Florida to espouse States Rights v The Constitution?

In an Opinion Article published in the Miami Herald, the author suggests that:

The NRA suing the Florida Legislature is like a parent suing the children. That’s Mom and Dad taking Johnny to court because he won’t eat his broccoli.

(Link and full quote below the fold)

(The reference is to Florida's attempt to limit the rights of its citizens to own firearms; the state has more "rigorous" restrictions on just who, when and why its citizens may possess guns.)

I have no idea what point the author was trying to make in the above quote; but I quite comprehend the rancor which is illustrated in the following quote:

Of course, the NRA picked as its target a patsy who probably won’t fight back too hard. It doesn’t have the guts to go after its real enemy, the courageous children of Parkland.

The NRA, as a representative organization of sportsmen and other legal firearms owners, is unlikely to "go after its real enemy" identified by the Author as "courageous children".   The NRA is all about civil and constitutional rights, and its members demand that it protect the First Amendment as assiduously as the Second Amendment.

The very idea that this membership would continence an attack on patriotic teenagers ... even those who (wrongly) accuse the NRA of fomenting firearms violence ... is anathema.    The author of this article has a private agenda, and has resorted to distortion of the truth and condemnation of strangers in an attempt to paint them with a bloody brush.

In point of fact, the Federal Government does have the power to impose Constitutional Rights on states which have historically denied them.  Witness SELMA ( do your  homework), where President Dwight David Eisenhower sent troops into Alabama to protect the rights of African-American children to get the SAME educational opportunities as white children ... as opposed to the "Separate-but equal" sham (which was far from equal, but certainly separate) acts of southern states who tried to maintain their apartheid restrictions on many of their citizens.

(The ACLU is great on protecting the First Amendment, but few rights supporters stand up for the Second.   That's why Americans rely on the Constitution, instead of the sometimes-misguided efforts of states.)

It's not about "GUTS", and the author is wrong (and knows he's wrong) to suggest it.

The NRA's only enemies are those who would undermine or deny Constitutional Rights to its citizens.   That's the reason for its existence, and the reason why over five million (that's 5,000,000 to those who are unfamiliar with, or don't understand the Bill of Rights) law-abiding American Citizens accept the National Rifle Association as their representatives in combating anti-constitutional laws at the local, state and national level.  

"Nobody was hurt": Second Amendment Peaceful Protest In Colorado

In an "Open Carry" demonstration in Boulder, Colorado recently ...

.... some ... a few ... many ... most ... all of the protesters were  carrying firearms which may or may not have been loaded with live ammunition.

Nobody asked, nobody told.  And it didn't matter.

Boulder police made 'tactical decision' to let demonstrators break city gun law during protest - Boulder Daily Camera:

 It's illegal in Boulder to openly carry a firearm unless it's held in a "carrying case" — a holster for a handgun, for example, or something larger and easily recognizable in the case of a larger weapon. And, yet, on Saturday afternoon in downtown Boulder, some among the group that lined Broadway to rally in opposition to the City Council's proposed ban on assault weapons stood with AR-15-style rifles slung over their shoulders.

'The most important thing about Saturday's rally was that no one was hurt and no one's rights were infringed,'

City Attorney Tom Carr, who said the police did not intervene as open-carry laws were being broken because doing so might have escalated the situation.

Well, that's the way it ought to be.  You break the law, you go to jail; but nobody broke the PEACE, which served to demonstrate that the People of The Gun are a peaceful folk, whose priority is to observe the implied criteria of the Second Amendment:

"Shall Not Be Infringed!:\

 If you can't trust a man with a gun, you cannot trust anybody.

"Oh, The Humanity!" (Illegal to teach your kids "Gun Safety")

New "Civil Wrong": Going To A Shooting Range with your progeny! 

Apparently it's Anathema to teach your children  to exercise their constitutional rights.
Internet Star Ken Bone Says Son Was Suspended From School For Going To A Gun Range | Daily Wire:

Ken Bone, the man who became Internet famous for asking questions during one of the 2016 Presidential debates (and for wearing a now-iconic red pullover), says his son was suspended from school pending an investigation after Bone posted a photo of him and his son getting time in at the gun range.

Nobody wants to take your guns away!

But it's perfectly "OKAY!" to take away your child's Educational Rights if you have taught him/her how to safely and responsibly use a firearm.

And by extension, there's something wrong with the Constitutional Rights of the Second Amendment.

Support your Constitution; defend it against Liberals who are searching for ways to teach your children that your failure to support of the Second Amendment is license to abrogate all of their other civil rights.

That's not just wrong ... it's Dead Wrong!

FOAD, Liberals!

Gun Owner Offends Writer For Posing in an Unacceptable Manner

"Most gun owners would not hold their gun in this same posed manner."

Why Not?   He's at  a GUN RANGE!

Parkland Teacher Attacks Kyle Kashuv Over Gun Photo | Daily Wire:

This photo was apparently NOT taken at a "School", so the presence of a young man holding a rifle is not obviously a threat to a school

It's possible that  the criticism is because the photo shows the young man at a shooting range, facing UP RANGE, and he is behind the line of fire.   But there's no reason to believe that the firing line had not been cleared before the photo was taken.

But the comment is "... hold their gun ...", and all we can tell from the photo is that:

 (a) his finger is OFF the trigger;
 (b) the gun seems to be unloaded (no magazine inserted);
 (c) the muzzle is not discernibly pointing "up-range".

There's nothing "unacceptable" with his firearms safety procedures.

Here's the "posed manner":

Photo Source: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DbRcweDW4AEpZMy.jpg*Kyle Kashuv on Twitter*

NOTE: "Range Rules" not obviously violated. The Critic doesn't identify the "problem".


Here is the article's full quote from the critical teacher, in the context of the Daily Wire article:

In response to a photo that was taken of Kashuv, American History teacher Greg Pittman tweeted: "As a teacher from Stoneman Douglas, any student posting photos holding guns, knives or other weapons would be questioned. 4 federal cases have ruled in the last 10 years that assault weapons are not protected. Most gun owners would not hold their gun in this same posed manner."

The quote's emphasis seems to suggest that the criticism concerns the validity of Student + Photo + Guns/Weapons = BAD!

My Opinion:
Any American who is not forbidden by virtue of insanity, felonious history, or certain other legal bans (include domestic violence ) is acknowledged by the Constitution to the right keep and bear arms.   Age Limits may apply; parental discretion is a defense.


I am not criticizing the author's opinion; it's only that he doesn't specify WHY he considers the subject's "Pose" to be unacceptable.  Unless and until he clarifies his statement, we are left to conjecture ... which is often based on assumptions of our own.

