When I first saw that video, I suppose I believed, without really
thinking about it, that anyone who saw it would be disgusted with
Officer ?Roid Rage and want him out of law enforcement for the rest of
his life, but now I know better. There are plenty of Americans,
including most of those in the White House, who would see that vid and
think; ?Yes! That?s how it?s done! Right on! We need more of this,
please.? In other words; it?s obvious that some people see government
(and law enforcement) as an outlet for their anger. They typically
won?t come right out and support such things openly of course. At least
not most of the time? not in public. Most haters are chameleons.
This is what the whole "gun bigots" thing is about. But it's not even exactly about bigotry. The thought process is similar... some people come by their anti-gun feelings honestly, because they had some horrible event in their lives that hurt or killed a loved one and their brain wiring misfired somehow and they blamed the gun rather than the person. (This is probably easier to do when the killer is insane; then he's not responsible, so the grief and anger need an outlet).
But there are a lot of people who aren't driven by personal grief into irrational behavior. For these people, it's not about the gun. It's about a status marker. It's about a cultural environment where no one has a gun (or at least never talks about it), no one needs a gun (until they do, and then they don't talk about it), and no one wants a gun.
It's a culture where the high status people all say "Guns are bad, mmmkay" and coordinate their disparaging looks. Why do they do this? The same reason religious folks talk about God all the time, or say that Jesus saves them; the same reason clubs have secret handshakes.
It's a trust cue. (Google it).
They say that to each other to reinforce their feelings of superiority at being part of the "in" group and being better than the "out" group. They say it to find other members of their in group so they can support them, and to identify objectors ("not my group") and oppose them. The existence of someone lower on the pecking order than they are is comforting, and they abuse us (in their minds, and when they have the power, with the law) in order to reinforce that pecking order to them, to us, and to the audience.
That's why it doesn't *matter* that the laws don't make sense. It doesn't matter that they won't work at the professed goals. What matters is the pecking order. Their group is in power. Their group can abuse groups below their group. Whether it's politicians passing gun control laws, or abusive policemen ranting at someone who gave them a moment's fright; it all boils down to the same thing. It's a status display.
The audience sees this, knows it, learns from the results which group is right. It's nothing more than the alpha bitch baring her teeth and growling at us. She doesn't want to ban guns. She wants us to submit, to roll over and show our throat and our belly. She wants submission. She wants to be acknowledged as higher status than us.
But you know what makes them come after us again and again? What really pisses them off? What keeps this issue coming back over and over again when any other political issue would be debated, legislated, victory won or lost and then forgotten?
We fight back. We refuse to submit. We refuse to show our belly. We refuse to show submission. We will not surrender. We will not submit. Maybe we lose, and retreat to lick our wounds, but we come back later even stronger than before, and every time that alpha bitch looks away from her nice, comfy top of the pack status, we're there to steal her food and challenge all over again.
It's all a status display, and we will not submit.
That's why they are gun bigots. Bigotry is the ultimate status display.
John Lott has the details, and the details are where the devil lives. There are so many restrictions being piled on, many of them including "within a thousand feet of" or parking lots for, that by the time they are finished, you won't be able to carry anywhere, at least not within a city.
During Feb. 22 testimony before an Illinois state house committee,
Chicago Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy admitted he's never seen
anyone with a Firearm Owner's Identification Card (FOID) commit a gun
Why, then, does he want to impose gun control laws on honest citizens?
If you yell "fire" in a movie theater, you are exercising your
free-speech rights. Yet you are also causing a panic that will likely
lead to the harm of other people. Therefore, while each of us has a
right to free speech, that right is limited. In his book "On Liberty,"
the famous English philosopher John Stuart Mill referred to this
formulation as the "harm principle" -- that my rights end where
exercising those rights cause another person harm.
Here's the problem. Walking into a movie theater with a mouth and a working set of lungs does not threaten anyone. Neither does walking into a movie theater with a gun. Shouting "Fire" might cause a panic, and people might be trampled in the panic, thus, it's something you can legitimately be punished for -- unless there actually is a fire, of course. Likewise, shooting people in a movie theater -- or anywhere else -- is a criminal act that can be punished. Peacefully enjoying the movie with a concealed firearm on your belt doesn't disturb anyone.
