police officer.
Then you've got the claim about these weapons being powerful enough to penetrate police body armor. While that's true it's because of physics. Standard police body armor is nothing more than several layers of a kevlar weave fiber formed into a vest, designed specifically for handgun rounds that travel at a much slower velocity. They were never designed to work against rifle rounds of any caliber, from any firearm.
There's also the claim that AK-47s are being sold on the street for as little as $200 a piece. While it's true that the black market does illegally sell guns for low prices, I've yet to see any evidence to support this claim about the price.
Then there's also the statement about the UZI being able to fire 600 rounds with just a flick of the trigger...I don't even want to touch that one, otherwise I'm going to have to go into the details of how long it would take to change the magazines to actually fire those 600 rounds, and how for each new magazine you'd have to pull the trigger again, and how this UZI owner is already violating Federal law with no concern for anything.
And then there's the most obvious fact that nobody seems to want to address; at least nobody who's in office right now. Since when did a law banning something do anything to impede criminals one bit? Did Prohibition stop the bootleggers? No. Did bans on crack cocaine stop the criminals and their drug wars in the late 80s and early to mid 90s? No. Did the "assault weapons ban" and various trade embargos stop the two gunmen responsible for the 1997 North Hollywood Shootout? No.
Even more, they've admitted that the black market is selling guns illegally, so they've basically shot themselves in the foot when they claim that they need to ban lawful ownership of these weapons.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
