Yes, we DO want to take your guns

No surprises, nothing new here ... move along.

Yes, gun grabbers are now openly advocating for repealing the second amendment.

If you own a gun, you are suspected of ... well, anything that would be considered a "violent person".

It's not a matter of "who you are" or "what you do", but "what you own" that marginalizes you as a law-abiding citizen of America.

Second Amendment protection?  That's their first target.

Once they succeed in removing that Constitutional Right (which is acknowledged, not granted, by the Constitution), those who hate gun owners have a down-hill run toward universal confiscation of firearms. 

It doesn't matter that you're a law-abiding citizen who hasn't had as much as a traffic ticket for 20 years; you are considered an outlaw, and as such you need to be curbed from your threat to honest (liberal/non-gun owners) society

5 Facts Proving "They Are Coming For Your Guns" Is Not A Conspiracy Theory:

Many of the politicians, mainstream media pundits, and students who call for stricter gun control laws insist that they are only seeking “common sense” gun legislation. But in reality, the real issues that lead to mass shootings are being ignored and the rhetoric that is being shared in the name of “safety,” is instead chipping away at the Second Amendment, and in some cases, pushing to repeal it altogether.

You might consider writing to your congress-person.  No, not an email; type it out and send it to their home office.

Tell your representatives that you are a gun owner with no criminal history .. and that you are concerned that you civil rights may be undermined by recent gun-control movements.   The Internet has your representatives contact information ... if it's not worth the five minutes to find the contact information, then you just don't care enough about your rights.

I've done that.  None of them replied to me yet.  So it may be that you're wasting your time.  What the heck, you have something better to do in the next 15 minutes?

Or else, expect that your firearms me be subject to mandatory registration, and later confiscation.

Your choice.

Finger Pointing Is Punishable If The Thumb Is Cocked

Oh my!   If these New Rules were in effect when I was 12 years old, I'd still be in prison!

To summarize; a juvenile was handcuffed and "arrested" because he pointed the wrong fingers at a too-sensitive teacher.

When did elementary teachers become so "Politically Correct" that  pre-adolescent children need to be handcuffed and arrested?

12-year-old boy with autism arrested for brandishing imaginary rifle at Texas school | KUTV: (KUTV) — A 12-year-old autistic boy was placed in a Juvenile Detention Center on Monday after brandishing an imaginary rifle at his art teacher, FOX 26 reports. The 5th grade teacher reportedly felt threatened by the child, identified as David Sims, who was arrested by a school police officer. "She (the officer) just put handcuffs on me and told me I need to go with her," Sims said.

In TEXAS?

Nobody has yet reported whether his fingers were loaded, or whether they were loaded with "Hollow-Point" or "Armor Piercing" fingernails.

Remington Won't Sell Guns to ... who? Anyone with money? Get Outta Here!

Bank of America's loan to Remington tests its firearms pledge | Reuters:

“It’s perfectly reasonable for them (BOA) to say to any borrower, ‘We’re happy to lend to you if you don’t make military-style assault weapons,’” said Ted Gavin of the Gavin/Solmonese LLC restructuring advisory firm. “The lender has all the power.”

But if the lender is too picky about their customers .. they don't have any customers.
And there are plenty of other customers who really really want to upgrade their  product line with another Major Customer!!!!

(Watch for the "Cave-in" on this perfectly reasonable statement.)

Remington Firearms are perfectly legal.   When the "lender" has sufficiently milked the political  issue, the corporate position will shift just enough to accept perfectly legal firearms as a perfectly legal manufacturer's product.

And Remington Firearms can't stay in business if they don't sell guns.  

What other product do they have?  Popcorn?

Because   $$$,$$$,$$$

And banks don't loan money to companies which don't sell product.

Michael Bloomberg Wants To Be Gun Czar?

Anybody who listens to Michael Bloomberg is a damn fool.

"There's no leadership" on gun reform, says Michael Bloomberg - CBS News:

"I think all of us have a responsibility between now and then, call your congressman, call your senator, and say we want you to do something about this. I don't want to have my child at risk. I don't want to personally be at risk from crazy people with -- should, who shouldn't have guns," Bloomberg said.

The crazy thing about "calling your congressman ...." and saying "..we want you to do something about this" (speaking of Gun Control legislature) is that your congress-critter has no better idea what to "Do About This" than does Bloomberg, who thinks crazy people are those who don't agree with him.

Well ... except "Mister and Mrs America, Turn 'em All In!"

(Sorry ... a Nancy Pelosi moment; I'm just overwhelmed with emotion. Give me a minute?)

Thanks ... I feel better now.

But (CONFISCATION) is the only possible solution to the "Gun Control Problem".  As long as one single private citizen has access to a firearm, the gun deaths will just keep rolling in.    You know it's true; Nancy Pelosi said so!

