September 7, 2013
Infuriated! Outraged! Angry! Disgusted! Disappointed! Stompin' mad! Spittin'! Appalled! Demanding!
Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, often known as MDA, is all of these things. It shows amply in their rhetoric and promotional materials.
I am too! I've rarely seen a group of such lying, manipulative, deceitful, closed minded people in my entire life as MDA! If lying were illegal in America they'd all be in jail. If lying had a spell cast upon it then all their noses would be so long they couldn't pass through any doorways. If lying was as banned as they want firearms to be then we'd never hear from them again. If lying were physically impossible to do then they'd lose the power of speech. That's how bad they are. They're either in complete denial of facts, truth and reality or they're strongly opposed to it.
What's caused my rant? The trigger was this article about their campaign to affect the recall election of two state senators in Colorado but that was just the tipping point. If you've followed MDA and its rhetoric for any amount of time and are in possession of any of the facts surrounding the pertinent issues, or if you've ever tried to engage them reasonably with a different point of view, then you probably understand me. MDA has no credibility!
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/09/robert-farago/moms-demand-action-infuriated-colorado-recall/
===
September 7, 2013
Even more Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America (MDA) nonsensical BS! There are so many things wrong with this campaign I don't know where to begin.
http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2013/04/16/moms-demand-keeping-m4%E2%80%B2s-out-of-kids-hands/
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/09/moms-demand-action-for-gun-sense-in.html
Firearms Blog Collections
Starbucks Becomes Battleground Over Gun Control
Saturday, September 7, 2013
Friday, September 6, 2013
Firearms Tracking or Identification Through Technology
September 6, 2013
I came across this quote I thought was interesting in some comments to an 8-month old article about implanting RFID chips in all firearms.
"It's safe to trust a sane person with the keys to nuclear weapons, but it's not safe to trust an insane person with the cleaners under the kitchen sink."
The article is at this link but since I don't know this site and don't know if it'll be around forever I'll also include it in its entirety, below. I thought it interesting enough to not want to lose it.
I'm completely AGAINST this proposal! I'm thankful this isn't an actual legislative proposal but it does have some close similarities to some that have been discussed. This is NOT the United States where I want to live. And as for that statement about "this doesn't violate anyone's rights"... There's still the pesky "...shall not be infringed" part of our 2nd Amendment. I'd also consider this a violation of my right to privacy. What's next? Shall we have cars notify local authorities when we're speeding? Using the same logic, this wouldn't be a violation of anyone's rights unless they were speeding. How about if we chip sexual anatomy in a way that allows us to automatically report people who are committing sodomy in places where that's on the books as being illegal?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/09/1177623/-OK-why-not-imbed-RFID-chips-in-ALL-guns#
"WED JAN 09, 2013 AT 12:55 PM PST
This proposal in not meant to THE solution, just the beginning of a (hopefully) civil discussion."
===
September 6, 2013
What caused me to find the above article was finding this next article in my news feed today - about RFID chips becoming mandatory on all firearms in Clark County, Kentucky.
Now, before you blow a gasket, take a deep breath and do some reading. Start with the article. Then, whether you know anything about RFID capabilities and how they differ from GPS or not, read the comments. There may be too many to read them all, so I'd say look for the comment responses by the article's author, Jane M. Agni. Her name appears in blue in the comments. Then read the comment immediately above hers and then hers to see what she's responding to and how. You may fall out of your chair laughing. :)
http://nationalreport.net/weapon-rfid-system-kentucky/
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/09/firearms-tracking-or-identification.html
Firearms Blog Collections
Firearms Safety Mechanisms
I came across this quote I thought was interesting in some comments to an 8-month old article about implanting RFID chips in all firearms.
"It's safe to trust a sane person with the keys to nuclear weapons, but it's not safe to trust an insane person with the cleaners under the kitchen sink."
The article is at this link but since I don't know this site and don't know if it'll be around forever I'll also include it in its entirety, below. I thought it interesting enough to not want to lose it.
I'm completely AGAINST this proposal! I'm thankful this isn't an actual legislative proposal but it does have some close similarities to some that have been discussed. This is NOT the United States where I want to live. And as for that statement about "this doesn't violate anyone's rights"... There's still the pesky "...shall not be infringed" part of our 2nd Amendment. I'd also consider this a violation of my right to privacy. What's next? Shall we have cars notify local authorities when we're speeding? Using the same logic, this wouldn't be a violation of anyone's rights unless they were speeding. How about if we chip sexual anatomy in a way that allows us to automatically report people who are committing sodomy in places where that's on the books as being illegal?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/09/1177623/-OK-why-not-imbed-RFID-chips-in-ALL-guns#
"WED JAN 09, 2013 AT 12:55 PM PST
This proposal in not meant to THE solution, just the beginning of a (hopefully) civil discussion."
===
September 6, 2013
What caused me to find the above article was finding this next article in my news feed today - about RFID chips becoming mandatory on all firearms in Clark County, Kentucky.
Now, before you blow a gasket, take a deep breath and do some reading. Start with the article. Then, whether you know anything about RFID capabilities and how they differ from GPS or not, read the comments. There may be too many to read them all, so I'd say look for the comment responses by the article's author, Jane M. Agni. Her name appears in blue in the comments. Then read the comment immediately above hers and then hers to see what she's responding to and how. You may fall out of your chair laughing. :)
http://nationalreport.net/weapon-rfid-system-kentucky/
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/09/firearms-tracking-or-identification.html
Firearms Blog Collections
Firearms Safety Mechanisms
Washington State Ballot Initiatives
September 6, 2013
Washingtonians, are you aware of the ballot initiatives (still seeking signatures) in our state surrounding gun rights and gun control? There are two, one on each side.
According to this first article, "...the Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility (WAGR) filed its citizen initiative to the State Legislature, pushing for gun control..." Dissatisfied with the fact that gun control legislative proposals didn't make it out of committee during this year's session, advocates are trying to go straight to voters to push their 2nd Amendment rights-limiting agenda.
It also says:
"...there are now 433,223 active CPLs. On May 13, the last time TGM checked with the agency, there were 426,180 CPLs in circulation. That’s a difference of 7,043 carry licenses in just over a month."
"Washington has seen a steady climb in the number of CPLs for more than two years. Last year ended with 392,784 active licenses. That’s more than 40,400 CPLs issued in the Evergreen State since the first of the year, which is more than the total number of new carry licenses or permits issued annually in some states.
For Washington, that averages to about 8,000 licenses issued per month since the start of 2013, which is a considerable bump in volume from last year’s average at this time of about 2,500 to 3,000 CPLs."
Well at least that's good news.
http://bearingarms.com/wa-concealed-carry-numbers-soar-with-gun-control-initiative-filing-2/
This second article mentions there is also a pro-gun rights initiative although it doesn't go into the details. It does provide a pretty good explanation of some of the initiatives' background, although it's admittedly written from a biased point of view.
http://www.examiner.com/article/king-county-executive-takes-sides
I don't know where they're collecting signatures to get them on the ballot. I know that if i come across any I'll gladly sign in favor of Initiative 591 in favor of gun rights. If I'm approached by the so-called "gun responsibility" one I'l gladly take their forms so I can trash them. (The article says the forms cannot be downloaded and had to be printed - so a form in the trash is one less they have to work with.)
If these make it to the ballot next year, remember to vote YES on Initiative 591; and to vote NO for the so-called 'gun responsibility' one.
More to come on the 'gun control playbook' mentioned in the article. But as a rule of thumb, you can pretty accurately judge that any groups, proposals or initiatives with phrases like "gun responsibility," "gun sense," "common sense," "reform," "gun violence," etc. in their titles are about anything BUT common sense and should be rejected out of hand. Some of these people may have good intentions but as a class they have no idea what they're talking about and refuse to engage in real debate about the issues, statistics or gaping holes in their so-called arguments. They prefer to stick to emotional appeals, not facts, because the facts don't support them.
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/09/washington-state-ballot-initiatives.html
Firearms Blog Collections
Washingtonians, are you aware of the ballot initiatives (still seeking signatures) in our state surrounding gun rights and gun control? There are two, one on each side.
According to this first article, "...the Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility (WAGR) filed its citizen initiative to the State Legislature, pushing for gun control..." Dissatisfied with the fact that gun control legislative proposals didn't make it out of committee during this year's session, advocates are trying to go straight to voters to push their 2nd Amendment rights-limiting agenda.
It also says:
"...there are now 433,223 active CPLs. On May 13, the last time TGM checked with the agency, there were 426,180 CPLs in circulation. That’s a difference of 7,043 carry licenses in just over a month."
"Washington has seen a steady climb in the number of CPLs for more than two years. Last year ended with 392,784 active licenses. That’s more than 40,400 CPLs issued in the Evergreen State since the first of the year, which is more than the total number of new carry licenses or permits issued annually in some states.
For Washington, that averages to about 8,000 licenses issued per month since the start of 2013, which is a considerable bump in volume from last year’s average at this time of about 2,500 to 3,000 CPLs."