Proposed limit to magazine capacity in Oregon

NEWS ALERT: Federal Judge Rejects California Mag Ban - The Firearm BlogThe Firearm Blog:
(June 29, 2017)
 a federal judge has rejected a California law that was set to take effect to ban the ownership and possession of firearm magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez said that people should be able to use firearms with “whatever common magazine size he or she judges best suits the situation”. A testimony to individual liberty I personally find refreshing.

mindcrime16

Confident Pelosi: counting chickens ...

She may just be right.  Republicans haven't fielded a respectable Presidential candidate for some time.

Confident Pelosi: Dems Ready to Push Amnesty, Gun Control ‘When We Win’ in Nov | Breitbart:

A confident House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) predicted on Tuesday that Democrats will take back the House and immediately push for amnesty for so-called Dreamers and more gun-control legislation. “When we win and we take over in January, some of the issues that will come up soon are some of the issues that we are asking the Speaker to do right now,” she said at a Georgetown University event.

I suggest that Trey Gowdy would be the most electable Republican in America today.  He is bright, articulate, and speaks to conservative views ... which Donald Trump (elected because the alternative was Hillary Clinton) cannot claim in good conscience.

I have no idea why Gowdy has suddenly left the political view; has he become disillusioned with his party?  (If so, he's not the only one.)

A Gowdy presidency  .. he was not born with the most serious family name possible ... would offer a clear choice between himself and anyone the Democrats could offer.   The most salient characteristic in the blog is, of course, that he's still "Not Hillary", but also that he is a constitutionalist.

He believes in the traditional American values, and is not inclined to ignore the Constitution if favor of Liberal priorities.   Also, he's a successful lawyer and past District Attorney, so he has a clear understanding of the difference between Right and Wrong.  (Again, not a Democratic Party platform.)

Shucks, if the too-shy Gowdy declines to run for President, I am probably not the only Conservative who is going to enter him as a "Write-in Candidate".

Which would undermine the Republican voters (if Gowdy is not on the slate) and probably guarantee another four years of Democratic Party chicanery.

Well, if that's what it takes to get a Presidential Candidate who offers a clear alternative to Democratic vote-buying, I can stomach another Democrat that I won't vote for ... ever.

Don't listen to what they say

“We don’t want to take your guns, we just want to take your guns that we don’t like.”:

There is a "class" of people who think that the Constitution of the United States should be "rewritten" to recognize the values which have  (in their mind) become preponderate in our country.

The Second Amendment is at the top of their "hit list", because it subtly proposes that each American is responsible for his/her own safety and security.

Men are responsible for their own self defense, as well as for the defense of their family, their peer group, their clan ... everyone for whom men feel  a social connection in which every member supports every other member.

In this situation, and in Modern America, men have accepted their responsibility by arming themselves and by practicing the skills which enable them to defend their. peer group.

As for the confiscation of firearms, men deem the ownership of firearms to be required in a Free state: if we cannot defend our Family,, we are  freeloaders who contribute nothing to Society. 

That's permissible, but it is not a "High Value" status in the clan: it's a "hanger-on" a person who is not competent, and is only accepted because his contribution adds to the social value, not the continuation, of the Clan.

Those who would deprive us of our right to self-defense are not NOT among our "support group",

They choose to arbitrarily determine what actions we might take in our priority to survive, and their priorities are political rather than practical. 

They are typically not responsible for their own safety ... they hire guns, but do not carry them.

"Those poople" usually have not been "shot at".   They are very comfortable in their cocoon of inexperience.  They glory in their supposed value ("Hey, I'm a STAR!) and the expense of hiring guards in off-set by the publicity value.

You and I don't have any publicity value, and therefore we need to provide our own self-defence.

I've been "shot at:.  I didn't enjoy the experience and I take responsibility for my own personal well-being.  But I was in a war zone, and I ws drafted.


.

‘Save a Life, Surrender Your Knife’

‘Save a Life, Surrender Your Knife’: n June 2015, in the wake of another mass shooting incident that left nine victims dead at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina, debate about the issue of gun control flared up again in the U.S. In the midst of that debate, a number of social media users pointed to a November 2014 Counter Current News article purportedly describing an effort by British police to disarm the citizenry of dangerous “pointy knives”:

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:

top shooting deaths around the world

Parkland Student Calls For Confiscation Of All Semi-Automatic Firearms | Daily Wire:

 The top-6 deadliest mass shootings in world history: 
 1. 2017 Egyptian Mosque Attack, 305 deaths
 2. 2015 Kenya College Attack, 148 deaths
 3. 2014 Pakistan School Massacre, 141 deaths
 4. 2015 Paris Attacks, 130 deaths
 5. 2011 Norway Attacks, 67 deaths
 6. 2013 Kenya Shopping Mall Attack, 67 deaths

Portland mayor tells student rally he'll seek city-wide 'assault weapon' ban

Portland mayor tells student rally he'll seek city-wide 'assault weapon' ban: Though Wheeler may want city leaders to act tough on guns, state firearm preemption laws forbid local governments from regulating the “sale, acquisition, transfer, ownership, possession, storage, transportation or use” of guns in any way. But the former Oregon State Treasurer and political ally of Gov. Kate Brown said he is going to work on that as well. “I am going to Salem during this next legislative session and I’m going to ask the Governor and the legislature to lift the preemption in Oregon,” Wheeler said.

Global Warning decreases school violence? You have GOT to be kidding me! (How about those coal burning furnaces, eh? Answer me that!)

Some people will go to extravagant ends to justify their theories, even at the risk of allowing themselves to be identified as fools.   You have to ask yourself, what does this have to do with "Gun Control"?

On the anniversary of the Columbine shooting, examining the science behind why better gun control really will stop school violence — Quartz: 

In 1963, Britain experienced 5,714 suicides. Over the next several years, that number declined steadily and quickly; by 1975, the country had 3,693 suicides. This decline took place against a rise in suicides throughout the rest of Europe. Social scientists started looking for something to explain the drop. What they realized was that the decrease in suicide had coincided with the progressive transition in British households from carbon monoxide-producing coal gas to natural gas, beginning in 1958.

First, the title of the article suggests that the topic is "School Violence" .. but the dominant text seems to address British Suicides!

The rest of the article seems to be on track with the "British Suicide" theme, but it doesn't lead into the title topic: "Gun control ... will really stop school violence".

Here's the lame explanation proffered later in the screed:

Opponents of gun control often argue that if we take guns away, those intent on killing or committing crimes with them will simply “find another way.” 