The solution is to make guns illegal.   That way nobody will ever get shot again.

Except that the people who turn in their guns will have no defense against criminals, who  have this evil smirk on their faces, hoping that civilians will voluntarily render themselves defenseless against predation.  Because criminals don't NEED guns to assault the weaker members of our society ... such as old people, like me.   Guns just make their jobs so much easier, as long as they are the "Only Ones" who have guns.

So if you give up your guns ... well, you do the math.   The guns will be melted down, Ford will buy the slag and build 10 million cars that nobody wants, and you will be unable to outrun a bullet from the guy who carjacks your Ford Fiesta.  Because for DAMN sure, he didn't give up HIS gun! (Except why anyone wants to own a Ford Fiesta I'll never know ... do they even make them any more?

Here's where Nancy Pelosi's advice becomes useful:  "Mr and Mrs America, Give Up Your Ford Fiestas ... Give 'Em All Up!"

(If gun control works, wait until the Liberals follow up with "Knife Control"!
 See how well that has worked in Not-So-Great Britain!)

This is your future:

Nobody wants to take your guns? – The Writer in Black

I ran across this blog article (written a year ago), and after consideration I think the author has so thoroughly "done his homework" that nothing I can say would amount to anything more than Gilding the Lily.

Nobody wants to take your guns? – The Writer in Black:

Whenever I, or others, object to “registration” or bans on transfers, or other forms of “gun control” and firearms restrictions as steps toward an eventual complete prohibition and the confiscation that such would necessarily entail, we get told we’re paranoid and “nobody wants to take your guns.” Well, perhaps we should consider these “nobodies” ...

Take a few minutes. RTWT     (Read The Whole Thing)

Then read this.

Gun Control Game Plan Revealed

Yes, they do want to confiscate your legally acquired firearms, and yes, they do campaign for illegal immigration.

Who are "They"?

My Turn: Gregg Lee Carter: Serious gun control is coming  in 2021:

Three trends give hope to gun control advocates that 2021 will see the Democrats back in power and a subsequent strengthening of gun laws: The rise of interest in young adults in politics (who traditionally have low turnout, but now have an issue — gun control — motivating them to vote); the generally low popularity of the Republican president, Donald Trump; and the increasing presence of new immigrants in the electorate, with most coming from societies where gun ownership is neither commonplace nor considered a fundamental right of the citizenry. Thus, recent immigrants — from Latin America, Asia, and Africa — tend to be supportive of stronger gun control legislation, and at the same time tend to vote for the Democratic Party.

They really do not like the Constitution, and they are uncomfortable with you having "Rights" that they don't want for themselves.
They are Sheep.

Leftist Gun Confiscation: Whatever It Takes!

Prologue:  I encourage any 2nd Amendment researcher to follow the reference links included in this article.   Many of them are new to me.

Leftists Demanding Gun Confiscation – The short List updated to March 2018:

In order to execute the necessary steps to confiscate guns, the Left must first take control of private property with Intergalactic Background Checks [Universal, Enhanced, etc.] But they need to Lie about their ultimate goal so that the people will accept this drastic intrusion into their personal lives.

Fortunately for the Leftists, their definition of "Morality" includes saying anything which advances their agenda, with no qualms about "persiflage" as a defense against any charge of "lying".

The Right, on the other hand, is held to a higher standard.
Which is not difficult to accommodate, as long as they always tell the truth.

Which nobody believes, because it's not as interesting.

(emphasis added)

This is an abbreviated list [which] shows they are openly lying when they deny their intentions, it also shows they have developed some clever euphemisms for the taking everyone’s firearms.

Yes, we DO want to take your guns

Following Stevens’ ‘Repeal 2A’ Rant, Anti-Gunners Run From Truth - Liberty Park Press:

Why does everything have to be a “loophole” and why are all restrictive gun control measures “common sense?”

Read The Whole Thing.

I Had Never Touched a Gun . Then I Bought One.

Fascinating article for a self-professed "Snowflake", examining the angst and trauma of an gun-control proponent.

The author walks us through the trials and tribulations of buying, and becoming familiar with, a handgun in the wilds of Seattle.

I Had Never Touched a Gun Before the Las Vegas Massacre. Then I Bought One. - Features - The Stranger:

A liberal snowflake gets to know gun culture from the inside.

The author walks us through every detail of his decision to 'find out' what the attraction of firearms might be.   And during the trip, he pays much attention to detailing how upsetting ... yet fascinating ... the journey has been.

As I read through the article (excellent written, atypically "fair and balanced" as they say", I began to wonder about his motivation.  If he finds guns so fearful, why did do this.    True, it's a fine example of expository skills; and though it's rather long, it's not a waste of time and I hope he received a fat check for his efforts.

