Saturday, October 04, 2014

Biden Blinks ... PWND by Turkey

Biden apologizes to Turkish President Erdogan for saying Turkey allowed foreign fighters into Syria | Fox News:

Vice President Biden on Saturday apologized to Turkey President Recep Tayyip Erdogan for saying the Turkish leader admitted his country made mistakes by allowing foreign fighters to cross into Syria.
Mark Twain once said that: "Man is the only animal that blushes. Or needs to."

This is Blowhard Joe in a nutshell.   He is the worst Democrat to ever occupy an Executive position.

He was an embarrassment to our country as a Senator; as Vice President he is a walking disaster.

Colin Powell refused to run for the Presidency because he was concerned that the American People were not ready for a Black Man in the Oval Office.  He was dissuaded by the possibility of assassination in office.   The rumor is that Obama chose him for a running-mate as protection; surely, nobody would assassinate Obama knowing that Biden would step into the Top Slot.

Big-Mouth Joe is even worse than John "Unfit For Command" Kerry.
Worse than "... This Health Care Plan Will By Financed by Cigarette Taxes" Hillary (The Unofficial POTUS)
Worse than Al "I Invented The Internet" Gore
Worse than Bill "Big Willy" Clinton
Worse than  Jimmy "Abort The Mission" Carter (and that's saying something!)
Worse than ... but why go on?  You know The Usual Suspects.

The point is, he's even worse than B.H. Obama.

Vice President Biden is as lame, and almost as much a burden on America as ObabaCare.  
And that says it all.

I love the First Amendment

UPDATE: Sunday, October 05, 2014
But wait ... there's more!

Thursday, October 02, 2014

Chicago Wins .. America Wins!

Court Sides With SAF On Key Points In Challenge Of Chicago Gun... -- BELLEVUE, Wa., Sept. 30, 2014 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ --
: BELLEVUE, Wa., Sept. 30, 2014 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ --

Chicago loses some of its unconstitutional Gun Laws ..America Reasserts it Constitutional Rights.
(H/T: "Say Uncle")

A federal judge has sided with the Second Amendment Foundation on key points of an on-going legal action against the City of Chicago that challenges the city's municipal code regarding gun ranges inside the city. 

"Every day on which Chicago loses some of its unconstitutional laws," observed attorney Alan Gura, who represents SAF in this litigation, "is a better day than the one before. This latest decision brings Chicago that much closer to the rest of America, where responsible, law-abiding people can practically access gun ranges for safety training and recreation. We are studying our options for improving this positive outcome." 
 In her ruling, Judge Kendall noted that Chicago police officials "admitted that they had no data or empirical evidence that any criminal impact would occur due to the presence of a firing range, or that it would be lessened by placing ranges in manufacturing districts." Indeed, plaintiff's expert Lorin Kramer "testified that he was unaware of any location throughout the country where crime increased as a result of a gun range in that location." 

This is A Good Day for America.

While the "gun violence" daily exercised by drug gangs in Chicago has been a serious problem , the continued efforts of the Chicago mayor R.E. to restrict access to self-defensive firearms has undermined the ability of law-abiding citizens to take control of their streets.

Today, they  have full access to close-by, local shooting ranges where they can practice their control of entirely legal firearms.

This may give them an advantage of over gang-bangers who notoriously practice "Prey & Spray"  (sic) tactics during street-level gun-fights, often resulting in the unintended accidental deaths of nearby innocents.  Casualties for which the drug dealers seemingly hold no remorse.

It is too soon to tell whether the determination of local legal firearms owners to protect their neighborhoods will be successful, but one thing is clear:

With access to a place to hone their shooting skills, the "neighborhood" has just increased its ability to enhance accuracy with their newly acquired firearms.  Very likely it's a metaphorical "Take Back Your Neighborhood" effort which will yield mixed results; be prepared for the likelihood that the Hood's population will drop real soon.

The Lambs will become Sheep-dogs.  Some of this "bad business" is coming home to roost.

It's their neighborhood, and they WILL take it back!

"Off Roster": California Gun Laws .. go figure!

California is updating their anti-gun laws as fast as they can, in hopes that they can outpace otherwise-legal gun-purchasers' ability to keep track.  The sad fact is that they can .. and they are prosecuting the slow "subjects" (not 'citizens') of their state --- and they are prosecuting offenders.  Even Law Enforcement Officers who they see as "Offenders".

Former deputy, alleged accomplices go on trial for weapons charges Monday - Crime - Sacto 911 - The Sacramento Bee:   (October 2, 2014)
(the vendor) ....  is accused of purchasing handguns that cannot be bought directly from a dealer by members of the general public and selling them to civilians at a healthy markup
In an unsuccessful motion to dismiss the charges against Snellings, his lawyer maintained there was no law preventing the sale of a so-called “off roster” firearm from a sworn officer to a non-sworn private party, so long as both parties go through a licensed dealer. ---
 According to court papers, Kjellberg, 43, transferred at least five such weapons “to individuals who could not otherwise legally purchase” them.

(Emphasis Added)

Among the charges were those against one principle "for providing a large-capacity ammunition clip to an undercover agent".

Can anyone provide us with a definition of "large-capacity ammunition clip"?  Or cite current law which makes this .. provision, whatever it is .. a felony?

Hat TIP: Of Arms And The Law
(There are questions as to whether this was a "Straw Purchase",  If so, it would be good to be to whom, from whom, and for what purpose .. and who was the intended final owner?)

Sunday, September 28, 2014

Gun Sense and Idiocy in the ballot poll

How can one gun-control\group be so wrong in so many ways?

