Senate gun control hearing today
|Bitter is liveblogging it.|
|From the Barrel of a Gun|
|Random Nuclear Strikes|
|Only Guns and Money|
|The View From North Central Idaho|
|Armed and Dangerous|
|Hell in a Handbasket|
|View From The Porch|
|Guns, Cars, and Tech|
|Irons in the Fire|
|Snowflakes in Hell|
|Shot in the Dark|
|The Smallest Minority|
|Sharp as a Marble|
|The Silicon Greybeard|
|3 boxes of BS|
|Of Arms and the Law|
|Bacon, Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, Explosives|
|Monster Hunter Nation|
|Right to be Armed|
|The 1968 Gun Control Act|
|Rocketry Hobbyists versus the BATFE|
|Third Circuit rules New Jersey can continue to confiscate firearms from travelers|
|Government is just a term for things we do together|
|Protestors oppose guns for upcoming ESPN Games|
|Senate GOP willing to meet with Obama's Supreme Court pick|
|2016: Why I'm not voting for Bernie Sanders the Socialist|
|2016: Why I'm not voting for Hillary|
|Obama administration officials who maintained private email accounts|
|2016: The Republican Field|
|The Dark Side of Data Retention Policies|
|Major media is paid by government agencies for specific content|
|Senate ethics complaints filed against 10 Senators|
|300 days of IRS abuse|
|A technical note on content versus metadata|
|Boomershoot 2009: Media Day|
|Building a Boomershooter|
|About The Author...|
|Bitter is liveblogging it.|
Read the whole thing. This is what every single Republican in the House and Senate should be doing. Trying to destroy a legal industry through indirect regulatory pressure is unAmerican.
To all of the gun manufacturers still located in New England and other unfriendly states, come on down to Texas. Down here, we like you.
|A writer at the Huffington Post debunks the persistent claim that the police are outgunned on the streets by criminals with assault weapons. It is amazing how this claim just doesn't go away, despite statistics proving that more murders are committed with handguns and knives and bare hands than with rifles of all types.|
Within days of opening its 51st Legislature, Arizona state lawmakers have begun considering HB 2291--a bill which declares any federal attempt to "ban or restrict ownership of a semi-automatic firearm... unenforceable" in the state.Good for them. If you're an Arizonian, call your legislators and support this bill.
People are not buying them in record numbers just to turn them in.
Let's take a step back here.
52% of people answering the poll admitted to owning a gun. How many gun owning households said "No" and meant "None of your business"?
Of those who admitted to owning guns, 65% said they would defy the law. How many admitted to owning guns and lied about whether they would defy the law -- because, seriously here, are you going to admit to planning to commit a federal felony?
But let's assume the poll numbers are correct. America has roughly 114,235,996 households (114 million). 52% have guns, or 59,402,717 (59M). 65% would defy the law, or 38,611,766 (38 million).
There are 1,426,713 people in the active duty military and 1,259,000 in the reserves, or 2.68 million people total.
Let's assume they follow the same percentages as the rest of the population -- though it would be more realistic to assume a higher percentage own guns than the general population. So, 52% own guns (privately owned) = 1396570, and 65% of those would defy the law = 907770 people in the military own private guns and would defy the law.
That's over a third of the military, a million people with military training, and 38 million citizens (many retired military , police, or experienced shooters).
So when the government says it is going to pass a law and take our guns, I say: you want to imprison 40 million citizens and a full third of our military? You think that will make things better?
... but lets keep up the pressure. According to the article, 6 Senate Democrats are wavering, which means the measure could not muster the 50 + Biden votes needed to pass the Senate, never mind the 60 votes to break a filibuster. This doesn't mean we can relax, though. Even if the vote counting in this article is correct, we will need to stop not only the semi-auto ban, but universal background checks and a magazine ban.
The five Democratic senators from traditionally pro-gun states who have expressed skepticism about the bill are Max Baucus and Jon Tester of Montana, Mark Begich of Alaska, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Joe Manchin of West Virginia. Independent Senator Angus King of Maine, who caucuses with Democrats, also said he opposes a ban. Maine Senator Susan Collins, a Republican who supported similar legislation in 2004, has indicated she is unlikely to back the proposed ban in its current form.When you write your Senators to instruct them to oppose the semi-auto ban, you should also instruct them to oppose the magazine ban and universal background check legislation. No compromise on gun control.