(I don't  argue against that; it's Suicide 101.)

Another Clarke and Mayhew study, for example, found that thefts of motorcycles dropped as much as 60% in Germany after a law was implemented requiring motorcyclists to wear helmets. Because these thefts tended to be crimes of opportunity rather than planned heists, potential thieves were dissuaded from stealing motorcycles due to the increased likelihood of getting caught if they were pulled over for not wearing a helmet.

What the heck?  We bounced from Suicide, to Gun Control, with a short stop-0ver at Columbine!   And now we're talking about motorcycle Theft?  And safety helmet laws?

Am I the only one who can't keep track of the theme of this screed?

Finally, the author decided that the cause-and-effect relationship was determined by ... what was it again?

.... the progressive transition in British households from carbon monoxide-producing coal gas to natural gas, beginning in 1958

Oh, yeah, right: carbon monoxide poisoning from Coal Gas.

British humor: we "Amies" can't always  tell whether they're "having us on" or ... what?

Minnesota HF3022: The Face of the Future?

Funny thing; I always thought the law was intended to protect the innocent and our Human Rights.
Today, we see states deliberately formulating laws to make criminals of law-abiding citizens, and undermining Constitutional Rights. 

It's a funny world we live in, isn't it?  But not humorous; no, not at all.


Incredible Anti-Gun Bill Introduced in MN - AllOutdoor.com

I couldn't do a better job than All Outdoor dot Com describing this egregious (and unconstitutional) Minnesota bill, other than to note the subtitle on the original article:

HF 3022 could make California seem "gun-friendly."

... and the subtitle:

If you live in Minnesota, be afraid. Be very afraid. Then get busy.

A very quick summary of the "Features" of this bill:  Universal reporting, State has total control over every firearms transfer, restrictions on "gun features" which have no bearing on either safety or lethality, mandatory confiscation,  and for a grand finale ....

Universal Registration of all firearms owners, and the personal details (including name, address, etc.) of firearms owners are entered  in a database which is available to General Public Search.

I don't know if this bill will ever be enacted in Minnesota; it's enough that their elected representatives have the unmitigated gall to propose a bill which provides no safety or other benefits to their voters, and still manages to increase their vulnerability to violent crime.


This is a Great Benefit to burglars in Minnesota; they know where, when and why to strike any private residence in the state; one of the most sought-after items of "loot" from a burglary is a firearm.  God only knows how many times it will change hands in the criminal community until it's finally found discarded at the scene of a murder, and with so many fingerprints on it that it can only perchance be traced to the original owner (who might not even yet realize that it has been stolen.)

I've often suggested that many politicians were crooks at heart, but this is the first time we have had confirmation that they are enablers of Home Invasions.

Of course, there are no practical measures which an individual may use to protect himself against his on state Legislature ... except the vote.   Oh, and Minnesota is a Democratic state ... you don't even have to be an American Citizen to vote.   So ... forget that; there are probably more illegal aliens that natural born citizens in your state (and mine) already.

In case my friends and neighbors are feeling comfortable saying "It Could Never Happen Here"?

I live in Oregon.  Oregon is a Democratic State.

Democrats are like rats in the woodwork; they pop up without warning, they defile their environment and eat the wiring until it shorts out and the house burns down.   Then it's not fit to live in for anyone but more rats.

Okay, maybe I've taken the analogy too far.

But what if I'm not wrong?

CDC Hid Evidence that innocent Americans often used Guns for self-defense

They used our tax money to hide the truth of their research?

Well, of course they did; the results didn't fit their political goals!

CDC, in Surveys It Never Bothered Making Public, Provides More Evidence that Plenty of Americans Innocently Defend Themselves with Guns - Hit & Run : Reason.com:

The final adjusted prevalence of 1.24% therefore implies that in an average year during 1996–1998, 2.46 million U.S. adults used a gun for self-defense. This estimate, based on an enormous sample of 12,870 cases (unweighted) in a nationally representative sample, strongly confirms the 2.5 million past-12-months estimate obtained Kleck and Gertz (1995)....CDC's results, then, imply that guns were used defensively by victims about 3.6 times as often as they were used offensively by criminals.

This is contrary to CDC's earlier reportage, which strongly suggested that firearms were rarely used in legitimate self defense, and in fact were most often used by felons during commission of a crime.
The point being that guns were more dangerous to innocents than to criminals, and therefor civilian ownership of firearms should be highly regulated. (Which is to say: we can't be trusted with guns as there is no redeeming value in owning one.)

Given that anti-gun people have criticized the NRA for insisting that tax money should not be used to pay for CDC's biased reporting of firearms usage, the new revelations appear to affirm that the National Rifle Association was completely in the right, and the Center for Disease Control was completely in the wrong.

This revelation tarnishes the reputation of a federal agency whose legitimacy and reliability will forever be  questioned;  everyone knows that a proven liar can never be trusted again.

A few additional links for your own research:

Doing whatever is Necessary to Curtail Gun Deaths
What kind of reasearch did CDC do into gun violence
Public Health Gun Control: A Brief History
How Democrats are trying to use your money to take your guns

Dicks

We're talking about "Dick's" sporting goods store ... which I never heard of before this week, and I'm pretty sure I'll never hear about after next week:

How to Destroy an AR-15 - Rolling Stone: "We are in the process of destroying all firearms and accessories that are no longer for sale as a result of our February 28th policy change," a company spokesperson said in a statement. "We are destroying the firearms in accordance with federal guidelines and regulations."

It's only "inventory", after all.


("Insert your own commentary; you can probably do a better of quoting the MSM than I can.)

Exclusive--Kyle Kashuv: Republicans Must Quit Playing Defense and 'Grow the Second Amendment'

I'm sick of hearing about this Liberal Thrall, and I just want to know where I can go on the Internet to ban his ignorant opinion and reference articles for EVER!


Exclusive--Kyle Kashuv: Republicans Must Quit Playing Defense and 'Grow the Second Amendment': Parkland school shooting survivor Kyle Kashuv told Breitbart News he is concerned that Republicans are too focused on playing defense to actually seize the opportunity to “grow the Second Amendment.”

You go, Vermont! ( I mean really; get out of America!)