Yet in many states in the United States today, it is perfectly legal to
buy and carry an assault weapon fitted with a multi-round ammunition
magazine -- a killing machine if there ever was one. And, tragically,
over the past year we have seen those weapons carried into a school, a
shopping mall, and, yes, a movie theater.
What creates the problem in those cases is not that the assault weapon was bought, or carried, or that it had a "multi-round ammunition magazine". The problem is that the person who did those things also did something else: he shot people, he committed murder. Murder is illegal, of course. Having already decided to commit murder, would any of those murderers be deterred by rules against buying or carrying an assault weapon?
Here, I'll give you a clue. The theater in Aurora? It was a posted gun-free zone. It wasn't legal to have a gun there. Didn't stop anyone. In fact, there's an argument that the killer chose the theater because it was a posted gun free zone.
Frankly, it's hard to imagine a danger more "clear and present" than
James Eagan Holmes' decision to carry his assault weapon into an Aurora,
Colo., movie theater. Yet until he used it, he had not committed a
crime. By contrast, had he simply yelled fire in that same movie
theater, he could have been arrested for inciting danger in that
theater. Does anyone really believe that yelling the word "fire" is a
danger more clear and present than the possession of a killing machine?
And yet critics of gun-safety regulations point to the Second Amendment --
which the Supreme Court ruled includes a right of individuals to "keep
and bear arms" [McDonald v. Chicago, 561 US 3025 (2010)] -- as
evidence that regulations like an assault-weapons ban are
unconstitutional. They claim that "law abiding citizens" can exercise
their Second Amendment rights by purchasing and carrying an assault
We can, and we do, peacefully exercise our right to keep and bear arms by owning and carrying firearms in 40 shall-issue states. People in those states who carry guns legally do not go on rampages. Blood does not run in the streets. You haven't seen us in the news. You probably have seen us next to you in the grocery store, movie theater, or shopping mall. You just didn't see our firearm, because it was concealed and not being used to commit murder. People carrying firearms lawfully are not the problem.
Yet the Second Amendment is not absolute -- just as the First Amendment
is not absolute. Claiming that limits on the Second Amendment are
unconstitutional is a misunderstanding of the Constitution, and the
Supreme Court's century-old jurisprudence on rights. The fact is every
right has limits. There are limits on the ability of a person to speak,
to worship, to assemble -- all grounded in the fact that some actions
endanger other people, and therefore those actions can be prevented. No
person has a right falsely to yell fire, because it would likely
endanger others. We should apply the same principle to regulate guns.
Having a gun does not endanger anyone. Shooting at them would. So would, say, being drunk while you carry your firearm, or handling it in a negligent manner. There is a difference, and we have laws to handle the cases of malice and negligence. But we don't arrest citizens who are capable of safely carrying firearms for their own protection.
Shall we ban certain brands of typewriters? How about laser printers, because they can produce printed text too fast? Or computers, because gosh, when you combine them with the internet, people, ordinary people!, can publish blogs that interfere with the message the officially sanctioned journalists are supposed to be sending.
There's actually a useful concept in First Amendment law that applies here. That concept is prior restraint. Under the First Amendment, the government is prohibited from exercising prior restraint on First Amendment rights. It cannot stop you from speaking out. If your speech turns out to be shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater without a fire, they can punish you for creating a panic -- but they can't force you to wear a gag when you are going into a theater.
The same concept applies to firearms rights. We can punish people who misuse firearms criminally. We can't punish them because they "might" misuse a firearm.
The clear and present danger test, or the more recent "imminent lawless action test" -- which the Supreme Court established in Brandenburg v. Ohio,
395 US 444 (1969) -- are possible and appropriate tests for limiting the
right to bear arms. The Supreme Court has established this right as an
individual right -- regardless of the ambiguities found in the amendment
itself. Yet like all rights, the right to bear arms must be limited by
the safety of others.