Well at least that's good news.
http://bearingarms.com/wa-concealed-carry-numbers-soar-with-gun-control-initiative-filing-2/
This second article mentions there is also a pro-gun rights initiative although it doesn't go into the details. It does provide a pretty good explanation of some of the initiatives' background, although it's admittedly written from a biased point of view.
http://www.examiner.com/article/king-county-executive-takes-sides
I don't know where they're collecting signatures to get them on the ballot. I know that if i come across any I'll gladly sign in favor of Initiative 591 in favor of gun rights. If I'm approached by the so-called "gun responsibility" one I'l gladly take their forms so I can trash them. (The article says the forms cannot be downloaded and had to be printed - so a form in the trash is one less they have to work with.)
If these make it to the ballot next year, remember to vote YES on Initiative 591; and to vote NO for the so-called 'gun responsibility' one.
More to come on the 'gun control playbook' mentioned in the article. But as a rule of thumb, you can pretty accurately judge that any groups, proposals or initiatives with phrases like "gun responsibility," "gun sense," "common sense," "reform," "gun violence," etc. in their titles are about anything BUT common sense and should be rejected out of hand. Some of these people may have good intentions but as a class they have no idea what they're talking about and refuse to engage in real debate about the issues, statistics or gaping holes in their so-called arguments. They prefer to stick to emotional appeals, not facts, because the facts don't support them.
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/09/washington-state-ballot-initiatives.html
Firearms Blog Collections
Antagonizing Photo of Teenager with Rifle
September 6, 2013
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/09/antagonizing-photo-of-teenager-with.html
Firearms Blog Collections
Incredibly stupid? Yes. Antagonistic? Yes. Illegal...? The question this family should be asking itself is how they'd react if their son was shot and killed during this stunt by someone who thought he was a real criminal or terrorist.
All Americans should be knowledgeable, respectful, thankful and supportive of their 2nd Amendment rights but this is not the way to express it. This just further entrenches the opposition and damages the credibility of the pro arguments.
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/09/antagonizing-photo-of-teenager-with.html
Firearms Blog Collections
Rewriting the 2nd Amendment
September 6, 2013
How's this for a rewritten 2nd Amendment?
"Because a well-regulated National Guard and Reserve, and well-regulated Federal, state, and local public safety departments, are necessary to the security of our free states and our free nation, the rights of citizens, while serving in their capacity in the aforesaid organizations, to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
...as opposed to the one agreed upon by our Founding Fathers?
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
The National Constitution Center has a "Next 10 Amendments" project that has come up with constitutional amendments and is asking people to vote on them.
So go vote on this preposterous 2nd Amendment rewrite - and reject it!
The voting has already been adjusted at least once. When I first looked at the site and registered my vote on September 4th there was a >93% rejection rate with well more than 13,000 votes in. The next day they had added a captcha requirement to register votes and reset the vote count. When I last looked it had >95% rejection with >4800 votes.
On the right-side panel there's also an amendment proposal concerning term limits for public office. In my opinion, it's not perfect but it's better than what we have.
http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2013/09/vote-now-a-constitutional-right-to-bear-arms/
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/09/rewriting-2nd-amendment.html
Firearms Blog Collections
How's this for a rewritten 2nd Amendment?
"Because a well-regulated National Guard and Reserve, and well-regulated Federal, state, and local public safety departments, are necessary to the security of our free states and our free nation, the rights of citizens, while serving in their capacity in the aforesaid organizations, to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
...as opposed to the one agreed upon by our Founding Fathers?
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
The National Constitution Center has a "Next 10 Amendments" project that has come up with constitutional amendments and is asking people to vote on them.
So go vote on this preposterous 2nd Amendment rewrite - and reject it!
The voting has already been adjusted at least once. When I first looked at the site and registered my vote on September 4th there was a >93% rejection rate with well more than 13,000 votes in. The next day they had added a captcha requirement to register votes and reset the vote count. When I last looked it had >95% rejection with >4800 votes.
On the right-side panel there's also an amendment proposal concerning term limits for public office. In my opinion, it's not perfect but it's better than what we have.
http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2013/09/vote-now-a-constitutional-right-to-bear-arms/
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/09/rewriting-2nd-amendment.html
Firearms Blog Collections
Wednesday, September 4, 2013
"Emily Gets Her Gun"
September 4, 2013
For those who are not familiar, Emily Miller is a Washington Times senior editor and columnist. A rarity in mainstream media, Emily is pro-gun rights / pro-2nd Amendment and has been very vocal about it. She's written several well written and informative columns since the Sandy Hook Elementary tragedy triggered the current war on guns being waged by the gun control crowd. I'm not familiar with her work prior to that.
Her latest on the topic comes in this 3-part series. I found the second one to be most informative but all are worth reading. Take a look for this synopsis of what's been going on in the nationwide gun control campaign.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/29/inside-obamas-war-on-guns-rick-perry-decries-effor/?page=all#pagebreak
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/1/liberal-media-distort-the-gun-debate-loaded-langua/?page=all#pagebreak
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/2/obama-enraged-gun-control-couldnt-pass-democrat-le/?page=all#pagebreak
She has also written and published a book, "Emily Gets Her Gun ...But Obama Wants to Take Yours". I haven't read it but believe it chronicles, among other things, her quest to become a lawful handgun owner as a resident of Washington DC - home to some of the nation's toughest gun control laws.
http://www.amazon.com/Emily-Gets-Her-Gun-But/dp/1621571920/
===
September 7, 2013
Here's an interesting review of Emily Miller's new book, "Emily Gets Her Gun ...But Obama Wants to Take Yours". The review is worth reading. It looks like the book is too.
http://clashdaily.com/2013/09/pro-second-amendment-emily-miller-takes-aim-politicians/
http://www.amazon.com/Emily-Gets-Her-Gun-But/dp/1621571920/
===
September 10, 2013
Here's the NRA review of Emily Miller's new book, Emily Gets Her Gun ...But Obama Wants to Take Yours.
I already wanted to read this book. This just reinforces it.
http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2013/9/emily-gets-her-gun!.aspx
Probably due to the publication of Miller's book, she was recently interviewed by Piers Morgan on his CNN show. The most surprising thing here is that Morgan treats her with any amount of courtesy and respect. If you've seen him rant, berate, bully, etc. with his other guests opposing gun control then you know what I mean. He probably treats her better because she's a journalist and perhaps because she's a woman.
http://thegunwire.com/blog/youtube-video-cnn-emily-miller-schools-piers-morgan-on-gun-crime-statistics-in-america-cnn-9-9-13/
I keep finding myself wishing these 'debates' on Morgan's show would go on longer. There's so much more to be said that could destroy his arguments that never come out or should be reinforced more strongly when they do. Morgan has very recently been caught red-handed with a blatant lie about gun crime statistics but wasn't held accountable in that show, or any others I'm aware of, even though he was compelled to admit his 'error' in the press. He couldn't defend against that guest's argument so he simply lied about Virginia violent crime statistics. Like many outspoken gun control advocates, he also frames a lot of his statements in a very particular way and ignores all the surrounding context that make for a very compelling counter argument. He's not even very good at it but he keeps getting away with it because it's his show.
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/09/emily-gets-her-gun.html
Firearms Blog Collections
For those who are not familiar, Emily Miller is a Washington Times senior editor and columnist. A rarity in mainstream media, Emily is pro-gun rights / pro-2nd Amendment and has been very vocal about it. She's written several well written and informative columns since the Sandy Hook Elementary tragedy triggered the current war on guns being waged by the gun control crowd. I'm not familiar with her work prior to that.
Her latest on the topic comes in this 3-part series. I found the second one to be most informative but all are worth reading. Take a look for this synopsis of what's been going on in the nationwide gun control campaign.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/29/inside-obamas-war-on-guns-rick-perry-decries-effor/?page=all#pagebreak
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/1/liberal-media-distort-the-gun-debate-loaded-langua/?page=all#pagebreak
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/2/obama-enraged-gun-control-couldnt-pass-democrat-le/?page=all#pagebreak
She has also written and published a book, "Emily Gets Her Gun ...But Obama Wants to Take Yours". I haven't read it but believe it chronicles, among other things, her quest to become a lawful handgun owner as a resident of Washington DC - home to some of the nation's toughest gun control laws.
http://www.amazon.com/Emily-Gets-Her-Gun-But/dp/1621571920/
===
September 7, 2013
Here's an interesting review of Emily Miller's new book, "Emily Gets Her Gun ...But Obama Wants to Take Yours". The review is worth reading. It looks like the book is too.
http://clashdaily.com/2013/09/pro-second-amendment-emily-miller-takes-aim-politicians/
http://www.amazon.com/Emily-Gets-Her-Gun-But/dp/1621571920/
===
September 10, 2013
Here's the NRA review of Emily Miller's new book, Emily Gets Her Gun ...But Obama Wants to Take Yours.
I already wanted to read this book. This just reinforces it.
http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2013/9/emily-gets-her-gun!.aspx
Probably due to the publication of Miller's book, she was recently interviewed by Piers Morgan on his CNN show. The most surprising thing here is that Morgan treats her with any amount of courtesy and respect. If you've seen him rant, berate, bully, etc. with his other guests opposing gun control then you know what I mean. He probably treats her better because she's a journalist and perhaps because she's a woman.
http://thegunwire.com/blog/youtube-video-cnn-emily-miller-schools-piers-morgan-on-gun-crime-statistics-in-america-cnn-9-9-13/
I keep finding myself wishing these 'debates' on Morgan's show would go on longer. There's so much more to be said that could destroy his arguments that never come out or should be reinforced more strongly when they do. Morgan has very recently been caught red-handed with a blatant lie about gun crime statistics but wasn't held accountable in that show, or any others I'm aware of, even though he was compelled to admit his 'error' in the press. He couldn't defend against that guest's argument so he simply lied about Virginia violent crime statistics. Like many outspoken gun control advocates, he also frames a lot of his statements in a very particular way and ignores all the surrounding context that make for a very compelling counter argument. He's not even very good at it but he keeps getting away with it because it's his show.