This is just another instance of Liberals asserting their anti-gun platform by presenting "nuisance" laws based on magazine capacity, *

*(Typical of commentators who know nothing about firearms except they're "against them", they got the terminology wrong)

Bullet* Capacity Opponents File Lawsuit Against State | News | caledonianrecord.com:

A lawsuit was filed on Wednesday that challenges Vermont’s new law that limits the bullet* capacity of gun magazines. The Vermont Federation of Sportsman’s Clubs is among a handful of plaintiffs asking the court to declare the new limits unconstitutional. The federation claims 52 individual clubs in the state are part of its membership. The Caledonia Forest & Stream Club in St. Johnsbury is among them.

Unstated, but obvious ... it matters less to the proponents of the new rules (* how many rounds are "allowed" in a magazine) than that ANY individual is allowed to own a firearm.  The issue of "'how many rounds" is nothing more than an attempt to undermine the Second Amendment of the Constitution because ... they don't trust their fellow Vermonters.

 Anti-gun people are searching for some reason ... ANY REASON ...to circumvent the Second Amendment rights of their free people.

In their progressive movement, they will toss into the pot every and any specious argument which may undermine the Second Amendment rights of their citizens.  This is a disgusting and underhanded effort, and one which should be contested at every turn.

The sad thing about this battle is that the same people who will defend the First Amendment see no conflict in their efforts to undermine the Second Amendment

x
x

Somebody wants to ALLOW you to "own a gun"?

The Liberal talking point is that if you don't NEED a gun, why should you be allowed to HAVE a gun?

Why do Americans need guns? Rip UP the Second Amendment, problem solved.
I won't go into the details of the counter-argument to the 2nd Amendment, but  if you care .. you can go read it here.

But just to give you the flavor, here's a full paragraph quote:

Now am sorry to spit on your 2nd amendment right, but for me self defence is not a valid argument for defending the 2nd amendment. Also the ability to carry arms has been severely restricted by the Gun-Free School zones act of 1990 signed by Gorge [sic] H W Bush, which is ironic considering that 41% of republicans own a firearm compared to only 23% of democrats so kudos to Bush. This does mean though that as a law abiding citizen in a town or city you really can’t carry a gun knowing that you are not breaking a law. As such you would be better just not carrying one, so again if you get attacked by someone you shouldn’t have a gun to defend yourself in the first place because to be carrying said firearm you would be breaking the law. 

[emphasis added]

And Liberals think that Conservative arguments are not compelling.

.380 Pistol Banned in Ohio: Mouse Gun Is an "Assault Weapon"

Ohio Politicians are as ignorant as Oregon Politicians (and that's saying something), when it comes to "Gun Control Laws".
 
Under the bill, an “assault weapon” is an automatic firearm or semi-automatic firearm capable of accepting a detachable magazine with the capacity of accepting ten or more cartridges and a semi-automatic firearm with a fixed magazine with the capacity of accepting ten or more cartridges. 

This is why firearms owners hold politicians in such scorn disdain;
Elected officials feel the need to "do something" about the gun control problem, and anything they propose is either illogical, impossible, or inane.

Take  Kel-Tec .380 semi-automatic pistol.  It is "magazine fed", and so by the bill proposed in Ohio it is would be legally defined an "Assault Weapon"!

I don't believe that anyone currently offers for sale a 10-round magazine for the P3AT, but the standard 6-round magazine may be replaced by a 7-round magazine ... which IS currently available.   And who cares?  It's a freaking Belly Gun, inadequate even for self-defense at distances over, say ... six inches?

And it doesn't matter whether a 10-round magazine is available for the Kel-Tec.   Under the proposed Ohio bill, the gun is capable of accepting a detachable magazine with the capacity of accepting ten or more cartridges 

  Which means that if the bill is enacted, the Mouse Gun is now an Assault Weapon.

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.

More Americans Are Dying From Suicide, Drug Use And Diarrhea | FiveThirtyEight

More Americans Are Dying From Suicide, Drug Use And Diarrhea | FiveThirtyEight: Americans are dying in different ways than they used to. As of 2014, more were dying from drug use than in years past, even as deaths from alcohol had largely remained unchanged. Deaths resulting from interpersonal violence were on the decline, but fluctuations (and a recent increase) in deaths from suicide meant that violence was still a relatively common cause of death. Over the previous decade, deaths from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease — the main types are chronic bronchitis and emphysema1 — had steadied, even beginning to slowly decline, but it remained a leading cause of death.

Senators Skindell And Tavares Introduce Assault Weapons Ban | Senator Michael J. Skindell | The Ohio Senate

Senators Skindell And Tavares Introduce Assault Weapons Ban | Senator Michael J. Skindell | The Ohio Senate: Columbus—Today, Senator Michael Skindell (D–Lakewood) and Senator Charleta B. Tavares (D-Columbus) introduced Senate Bill 260, which would establish an assault weapons ban throughout Ohio.��

The Latest Chicago Joke: Rahm Emanuel

Broke Ass Chicago is at war with the banks.   Guess who will lose?

Rahm Emanuel Wants to Withhold City Contracts to Punish Banks That Won't Restrict Gun Businesses:

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel (D) wants to use city contracts to punish banks that will not restrict and/or regulate clients involved in the firearms industry.

 “When it comes to fighting for stronger, smarter gun laws Chicago is putting our money where our mouth is. The private sector has a role to play in supporting public safety. Chicago should give our business to companies who share our values and want to be part of the solution to gun violence, not profit from it.”

What money? Chicago is broke! 
  They don't have any money, which is the consequence of putting all of its aldermen in the pocket of the Democratic Party.   In Chicago, that's called "putting our money where our mouth is". 

Who knew that a Chicago Politician could be so candid?

The up side is, more banks may now be willing to espouse an "involvement" in "the firearms industry" ... if only to avoid any more involvement with the irresponsible government of that once "Toddling Town".

NRA-ILA | UK Officials Continue to Push Knife/Gun/Cleaning Products Control

NRA-ILA | UK Officials Continue to Push Knife/Gun/Cleaning Products Control: On April 10,�London Mayor Sadiq Khan�held a secret “knife crime summit” aimed at “tackling violent crime on the city’s streets.” The�UK press lodged�an official complaint against the city after the press and public were barred from the meeting. Two days earlier Khan took to�Twitter to declare, “No excuses: there is never a reason to carry a knife.”

Antigunners lump us all into their own vision of Beer-Tailgating Idiots

The latest New Republic has a sad opinion of firearms owners.  As far as they know, we are irresponsible thrill-seekers who are just waiting/wishing/hoping for an excuse to shoot somebody.

The American Terror Industry | The New Republic:

In the beige scrubland of the Nevada desert, with jagged mountains in the distance jutting up like the teeth of car keys and red-dirt berms all around, I could’ve squinted and imagined myself on a forward operating base somewhere in southern Afghanistan. This illusion was aided by the gun-guy fashion so popular in the age of the AR-15

I've given up on expecting a "fair and balanced" essay on the Second Amendment from the Leftists.