But still .. he harps on the fear he felt.   Why the fear?   Was there something special which made the 'experiment' particularly dreadful for him?

Then toward the end of the article, *under the header "TRIGGER WARNING"* he provides full exposure: 

He has a suicidal tendency which he has fought years; he controls it by medication.

There Are Some People Who Simply Should Not Have A Gun

I have made this point in my writings over the past ten years here.   To my mind the sorts of people who should not have a gun include:

1. Violent Criminals
2. People who are either incompetent, untrained, or unable to comprehend the lethality
3. Mentally Unstable People

There is obviously some overlap in these three major categories, plus sub-categories not defined here.

But a person who is admittedly suicidal, and who requires medication to control suicidal urges, is certainly playing a life-and-death game with himself.   This author qualifies in the second and third categories, although he makes a stringent effort to describe why he shouldn't be included in the second (and lacking a felony conviction, he has not qualified for the first category).

Although I admired his work, and still have my copy of "Hunting with Hemingway", I lost my respect for Ernest Hemingway when he took his own life.

And you, sir, are no Hemingway.

Please follow up with your better judgement, and remove that damn Glock from your life, rather than to remove your life with the Glock.

"Military Style Weapons" to be banned?

Three days after one of the worst mass shootings in U.S. history, 22 Democratic senators on Wednesday proposed a national ban on military-style weapons of the sort the Texas shooter deployed to massacre 26 people in a church on Sunday.Sens. Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy, both of Connecticut, were the lead co-sponsors along with Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.“Connecticut’s ban was a model for us in drafting this,” Blumenthal said in an interview.

http://www.ctpost.com/business/article/Democratic-senators-propose-military-style-12342649.php

Do Democrats understand that there are very few firearms which cannot be accurately defined as "Military Style Weapons"?  This includes most hunting rifles, which are sometimes described (by Democrats and other Gun Confiscators as "Sniper Rifles".   Pistols?  Revolvers?  All issued to Military personnel.

(Well, of course they understand that!   It's in the book; you can look it up.)

Confiscation?  Not obviously on the public venue, but we can bet Registration is on the horizon, and Confiscation follows Registration as surely as Dawn follows Dusk.   And the kind of bill proposed would not be possible to enforce without registration of firearms in private hands "already legally in the hands of owners".   How else can they tell 'new guns" from "those already legally in the hands of owners"?

Oh, the Democrats are just eating this up with a Big Spoon!

Democratic senators propose military-style weapons ban - Connecticut Post:

The measure would ban the sale, manufacture and importation of affected new guns, but would not confiscate those already legally in the hands of owners. It covers broad classes of semiautomatic firearms including most versions of the AR-15, which the Texas shooter used, and which has been used in several mass shootings. The bill would also ban high-capacity magazines, which are also already banned in Connecticut. "Weapons of war have no place in our communities,” Blumenthal said in a written release. He defended Connecticut’s 1993 ban on military-style weapons in the state Supreme Court. “These killing machines have no purpose for self-defense or hunting and they must remain on the battlefield where they belong — not in our churches, schools and theaters,” he added in the release.

So, if "weapons of war have no place in our communities", why would the good folks in Connecticut (who have already raised the "WILL NOT COMPLY!" banner high) be expected to obey another new law which is impossible to enforce without compliance ... and without protest ... and without justification?

And for that matter, why would the REST of America feel comfortable with an "Assault Weapons Ban" .. which we proved decades ago would have no meaningful benefit? 

(1994 Assault Weapons Ban)

Connecticut seems an odd place to begin the confiscation of firearms.  One of the original 13 colonies, Connecticut has a proud history of resisting firearms confiscation.

In 2014, news sources reported that in Connecticut a confiscation of firearms was in the works, but this turned out to not be true.

Is it possible that this is just another example of "Fake News"?

Or have both state and National officials raised the flag of confiscation, just to test the waters?

Or have they truly, under the maniacal leadership of Democratic Senators, decided that this was "the right thing to do".

CTPOST.COM reports that this is not merely a proposed state ban, but is proposed as a FEDERAL ban on "Assault Rifles":

(Sens. Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy, both of Connecticut, were the lead co-sponsors along with Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.)Three days after one of the worst mass shootings in U.S. history, 22 Democratic senators on Wednesday proposed a national ban on military-style weapons of the sort the Texas shooter deployed to massacre 26 people in a church on Sunday. Sens. Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy, both of Connecticut, were the lead co-sponsors along with Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.“Connecticut’s ban was a model for us in drafting this,” Blumenthal said in an interview.

(Did anyone notice that it was a guy with an "Assault Weapon" who drove the rascal away? 