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/09/emily-gets-her-gun.html
Firearms Blog Collections
Friday, August 23, 2013
Starbucks Becomes Battleground Over Gun Control
August 23, 2013
Support your local Starbucks... tomorrow, Saturday, August 24th, 2013, because they support your rights. Support them as you normally do, of course, but make a special effort for tomorrow.
Starbucks has been at the center of a raging 'war' between gun control and gun rights advocates. The gun control advocate group, Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America (MDA), has targeted Starbucks in a public relations campaign and now a boycott. Their efforts have been countered by the gun rights advocate group, 1 Million Moms Against Gun Control, INC (1MMAGC).
Starbucks' crime in the eyes of MDA is that they wish to remain neutral and allow local laws to prevail. They're not telling their customers how to live or what to value.
My awareness of this conflict began last month with this article: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/07/daniel-zimmerman/omg-starbucks-allows-guns-in-their-stores-still-omg/
This email that seems to have started it all is included in the article. I've also included it here.
"If you are like me, you enjoy your daily cup of coffee or tea. You may go to Starbucks several times a week, to grab a latte, meet friends or colleagues, or to take the kids for a treat after school. But did you know that at Starbucks you may be sipping your coffee next to someone carrying a loaded gun? It’s true. Starbucks allows people to carry guns into their stores where state and local laws permit them to do so. It’s a dangerous and ill-advised policy, especially in light of several recent accidental shootings that have happened inside Starbucks stores.
The article is written sarcastically and that makes some sense. Why?
1) That 'person next to you' who may be carrying a loaded firearm exists EVERYWHERE in our society! With the recent law that passed in Illinois, now ALL 50 STATES allow some form of lawful concealed carry of firearms, although Illinois is yet to implement its law. It has a few months to get the program up and running. There are restrictions on where firearms can be carried but they do not include coffee shops by law. And, oh, by the way, there are people carrying them illegally too who simply won't care what policies Starbucks or any other corporation put in place, or what laws are passed.
Any of you who may think MDA is right and Starbucks should change their policies, here's my challenge to your line of thought. How many McDonalds restaurants have you seen with 'no guns' signs? Think of all the other places you frequent regularly, with or without your children. Most don't have public policies prohibiting lawful carrying of firearms.
2) Shannon Watts' letter mentions "several recent accidental shootings that have happened inside Starbucks stores". My first reaction to this was, 'what the hell is she talking about?' I hadn't heard about ANY "recent accidental shootings" at Starbucks so I was very skeptical. I did, however, take some time to search Google. I found 2 incidents. One occurred in Cheyenne, Wyoming in 2011 and the other in the Tyrone Square Mall (Tampa Bay, Florida?) in May 2013. There was another coffee shop incident in Jacksonville, Florida in 2010 in a "cyber cafe" that was not a Starbucks.
Now I didn't exactly exhaust myself looking for more but I gave it an honest look. Two incidents? Even if I missed some, that's hardly enough to justify a call to action against a particular company. Typical of gun control pleas and rhetoric, Watts was short on details and sources for her statements.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michele-swenson/starbucks-and-the-more-gu_b_554583.html
http://www.wyomingnews.com/articles/2011/12/28/news/19local_12-28-11.txt
http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/woman-injured-after-friends-gun-accidentally-goes-off-at-starbucks-inside/2120697
In the weeks since that letter and the July 9th article, there's been plenty more buzz about MDA and Starbucks.
1) While Watts' letter from earlier this year explicitly does not call for a boycott, it seems she and MDA has changed their minds and want a 1-day boycott for tomorrow.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=424244921026767&set=a.300767940041133.70846.300719666712627&type=1
This is likely a direct response to a show of support of Starbucks and its policy organized by 1MMAGC for August 3rd. Using MDA's tactic, 1MMAGC had gun supporters open carry their firearms at Starbucks, where it was legal to do so, and submit photographs of themselves. This event was executed across the country and participants were asked to acquire $2 bills and use them at Starbucks to make the movement more visible to the company and stores.
In response to MDA's 1-day boycott, 1MMAGC is asking gun rights supporters to support Starbucks through their patronage on Saturday, August 24th to help make up the potential revenue loss for the company.
Well before MDA's change in tactics, other gun control supporting groups were calling for a Starbuck boycott. This article from April 2013 predates Watts' letter. I don't know what started it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/martha-rosenberg/starbucks-guns_b_2988849.html
That article also mentions that "Gunshot accidents have already been reported in Starbucks stores" but it links to the single incident in Wyoming in 2011: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-12-28/starbucks-gun-fires/52252886/1 The May 2013 incident hadn't yet occurred.
Here's another laughable quote from the Huffington Post article - "An estimated 100 million people want sane guns laws and only one million do not." I wonder what cherry-picking and illogical math was applied to come up with those numbers.
2) MDA is often portrayed as a "grass roots movement" that begin in the immediate aftermath of the tragic Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting last December. That's partially true. But it's hard to call something "grass roots" when it's founded by a professional media expert, as Shannon Watts has been shown to be here: http://gunfreezone.net/wordpress/index.php/2013/06/05/moms-demand-action-shannon-watts-the-plastic-gardener/ As the article points out, Watts isn't exactly the stay at home mom / homemaker / cookie baker some people would like to believe she is.
This Forbes article discussed some of the Starbucks controversy: http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2013/08/12/latte-with-an-extra-shot-as-gun-lovers-hold-armed-rallies-at-starbucks-howard-schultz-faces-call-to-ban-weapons/
In it, Watts says this: " “good old grassroots activism,” “We’re moms — we make 80% of spending decisions,” “We don’t want to expose our kids to loaded assault weapons while we’re getting lattes.” "
She just couldn't avoid invoking the dreaded so-called "assault weapon," could she? In my opinion she also misrepresents Starbucks with her statement, "It’s gone too far now. They’re not just allowing guns in their stores. They’re becoming a meeting place for people with weapons to congregate" considering that Starbucks hasn't invited any of this. They've simply remained neutral and within their long-standing policy. What's truly caused Starbucks to become a meeting place for "people with weapons" openly carrying them is the attention drawn to the company by Watts and MDA.
3) Hypocrisy Alert: While Watts openly asked people to contact Starbucks' CEO, Howard Shultz, directly to express their dissatisfaction with the long-standing corporate policy, people on Facebook are being banned for 12 hours from the popular social media site for doing the same to Shannon Watts. The 1MMAGC website has several posts about this. It happened to them, among others.
I also wrote a recent blog about being banned altogether from posting on the MDA Facebook page simply for disagreeing with them. You can see the blog and the post that caused me to be banned here: http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/08/speech-and-debate-banned-by-gun-control.html
Finally, here's a good 2-part series of articles that provides counterpoints to MDA's arguments. If you've made it to this point then spend a few extra minutes and read these. They're relatively short and sweet.
http://www.thebrennerbrief.com/2013/08/13/guns-and-starbucks-5-ways-moms-demand-action-are-wrong-on-gun-control-pt-i/
http://www.thebrennerbrief.com/2013/08/14/guns-and-starbucks-5-ways-moms-demand-action-are-wrong-on-gun-control-pt-ii/
Have you noticed the Starbucks-esque logos that have been developed? They're basically the Starbucks logo with the words "Guns & Coffee" or "I (heart) Guns & Coffee". I believe they're rooted in this controversy.
===
September 6, 2013
Here's another story about a negligent gunshot in Starbucks. This one is from April 2012. It occurred in a restroom without any eyewitnesses. No one was hurt.
http://www.guns.com/2012/04/10/man-accidentally-shoots-bathroom-sink-in-starbucks/
More recently, Connecticut Democratic politicians and some parents of Sandy Hook Elementary victims are adding additional pressure on Starbucks' CEO, Howard Shultz. They've sent him a letter asking him to "foster a culture of peace and ban guns from your stores." He responded via phone but did not commit to their request.
You have to (grudgingly) admire the passion of gun control advocates but I have no respect for what they're doing. It doesn't matter how tragic the loss is of any individual or family or group. Their loss does not trump our constitutional rights!
The letter to Shultz contained "[T]o prevent another Sandy Hook, we as a society must prioritize the sanctity of human life over the individual’s 'right to carry' ". If they were truly concerned about the "sanctity of human life" they would consider the number of lives saved and assaults and other crimes prevented or reduced by the presence of firearms in society and that 'right to carry' that is responsible for it.
Thank you, Starbucks, for this - "it should be up to legislators — not Starbucks — to decide what restrictions, if any, are necessary on gun possession".
In typical fashion "Gun control advocates are quick to point out that Starbucks does not allow its employees to carry guns and wonder why there's a discrepancy between workers and customers.
"When it's their safety, they care a little bit more," one gun control advocate charged this week.