It seems mandatory that when  they write about legal firearms owners, they cannot differentiate between responsible citizens and inner-city gangbaners.  They seem to see us in terms of hopeless, illiterate degenerates with "no schoolin' ner no civility".

Innocent (and "well regulated") shooting matches are perceived as an exercise in "shooting people", and while I don't deny that exercises in self-defense may appear to be assertive rather than defensive by people who don't bother to understand the genre, I tire of the need to explain ... to defend my sport against the ignorantia .. and so I am related to defending my sport agaisnt people who se no "sport' in Defensive shooting exercises.

My eyes kept falling on a black man standing outside the convenience store. He was dressed in baggy jeans and a puffy vest, clothing with plenty of room to hide a weapon. 

We are left wondering why the author singles out the subject of his screed because of his race, because of his mode of dress, or because the author is just fearful of anyone who doesn't fit his personal perception of someone he and trust.   Should this black man in baggy jeans and puffy vest have seemed more "trustable" if he wore a pink IZON shirt, Docker Shorts, and the "correct" shoes?

Perhaps if the author had encountered the man at a Starbucks, he would not have been so easily frightened.
x

NRA-ILA | Trial Judge Mocks the Late Justice Scalia While Upholding Expansive Gun Ban

NRA-ILA | Trial Judge Mocks the Late Justice Scalia While Upholding Expansive Gun Ban: But we don’t have to guess what Justice Scalia might have thought of Massachusetts’ ban on popular semiautomatic rifles, because he joined an�opinion written by Justice Thomas�that dissented from the Supreme Court’s refusal to review a Seventh Circuit decision upholding a very similar ban from Illinois. Characterizing that and similar circuit decisions as “noncompliance with our Second Amendment precedents,” that dissent explained the proper test under�Heller�for which arms are protected by the Second Amendment.� “Heller, Thomas wrote, “asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist.” Moreover, it “draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns.” The dissent noted, “Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles,” and “[t]he overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes … .” The dissenters then concluded, “Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons.” Nevertheless, Judge Young concluded his opinion by insisting that “Massachusetts is free to ban these weapons and large capacity magazines” and that “Justice Scalia would be proud.” We can only hope that Justice Thomas and his Supreme Court colleagues will one day have a chance to review the Massachusetts ban or a similar law and explain just how wrong Judge William G. Young and his likeminded antigun activists in the judiciary truly are.

Legally Armed People Have a Murder rate similar to Japan

Legally Armed People Have a Murder rate similar to Japan: If, as those who wish a disarmed population claim, the mere presence of firearms makes criminal homicide more likely. How is it that those who not only own handguns but can legally carry them loaded most places, most of the time, have a criminal homicide rate as low as the Japanese?

Things That Make Me Wonder If Being A Range Officer Is Such A Good Idea After All

When you see something like this ... you have to wonder if you really saw what you thought you saw

SayUncle  The hot brass dance:

VFTP posted and then removed that after finding out the original posting was a private group and the poster requested it stay within the group only. Apparently the poster is a range dude there, don’t know if it’s the same one who’s lucky he didn’t catch one of those TWO FUCKING ND’s this idiot popped off directly at him.

When I first saw the video, I wondered if  the two flashes were just reflections of the overhead range lights off a chrome pistol.  Yes, he did break the 180, but ....

Thanks to the comments (above), we know that those were NGs behind the 180 degree limit of safe firearm movement.

I'm unsure about Uncle's comment request that the video "stay within the group only".

This is the sort of egregious safety violation which SHOULD be made public, if only to serve as an example to others.

If your primary duty to keep the gun facing downrange under any circumstances is forgotten in a moment of personal discomfort, you should reconsider the goals of your shooting career.

When the pin is pulled, Mr. Grenade is not your friend.

Who says the Military is humorless?

I recently revisited one of my favorite websites, and I feel like the Joker in BATMAN when I indulge in Dark Humor.

So I decided to share. 

Military Jokes Military Humor:

139. When the pin is pulled, Mr. Grenade is not your friend.

there's also "Sophomoric Humor" ...   check out BATMAN chooses his voice! 

Dems want Universal Registration of handguns

Congressional Democrats can kiss my big black Ford fenders.
Congressional Dems launch drive to bring handgun licensing to more states:

Love your Country; Fear your Government. 
That's the New American Way.  If I had any pistols, I would not tell any Democrats about it.

The sponsored legislation, H.R.5490, would promote handgun licensing programs in states by means of a federal grant program. Introduced last week by lawmakers from Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland and North Carolina, the proponents argue that requiring a person to obtain a permit before they can buy a pistol or revolver saves lives.

{start of rant}
 This is another gun-grabber movement which is bound to turn law-abiding, responsible citizens in felons.   It's an ex post facto law, and an insult to my personal integrity.   I didn't spend a year toting a gun in service to  Democrats who started the war,  just to now discover that my country does not trust me to own a gun. 
{end of rant}

Not that I own any firearms, of course.   Nor would I admit it if I did.

NRA accepted donations from 20 Russian-linked contributors

NRA accepted donations from 20 Russian-linked contributors: Wyden has questioned the NRA for months about possible connections to Russia. Frazer said in the letter to the senator that the organization would stop providing information on the matter. "Given the extraordinarily time-consuming and burdensome nature of your requests, we must respectfully decline to engage in this beyond the clear answers we have already provided," he wrote.

Read this. Bookmark this. Then read it again.

The truth is in the details, and BOY HOWDY does this guy get into the guts of the details of firearms and homocides!

Essentially, more guns do NOT cause more crime; even (especially?) Murders.

Suicides? ... well, guns are as effective as the Japanese method of putting your skull between a pile-driver and the pile it's driving, but much more convenient.

Everybody’s Lying About the Link Between Gun Ownership and Homicide:

Everybody’s Lying About the Link Between Gun Ownership and Homicide There is no clear correlation whatsoever between gun ownership rate and gun homicide rate. Not within the USA. Not regionally. Not internationally. Not among peaceful societies. Not among violent ones. Gun ownership doesn’t make us safer. It doesn’t make us less safe. The correlation simply isn’t there. It is blatantly not-there. It is so tremendously not-there that the “not-there-ness” of it alone should be a huge news story.

(And yes, I have talked about this before. I'll talk about it again, next year.)

Shannon Watt vs Gun Violence

Some gun owners are violent people.