No? 

I didn't think so.)

Oh, Crap.
It hasn't been two hours since I swore to myself that I would no longer report on the Texas Church Massacre ... but our National Leaders haven't been able to demonstrate even that miniscule modicum of restraint.   (At least nobody mentioned the word: "BumpStock".)

You know what I think?  I think we should tar and feather the rascals, and run 'em out of town on a rail.  Like they did in the old days.

Write your congress-critter.  Better yet, phone his office.  Tell him this is a threat to Americans in every state and that nobody who votes for this kind of shenanigans will ever be elected to public office again. 
Because we're MAD AS HELL and WE"RE NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!

UBC ... the slippery slope to gun owners who can't prove their innocence

Don't be fooled about UBC (Universal Background Checks).

The problem isn't about knowing who has what guns;  the problem is about who has a gun which the state may unilaterally decide to confiscate.

"Oh, they wouldn't do THAT!"

Bullshit.  California did exactly that in 2015/2016:

REDDING, Calif. - A new California law takes effect January 1 that allows legally-owned guns to be confiscated if family or friends believe the owner is a threat to themselves or others.
It's called AB-1014 and it comes after the mass shooting in May 2014 that claimed six lives in Isla Vista, California.

(And by the way, Oregon is toying with the same legislation ... it's so NICE to live in a Liberal State!)

Why would your 'family or friends' turn you into the Confiscation Cops?  Because they love you!

And you're going to jail, Buddy.  Isn't love wonderful?

The Problem with Universal Background Checks *(UBC)* is that it is tantamount to Universal Registration ... which is the first step to Universal Confiscation.

Lawsuit Filed Over Unimplemented Universal Background Check - Bearing Arms - Anti-Gun Laws, Gun Control, Nevada, universal background checks:

The problem with universal background checks is that nothing about them is particularly enforceable. The transfer of a firearm to a family member is just one example. Unless the state maintains a full database of who has which guns, it’s impossible to determine just when a gun was transferred and to whom. 

That's not a 'problem'; that's a FEATURE!

Why do you think The State needs a "full database of who has which guns"?

Because they want to know just which doors to knock on, and which guns they can confiscate there.  And if they don't find the guns their registration database tells them they should expect, you're in a heap of trouble, Bubba!

Oh, someone stole your gun(s)?

Guess what ... there's a companion law requiring you to report gun  thefts within x-number of days.   You didn't notice they were gone?  Sorry ... put your hands behind your back, and tell your wife and children goodbye.   You're going to jail, Bubba.  You'll have to prove your innocence.

Personally, I couldn't tell you how many guns I own, let alone how many of which type.  Serial numbers?  Some  most ALL of them don't have serial numbers. 

"I don't need no stinking serial numbers!"

This isn't America.  It's California, and now Nevada, and (coming soon) it's Oregon.

I didn't vote for this, in Oregon, my Native state.  It's to be a 'regulation', not a state constitutional issue.   Second Amendment be damned.   "We don't need no stinkin' Second Amendment."

"Liberal Politics" isn't politics;  it's "Hi!  I'm From The Government and I'm Here to make sure that you understand that we own your a**!"

Some folks don't appreciate their efforts.

Oregon, Oh Oregon ...

The Senate of my favorite state (Oregon) has  been very busy lately:  two actions prove that they're "doing their job and earning their pay!"

First ...Oregon To Decriminalize Meth, Cocaine | The Daily Caller:

The Oregon legislature passed two bills Thursday decriminalizing small amounts of six hard drugs, including cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and ecstasy. The first of the two bills now headed to the governor’s desk, HB 2355, decriminalizes possession of the drugs so long as the offender has neither a felony nor more than two prior drug convictions on record, according to the Lund Report. The second, HB 3078, reduces drug-related property crimes from felonies to misdemeanors.

Isn't that special?   Now we can't keep druggies off the streets long enough for them to get past their addiction.

SECOND ... Oregon Passes GOP Senator's Bill Allowing Gun Seizure Order Without Gun Owner's Knowledge:

Oregon lawmakers passed legislation co-sponsored by Sen. Brian Boquist (R-Dallas) that allows a judge to issue an ex parte ruling for the confiscation of an individual’s firearms. The bill is SB 719, and it has now passed Oregon’s House and Senate. It creates an Extreme Risk Protection Order, which forces the subject of the order to hand over all firearms, as well as his concealed carry permit if he possesses one.

Personally, I didn't understand what "ex parte" meant until I read this article:

The ex parte aspect of the law means the bill does not require the gun owner to be present for part of the hearing in which the judge decides whether guns should be taken from him.

(Can you say: "Kangaroo Court", Captain?)