A gun-control group calling itself has presented a "poll", intended to be sent to legislators, asking them to explain their political opinions on "Gun Control".  While obviously biased, it's worthwhile to examine the questions they are asking.

From this article, here are the questions they are asking (some questions are edited for brevity .. go to the original article for details):

(1) (General statement on Gun Control)   "Do you agree: we can both do more to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people and protect the rights of responsible, law-abiding people?"

[Wow!  What an all-encompassing question! Wonder what the author intends to achieve this goal? What's this "we" word? And by the way, what are you doing to protect the rights of responsible, law-abiding people?  It sounds as you want to take guns out of their hands, too.]

(2)  (Gun Show Loophole)  Background Checks ; Keeping Guns Out of the Hands of Dangerous People
(Questions whether firearms transfers should not ALL be subject to background checks)

[No definition of terms. "ALL"? Would impose draconian solutions, and registration would be necessary to enforce]

(3) (Restraining orders) Federal law prohibits anyone from having firearms if they have been convicted of abusing their spouses, or if they are the subjects of active restraining orders taken out by their spouses, but not if they have been convicted of stalking or have been convicted of abusing their dating partners. The share of intimate partner violence that occurs in dating relationships has been steadily growing—and as of 2008, more domestic violence homicides were committed by dating partners than by spouses.
 Do you support a law that would prohibit gun possession by  by convicted stalkers and people convicted of—or, who after due process, are actively restrained from— abusing a dating partner?

[The problem is that restraining orders can be filed without a court order.  There is no opportunity for the  'abuser' to protest the court order,or to present the 'other side' of the argument.   This is just another excuse to exercuze your gun-control agenda.]

(4) (Online websites which sell guns without background checks): Do you support legislation that would level the playing field by treating sites like Armslist as licensed gun brokers, and require a
background check every time someone buys a gun through one of these sites?

[I don't know the rules here, but I know that responsible owners generally tend to check out their buyers before the complete a deal.  Not a question without  merit.  However, it considers all transfers as equivalent,]

(5) Background checks; keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people. (NICS doesn't have all records of mental patients)  Do you support an increase in congressional funding for the federal grant programs that help states submit their records?

[Again, not a question entirely without merit.  Except .. who will guard the guardians?  How are we to know that the people who are charged with diagnosing their patients are not giving in to their private "gun control at all costs" agenda?  Even the Center for Disease Control has been  found 'guilty' of advancing a private agenda, and were prohibited from examining the question for decades because their bias was so great that they were professionally unable to omit their bias from their conclusions. ]

(6) (Gun trafficking,  straw purchases and stolen guns)  People listed on the federal government’s terror watch lists are prohibited from boarding airplanes—but current federal law does
not bar them from buying guns or explosives.   Indeed, according to a report by the Government Accountability Office, people on terror watch lists bought firearms or explosives from licensed dealers 1,321 times between 2004 and 2010.  Do you support legislation --- drafted by the George W Bush Administration --- that would close this “terror gap” by giving the FBI the discretion to block these people from buying guns?

[Is this an issue?  I thought you had to present identification and undergo a background check before buying explosives.  Is this equivalent to purchasing a firearm?  What happened to NICS?]

(7) (More about gun trafficking, straw purchases, and stolen guns)   Under current law, it is difficult to prosecute and convict people suspected of of trafficking illegal guns because the penalties for trafficking are small and difficult to prove.   In fact, the current penalty for gun trafficking is the same as for trafficking chickens across state lines.  Do you support legislation that would create a strong federal gun trafficking statute with serious penalties? 

[This sounds like hyperbole bullshit..  I don't believe it.]

(8) (High Capacity Magazines) In many mass shootings, including the 2011 shooting of U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson, AZ, bystanders have been able to subdue perpetrators of mass shootings when the shooters stop to reload. Research from Virginia showed that the federal limit on high-capacity magazines in effect from 1994 to 2004 led to a 50% reduction in criminals being armed with high-capacity magazines— and when the law expired, the share of crime guns with such magazines doubled.   Several states have enacted limits on the size of ammunition magazines. Do you support limits on the capacity of ammunition magazines?

[They lulled us into slumber with their soft-ball questions, and now they're throwing the fast-ball questions at us.  Do you support limits on the capacity of ammunition magazines?"  Why should anyone?  Anyone who knows anything about guns knows that (a) a reload is only a minor inconvenience, and (b) magazine capacity has never been an issue in the kind of 'mass shootings' which this article purports to address.  It's just an attack on legal firearms owners.]

(9) (Child Safety) Twenty-eight states and the District of Columbia have child access prevention laws, which allow criminal charges for adult gun owners who fail to store their guns safely and keep them out of the reach of children. Do you support laws that allow a prosecutor to bring charges if a gun owner stores a firearm negligently, a minor accesses the gun, and harm results?

[One wonders who is a responsible gun owner.  Most of us are responsible.  Adding felony penalties when your child foxes your gun safe after he has killed you  (Adam Lanza) seems unproductive.] 

(10) (National Concealed Carry Mandate)   Some in Congress have proposed “national concealed carry reciprocity” legislation, which would create a new federal mandate forcing every state to recognize concealed carry permits from every other state, no matter how lax a state’s laws are. Do you oppose national concealed carry reciprocity, which would overturn state public safety laws and replace them with a lowest-common denominator standard?

[This is reminiscent of the Shalleen Allen situation, where a legal gun in one state is a felony just across the border.  It has recently been reconciled with no serious penalties to the 'perpetrator', because (in this case) New Jersey was embarrassed by their draconian "no credit for being an honest person" gun laws.  The question about "Lax gun Laws" is hyperbole at best]