Riley said "safety is certainly a consideration" in the company's ban on employees carrying guns." That position can be argued when it comes to their corporate offices but I would argue that it holds no weight when arguing about their stores. Why? Because their employees, while not carrying themselves, are in the same environment as their customers - where there are firearms being openly carried and concealed every day. They are accepting at least the same risks as everyone else in the stores and arguably more since customers have the right to carry while store employees don't.
The outspoken, gun control advocating politicians have absolutely no credibility in these issues since they've proven time and again that we cannot trust anything that comes from their mouths about the pertinent issues. They've lied and manipulated in so many nonreputable ways that they're impossible to count! It's likewise with the Newtown victims' families. I'm sure their feelings are powerful and they may actually believe what they're saying and in what they're doing. But some day they're going to realize they've been used as pawns in a much larger chess game. It is so blatantly obvious when you listen to them and hear the exact same sound bites and phrases from them that are used by the gun control supporting organizations nationwide. They're not even speaking to us in their own words! Some of them are even identifying themselves as advocates now, not simply as victims or family members of victims and it's obvious they've taken a drink of the Flavor Aid.
http://thehill.com/homenews/news/319713-dems-join-push-to-bar-guns-in-starbucks#ixzz2dpfkEmAQ
===
September 10, 2013
Another anti-gun blogger, Brian Ross of "truth-2-power", thinks he knows better how all people should be forced to live has put his 'common sense' words out there in "An Open Letter to Starbucks About Concealed Carry"; and proven, once again, that these outspoken gun control advocates don't know what they're talking about so they fill their propaganda with lies and misinformation.
Ross goes a step further though. From the results of his self-imposed survey and the following comments, he doesn't know who his audience is. Perhaps if he wants a better outcome to his ideas he should adopt the strategy in use by Moms Demand Action For Gun Sense in America (MDA) and prohibit comments altogether or delete the ones he finds disagreeable. At last glance, more than 95% of more than 3500 survey respondents disagree with him on his position attacking Starbucks for its policy of following local laws pertaining to carrying of firearms.
Unlike many forums, the commenters here mostly stay civil but have a field day pointing out the flaws in the article and position and poking holes in the author's position. The article itself is disturbing to read because of its embedded nonsense but when you couple that with the comments the whole becomes quite entertaining.
http://truth-2-power.com/2013/09/08/an-open-letter-to-starbucks-about-concealed-carry/
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/08/starbucks-becomes-battleground-over-gun.html
Firearms Blog Collections
Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America (MDA)
Support your local Starbucks... tomorrow, Saturday, August 24th, 2013, because they support your rights. Support them as you normally do, of course, but make a special effort for tomorrow.
Starbucks has been at the center of a raging 'war' between gun control and gun rights advocates. The gun control advocate group, Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America (MDA), has targeted Starbucks in a public relations campaign and now a boycott. Their efforts have been countered by the gun rights advocate group, 1 Million Moms Against Gun Control, INC (1MMAGC).
Starbucks' crime in the eyes of MDA is that they wish to remain neutral and allow local laws to prevail. They're not telling their customers how to live or what to value.
My awareness of this conflict began last month with this article: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/07/daniel-zimmerman/omg-starbucks-allows-guns-in-their-stores-still-omg/
This email that seems to have started it all is included in the article. I've also included it here.
"If you are like me, you enjoy your daily cup of coffee or tea. You may go to Starbucks several times a week, to grab a latte, meet friends or colleagues, or to take the kids for a treat after school. But did you know that at Starbucks you may be sipping your coffee next to someone carrying a loaded gun? It’s true. Starbucks allows people to carry guns into their stores where state and local laws permit them to do so. It’s a dangerous and ill-advised policy, especially in light of several recent accidental shootings that have happened inside Starbucks stores.
Starbucks has the right to change their policy on guns. It’s put the health and safety of its customers first before. Starbucks recently banned smoking outside its stores, where it would otherwise be legal to smoke. It also bans firearms at all of its corporate offices and prohibits its employees from carrying guns in the interest of “workplace health, safety and security.” Why, then, won’t it extend this ban to its stores?
Help us tell Starbucks: It’s time to get gun sense.
Here are three things you can do to let Starbucks know that YOU take gun sense with your coffee, and demand that they do so as well:
1) Click here to sign our petition, which we will hand-deliver to Starbucks; send an email or Tweet to Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz; or send a letter to the editor of your local newspaper letting other moms in your community know that Starbucks allows loaded guns in their stores.
2) Take a picture of yourself with your coffee mug and a sign that says how you take your coffee (“milk, sugar and gun sense”) and send it to photos@momsdemandaction.org. See our example below.
3) Join our Thunderclap! Click here to donate a post on your Facebook page or your Twitter feed on Monday, July 22.
We are not calling for a boycott of Starbucks. We’re simply asking you—and tens of thousands of moms like you—to pressure that Starbucks to ban guns from all of their stores, regardless of state laws on open carry.
Join moms around the country and me. Demand that Starbucks bring gun sense to their stores!
Shannon Watts
Founder, Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense In America"The article is written sarcastically and that makes some sense. Why?
1) That 'person next to you' who may be carrying a loaded firearm exists EVERYWHERE in our society! With the recent law that passed in Illinois, now ALL 50 STATES allow some form of lawful concealed carry of firearms, although Illinois is yet to implement its law. It has a few months to get the program up and running. There are restrictions on where firearms can be carried but they do not include coffee shops by law. And, oh, by the way, there are people carrying them illegally too who simply won't care what policies Starbucks or any other corporation put in place, or what laws are passed.
Any of you who may think MDA is right and Starbucks should change their policies, here's my challenge to your line of thought. How many McDonalds restaurants have you seen with 'no guns' signs? Think of all the other places you frequent regularly, with or without your children. Most don't have public policies prohibiting lawful carrying of firearms.
2) Shannon Watts' letter mentions "several recent accidental shootings that have happened inside Starbucks stores". My first reaction to this was, 'what the hell is she talking about?' I hadn't heard about ANY "recent accidental shootings" at Starbucks so I was very skeptical. I did, however, take some time to search Google. I found 2 incidents. One occurred in Cheyenne, Wyoming in 2011 and the other in the Tyrone Square Mall (Tampa Bay, Florida?) in May 2013. There was another coffee shop incident in Jacksonville, Florida in 2010 in a "cyber cafe" that was not a Starbucks.
Now I didn't exactly exhaust myself looking for more but I gave it an honest look. Two incidents? Even if I missed some, that's hardly enough to justify a call to action against a particular company. Typical of gun control pleas and rhetoric, Watts was short on details and sources for her statements.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michele-swenson/starbucks-and-the-more-gu_b_554583.html
http://www.wyomingnews.com/articles/2011/12/28/news/19local_12-28-11.txt
http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/woman-injured-after-friends-gun-accidentally-goes-off-at-starbucks-inside/2120697
In the weeks since that letter and the July 9th article, there's been plenty more buzz about MDA and Starbucks.
1) While Watts' letter from earlier this year explicitly does not call for a boycott, it seems she and MDA has changed their minds and want a 1-day boycott for tomorrow.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=424244921026767&set=a.300767940041133.70846.300719666712627&type=1
This is likely a direct response to a show of support of Starbucks and its policy organized by 1MMAGC for August 3rd. Using MDA's tactic, 1MMAGC had gun supporters open carry their firearms at Starbucks, where it was legal to do so, and submit photographs of themselves. This event was executed across the country and participants were asked to acquire $2 bills and use them at Starbucks to make the movement more visible to the company and stores.
In response to MDA's 1-day boycott, 1MMAGC is asking gun rights supporters to support Starbucks through their patronage on Saturday, August 24th to help make up the potential revenue loss for the company.
Well before MDA's change in tactics, other gun control supporting groups were calling for a Starbuck boycott. This article from April 2013 predates Watts' letter. I don't know what started it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/martha-rosenberg/starbucks-guns_b_2988849.html
That article also mentions that "Gunshot accidents have already been reported in Starbucks stores" but it links to the single incident in Wyoming in 2011: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-12-28/starbucks-gun-fires/52252886/1 The May 2013 incident hadn't yet occurred.
Here's another laughable quote from the Huffington Post article - "An estimated 100 million people want sane guns laws and only one million do not." I wonder what cherry-picking and illogical math was applied to come up with those numbers.
2) MDA is often portrayed as a "grass roots movement" that begin in the immediate aftermath of the tragic Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting last December. That's partially true. But it's hard to call something "grass roots" when it's founded by a professional media expert, as Shannon Watts has been shown to be here: http://gunfreezone.net/wordpress/index.php/2013/06/05/moms-demand-action-shannon-watts-the-plastic-gardener/ As the article points out, Watts isn't exactly the stay at home mom / homemaker / cookie baker some people would like to believe she is.
This Forbes article discussed some of the Starbucks controversy: http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2013/08/12/latte-with-an-extra-shot-as-gun-lovers-hold-armed-rallies-at-starbucks-howard-schultz-faces-call-to-ban-weapons/
In it, Watts says this: " “good old grassroots activism,” “We’re moms — we make 80% of spending decisions,” “We don’t want to expose our kids to loaded assault weapons while we’re getting lattes.” "
She just couldn't avoid invoking the dreaded so-called "assault weapon," could she? In my opinion she also misrepresents Starbucks with her statement, "It’s gone too far now. They’re not just allowing guns in their stores. They’re becoming a meeting place for people with weapons to congregate" considering that Starbucks hasn't invited any of this. They've simply remained neutral and within their long-standing policy. What's truly caused Starbucks to become a meeting place for "people with weapons" openly carrying them is the attention drawn to the company by Watts and MDA.