Let's get that out in the open; some gun owners just want to hurt people.

But the MAJORITY of gun owners don't fit that description

Shannon Watts is one of many writers who are delivering a tremendous amount of effort espousing her anti-gun violence message, and I agree that "Gun Violence" is an issue which needs to be addressed.

After Sandy Hook This Mom Started a Grassroots Movement Against Gun Violence That’s Spread to All 50 States - Health:

With her nonprofit Moms Demand Action, Shannon Watts has mobilized a women-led army of volunteers.  This story is part of Health’s #RealLifeStrong series, where we are celebrating women who represent strength, resilience, and grace.

There are hundreds of thousands of people in America who ... through mental incapacity or felonious inclination ... should never be allowed to be near a firearm.  These people need to be restricted.

ALSO ... there are millions of sane and responsible (but untrained) people who have never handled a firearm, but yet MAY chose to do so from ignorance or vanity because they think they are automatically "okay" to own and shoot firearms.  Well, they have the right, but too often they do not have the skills or the trained expertise to do so safely.

And yet,  there are millions of Americans who are sane, responsible people; trained and experienced  in safe gun-handling practices, who can be reliably expected to be ALWAYS safe and ALWAYS responsible with a gun in their hands.

Ms. Watts focuses on those who are either incapable or untrained in her screeds against firearms ownership.  She performs a valuable service in warning against firearms, but she lumps the untrained, the insane, and the competent together ... and in doing so, she does a disservice against the majority of firearms owners who ARE responsible, who ARE trained, who ARE experienced and competent.

Yes, everyone wants firearms to be used only by responsible owners.   But most firearms owners are law-abiding, and understand that there is a responsibility implicit in possession of a gun.  (Again, I do not include felons in this mix.) 

 Sometimes, new gun owners only need training and experience:  the NRA (National Rifle Association) and other firearms oriented organizations often provide these training opportunities, and often at little or no cost to the students.

Those who denigrate the NRA  generally ignore the fact that the NRA is one of the very few organized sources of firearms Safety TRAINING; usually, the detractors of the NRA consider it no better than a political wing of selfish profit-oriented firearms manufacturers.  The NRA is not the Political wing of Gun makers .. it represents people who use guns for a variety of reasons, which include hunting, competition, training AND Political Representation of their 2nd Amendment rights on the National scale.

I'm not asking Ms Watts to "tone down her rhetoric";  we all need to be aware of the dreadful consequences of a gun in the wrong hands; and I think that most legal firearms owners are very aware of their EXTRA need to be thoughtful of the consequences of their actions.

However, when she lumps felons, mentally unbalanced people, and responsible firearms owners together in the same cauldron of mere "possession", she does a disservice to those who never (and would never) deliberately use a firearm in an illegal or unsafe manner.

In our discussion of responsible firearm ownership, we need to be careful  to distinguish between the insane, the irresponsible, and the responsible American.

I've not read every opinion that Ms Watts has written (who could?!) so perhaps I am doing her a disservice by calling her to task.

But it would be a responsible action if she would acknowledge that there are a huge number of Americans who can (and do) use their legal firearms safely and responsibly ... and have never allowed their guns to shoot innocent people.

Gun owners are not typically violent people, by nature.  But in dire straits, they sometimes are willing to use their firearms in defense of home, self, family and other innocents.

Those who do not readily accept that concept are those whom I choose refer to as "People Who Have Never Been Mugged".

I've never been mugged.  But I've been "shot at", and so I can testify that in that circumstance, it's more of a comfort to have a gun than not to.

You mileage may vary.  Let me know the next time you wish you had a gun to defend yourself, your home, or your family.  I'd really like to know how you defended yourself against gratuitous violence.

They Say The Fault Line Runs Right Through Here

Sometimes, one cannot help but wish that the Pacific Coast Fault Line would truncate the California coastal area, so the rest of California could just be part of America:  as long as it took Sacramento.

California man arrested for bringing 'assault rifle, large capacity magazines' from Nevada:

 Authorities in Contra Costa County announced the arrest of a man who allegedly smuggled guns and magazines legally bought in Nevada into California where they are banned. 

Oh dear ... he violated the law which says he is in California, and no longer in America?   I've been to California; they have check stations at the border where troopers ask if you have any fruits or vegetables.  But they don't ask about munitions.  Is that fair?

 The man, Virgilio Salazar, 50, of Antioch, was arrested late last month as part of a task force effort after he allegedly purchased guns and magazines in Nevada and brought them back to the San Francisco Bay Area to resell. Police seized “a .223 Colt AR-15 assault rifle, CZ 9mm semi-auto assault pistol, three large capacity rifle magazines, and two large capacity pistol magazines,” during a search of Salazar’s home. 

That could have been me!

Whether he bought them to 'resell' is controversial, and immaterial.  The POINT is, he had an "assault rifle" (legally undefined), and "assault pistol" (nobody has any idea what THAT is), and various "large capacity magazines" in his possession.  (Nobody knows what number of round-capacity defines a "large capacity" magazine, either, except that it's a Really Bad Thing!)

 He was booked on felony charges under California law that include importing an assault rifle, possession of an assault rifle, and importing large capacity magazines. 

It would be asking too much for the news feed to cite the laws which Salazar is purported to have violated; but it would be nice if they DID tell us what the laws were so we could know when we were felons in California when we were not felons in ... say ... Oregon for possession of the same standard equipment.  (see: Gun Laws By State)

Salazar was released on $300,000 bail. Of note, the Contra Costa County Superior Court felony bail schedule, by comparison, sets bail for those charged with rape at $100,000 and child beating at $50,000.

Well, that's good to know, and thank you Guns-dot-Com for providing the comparative standards of Justice in California.

I have children and grand-children residing in California.  It's reassuring to know that California law is more concerned about magazines capable of holding more than x-number of rounds than the well-being of my grand-daughter.

If the coastal fault line runs through California (and it does), and if there Is A God In Heaven, it would be nice if He deleted Sacramento and its Liberal politicians but left the Secret Hidden Bunker where my grandchildren live.

Because frankly, I think they are in more danger from the Liberals who run the state, than from a guy who owns magazine holding more than 6 rounds.

Or whatever.

But it's good to know that I can no longer safely visit my grandchildren, because I don't travel under-armed, and I don't travel light.  Thank you again, California, for causing me to fear prison because I wish to defend myself against assailants ... including the No-Longer-Great State of California!

File under:  (Insane Clown Posse Liberals)

See:  "The Allure of the AR-15"

Jack-booted Thugs? I think not.