The sad fact is, there will always be criminals who want to commit mass murder. We can't stop them by putting huge legal burdens on law abiding gun owners.
While hearing about wavering Democrats is reason to be hopeful that we can stop this push for gun control, don't be fooled again:
When you are contacting your senators and representatives, tell them you oppose:
Remember, we have to stop everything they bring to the table. Stopping the semiauto ban in return for a magazine ban or an effective gun registry is not a win. A draw is stopping them cold and destroying their power for another 8 years or more, like we did after the battle in 2004. A win is taking ground back.
Note that there were two attackers here.
A 15-year old boy used his father's AR-15 to defend himself and his 12-year old sister against two burglars at their home just north of Houston, Texas.Again, two attackers.
When confronted by three intruders in his home, Al Michaud invoked Colorado's Make My Day Law and opened fire.Three attackers this time.
[UPDATE: Another case with three attackers against a single woman with children.]
[UPDATE: Five attackers.]
The AR-15 is the most popular modern sporting rifle in the United States. It is lightweight, easy to shoot, accurate, has sufficient stopping power to defend your life, and sufficient magazine capacity for an ordinary person to defend against multiple attackers. It fires one bullet each time you pull the trigger, just like a revolver or a semiautomatic handgun.
Because it is a rifle, it is difficult to conceal or carry with you, making it a poor choice for criminal enterprises -- indeed, more people are killed with knives and other hand weapons than with rifles of any type.
Because it is lightweight and has limited recoil in the common 5.56mm NATO / .223 Remington cartridge, and can be fitted with an adjustable stock, it is especially well suited as a home defense rifle for women.
The AR-15 is the most popular modern sporting rifle for many good reasons. But the truth is we don't "need" them any more than we "need" the internet, or newspapers, or privacy, or cars that can travel over a hundred miles an hour. We have a right to have them, protected by the 2nd Amendment, because they are effective self-defense weapons and self-defense is a fundamental human right.
It's not about needs and it never has been. We don't need to justify the things we want -- the tools we use, the luxuries we enjoy -- to anyone, and especially not anyone in the government.
A hat tip to no lawyers, only guns and money for this list of organizations that are lending their support to Feinstein's so-called assault weapons ban.
|I fully support the gun range here. Police are routinely exempted from gun control laws. They are not exempt from the opinions of private businesses.|
"If he is a skeet shooter, why have we not heard of this? Why have we not seen photos? Why hasn't he referenced this at any point in time?" Blackburn said Monday on CNN's "Erin Burnett OutFront." "I tell you what I do think," she later added. "I think he should invite me to Camp David, and I'll go skeet shooting with him and I bet I'll beat him."Because he isn't a skeet shooter, and never has been. That's why it never came up before, and it's why there are no pictures of Obama shooting skeet. Or anything else. Obama's claim to be a regular skeet shooter is nothing more than his version of the classic anti-gun platitude, "I'm a gun owner, but..." or "I'm an NRA member, but..." that you see all the time in articles calling for more gun control. Generally speaking, it's a blatant lie, nothing more than a rhetorical tactic to persuade the reader by asserting similarity.
Kudos to Rep Marsha Blackburn for calling the President's bluff.
|His answer seems to be civility. He has a good point, even if it's not a complete answer. There are no complete answers.|
That's San Diego chief of police William Lansdowne. Thank you, Mr Lansdowne, for making your agenda clear.
"We're seeing an increase in the quality of weapons, in the types of weapons we're seeing... even though we have a ban here in California."He admits the ban doesn't work, but wants to impose it nationally.
"The officers in many cases face people better armed than they are."Better armed than the police? Really?