I had ranted against discussed this bill a few times in the past ... once night I raved before I went to bed, and raved the same subject the next morning.  (I deleted one; one overkill is a week is enough.)

I'm not sure which of the Oregon Senate's two actions offended me the most:  more rights for drug users who break the law (they can't work, so they steal to support their habit) ... or less rights for the hard-working law-abiding firearms owner.  (We don't have to break the law for the state to confiscate our property; we only need to know someone who holds a grudge.)

Well, we all make our choices.   It seems clear to me now that I have made a wrong choice of which vice to pursue ... it's safer in Oregon to be a heroin addict than a firearms owner.

Welcome to Oregon!   Bring Drugs and Money!

The 2nd Amendment Does Not Give You The Right To Own A Gun

This is an important constitutional point, and who knows how long it will be available online, now that Bob Owens Has Left The Range.   But the discussion is interesting.


The 2nd Amendment Does Not Give You The Right To Own A Gun:

Listen to this college history lecturer turned firearms instructor. He knows his stuff.

You can access the video at the above link.

(I tried to access the source code for the video, but it hasn't been uploaded to any internet source available to the public.  And since it's proprietary to Bearing Arms, they have the right to restrict  SOLE access to their own website.)

I hope that Bearing Arms is careful to preserve this video, because it explains the Constitutional nuances of the Second Amendment, which many people just do not understand.

The central point is, of course, that the Constitutional Forefathers DID NOT TRUST GOVERNMENT to preserve the rights of the common citizen.  Therefore, in the first ten amendments to the constitution called "The Bill of Rights" or The Enumerated Rights ... even though they specifically were not 'enumerated' (ranked by order of importance) .. every one of these rights were deemed as important as any other of the Rights defined there'


Here is a list of the Bill of Rights, in an video file:


Bear in mind that the "Colonists" had suffered under the thumb of The King (George III) of England, and the unwonted excesses of the British troops who were stationed in the colonies to keep order, protect the colonists from predation by native people, and to enforce British Law (including the collection of taxes).

Mostly, the latter.

When you review these amendments, recall that each was enacted to address a specific grievance which the British King's policies had visited upon the Americans.

In the meantime, I hope you all have a joyful and NOISY celebration of American Independence!

And now ... the traditional Independence Day  Geek Fireworks Show!

God Bless America!

Australian Gun Confiscation: "It's Complicated"

NRA-ILA | Nationwide Firearms Turn-in Not Enough for Australia’s Gun Haters:

I had to read this latest article several times to get the sense of it.  In the end, it DID make sense .. in a sort of Alice in Wonderland manner of speaking ... but it still reeks of governmental arbitraryism:

Unlike the confiscatory scheme that followed Australia’s 1996 National Firearms Agreement, which banned most ownership of semi-automatic and pump action rifles and shotguns, the 2017 amnesty is not coupled to any new restrictions on the types of firearms an individual may own. Further, under the current amnesty, firearm owners will not receive any compensation for the firearms they relinquish.
To participate in the amnesty, gun owners will have to bring their unregistered firearms to a drop-off point designated by state and territorial authorities. In an improvement over the 1997 confiscatory turn-in, gun owners in many cases will be able to choose the final disposition of their unregistered firearms. 

In other words, it's not so much that the firearms are being confiscated because they are "bad" per se; it's that they have not been registered!   Therefore, they must be confiscated.

"Hi, you're Alice?  I'm the White Rabbit and I'm going to make everything just PERFECT for you, and ALL will be returned to the way it was before you fell into the Rabbit Hole. 

-----------------------------------

 Of course, it's not ...  going ...  to ...  come ...  to ...  you ...  for ...  free ......

-----------------------------------

These guys are serious about registering EVERY firearms; unregistered firearms are BAD not because they are BAD GUNS but because they have NOT BEEN REGISTERED!

But wait!  There's a "Good Side"!

An individual that has an irrational animus towards guns can choose to have their former firearm destroyed. Those turning in firearms eligible to enter the lawful stream of commerce may also be able to sell the firearm to a licensed dealer. Firearms license holders who turn over a firearm they are eligible to own will be allowed to register and retain possession of their gun. Of course, given Australian history, some gun owners might prove justifiably reluctant to make the government aware of their unregistered arms, lest they be targeted in some future confiscation effort.

So .. they can "turn over" (GIVE?) their gun to a dealer, and then "retain possession of their gun" later.  RIght?  It looks really good on paper, but it doesn't look good on Video?

Of course, that 'retain possession of their gun" thingie ain't free.  But then .. neither  are you.  They've taken your guns, so what are you going to do.  Whine?  Be a little bitch?  No ... just Bend over and beg for it.  We OWN you!"

The guns which are not BAD but are UNREGISTERED must be confiscated.  Without compensation.   But then the guns can go onto the open market .. and can the owners then redeem the firearms from the dealer?