Merely owning and carrying a firearm is not "imminent lawless action". Carrying a rifle and grenades -- assault weapon or not -- into a movie theater would raise my eyebrows, but let's not get caught up in the fantasy that making it more illegal would have somehow stopped the murderer. He was going into the theater to commit murder. There was no one there with a gun to stop him. Also committing "illegally carrying a weapon into a gun free zone" is going to register to the murderer as "Oh, good, I'll be the only one with a gun."
So, should we institute an assault-weapons ban? Surely yes, because a
person carrying such a killing machine is a clear and present danger for
There are literally millions of so-called "assault weapons" in the hands of honest, law-abiding citizens, police officers, and members of our military forces. Only a tiny fraction of those firearms are ever used in crimes.
The problem is not people carrying firearms. The problem is crazy people who want to commit murder.
Should we limit the number of bullets any magazine can contain? Surely
yes, because no hunter needs more than five rounds before replacing a
magazine. By contrast, such magazines allow mass murders like Adam
Lanza?s massacre in Newtown, Conn.
With a little practice, a magazine can be replaced in a few seconds. Lanza did so frequently -- more frequently than he had to, often discarding magazines that had as many as 15 rounds left. He had 20 uninterrupted minutes to commit his murders before the police arrived to stop him. Claiming that unarmed kindergarteners could have overpowered him while he changed magazines is offensive.
Like most spree killers, Lanza stopped when he encountered armed resistance. The sooner a spree killer faces someone else with a gun, the sooner he stops killing. When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
Should we establish a
universal and thorough background check and waiting period? Yes,
because allowing someone with a clear record of dangerous use of weapons
to buy and possess another one is a clear and present danger.
If someone has a clear record of dangerous use of weapons, how will preventing them from buying another one stop anything? That person will just use one of the weapons they already own.The fact is, we already have a background check system in place. It is supposed to prevent criminals and crazy people from buying guns from licensed dealers, but we should not count on it to do so. Why not? Well, many states don't do a good job adding "crazy people" to the list of prohibited persons. More importantly, though, criminals don't obey laws -- including "crazy people planning mass murder". Adam Lanza didn't buy his guns legally -- he killed his mother to take her guns.
Should we ban all rifles and handguns? No, because the presence of a
rifle on a deer hunt does not usually represent a clear and present
danger to other human beings.
Neither does the presence of an AR-15 or a semiautomatic handgun with a standard capacity magazine at a shooting range.
Despite the misguided and ill-informed views of the leaders of the NRA,
can?t the rest of us agree that a person who carries a loaded assault
weapon with a multi-round ammunition magazine ? the purpose of which can
only be construed as attempting to kill other human beings ? is a clear
and present danger? It is time now for our politicians to do something
A person who is carrying a firearm but not shooting at people is not a clear and present danger to anything other than the clean underwear of a so-called journalist and constitutional scholar. The danger comes from the person, not the gun.
Oregon legislators give up on semiauto ban, magazine ban, keep background checks
Honestly, we knew this was the game from the beginning. Gun control advocates would take as much as they can get, but they didn't really expect to pass another semi-auto ban nationally, and even at the state level it could be difficult.
They introduced those draconian bills to give them political cover when voting for what they really want: a ban on private firearm sales between law-abiding citizens. They want the government to know who buys a gun, no matter who they buy it from, and they are willing to give up the other items on their agenda to get it.
A growing number of firearm firms in the US are vowing to reverse-boycott local and state governments that enact any new infringements on the Second Amendment.Vowing to close what they're calling "the police loophole," at least 50
US companies, ranging from gun machinists to gun shops, are now saying
publicly they'll refuse to sell weapons and gear to police in places
where governments have banned the use of the same gear by civilians.
A Senate aide familiar with the process said Fox News Sunday host Chris
Wallace erred in the question he posed to Coburn. The aides said there
is no discussion of allowing the federal government to keep any records
of background checks or sales, something that is already illegal and
would not change. What is being proposed is having the seller retain a
record of a private sale, just as a dealer does now for a sale that
happens at a licensed gun store, the aide said.
The problem with this is simple: suppose you sell a gun in a private sale, and 10 years later, that gun is used in a crime and the police knock on your door and ask if it's yours. You tell them you sold the gun 10 years ago. They say, "Prove it, or go to jail."