3) Hypocrisy Alert: While Watts openly asked people to contact Starbucks' CEO, Howard Shultz, directly to express their dissatisfaction with the long-standing corporate policy, people on Facebook are being banned for 12 hours from the popular social media site for doing the same to Shannon Watts. The 1MMAGC website has several posts about this. It happened to them, among others.
I also wrote a recent blog about being banned altogether from posting on the MDA Facebook page simply for disagreeing with them. You can see the blog and the post that caused me to be banned here: http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/08/speech-and-debate-banned-by-gun-control.html
Finally, here's a good 2-part series of articles that provides counterpoints to MDA's arguments. If you've made it to this point then spend a few extra minutes and read these. They're relatively short and sweet.
http://www.thebrennerbrief.com/2013/08/13/guns-and-starbucks-5-ways-moms-demand-action-are-wrong-on-gun-control-pt-i/
http://www.thebrennerbrief.com/2013/08/14/guns-and-starbucks-5-ways-moms-demand-action-are-wrong-on-gun-control-pt-ii/
Have you noticed the Starbucks-esque logos that have been developed? They're basically the Starbucks logo with the words "Guns & Coffee" or "I (heart) Guns & Coffee". I believe they're rooted in this controversy.
===
September 6, 2013
Here's another story about a negligent gunshot in Starbucks. This one is from April 2012. It occurred in a restroom without any eyewitnesses. No one was hurt.
http://www.guns.com/2012/04/10/man-accidentally-shoots-bathroom-sink-in-starbucks/
More recently, Connecticut Democratic politicians and some parents of Sandy Hook Elementary victims are adding additional pressure on Starbucks' CEO, Howard Shultz. They've sent him a letter asking him to "foster a culture of peace and ban guns from your stores." He responded via phone but did not commit to their request.
You have to (grudgingly) admire the passion of gun control advocates but I have no respect for what they're doing. It doesn't matter how tragic the loss is of any individual or family or group. Their loss does not trump our constitutional rights!
The letter to Shultz contained "[T]o prevent another Sandy Hook, we as a society must prioritize the sanctity of human life over the individual’s 'right to carry' ". If they were truly concerned about the "sanctity of human life" they would consider the number of lives saved and assaults and other crimes prevented or reduced by the presence of firearms in society and that 'right to carry' that is responsible for it.
Thank you, Starbucks, for this - "it should be up to legislators — not Starbucks — to decide what restrictions, if any, are necessary on gun possession".
In typical fashion "Gun control advocates are quick to point out that Starbucks does not allow its employees to carry guns and wonder why there's a discrepancy between workers and customers.
"When it's their safety, they care a little bit more," one gun control advocate charged this week.
Riley said "safety is certainly a consideration" in the company's ban on employees carrying guns." That position can be argued when it comes to their corporate offices but I would argue that it holds no weight when arguing about their stores. Why? Because their employees, while not carrying themselves, are in the same environment as their customers - where there are firearms being openly carried and concealed every day. They are accepting at least the same risks as everyone else in the stores and arguably more since customers have the right to carry while store employees don't.
The outspoken, gun control advocating politicians have absolutely no credibility in these issues since they've proven time and again that we cannot trust anything that comes from their mouths about the pertinent issues. They've lied and manipulated in so many nonreputable ways that they're impossible to count! It's likewise with the Newtown victims' families. I'm sure their feelings are powerful and they may actually believe what they're saying and in what they're doing. But some day they're going to realize they've been used as pawns in a much larger chess game. It is so blatantly obvious when you listen to them and hear the exact same sound bites and phrases from them that are used by the gun control supporting organizations nationwide. They're not even speaking to us in their own words! Some of them are even identifying themselves as advocates now, not simply as victims or family members of victims and it's obvious they've taken a drink of the Flavor Aid.
http://thehill.com/homenews/news/319713-dems-join-push-to-bar-guns-in-starbucks#ixzz2dpfkEmAQ
===
September 10, 2013
Another anti-gun blogger, Brian Ross of "truth-2-power", thinks he knows better how all people should be forced to live has put his 'common sense' words out there in "An Open Letter to Starbucks About Concealed Carry"; and proven, once again, that these outspoken gun control advocates don't know what they're talking about so they fill their propaganda with lies and misinformation.
Ross goes a step further though. From the results of his self-imposed survey and the following comments, he doesn't know who his audience is. Perhaps if he wants a better outcome to his ideas he should adopt the strategy in use by Moms Demand Action For Gun Sense in America (MDA) and prohibit comments altogether or delete the ones he finds disagreeable. At last glance, more than 95% of more than 3500 survey respondents disagree with him on his position attacking Starbucks for its policy of following local laws pertaining to carrying of firearms.
Unlike many forums, the commenters here mostly stay civil but have a field day pointing out the flaws in the article and position and poking holes in the author's position. The article itself is disturbing to read because of its embedded nonsense but when you couple that with the comments the whole becomes quite entertaining.
http://truth-2-power.com/2013/09/08/an-open-letter-to-starbucks-about-concealed-carry/
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/08/starbucks-becomes-battleground-over-gun.html
Firearms Blog Collections
Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America (MDA)
Wednesday, August 21, 2013
Speech and Debate Banned by Gun Control Advocates
August 21, 2013
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/08/speech-and-debate-banned-by-gun-control.html
Firearms Blog Collections
I’ve joined the ranks of others who have been banned from
posting on the “Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America” Facebook page. My
crime? I disagreed with their position and had the audacity to say so in a
comment on August 19, 2013.
Not all my friends agree with my positions on the 2nd
Amendment / gun rights / gun control. Some have debated with me or asked me to
clarify or consider alternative perspectives. Not one has told me they think I
express myself abrasively, abusively or otherwise offensively. In fact, I’ve
been complimented by friends that both agree and disagree with my positions for
keeping the conversation civil and for backing up my thoughts and opinions with
sources – articles and data. They appreciate the factual basis of my arguments.
That’s not to say everything I write is factual. I’ve introduced a fair amount
of opinion, sarcasm, etc., but not the insulting language very typical from
both sides of the gun control debate.
But that approach isn’t good enough for gun control
advocates like Moms Demand Action… and others. They don’t want to debate. They
don’t want to hear the opposition. And they most certainly don’t want their
audiences to read or hear it. They think it’s okay to attend political meetings
and shout down candidates with opposing views but then won’t even let opponents
comment on their Facebook pages.
This is the second time I’ve been banned from a Facebook
page. The other? The other is on the page of an Illinois state politician. He’s
a Democrat. He’s an outspoken advocate of gun control. I found out after I’d
been banned from commenting on his page that before holding office he was
actually employed in a gun control advocacy position. Oh, and I went to high
school with him. We weren’t close friends or anything but I connected with him
on Facebook and another social media site because of our past high school and
football team associations. So even people with a shared past are not invited
to participate in open debate when they disagree with the gun control agenda.
How can we ever trust the opposition when they don’t even
want to have a fair, open and honest debate? What they’d rather infringe on 1st
Amendment rights in order to infringe on 2nd Amendment rights? We
can’t.
Below is a link to the Moms Demand Action… post that I commented on. My
comment has been removed but I’ve included it here in its entirety following
the link. In terms of chronology, my post would have been #95,
I believe.
“How misleading can you be? "MINORS"? If you want
to disagree or debate, at least be honest about it. People of age 18+ in our
country are not legal minors. Yes, I know "minors" appears in the
article headlines of the left-leaning Salon and Huffington Post, but it doesn't
appear in other media headlines or even in the bodies of the Salon and HP
articles.
From the comments above, several of you seem in favor of the
drinking prohibition before age 21 but much of the world doesn't operate that
way. You obviously want the handgun age limit maintained at 21 (or worse). How
about voting rights? Shall we push back voting rights to age 21 too? If you
want to make the argument that "minority" status should be pushed
back to 21 across the board then have that argument. But know that if you push
back the voting age of the so-called "minors" that you'll lose a
large portion of the uninformed voters who support liberal or progressive
politicians.
Current law already allows 18-20 year olds to own guns, at
least in some states - rifles and shotguns - as well as to "possess"
handguns. If these impulsive, emotional and not fully developed young men so
many of you are worried about wanted to go on a killing rampage of a single
person or a group, they can already do it with those tools, pressure cookers,
or others.
There was a comment above by @Susie B Grande saying "19
year olds should not be able to access guns." "Access"? Really?
There goes a huge portion of our military - the very people who provided you
with the freedom to express your opinion. No one should be allowed to learn to
hunt before 21? No one should be allowed to enjoy target shooting? Sorry, Boy
Scouts of America. Too bad for those families whose teenage children have used
guns to defend their families in their homes. I've read 2-3 of those stories
just this year, including one today. Those are just the ones I've come across.