Police and Gun Owners come in two flavors:   "Good People" and "Not-So-Good People".
As responsible Gun Owners, we have an obligation to each other to stay in the first flavor.

There are millions of Americans who believe that gun owners are inclined toward violence. 

You and I know that is not true ... gun owners are among the most peaceful people in America.   We don't need to over-react to perceived slights or injustice.  We believe in the Laws which protect our rights.

When we speak about our Second Amendment Rights, we need to be precise in the words we use, lest they be misconstrued by folks who "are not yet sure" what to think about us:

Stop Gun Confiscation Orders In Your State | Current Action Alerts:

 So here’s what happens when a Gun Confiscation Order is issued in your name: the police or SWAT team arrives at your door to ransack your home and, if you resist, to arrest or even shoot you and your family.

I know, it is a dramatic statement; one which emphasizes the question of "just how far ARE the police authorized to go when a citizen resists confiscation?"

It all depends on the definition of "resist".   

One can only assume that the term includes resistance by violence ... which puts an entirely different color on the word "resist".   This seems to be the definition implied by the author of the quote.

Most of us would assume that when we "resist" confiscation of our legally owned fire-arms, we intend vehemence in discussion and/or requiring the advocacy of a lawyer to protest an unjust persecution of the gun owner.   None of these legitimate modes of resistance would have dramatic consequences to the gun owners or their families.   Or the police, or the neighbors, or their children.

But when the word "resist" postulates violence on the part of Law Enforcement Officers, that would be justified only as a response to violence initiated by the gun owner.

 Rational people know better than to offer violence against police exercising their assigned duty.

If you're not a rational person, you should not be a gun owner.

It frightens the children, and makes the rest of us look bad.

I never owned an M14

When I was in Basic Training back in 19-(mumble) I was trained on the M14.

What's not to like?  Major Power cartridge, wooden stock, weighed about 80 pounds and sights were exceedingly sucky.   But it had ... options.  You could actually go full-auto with The Beast, although nobody ever did so except by accident.

So I'm not going to be able to add that to my collection of American Military Rifles.

Unfortunately, I've got another hole in my collection, which is the M16.

I never liked the M16 because of a lot of reasons:  I shot them in training, if only a few rounds, and it was impossible to keep it on target because of the light weight (unlike the M14).   A few years later, a friend of mine invited us to his 'ranch' and let us all try his *legal* M16.

Older and wiser I was, but unable to resist;  I discovered that the damn thing still pulled high-and-right with every shot and I still suffered from the CHS syndrome.

(CHS:   "Can't Hit SHIT!)

So as I've replaced the M14 with the M1 Garand, I need to replace the M16 with an M15.  Just for the synchronicity of it all, you understand.

Anyone know were I can pick one up for a reasonable (old retired guy living on Social Security and Popcorn Farts) price?

There was a time when I was in possession of 30+ magazines for the M15/M16, but I gave them away.   It's funny how one becomes generous when one has magazines and no rifle to run them.

Anti-gun Terrorism

A half century ago, a bunch of ignorant pecker-heads burned the homes, businesses and churches of Americans because they didn't like the color of their skin

We've come a long way, Baby!
(Uh ... no, we haven't.)

North Carolina Gun Range Goes Up In Flames In Obvious Case Of Arson:

USA – -(Ammoland.com)- Early Monday morning, a North Carolina gun range, Triad Active Shooters Klub (TASK), outside Greensboro/Winston Salem North Carolina lost multiple structures and covered firing ports in an apparent case of sophisticated and deliberate arson carried out by numerous unknown perpetrators.

This was not a mere act of vandalism; it was an attempt to deprive a group of law-abiding Americans their constitutional rights.     No, it wasn't really a home, a business or a church.

But for people who embrace and practice their right to Keep and Bear Arms, a shooting range has similar elements.

A shooting range is a business, in the sense that people pay money to build and operate it.

It's not a residence, but for People of The Gun, a shooting range is where they go to relax and enjoy their hobby, to meet with friends and people of a like mind.

And although it would be a stretch of the imagination to call a shooting range a Church, the members of a gun club celebrate their Constitutional Rights with the reasonable expectation that it will be respected by sane citizens ... even if non-members don't agree with their practices or their philosophy.

This is AMERICA, people!

Are marksmen, hunters, defenders of hearth and home to be the target (excuse the irony) of hateful extremists?

A bit of advice: Tread softly on the toes of Men With Guns.

And remember ... they fired first.

6 Underreported Reasons Why The NRA Are Just The Worst

I really enjoy reading CRACKED.com

Not that I do so often, but when I do, there's never a dull moment between conspiracy theories and a tongue-in-cheek version of current controversy.

Here's a CRACKED.com version of the news, along with the occasional geeky comment:

6 Underreported Reasons Why The NRA Are Just The Worst:

With AR-15s in the news because of [insert this week's horribly depressing reason here], there's a chance you might be feeling rather peeved at the organization making sure guns are plentiful and easy to purchase in America, the National Rifle Association. But regardless of your politics, you've got to give the NRA some credit for their skill at hiding horrifying stories that would kill any other organization. Their feats range from preventing any real attempts at studying firearm violence to, well ...

(6) Campaigning To Re-Legalize Silencers Because Of "Hearing Safety"

I've been shooting guns for over 60 years.

I've fired "silenced" pistols.  Silencers don't STOP the sound of a shot; they just filter out the sound to the point where it's a "CRACK!" instead of a "BOOM!"   they lower the decibel level; they don't eliminate it.  So it's not as if you can shoot a silenced gun and nobody can hear it ... except in the movies.

Have you ever looked at the muffler on your car?  It's a couple of feet long and several inches wide, and weigh several pounds.   They're MUCH more effective than the silencer you can put on the end of the barrel of a gun.

Silencers are a boon to competitive shooters; they have nothing at all to do with sneaky shooting people so nobody knows you just killed them ... which is the scenario suggested by the CRACKED author who obviously doesn't know SHIT from SHINOLA when he tries to shine on readers who expect a knowledgeable analysis from a trusted source.


(5) Promoting Dumbass (And Dangerous) Conspiracy Theories

"The above-referenced piece of scarelore about the United States’ having already entered into a such a treaty — one which supposedly provides a “legal way around the 2nd Amendment” and will result in a “complete ban on all weapons for US citizens” — is erroneous in all its particulars ..."

Actually,  had Clinton been elected president, she would most likely have imposed draconian restrictions on the private ownership of firearms in America.   Note her comment:  "The Australian Solution is worth looking into".