Well .. yes.  They can BUY their guns (back) from the dealer.  You know, those dealers who have paid the Government (elected) who confiscated the guns, without compensation to the original owners; but the dealers will receive full compensation from the buyers (previous owners).
You know; the guys who have no choice in the matter at all, because "Government".

Government:
The people they elected" government.  The servants of the people.
Is this the image that our politicians see for us?

(What?  They just got their guns stolen by the government and are then permitted to BUY  them back?  How gracious of the government which they voted into office to steal their stuff "without any compensation"), and then allow them to buy it back!)

Yes.  That government.  You expect better from American Government?

[To learn more about the details of Australia’s National Firearms Amnesty, including the specific rules for each state and territory, visit https://firearmsamnesty.ag.gov.au.]

Here's The Good News:

....the entire Australian Plan is a piece of crap, and everyone knows it.

To continue:

In the U.S., researchers and gun rights advocates have long agreed that turn-ins are ineffective policy. This fact is not lost on all Australian politicians. Liberal Democrat Senator from New South Wales David Leyonjelm, recently said of the 2017 amnesty, “It’s purely for appearance purposes. It won’t do anything to address guns on the street, they’ll end up with grandma’s rusty old shotgun or rifle. Which was never going to be used in crime in the first place.”

This is the "Australian Plan" which Hillary, in November of last year (2016) proposed as "Something we should look into" 

 (Or if not an exact quote, is close enough for government work.  Her government.)

Okay, I've done my bit. I told the story, took the side-streets, trolled the alleys and hinted at federal crankiness which might be echoed by our government as much as has been by the Australian government ... the folks we reckoned to be fair cobbers.  Until now.

What you do with it is your business,
Me?  I'm going to sleep now.  Pleasant dreams!

Congressmen propose bill to allow THEM to carry firearms in gun-free zone DC

Congressman proposes that HE should be allowed to "Carry a firearm" in DC; but not YOU.

On June 20, 2017, Representative Brian Babin proposed a bill to allow members of congress to carry firearms where "citizens" cannot.


(PDF here)  "A BILL To allow Members of Congress to carry a concealed handgun anywhere in the United States, with exceptions."

‘‘(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a Member of Congress who is carrying the identification required by subsection (e), to whom a State or the United States Capitol Police has issued a license or permit to carry a concealed handgun, and who is not otherwise prohibited by this chapter from transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, may carry a concealed handgun for any lawful purpose, subject to the terms and conditions of the  license or permit (if issued by the United States Capitol Police), anywhere in the United States, except as provided in subsection (b). ‘‘(b)(1) Subsection (a) shall not apply in or on the grounds of the White House, or wherever the United  States Secret Service is prohibiting the possession of a firearm. ‘‘(2) Subsection (a) shall not ...

Well, you can go look up the line-item details for yourself. 
*(the text has been mildly edited to remove line numbers and line-carryover text such as dashes to represent words interrupted to carry over to the following line.).

My personal opinion is that Congress-persons should have the same rights as their constituents.

Not less, and not more.

Remember, Congressman, you serve at the pleasure of your constituents; not the other way around.

Any "rights" that you fight for, must be fought for them as well.


And for them, first, you sanctimonious jerk!

It depends on what your definition of "ISIS", is ...

Them Clinton folks, they always got a little bit of twist in everything they say.

Clinton: Americans need to be as scared of gun violence as they are terrorism | Washington Examiner:

 Hillary Clinton believes Americans need to be as worried about gun violence as they are about terrorism. "[I]t's not only terrorists we need to be worried about," Clinton said in an interview published Thursday afternoon by AARP. The Democratic nominee's remarks came as she explained she has a plan to combat both terrorism as well as the broader issue of gun violence in the US ....

Seems to me, you get rid of the 'terrorists', you got no problems with "gun violence".

I don't think that's what she's saying:  She doesn't care about terrorists so much as getting rid of  private ownership of firearms.  After all ... this is the Politician who says:
 "We Cannot End Terrorism Without Gun Control!"

So ... if I understand correctly, everyone who owns a gun is a terrorist, in her personal lexicon.
That makes me feel so much more confident in her determination to abide by the terms of her Oath of Office, should she be elected POTUS:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

I have reservations about her veracity if she should be diligent in protecting the Constitution; she has never made that a priority in her office as a Senator.

BTW:  This is one of the reasons why I never accepted my many 'invitations' to join the American Association of Retired People: They're great on 'benefits', but they don't give a shit about the Constitution.

I'd rather starve than live under Hillary.

Which may happen.

Cans of food gratefully accepted.