I don't search them out. And no opportunity for parents to teach responsible
gun ownership and use in a consistent and repetitive manner to children as they
grow up? If you mean "own
guns" then say that. "Access" has an entirely different meaning
and takes the argument to a different level. Are you aware of the teenagers in
our age who literally hunt without parental supervision to put essential food
on their tables? Susie, as easily as you tell someone that they're 'part of the
problem' because they agree with the NRA's position on this issue, you are part
of the problem of the erosion of our Constitutional and civil liberties.
How old do you think the soldiers and militiamen of our
American Revolution and Civil War were? And those who fought in Vietnam? Iraq
& Afghanistan?”
===
August 22, 2013
I found this article about the intolerance of Moms Demand Action interesting, particularly in light of my post yesterday.
http://www.ammoland.com/2013/08/who-knew-moms-were-so-intolerant-of-your-constitutional-rights/#axzz2ciWXlaUd
===
August 22, 2013
I found this article about the intolerance of Moms Demand Action interesting, particularly in light of my post yesterday.
http://www.ammoland.com/2013/08/who-knew-moms-were-so-intolerant-of-your-constitutional-rights/#axzz2ciWXlaUd
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/08/speech-and-debate-banned-by-gun-control.html
Firearms Blog Collections
Tuesday, August 20, 2013
Landlord Bans Firearms
August 20, 2013
Earlier this month, Castle Rock, Colorado resident, retired Marine and gun owner Art Dorsch was informed by his landlord, Ross Management Group, that "firearms and weapons are prohibited" and that "As of October 1, residents cannot display, use, or possess any firearms or weapons of any kind, anywhere on the property."
These articles say "courts have supported the rights of landlords to impose "reasonable regulations" on tenants. "The question is: is an outright ban of firearms reasonable in light of the US Constitution?" " This becomes an issue of an individual's 2nd Amendment rights vs. those of a private property owner. As we know, the rights of the property owner take precedence. Those owners can declare their homes and businesses 'gun free' although there's recent legislation that forces business owners to allow people to store firearms in their cars in their parking lots.
So, while this is unpalatable to most gun owners and 2nd Amendment / gun rights supporters, it's the situation we're sometimes faced with.
BUT...
In this case, Ross Management Group overstepped its authority. It seems the housing is actually publicly funded and RMG manages the property.
This case turned out right. The policy was rescinded before it was implemented and this Marine veteran and other residents will be allowed to keep both their firearms and their homes.
http://www.9news.com/news/article/348974/339/Apartment-tenants-told-they-must-get-rid-of-guns
http://bearingarms.com/colorado-marine-told-to-get-rid-of-his-firearms-or-find-another-home/
http://www.9news.com/rss/story.aspx?storyid=349123
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/08/landlord-bans-firearms.html
Firearms Blog Collections
Colorado Firearms Blogs
Earlier this month, Castle Rock, Colorado resident, retired Marine and gun owner Art Dorsch was informed by his landlord, Ross Management Group, that "firearms and weapons are prohibited" and that "As of October 1, residents cannot display, use, or possess any firearms or weapons of any kind, anywhere on the property."
These articles say "courts have supported the rights of landlords to impose "reasonable regulations" on tenants. "The question is: is an outright ban of firearms reasonable in light of the US Constitution?" " This becomes an issue of an individual's 2nd Amendment rights vs. those of a private property owner. As we know, the rights of the property owner take precedence. Those owners can declare their homes and businesses 'gun free' although there's recent legislation that forces business owners to allow people to store firearms in their cars in their parking lots.
So, while this is unpalatable to most gun owners and 2nd Amendment / gun rights supporters, it's the situation we're sometimes faced with.
BUT...
In this case, Ross Management Group overstepped its authority. It seems the housing is actually publicly funded and RMG manages the property.
This case turned out right. The policy was rescinded before it was implemented and this Marine veteran and other residents will be allowed to keep both their firearms and their homes.
http://www.9news.com/news/article/348974/339/Apartment-tenants-told-they-must-get-rid-of-guns
http://bearingarms.com/colorado-marine-told-to-get-rid-of-his-firearms-or-find-another-home/
http://www.9news.com/rss/story.aspx?storyid=349123
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/08/landlord-bans-firearms.html
Firearms Blog Collections
Colorado Firearms Blogs
Wednesday, August 7, 2013
So-Called "Gun Buy Back" Programs Illegal?
August 7, 2013
Late last month I wrote about how so-called "gun buy back" programs may be illegal as a consequence of Colorado's new gun control laws concerning background checks. Here's another instance of the same. This post is from "1 Million Moms Against Gun Control, INC" on their Facebook page.
What seems typical of gun control laws, this probably wasn't a foreseen or intended consequence of the mad rush for "universal background checks".
I am interested in that $5 background check fee though. The ones I've priced all cost between $25 and $50. In many, if not most, places, Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) are able to charge whatever they want for the mandatory service. Maybe the gun control crowd would be a little more successful if they'd reduce the very real costs of their initiatives for consumers. I wish I could find a $5 background check! Plus, they just might have found a few more supporters for more background checks if they'd made it easier, simpler, faster, more accurate, more effective, etc. You know - dealt with real issues instead of just "controlling" legal firearms.
But back to the topic of "gun buy back" programs - they're completely ineffective in reducing gun violence or crime involving guns, of course. They're just another feel-good measure used to distract people from the real issues.
"1 Million Moms Against Gun Control, INC
August 8, 2013
Another lost soul. Not lost to death - just to a meaningless and ineffective use of time and money that may also be illegal in the name of 'greater good'. Past friends used a phrase jokingly - 'if only I could use my powers for good'. Here are a couple guys trying to use their powers for good but who are hopelessly misled and believe their own nonsense and that of outspoken gun control advocates.
So-called gun "buy back" programs do little or nothing to reduce crime; may be illegal under state law because they're not completing background checks with each "transfer" of the firearms and because they may be considered "straw purchases"; and do not get guns "off the street". The guns turned in come out of closets and bedrooms and basements and garages. They're unwanted guns, not the tools of criminal behavior. I hadn't considered before this article that these programs may also encourage criminal activity - the theft of firearms to turn in "no questions asked". It has been previously mentioned that this may also be a method of disposing of guns used in crimes "no questions asked".
The "crowdfunding" (crowdsourcing) element of this is new to me. Programs I've read about have so-far been funded with public funds or private donations. Public funds should never be used for several reasons that I won't go into here. I understand they've been successful in raising more than $10,000. I wonder how long their success will continue. Eventually, even the well meaning people donating have to do the math in their head, right? There are over 300 millions firearms in the United States and MOST of them will NEVER appear in one of these programs. It's an exercise in futility, among other things.
http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Crowdfunding-underwrites-gun-buyback-4715672.php
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/08/so-called-gun-buy-back-programs-illegal.html
Firearms Blog Collections
Real Consequences of Colorado Gun Control Laws
Late last month I wrote about how so-called "gun buy back" programs may be illegal as a consequence of Colorado's new gun control laws concerning background checks. Here's another instance of the same. This post is from "1 Million Moms Against Gun Control, INC" on their Facebook page.
What seems typical of gun control laws, this probably wasn't a foreseen or intended consequence of the mad rush for "universal background checks".
I am interested in that $5 background check fee though. The ones I've priced all cost between $25 and $50. In many, if not most, places, Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) are able to charge whatever they want for the mandatory service. Maybe the gun control crowd would be a little more successful if they'd reduce the very real costs of their initiatives for consumers. I wish I could find a $5 background check! Plus, they just might have found a few more supporters for more background checks if they'd made it easier, simpler, faster, more accurate, more effective, etc. You know - dealt with real issues instead of just "controlling" legal firearms.
But back to the topic of "gun buy back" programs - they're completely ineffective in reducing gun violence or crime involving guns, of course. They're just another feel-good measure used to distract people from the real issues.
"1 Million Moms Against Gun Control, INC
===
August 8, 2013
Another lost soul. Not lost to death - just to a meaningless and ineffective use of time and money that may also be illegal in the name of 'greater good'. Past friends used a phrase jokingly - 'if only I could use my powers for good'. Here are a couple guys trying to use their powers for good but who are hopelessly misled and believe their own nonsense and that of outspoken gun control advocates.
So-called gun "buy back" programs do little or nothing to reduce crime; may be illegal under state law because they're not completing background checks with each "transfer" of the firearms and because they may be considered "straw purchases"; and do not get guns "off the street". The guns turned in come out of closets and bedrooms and basements and garages. They're unwanted guns, not the tools of criminal behavior. I hadn't considered before this article that these programs may also encourage criminal activity - the theft of firearms to turn in "no questions asked". It has been previously mentioned that this may also be a method of disposing of guns used in crimes "no questions asked".
The "crowdfunding" (crowdsourcing) element of this is new to me. Programs I've read about have so-far been funded with public funds or private donations. Public funds should never be used for several reasons that I won't go into here. I understand they've been successful in raising more than $10,000. I wonder how long their success will continue. Eventually, even the well meaning people donating have to do the math in their head, right? There are over 300 millions firearms in the United States and MOST of them will NEVER appear in one of these programs. It's an exercise in futility, among other things.
http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Crowdfunding-underwrites-gun-buyback-4715672.php
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/08/so-called-gun-buy-back-programs-illegal.html
Firearms Blog Collections
Real Consequences of Colorado Gun Control Laws
Los Angeles Police Hypocrisy on Gun Crime
August 7, 2013
I tend to agree with the gist of this article. The Los Angeles police officers should not be charged or prosecuted for these suspected gun crimes AS LONG AS no one else is! BUT, as long as they're arresting others for like crimes who are being charged, prosecuted or convicted of administrative, victimless crimes THEY SHOULD BE TOO!