The government has no records of the transfer, since they aren't allowed to keep them.
Will you still have that record in 10 years, or however long it takes? No? Go to jail.
On Feb. 25 & 26, make Five Phone Calls for Freedom
Friday, February 22, will witness an unprecedented attack on your
rights as Obama mobilizes his army of left-wing activists to push for
federal gun bans. "Roll Call" recently ran a piece entitled, "Organizing for America Plans 'National Day of Action' to Mobilize
Grass Roots on Guns." It went on to say:
"Organizing for Action is planning its first official mobilization in
support of President Barack Obama's proposals to curtail gun violence.
The nonprofit that inherited Obama's campaign infrastructure and 2
million strong volunteer army will hold a "national day of action" on
Feb. 22, officials said Tuesday."
If that doesn't scare you, it should
What you are seeing is "Barry the Community Organizer" doing what he
does best: Attacking your rights using millions of rabid radicals who
will stoop to any level of deceit in order to control you. The grass
roots initiative began with his State of the Union address, in which he
packed the house with families of victims of mass killings. Next, Obama
went on the road to sell his plan at schools in Atlanta and elsewhere.
Now MoveOn.org is joining the fray by running TV ads that proclaim, "The NRA doesn't speak for me." In case you didn't know it, these are
the same folks that you brought you "ACORN"; MoveOn.org is funded by
the left wing "Tides Foundation" which is itself funded by none other
than freedom-hating billionaire George Soros.
Your voice needed now more than ever
You have politicians scared. As a founding member of the Coalition to
Stop the Gun Ban, which now comprises 38 state and national
organizations, GRNC members have been blasting Congress with a
coordinated message that we will punish any legislator who supports gun
control. So to counter your influence, "Barry" plans to "out-grassroots" you. Will you let him?
IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED!
Make Five Phone Calls for Freedom
To fight back against this left wing attack, we are asking millions of
Second Amendment supporters, represented by the Coalition and others,
to deliver a loud and clear message to Congress by making 5 phone calls
on Monday and Tuesday (Feb. 25 & 26). Please note that we said
CALL, not email. We want millions of voices to ring through the
congressional switchboard, so please note that you might have to try
several times to get through.
Specifically, we are asking you to call:
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell at 202-224-2541
House Speaker John Boehner at 202-225-0600
Senator Richard Burr at 202-224-3154
Senator Kay Hagan at 202-224-6342
Your representative to the U.S. House. To identify your US House representative, go to: http://www.house.gov/representatives/ and then enter your zip code in the upper right corner of the page.
DELIVER THIS MESSAGE
Give congressional staff 3 simple talking points:
Nothing about the federal proposals is acceptable -- not banning
semi-automatic firearms and magazines, not expanding the list of people
prohibited from owning guns, and not registering private gun sales via
the National Instant Check System;
Because "compromise" means losing freedom, you will not "compromise" on this issue, including any "lite" version of registering
private sales through the National Instant Check System; and
As a member of one of the organizations comprising the National
Coalition to Stop the Gun Ban, you will support coordinated Coalition
action against any legislator who supports gun control.
How would you feel if you received a letter from the U.S. Government
informing you that because of a physical or mental condition that the
government says you have it is proposing to rule that you are
incompetent to handle your own financial affairs? Suppose that letter
also stated that the government is going to appoint a stranger to
handle your affairs for you at your expense? That would certainly be
scary enough but it gets worse.
Read the whole thing. We know the current occupant of the White House is hostile to both veterans and gun owners.
This is why an "improved background check" system is dangerous. Not just because it will provide the government with a registry of gun owners, but because it will make it easier for the government to deny gun ownership to those it doesn't like.
This is one of those programs that could be good or bad depending on how it's implemented, except for one thing: it doesn't sound like there is any due process or neutral judgment involved. As far as I can tell, the VA makes an internal decision, and the first the veteran hears about it is when he's ruled incompetent. That's clearly unacceptable.