No Good Deed Goes Unpunished: Part 2

Alternative title: there's always someone to sue

Family of gun instructor killed by girl of 9 using Uzi to sue over his death - Mirror Online:

Now, a wrongful death lawsuit has been filed by Vacca's wife Stephanie against the range and its owner. The lawsuit alleges Bullets and Burgers Corp acted negligently at the outdoor facility and claims the girl received "limited instruction" on firing the Uzi and never should have been given the weapon. The lawsuit says: "The Uzi was an inappropriate and unsafe weapon to entrust to a 9-year-old girl ... thereby creating an unreasonably dangerous and unsafe environment for individuals in the area, including Charles J. Vacca, Jr." The suit is seeking unspecified damages.

I have yet to find any source which can confirm that Vacca was a paid employee of Bullets and Burgers.  Given that the range's website advertises you can "Shoot a .50-caliber and fire a wide range of fully automatic machine guns and specialty weapons at a private outdoor range just outside Las Vegas" suggests that this is part of its business model.

Shoot a .50-caliber and fire fully automatic machine guns and specialty weapons at a private outdoor range just outside Las Vegas, plus enjoy photo opportunities and a hamburger lunch on this exciting tour.
The adventure begins with transportation from your hotel via a shuttle to the Bullets and Burgers range. Once at the range, you'll shoot in a "Desert Storm" atmosphere in the Mojave Desert with the help of a certified ex-military firearms instructor. You will choose from a variety of guns, machine guns, specialty guns and belt fed machine guns (depending upon your package level), including actual guns used in the movies "Rambo," "Terminator" and "Jumanji."

Bullets and Burgers, besides offering a range where you can shoot machine guns, offers 'adventure tours'.    This marks them as a 'big pockets' business, so they probably have insurance far beyond the ten million dollars which is considered prudent for most private ranges.

So the Vacca family will sue, and they will win, even though the family is aware that Vacca took the job willingly, and died as a consequence of his own actions.   They will receive a ton of money.   This will not recompense them for the loss of their loved one, nor will it provide compensation for the little girl who had her finger on the trigger when a man died.   This is a lawsuit which will invariable come to pass.

(PARALLELS: I recall an incident of a few years ago, where two men were tasked to steam-clean a tank in a chemical factory which had been used to process toxic wastes.  Their protective clothing, or their oxygen masks, or something failed; they both died.  They were there willingly, but their families sued and won.   There are dangerous jobs which are accepted by men who are just trying to earn a good living for their families; and when the worst happens, any amount of moralizing is facetious ... until the courts get into it.)

CONCLUSION: Quite apart from the multiple tragedies, this will have a chilling effect on the Second Amendment.  "Politicals" will seize upon the opportunity to use this incident as an example of "GUNS ARE BAD", and it will become another arrow in their quiver to skewer the Second Amendment rights of Americans.  Even though full-automatic weapons are already not "ordinarily" available to private citizens, the Left will conflate them with legal semi-automatic weapons.

New laws will be written to circumvent the Second Amendment, and eventually we will all suffer from the avalanche of condemnation.

... AND YOU CAN BELIEVE AS MUCH OF THIS AS YOU WISH

Anyone falsely portraying this gun control debate is 'trying to sell you something':

“There is a very specific type of gun that we want banned – none of them,” said Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign. “All we are trying to do is keep guns out of the hands of people we all agree that shouldn’t have them. Whether you love or hate guns, you agree that a convicted violent criminal, domestic abuser, someone who is dangerously mentally ill, or a would-be terrorist should not be able to get their hands on guns.”

Hillary Clinton at DNC 2016 on 2nd Amendment: I'm not here to take away your guns | AL.com:

 Hillary Clinton told delegates at the 2016 Democratic National Convention she had no interest in taking away anyone's guns but didn't want others to be a victim of firearm violence. Speaking in Philadelphia, Clinton said: "I'm not here to repeal the 2nd Amendment. I'm not here to take away your guns.

ATF HEAD: Our Job Is Not To Take Away People's Guns

In his first television interview, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) Deputy Director, Head Thomas Brandon tells CBS' "Sunday Morning" that the agency's job is not to take away firearms from people, but to regulate weapons that can be misused.

"We're a small agency with a big job," Brandon tells correspondent Richard Schlesinger, in an interview to be broadcast Sunday, July 31.

Brandon also says his agency is hampered by not having the necessary technology. Congress has imposed constraints on ATF, such as prohibiting the agency from creating a computerized database of gun purchases.

Comment on this last:

Tommy, Sweetie ...  We believe you, really.

Actually, we don't.

We don't want you to database our purchases.  Can you guess why?

Because that is the backbone of registration, and registration leads to confiscation

I have a very specific instance to illustrate exactly WHY American Riflemen (gun owners) don't believe the lies of politicians.