The Australian Solution was to ban private ownership of most firearms, and to confiscate all but a very few "special license" firearms.   The reason Hillary felt safe in suggesting that it might be a viable solution in America is that the Australians "repurchased" the guns ... for pennies on the dollar.  And BTW ... you can't "repurchase" something you didn't own before.

It's all smoke and mirrors with Hillary, and it's all a great big joke for CRACKED!

For Americans, it's a violation of our Constitutional Rights.

Check out the actual text of the UN Arms Trade Treaty and tell me if you find verbiage which exempts private civilians from the extreme restraints imposed upon terrorists.  (You can't, because they cannot define the difference between a terrorist ans a home-owner.)

So ... yes, there IS a "Conspiracy" against Firearms Freedoms.  It' publically known as The Democratic Party, and privately know as Hillary Clinton .. who has been open in disavowing the validity of the Second Amendment.


(4) Screwing With Police Investigations By Not Allowing A Database Of Firearm Owners

Actually, the reason why Americans are against a Universal Database of Firearms owners is three-fold:
     *(A) Registration of all firearms provides a handy list of owners and guns when they come to confiscate your guns.  YOU may think this is a "Conspiracy Theory" on the part of legal firearms owners, but that's the current trend in Democratic Politics.   Yes, they DO want to "take your guns away" ... and they don't care how responsible you, as an individual, may be; they just want your guns.

    *(B)  Those states which have pushed, and/or are pushing for the legislation, are typically NE Seaboard states (NY, NJ, etc.) which are liberal and "citified".  *Also California*   They don't usually have a lot of gun owners, in part because of the cultural differences between themselves and more "rural" states.   City folks tend to be Liberal ... and vote that way!   It's significant that of all those states have been allowed to pass restrictive firearms laws as a tool to 'reduce gun violence' and "make it easier to resolve crime".  It's worth mentioning that not one state cited has solved a gun crime because of registration.

    *(C) Also, firearms owners are generally independent persons who do not care to be part of a "database".  Ownership of a gun is a private thing, just as is your sexual orientation and your religion.
It's significant that while your sexual orientation is not a Constitutional Right, Religion and Guns ARE!



(3) Exploiting Hurricane Harvey To Sell Guns To People Afraid Of Looters

Natural Disasters are an excellent example of exactly WHY we need out Second Amendment rights.
When the local infrastructure is INOPERATIVE because all communications lines are substantially  inoperative, police and emergency medical and fire protection resources are typically overwhelmed by all the calls for help.

South Eastern American disasters over the past few years have demonstrated that looters have been able to have their way with honest citizens, their persons and their property, when law enforcement is overloaded by the volume of calls for help.

When seconds count, Emergency Responders are weeks away; the best they can do is to (a) confiscate privately owned firearms and (b) pick up the corpses.   Oh, did I mention that the phones don't work?  Who you gonna call  .. Ghost Busters?

Police in these situations have as part of their "game plan" to confiscate privately owned firearms.  This does nothing to ensure the safety of their citizens, but it DOES ensure that marauders, thieves, rapist and killers are assured that all of their would-be victims are unable to protect themselves against those bad boys who didn't register their guns  (and never would).

(2) Endorsing The Work Of The World's Hackiest Researcher

John Lott.     The author of "More Guns/Less Crime", is a world renowned researcher who has written many scholarly articles, and has recently focused his attention on the firearm as a necessary took when seconds count and the police are minutes away.

Op-eds by Lott have appeared in such places as the Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, and the Chicago Tribune. Since 2008, he has been a columnist for Fox News, initially weekly.^[

Typifying Lott as "The World's Hackiest Researcher" is not only dismissive, but ignorant.   Just because the accuser refuses to acknowledge the experience and expertise of DOCTOR Lott doesn't reliably dismiss his experience and scholarly contributions to the issue of firearms ownership.   The accusation deserves less attention than it has already received.
And I would like to know when the accuser was awarded his PHD, and in what  area of expertise.

No?

I didn't think so.  Cheap shot, dude!


(1) Sabotaging A Deal Between Smith &Wesson And The Government To Make Guns Safer After Columbine

 S&W developed a whole bunch of measures that they thought they  could implement to make their products safer. These included a commitment to researching and developing "smart guns" that could be locked to a specific person, plans to install safety devices on all new handguns that could lock them when not in use, and other less sci-fi-sounding but equally interesting ideas.

Actually, a lot of firearms manufacturers worked diligently to develop "Smart Guns" which would meet the requirements of ... basically ... prohibit access the the firing mechanism of a pistol by anyone except the registered owner(s).

The problem was, that when S&W offered firearms with "personal identifiers" to prevent non-authorized folks to use the gun ... the authorized folks couldn't use the guns, either.

You may be focused on preventing unauthorized usage of guns, but the folks who will BUY THEM want to make sure that when THEY pull a gun, it's going to work.  And S&W were unable to buile a reliable "Safe" gun.

In the final analysis, people who buy guns only want their car to start when they turn the key, their cell phone to connect every call, anti-biotics to cure their ills, and guns to work when they really really need to shoot someone who threatens them.

ULTIMATELY ... WHEN IT COMES TO FIREARMS, "CRACKED" DOESN'T KNOW WHAT IT'S TALKING ABOUT!1!

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.

Arms Arbitrarily Designated as "Assault Weapons" Judicially Restricted

I admit that I am confused by the various interpretations of the Second Amendment.
Massachusetts' ban on assault weapons doesn't violate 2nd Amendment, judge rules | Fox News:

I always thought that it protected the right of the American Individual to possess, carry and use a firearm in defense of  person, property and domicile.

There is no "assault weapon" clause in the Second Amendment; indeed, it has never been defined.

My understanding was that any weapon which might be used by an assailant was equally protected as a legitimate arm to be used by a legitimate private citizen in defense of home, hearth and family.   Further, the "militia" reference in the text suggests that the private citizen ("the militia is ...

Now I am confused by a myriad of laws which limit the rights of a private law-abiding citizen in regard to the type and capacity of the firearm which he/she may use to defend against (for example) a "Home Invader".

If criminals have access to 'prohibited" firearms, why does a private citizen face prison when he/she uses the same weapon as a defense?

What in the Second Amendment defines "Assault Weapons"?

A judge in Massachusetts on Friday ruled against a lawsuit that questioned the state’s ban on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines, declaring that the weapons were not protected by the Second Amendment. Assault weapons are considered to be military firearms, U.S. District Judge William Young said in his ruling, therefore disqualifying them from being included in a citizen’s right to “bear arms.”