The point is NOT to charge everyone with a gun crime. The point is that gun control laws are overburdensome, unnecessary, ineffectively applied and probably unconstitutional and should be repealed. Maybe if the enforcers are held to the same or a higher standard the enforcement will be more reasonable.
http://www.calgunlaws.com/lapds-hypocrisy-about-gun-prosecutions/
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/08/los-angeles-police-hypocrisy-on-gun.html
Firearms Blog Collections
I tend to agree with the gist of this article. The Los Angeles police officers should not be charged or prosecuted for these suspected gun crimes AS LONG AS no one else is! BUT, as long as they're arresting others for like crimes who are being charged, prosecuted or convicted of administrative, victimless crimes THEY SHOULD BE TOO!
The point is NOT to charge everyone with a gun crime. The point is that gun control laws are overburdensome, unnecessary, ineffectively applied and probably unconstitutional and should be repealed. Maybe if the enforcers are held to the same or a higher standard the enforcement will be more reasonable.
http://www.calgunlaws.com/lapds-hypocrisy-about-gun-prosecutions/
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/08/los-angeles-police-hypocrisy-on-gun.html
Firearms Blog Collections
Illinois Representative Monique Davis Lacks Responsibility and Leadership
August 7, 2013
Anyone can be elected to office. Anyone. Several convicted criminals have gained or re-gained office. There are plenty of village idiots in office. Several come to mind. Here's another idiot from Illinois - Illinois Representative Monique Davis, as shown in this 5:05 video interview with Bill O'Reilly.
"They're not sure that black people are shooting all these children. There's some suspicion, and I don't want to spread this but I'm just going to tell you what I've been hearing, they suspect maybe the police are killing some of these kids."
That's right, the Chicago Police Department is killing people. She doesn't want to spread it but she said it in a radio interview and then basically defended her actions and words in this television interview.
If she thinks that her role as an elected official is to "repeat" what her constituents are saying regardless of how ridiculous or irresponsible it is then she has no idea what leadership is and is not deserving of holding office or public trust.
http://clashdaily.com/2013/08/is-this-chick-nuts-are-chicago-cops-culpable-for-all-the-black-shootings/
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/08/illinois-representative-monique-davis.html
Firearms Blog Collections
Illinois Firearms Blogs
Anyone can be elected to office. Anyone. Several convicted criminals have gained or re-gained office. There are plenty of village idiots in office. Several come to mind. Here's another idiot from Illinois - Illinois Representative Monique Davis, as shown in this 5:05 video interview with Bill O'Reilly.
"They're not sure that black people are shooting all these children. There's some suspicion, and I don't want to spread this but I'm just going to tell you what I've been hearing, they suspect maybe the police are killing some of these kids."
That's right, the Chicago Police Department is killing people. She doesn't want to spread it but she said it in a radio interview and then basically defended her actions and words in this television interview.
If she thinks that her role as an elected official is to "repeat" what her constituents are saying regardless of how ridiculous or irresponsible it is then she has no idea what leadership is and is not deserving of holding office or public trust.
http://clashdaily.com/2013/08/is-this-chick-nuts-are-chicago-cops-culpable-for-all-the-black-shootings/
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/08/illinois-representative-monique-davis.html
Firearms Blog Collections
Illinois Firearms Blogs
Tuesday, July 30, 2013
Police Lose Firearms
July 30, 2013
It's unfortunate any time a law enforcement officer (LEO) or agency 'loses' firearms or other weapons. I wouldn't say it's epidemic but it does happen more frequently than most people realize. LEOs are people too and are sometimes forgetful, negligent, etc.
http://politicalblindspot.com/seattle-cop-forgets-his-ar15-in-public/
Here are two other incidents referred to in the first story.
http://web.archive.org/web/20060112225111/http://www.wcpo.com/news/2005/local/03/19/roachs_gun.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20041109132241/http://www.wdtn.com/index.cfm?action=dsp_story&storyid=49503
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/07/police-lose-firearms.html
Firearms Blog Collections
It's unfortunate any time a law enforcement officer (LEO) or agency 'loses' firearms or other weapons. I wouldn't say it's epidemic but it does happen more frequently than most people realize. LEOs are people too and are sometimes forgetful, negligent, etc.
http://politicalblindspot.com/seattle-cop-forgets-his-ar15-in-public/
Here are two other incidents referred to in the first story.
http://web.archive.org/web/20060112225111/http://www.wcpo.com/news/2005/local/03/19/roachs_gun.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20041109132241/http://www.wdtn.com/index.cfm?action=dsp_story&storyid=49503
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/07/police-lose-firearms.html
Firearms Blog Collections
Saturday, July 27, 2013
"Trayvon Martin" Law
July 27, 2013
I have so far chosen to not post any original content about Trayvon Martin or George Zimmerman but it's gotten too difficult as the country has gone crazy and it's painfully obvious that most of the people talking either have no idea what they're talking about or are ignoring facts as they push their own messages and agenda.
Tracy Martin, the father of deceased teenager Trayvon Martin, would like there to be a law enacted in Congress bearing Trayvon's name. Specifically, he'd like the federal legislation to roll back "stand your ground" laws. How sentimental. How completely ludicrous.
I have a suggested name for the bill. How about "Don't Commit Felony Assault On Anyone Because They Just Might Have a Gun and You Might End Up Justifiably Dead".
Even immediately after typing that I already have a problem with it. It's redundant and I'm not a fan of redundancy. Like other proposed gun control laws, the redundancy is that there are already laws on the books that cover the topic. It's called "assault" and it's a felony and Trayvon Martin committed it! He did that along with illegal drug possession, illegal drug use, possession of stolen property and likely robbery considering that he had a whole collection of stolen items in his school locker. Granted, none of those lesser charges contributed directly to Trayvon's death that night. But felony assault did!
There's also a little problem with the fact that "stand your ground" was NOT an issue in the George Zimmerman trial. Yes, yes, yes, the jury heard and used the phrase "stand your ground" during its deliberations. But there's a different between the casual use of a phrase and the implementation of law under that category. That law was NOT pursued by the defense and the case was made, to a verdict of "not guilty," under standard "self defense" law. So wanting Trayvon's death to roll back "stand your ground" laws is like wanting his death to stand for lowering speed limits or any other thing that was NOT related to his death or the trial.
I don't know the story of how Trayvon saved his father's life. It's mentioned in this article and elsewhere. But I don't need to. A single act of goodness does not make someone a good person and a bad person is capable of good or kind acts. I don't know who Trayvon was in whole. Neither do 310 million other Americans. You're certainly not getting the complete picture from the same mainstream media and outspoken lobbyists and group advocates that've been twisting this whole incident into things its not. Good or bad, Trayvon took George Zimmerman's life into his hands when he decided to commit felony assault on him by physically assaulting him, jumping on top of him, and pounding him into the ground. Consequently, he also took his own life into his hands - at the hands of his victim.
"I vow to do everything in my power to not give up the fight for him." Where was that fight and commitment, dad, when it counted - when it could have prevented or influenced him from becoming a criminal and "gangsta" (in Trayvon's own words, I believe)?
"He said his son should serve as an inspiration for others." Yep, the inspiration should be to NOT live the way Trayvon did and do the things he did.
"...his legacy is that Trayvon helped bridge the gap of America" Not going to happen. The country is deeply divided, not bridged, over this incident because of the relentless exploitation and misinformation being spread by the most vocal. Now that includes Trayvon's parents.
Even though Trayvon did commit criminal acts, his death is a tragedy. I think there were errors in judgment on both sides - Martin's and Zimmerman's. But there's nothing wrong with the laws that applied in the case. "Stand your ground" is legitimate on its own, was NOT used in the Zimmerman trial, and benefits more black people in Florida than 'whites' (which Zimmerman is not). Everyone has a right to self defense, whether it's under a heading of "stand your ground", "castle doctrine" or something else. Trayvon could have gone home that night. All he had to do was - GO HOME! He decided to commit felony assault instead. He killed himself.
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/trayvon-martin-father-tracy-speaks-capitol-hill-94692.html
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/07/trayvon-martin-law.html
Firearms Blog Collections
I have so far chosen to not post any original content about Trayvon Martin or George Zimmerman but it's gotten too difficult as the country has gone crazy and it's painfully obvious that most of the people talking either have no idea what they're talking about or are ignoring facts as they push their own messages and agenda.
Tracy Martin, the father of deceased teenager Trayvon Martin, would like there to be a law enacted in Congress bearing Trayvon's name. Specifically, he'd like the federal legislation to roll back "stand your ground" laws. How sentimental. How completely ludicrous.
I have a suggested name for the bill. How about "Don't Commit Felony Assault On Anyone Because They Just Might Have a Gun and You Might End Up Justifiably Dead".
Even immediately after typing that I already have a problem with it. It's redundant and I'm not a fan of redundancy. Like other proposed gun control laws, the redundancy is that there are already laws on the books that cover the topic. It's called "assault" and it's a felony and Trayvon Martin committed it! He did that along with illegal drug possession, illegal drug use, possession of stolen property and likely robbery considering that he had a whole collection of stolen items in his school locker. Granted, none of those lesser charges contributed directly to Trayvon's death that night. But felony assault did!