I call it ....

The Locklear Subjugation:

I've written about this many times before.

In the late 1990's California Attorney General Bill Locklear published a 'finding' that the SKS rifle was a legal firearm, but required only that they be registered.

After honest, law-abiding citizens owning an SKS rifle registered their guns, Locklear performed an about-face and declared (arbitrarily, and without justification) that SKS rifles were NOT a legal rifle, and required that all SKS rifles be confiscated.

It's not so much  that the guns were confiscated; it's that a 'trusted public servant' took advantage of our trust, and then betrayed us

Those of us who are legal gun owners have since been reluctant to accept the assurance of politicians that we have nothing to fear from registration.   Locklear may have done more harm than good by his underhanded, pusillanimous, arbitrary mismanagement of office.  He had, in a single stroke of the pen, done more to undermine the American Rifleman's faith in his government than any other single official.

And his legacy lives on.

No American will ever again trust any politician who suggests that 'registration' is nothing more than a technicality.

Registration has been proven to be the first step toward confiscation, and nothing that any mere politician -spit- may ever say again in favor of registration will be believed.

And as for Locklear:  may the fleas of a thousand camels infest his scrotum.

(h/t: gunfeed,com)

Oh, this is SO lame!

Benghazi Vet Special Ops Will Quit If Clinton Is Elected | The Daily Caller:

 The best and brightest of the U.S. military and special operations community will quit if Hillary Clinton gets elected president, according to Benghazi survivor and former CIA operative John “Tig” Tiegen.

Am I the only one who remembers all of the Liberal movie stars who threatened to leave America if George W. Bush was elected president?
(They didn't ... and you won't; so you have just put yourself in a very small, very 'special' group of people who deserve no respect.)

I can't believe that now we have (supposedly adult) Conservatives OPERATORS doing the "WAA WAA I'M A BIG BABY WAA WAA" dance.

I guess that the 'operators' now consider themselves the liminaries of the Conservative movement, much as the Movie Stars slide into the same slot for the Libearls.

There is a great silence in muddville tonight, as our stone-cold heroes reveal their feet of clay.

This makes the "Black Socks Scandal" look like a walk in the park.

Mighty Casey Has Struck Out.

I have NO respect for military personnel who let petty political crap dissuade them from their sworn duty.  If you're among those "best and brightest" who don't have the intestinal fortitude to "shut up and soldier" when the politics go against you, then ... go ahead.  Quit.   We don't need you.

If you're not willing to abide your sworn oath to defend your country against " ... all enemies, foreign and domestic ..."  we don't need you.

If you would leave your wounded buddy on the field, while you retreat, then they don't need you.

If you have so little devotion to duty, and you were in my platoon, I would have put you on point.
You have no greater value to your fellow soldiers than to trip a booby-trap ("IED" in current parlance) which might otherwise have taken out a better man.

Here's a very special Military Acronym which just suits Quiters:    FOAD!

Oh, and by the way: you have just made millions of Liberal Wimps feel privileged to look DOWN on you.  And you deserve their condescension.

They are BETTER than you; at least they know they are cowards.

BACKGROUND:

Connecticut 2014: "Will Not Comply!" (Where Are They Now?)

Thousands in Connecticut refuse to register guns under new law - YouTube:

 *Originally Published on Feb 15, 2014*

The state of Connecticut passed restrictive new gun laws last year in the wake of Newtown's Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting that left more than two dozen - mostly children - dead. One of those laws, which recently went into effect, requires residents to register all "military-style weapons" with the state.

But tens of thousands of Connecticut residents refuse to register their guns, and they could soon be considered felons by the state if they continue to ignore the requirement. RT's Perianne Boring sits down with Bryan Crosswhite, founder of 2AO (2amendment.org), about the constitutionality of the registration requirement and other gun control measures.

("Soon"?)

With a demure attitude, one spokesman went on to the air to confirm that Connecticut gun owners "will not comply" with an illegal law.




(Soon?)

Also in "The Kelly File" in February of 2014, we have this evidence that Connecticut folks "Will Not Comply".



   ,,,,,,   That was then.

THIS IS NOW: THE FOLLOW-UP

I did a search today for FIREARMS CONFISCATION CONNECTICUT

In THE :BLAZE  (May 3, 2016) I did find an ONE article about firearms confiscation in Connecticut:

Connecticut lawmakers have passed legislation to permit law enforcement to confiscate guns and ammunition from anyone accused of domestic abuse. The bill is headed to the desk of Gov. Dannel Malloy and he’s expected to sign it.

So, the rhetoric has changed?   Did someone blink?

I'm still wondering: Did they really have a "Confiscation", and nobody came?

Or did I just sleep through it ... ?