What does Mr Lansdowne issue to his police officers? As of 2004, it appears to be:
San Diego Police DepartmentThe Beretta 92FS can accept up to 32 round magazines. The Ruger PC9 carbine can accept a 15 round magazine. The Ruger Mini-14 can accept up to 30 round magazines and has a select-fire version. The Colt AR-15 semiautomatic rifle can accept up to 100 round magazines and is a semi-automatic version of a fully-automatic firearm. The Cadillac Gage peacekeeper is an armored vehicle that can mount a full size machine gun or a 40mm grenade launcher.
All of these firearms, or their magazines, would be banned under the laws Lansdowne supports. But police officers could still carry them.
Why does Lansdowne want to be able to carry firearms that he wants to prohibit honest, law-abiding citizens from owning?
Senator Bill Nelson of Florida is Anti-Gun.
Florida U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson has called for any new gun control laws to include a ban on assault weapons, and he has at least one supporter from the local law enforcement community. Nelson said as an avid hunter, he owns several guns, himself, but would support a ban on assault weapons. He also said he wants to see universal background checks and a ban on high-capacity magazine clips. He said magazine clips found in the hands of criminals in Orange County were more than double what deputies carry.He wants the full trifecta: assault weapons ban, universal background checks, and a magazine ban. He uses the "police are outgunned on the streets" lie and, of course, claims to be a gun owner himself.
If you're in Florida, tell him what you think of his anti-gun positions. Politely, of course.
Toy guns, that is, including a child's hands, or a piece of paper in the appropriate shape. Robert Small argues that the children are being deliberately conditioned to reject violence in general and the 2nd Amendment in particular. Is he right?
Punishing kids for finger guns has nothing to do with school safety; they know the difference between a finger and a gun as well as adults do. It has everything to do with "moral disarmament."I'm not sure about the deliberate part. If I was reaching for an explanation, I would look more to the gender gap in the teaching profession -- teachers are predominantly women -- combined with almost two decades of horror about school shootings. It's easy for someone who spends their days working with children to indulge in magical thinking and try to prevent a school shooting by banning the symbol of shooting and hoping that has an influence on the young minds in her care.
Anyone who looks at it rationally can see that it's nonsense. Millions of Americans played cops and robbers or cowboys and indians as kids, and are none the worse for it today. If "shooting" people with your hand doesn't cause actual school shootings, preventing children from playing childhood games won't prevent school shootings either.
You get back into a gray area when you are talking about a high school in a high-crime area, where such a childish finger-gesture could be meant to convey a very real threat. Any teacher worth their salt could tell the difference between the two, though; it's the desire to avoid liability by avoiding that sort of decision making that drives zero-tolerance policies.
Once you have a zero-tolerance policy in a high school dealing with a gang crime problem, well, it's easy to trickle that policy down to kindergarten. It doesn't make any sense, but someone would have to think about it to stop it.
All that said, the effects of such repression of childhood warrior-play are undesirable. Gun owners understand that violence is not inherently evil; violence is a means to an end. That end can be taking someone's property or their life; it can also be protecting your own life and property. If we allow our children to be taught in school that violence is never acceptable, they will be left at the mercy of those are all too willing to commit violence.
The question is whether such strikes violate international human rights laws. I say, if they don't, then international human rights laws aren't worth anything. What the UN can (and is willing to) do to stop the US from engaging in drone strikes is less clear, but probably hovers somewhere between "nothing" and "send a firm letter of protest."
Note: Just because it violates international human rights laws does not mean I am opposed to all drone strikes. From the accounts I've read, though, I think I would be a bit less casual about it.
... after he asks them to disarm, in the name of gun control, to save just one child's life...
I'm somewhat sympathetic to the security detail here. The reporter is clearly not friendly to Bloomberg and they are reacting to that. They don't actually lay hands on him. Following him and getting identification information based on a lie about jurisdiction is legally questionable, but wanting that information (based on a clearly hostile if peaceful encounter) is not unreasonable for a protective detail.
But all of that just makes the irony more delicious. Bloomberg demands gun control for the people while surrounded by armed thugs who interrogate anyone who embarrasses him by asking uncomfortable questions. What are people who can't afford a 5 person security team supposed to do to protect themselves?