I and several others got a chance to speak with one of the other side's Protestors. She's from Alabama. We told her about how some of the proposed laws don't make any sense, and outlined specifics. By the time we parted ways, she not only saw our side of the story, but agreed with me that our Politicians in Trenton are either ignorant or just plain screwing with us, especially in reference to the proposed .50 cal ban and how it would affect flintlocks and cap locks due to bad wording of the Bill. When I pointed out that this is the third time "her side" is trying this BS and since they all make 6 figure incomes & are supposed to be smart, she got upset at the Politicians and said, "I see what you mean" & " My brother is a reenactor and uses old black powder guns. Why would anybody want to ban them?" I told her that the proposed Bills were deliberately written the way they were as an attempt at gun-grabbing. She stated she thought she might be "on the wrong side".
In the 1950s, Democratic politicians in Virginia, led by Sen. Harry
Byrd Sr., undertook an effort called "massive resistance." Through
various legislative and administrative means, they sought to circumvent
the mandate for school integration that the Supreme Court had issued in
the 1954 case of Brown v. Board of Education.
Similar stirrings can be heard today in Illinois--specifically, from
the Cook County State's Attorney's office, which prosecutes crimes in
Chicago. At issue is not the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal
protection before the law, but the Second Amendment's guarantee of the
right to keep and bear arms.
See, a federal court has ruled that Illinois must have some provision for legal carry of arms within their state. Other states have carry laws that basically boil down to "every honest citizen without a license" (constitutional carry), "any honest citizen who asks for a license" (shall-issue), and "you have to beg for permission, but sometimes we'll grant it." Illinois was the only state that didn't even let you beg for permission, and the court decided that didn't pass muster under the 2nd Amendment, so it struck down the law and gave the state 180 days to come up with something else.
The legislature is still trying to figure out what to do, but some of the people testifying are saying that they don't have to do anything -- that they can just ignore the federal court ruling and continue to enforce their existing law, at least until the Illinois Supreme Court makes a ruling one way or another.
New Mexico assault weapons ban killed in committee
A House committee has tabled an effort to ban assault weapons and large-capacity magazines.
The five-member House Consumer and Public Affairs Committee voted 3-2
to table the bill late Thursday after the committee chair, Rep. Eliseo
Alcon, D-Milan, joined the committee?s two Republicans in opposition.
Alcon said he voted against the bill because he believed the federal
government would take action on the assault-style weapons soon, and so
the proposed New Mexico regulation should be deferred.
But Shumlin also noted the "need divide" between rural and urban America
in terms of the gun issue and said that a total assault weapons ban
would need to determine how an assault weapon is defined. Many automatic
weapons would not be used for hunting and could be banned, he
continued, including the kind used in the Newtown school shooting in
Connecticut, which he called a "weapon of war." But at the same time, he
said that the definition of an assault weapon would need to address
certain rifles used by hunters in his state and other rural areas around
There are NO automatic weapons covered by the assault weapons ban. Those were heavily regulated in 1934 and banned in 1986. The assault weapons ban covers semiautomatic firearms only.
They keep pushing this confusion deliberately. They are lying to the American people.
Action News found out just how easy is it for someone with a shady background to buy a gun with no questions asked. A
five-minute phone call, a simple handshake, a few hundred dollars cash
and you've got yourself a Ruger Mini-14 rifle. It's that easy with a
private sale where background checks aren't always required.
There are four important things to understand here.
First, these "investigators" were not buying from licensed dealers. They were contacting individual sellers and buying from them. That is a legal transaction... if the buyer is not a prohibited person.
Second, they said that they told the seller they could not pass a background check. If so, then the sale becomes illegal. It is not legal to knowingly sell to a prohibited person. It is not legal for a prohibited person to buy or even possess a firearm. Thus, the sales broke the law, both buyer and seller.
Third, the story says that New York City investigators -- by which they mean, Bloomberg private investigators, who have pulled this trick before -- bought guns in 14 states. That's generally illegal, too. (Always illegal for handguns, usually but not always illegal for rifles). So that's two crimes. However, there is a procedure to follow that makes this legal. It involves shipping a firearm to a licensed dealer, who then performs the background check before completing the transfer to the buyer. That's the usual procedure for online firearms sales. If you have it shipped to your door, you're breaking the law -- or you're a licensed dealer.