It seems that the left -- or at least the portion of the left who work at CBS News -- has decided that they are tired of all this living document bullshit and are ready to give up on the whole thing. Just declare it irrelevant and unnecessary and stop following it.
This is good. It's good to have clarity. It's good for them to openly advocate for this.
It reminds us what we are up against.
They are both Democrats, but they remain "uncommitted" to the Assault Weapon Ban. Let them know that the ban violates the 2nd Amendment and is contrary to Colorado values.
(Let them know to oppose the magazine ban and universal background checks, too).
Manchin, a moderate Democrat with an "A" rating from the National Rifle Association, has also recruited his close friend, Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), to help with the background check legislation. Kirk, who is much more moderate than Coburn and hails from a state suffering from urban gun violence, also plans to unveil legislation next week with Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) to make illegal gun trafficking a federal crime.I don't think you'll keep that "A" rating much longer, Senator.
Illegal gun trafficking is already a federal crime.
It sounds like Coburn needs to hear from his constituents.
We oppose universal background checks because:
Hat tip and more info available from a Keyboard and a .45.
It is vital that every gun owner, everyone who has even considered owning a gun, contact their representatives today and tell them to oppose any and all gun control, and especially Feinstein's semi-auto ban.
Millions of Americans will be fingerprinted and placed on a federal government registration list if Feinstein's legislation becomes law. You will need to beg your local police chief for permission to keep your semi-auto rifle.
Contact your senators and representative today. And tomorrow. And the day after. Every day until the bill is voted down.
While you're talking to them, tell them to oppose the standard-capacity magazine ban and the
UPDATE: The list of cosponsors.
Probably because politicians like the ability to rush things through, even if the people don't.
Senator Feinstein introduced her new assault weapons ban last Thursday. I'm rounding up reactions in this post.
Even if you accept Feinstein's false premise that there is something especially assaulty or murdery about the guns she wants to ban, her bill would not actually get rid of them, since millions of existing "assault weapons" would remain in circulation. Feinstein says her aim is to "dry up the supply of these weapons over time." But guns are durable products that remain usable for decades, not a puddle that evaporates when the sun comes up. Feinstein claims her bill will "help end the mass shootings that have devastated countless families and terrorized communities." How exactly will it do that?Senator Ted Cruz knows his stuff. This response is pretty much exactly what I would tell him to say:
PowerLine's John Hinderaker:
Congress has passed a lot of dumb laws, but it isn't going to pass this one. I doubt that it can get through the Senate, let alone the House. Perhaps some modifications to the background check system can pass. So what's the point? Gun control is part of the Democrats' permanent campaign. They see a political advantage in pushing for draconian legislation, not because it has any chance to pass, or would do any good if it did, but because it fires up the party's base in anticipation of the 2014 election. Hence the showmanship and even religious fervor that accompanied Feinstein's announcement of her legislation.The National Rifle Association:
Senator Feinstein has been trying to ban guns from law-abiding citizens for decades. It's disappointing but not surprising that she is once again focused on curtailing the Constitution instead of prosecuting criminals or fixing our broken mental health system. The American people know gun bans do not work and we are confident Congress will reject Senator Feinstein's wrong-headed approach.I hope they're right.
I've still seen nothing from Senator Cornyn publicly opposing Feinstein's bill or any of the other gun control measures. There is a response posted on www.thehighroad.org from Cornyn that is ... better than nothing:
As a former Texas Supreme Court Justice and Attorney General, I have firsthand knowledge of crime-fighting policies that work, and I believe that citizens' Second Amendment rights should not be restricted because of the actions of criminals. Rather, we must focus our attention on the source of violent crime: criminals who use firearms to commit crimes. I believe that strictly enforcing the law?and meting out tougher sentences for career criminals and those who use firearms when committing crimes?will reduce crime more effectively than gun or equipment bans, which primarily serve to take firearms away from law-abiding citizens.It shouldn't take multiple constituent emails to drag a pro-2nd Amendment position out of a Senator from Texas, for crying out loud.
It's almost comical how desperate they are to link gunwalking to Bush and protect Obama from Fast and Furious.
|<-- Previous||Next -->|