Fourth, and most importantly... if the seller doesn't care whether the buyer is prohibited or not, he's not going to start caring after a universal background check law is passed. If you're a prohibited person, it's already illegal for you to have a gun regardless of how you got it, and illegal for someone to give you a gun if he knows you are prohibited. These investigators are either lying to us (as CNN has done in the past for similar "investigations"), or they convinced the seller to do something illegal (ie, to make an interstate firearms sale, which they would presumably still be able to do after it was made more illegal).
So the answer is... no, background checks don't work, universal or not.
The governor of Colorado may be wavering on new gun control laws:
According to coloradopeakpolitics.com, the governor of Colorado, John
Hickenlooper is wavering on a proposed magazine capacity limit that is
making its way through the Colorado state legislature.
Since magazine giant Magpul, which is currently operating in CO, has
announced they will pack up their operations, move across state lines
and take hundreds (possibly thousands) of jobs with them and since there
has been a huge national fallout over comments made by Democratic
lawmaker Joe Salazar regarding women with guns and rape (see video
below), the governor is apparently considering not supporting new gun
It wouldn't hurt to contact him and politely ask him to veto anything that makes it out of the legislature.
Early this morning, the MIT campus went into lockdown on a report of an individual armed with a rifle and wearing body armor. The report appears to be unfounded. So what happened? Was this made-up report intended to create a panic and advance the gun control cause, similar to made-up reports of racism in the past?
I wonder if we'll hear anything more about this story.
Two programs, one an hour long with another guest and the other 20 minutes long (within a longer program). He does a good job, but so does the opposition.
I noted a couple very interesting questions from callers.
One caller asked about the myths spread by Belleseilles' Arming America. Randy pointed out correctly that the research was fraudulent, but that there are people who heard and believed the original claim and did not hear that the research was fraudulent is interesting.
Another caller asked whether giving up the right to arms for the 99% would make it harder to later regain that right from the 1%. It's interesting because it's a right to arms from a left-wing perspective.
A third caller pointed out that within living memory, people used their right to arms to defend against their state government calling out the police and national guard to put down labor union strikes. Again, an argument for the right to arms from the left.
The second amendment protects more than just Republicans. It is a civil rights issue for everyone.
matter what we do, people will not be happy with the outcome, and many
of them will vent their frustration in the voting booth and possibly on
the streets. This
is the point: a perfect storm is brewing. I think we're heading for a
chaotic and violent period in this country the likes of which no one
alive today has ever witnessed.
I can't argue with this. We're headed for a financial collapse and social unrest on a dramatic and possibly violent scale. Read the whole thing.
Don't get me wrong. Obama was not the one who set all of this in motion. The blame for that goes to decades of entitlements and deficit spending. Obama's presidency represented our last opportunity to change course and avoid disaster. Instead, he has accelerated towards disaster, unleashing the printing presses at the Treasury to buy votes on an unprecedented scale. We are already seeing inflation that the official government statistics seek to hide from us. Hyperinflation looms.
"A universal background check would have directly affected what
happened here in Tucson," Mr. Kelly said, referring to the shooting in
which six people were killed and many others, including his wife, were
injured. The gunman, Jared L. Loughner, had been suspended from
community college for behavioral reasons.
Being "suspended from community college for behavioral reasons" is not the same as being "adjudicated mentally defective". While Loughner definitely qualifies for that judgment in hindsight, he was not on the prohibited person list when he bought his gun. Furthermore, he bought his gun from a licensed dealer who did in fact run a background check.
Making background checks "universal" by banning private firearms transfers would not change anything, because Loughner was able to pass a check. If the people who encountered him and felt threatened by him had reported it, perhaps he would have been on the prohibited list -- but perhaps not, since "being creepy" isn't a felony and a mental health disqualification is a vague standard.
Spree killings by the mentally ill are rare and horrific events. They are an argument for attempting to improve our mental health system, so they can be identified and treated before they kill people. But identifying the mentally ill who will become violent in the future is not an easy problem, and relies mainly on identifying those who have been violent in smaller ways in the past. Some people will always slip through the cracks, because in a free society we cannot lock up people for what they might do in the future.