There's also a little problem with the fact that "stand your ground" was NOT an issue in the George Zimmerman trial. Yes, yes, yes, the jury heard and used the phrase "stand your ground" during its deliberations. But there's a different between the casual use of a phrase and the implementation of law under that category. That law was NOT pursued by the defense and the case was made, to a verdict of "not guilty," under standard "self defense" law. So wanting Trayvon's death to roll back "stand your ground" laws is like wanting his death to stand for lowering speed limits or any other thing that was NOT related to his death or the trial.
I don't know the story of how Trayvon saved his father's life. It's mentioned in this article and elsewhere. But I don't need to. A single act of goodness does not make someone a good person and a bad person is capable of good or kind acts. I don't know who Trayvon was in whole. Neither do 310 million other Americans. You're certainly not getting the complete picture from the same mainstream media and outspoken lobbyists and group advocates that've been twisting this whole incident into things its not. Good or bad, Trayvon took George Zimmerman's life into his hands when he decided to commit felony assault on him by physically assaulting him, jumping on top of him, and pounding him into the ground. Consequently, he also took his own life into his hands - at the hands of his victim.
"I vow to do everything in my power to not give up the fight for him." Where was that fight and commitment, dad, when it counted - when it could have prevented or influenced him from becoming a criminal and "gangsta" (in Trayvon's own words, I believe)?
"He said his son should serve as an inspiration for others." Yep, the inspiration should be to NOT live the way Trayvon did and do the things he did.
"...his legacy is that Trayvon helped bridge the gap of America" Not going to happen. The country is deeply divided, not bridged, over this incident because of the relentless exploitation and misinformation being spread by the most vocal. Now that includes Trayvon's parents.
Even though Trayvon did commit criminal acts, his death is a tragedy. I think there were errors in judgment on both sides - Martin's and Zimmerman's. But there's nothing wrong with the laws that applied in the case. "Stand your ground" is legitimate on its own, was NOT used in the Zimmerman trial, and benefits more black people in Florida than 'whites' (which Zimmerman is not). Everyone has a right to self defense, whether it's under a heading of "stand your ground", "castle doctrine" or something else. Trayvon could have gone home that night. All he had to do was - GO HOME! He decided to commit felony assault instead. He killed himself.
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/trayvon-martin-father-tracy-speaks-capitol-hill-94692.html
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/07/trayvon-martin-law.html
Firearms Blog Collections
We need to stand our ground on "Stand Your Ground" laws
July 27, 2013
US Representative Jackson Lee from Texas is proposing to cut federal funding to 40-60% of states. Why? Because she apparently thinks that criminals' rights to assault others is somehow more important than an individual's right to self defense and that the victims should be required by law to run, hide, withdraw, beg, plead and be victimized while the criminal remains free to continue their lawbreaking another time and place.
Where does 40-50% come from? Different news reports since the George Zimmerman non-guilty verdict have estimated that between 22 and 30 states have "stand your ground" laws. That's 44-60% of the United States.
Why this attack on "stand your ground" laws? Good question, since it was NOT a factor in the Zimmerman trial. Zimmerman's defense declined to use "stand your ground" and defended him with a standard "self defense" defense. So, why? Because liberal, progressive politicians believe that 'no good crisis should go to waste' (paraphrase from Rahm Emanuel) and will absolutely exploit every tragedy and situation they can to push forward their political agenda - whether there's a legitimate connection or not.
How did this come from Texas? It just goes to show that really, really stupid, arrogant, ignorant people exist everywhere and can ascend to the ranks of our lawmakers - even in Texas.
What Lee needs is to be dropped into Thunder Dome where it's kill or be killed. Then, whether she survives or not, she'll finally understand what it means to face a life and death situation, like people do every day outside the safe confines of Congress.
http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/24/dem-congresswoman-introduces-bill-to-cut-funds-to-stand-your-ground-states
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stand-our-ground-on-stand.html
Firearms Blog Collections
US Representative Jackson Lee from Texas is proposing to cut federal funding to 40-60% of states. Why? Because she apparently thinks that criminals' rights to assault others is somehow more important than an individual's right to self defense and that the victims should be required by law to run, hide, withdraw, beg, plead and be victimized while the criminal remains free to continue their lawbreaking another time and place.
Where does 40-50% come from? Different news reports since the George Zimmerman non-guilty verdict have estimated that between 22 and 30 states have "stand your ground" laws. That's 44-60% of the United States.
Why this attack on "stand your ground" laws? Good question, since it was NOT a factor in the Zimmerman trial. Zimmerman's defense declined to use "stand your ground" and defended him with a standard "self defense" defense. So, why? Because liberal, progressive politicians believe that 'no good crisis should go to waste' (paraphrase from Rahm Emanuel) and will absolutely exploit every tragedy and situation they can to push forward their political agenda - whether there's a legitimate connection or not.
How did this come from Texas? It just goes to show that really, really stupid, arrogant, ignorant people exist everywhere and can ascend to the ranks of our lawmakers - even in Texas.
What Lee needs is to be dropped into Thunder Dome where it's kill or be killed. Then, whether she survives or not, she'll finally understand what it means to face a life and death situation, like people do every day outside the safe confines of Congress.
http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/24/dem-congresswoman-introduces-bill-to-cut-funds-to-stand-your-ground-states
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stand-our-ground-on-stand.html
Firearms Blog Collections
"Translating Anti-Gun Propaganda into English"
July 27, 2013
Since the anti-gun lobby won't provide the Rosetta Stone key to their twisted words and propaganda and instead insist on their deceitful methods, the NRA has been kind enough to provide some simple translation.
Yes, it's the NRA and has a certain bias. But it's closer to the truth than what you get when the gun control advocating crowd opens their lips.
http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2013/6/translating-anti-gun-propaganda-into-english.aspx
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/07/translating-anti-gun-propaganda-into.html
Firearms Blog Collections
Since the anti-gun lobby won't provide the Rosetta Stone key to their twisted words and propaganda and instead insist on their deceitful methods, the NRA has been kind enough to provide some simple translation.
Yes, it's the NRA and has a certain bias. But it's closer to the truth than what you get when the gun control advocating crowd opens their lips.
http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2013/6/translating-anti-gun-propaganda-into-english.aspx
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/07/translating-anti-gun-propaganda-into.html
Firearms Blog Collections
Tuesday, July 23, 2013
Gun Control Is Neither "Common Sense" Nor "Reasonable"
July 23, 2013
If you've read many of my posts you know I take issue with the typical and very over-used gun control rhetoric and particularly the use of "common sense" and "reasonable" as I believe neither is present in the positions, proposals or statements of outspoken gun control advocates.
This 3:45 video shows Natalie Foster, a paid National Rifle Association (NRA) commentator but not spokesperson, sides with me as she pokes at the same speech and behavior. Take a look.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSuZ4rMLQCQ
"Gun control" becomes "gun safety" as the former loses popularity. Counter-intuitive, extremist views in conflict with facts become "common sense" and "reasonable" when they have nothing substantive upon which to base their claims and therefore attempt to undermine any opponents with empty propaganda.
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/07/gun-control-is-neither-common-sense-nor.html
Firearms Blog Collections
If you've read many of my posts you know I take issue with the typical and very over-used gun control rhetoric and particularly the use of "common sense" and "reasonable" as I believe neither is present in the positions, proposals or statements of outspoken gun control advocates.
This 3:45 video shows Natalie Foster, a paid National Rifle Association (NRA) commentator but not spokesperson, sides with me as she pokes at the same speech and behavior. Take a look.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSuZ4rMLQCQ
"Gun control" becomes "gun safety" as the former loses popularity. Counter-intuitive, extremist views in conflict with facts become "common sense" and "reasonable" when they have nothing substantive upon which to base their claims and therefore attempt to undermine any opponents with empty propaganda.
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/07/gun-control-is-neither-common-sense-nor.html
Firearms Blog Collections
Gun Control Legislation
July 23, 2013
If anyone doubts that our 2nd Amendment rights are suffering an outright attack, take a moment to browse these two websites.
Congressional gun control legislation: http://www.nationalgunrights.org/bill-watch
State-by-state gun control legislation: http://bearingarms.com/state-by-state-breakdown-of-current-gun-control-legislation/
The state list was published July 17, 2013. The congressional one has been out longer but I don't know when it was published. I also don't know if these lists are maintained regularly.
Note that the congressional one has a scroll bar built into the webpage. You only see 4 at first glance. You have to scroll to see the much longer list.
After browsing the two lists, ask yourself, is there any other single topic that has so many different legislative proposals related to it?
Not all of these bills are anti-gun. Some are to expand gun rights. I didn't attempt to count them but my impression is that the majority are anti-gun / gun control proposals.
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/07/gun-control-legislation.html
Firearms Blog Collections
If anyone doubts that our 2nd Amendment rights are suffering an outright attack, take a moment to browse these two websites.
Congressional gun control legislation: http://www.nationalgunrights.org/bill-watch
State-by-state gun control legislation: http://bearingarms.com/state-by-state-breakdown-of-current-gun-control-legislation/
The state list was published July 17, 2013. The congressional one has been out longer but I don't know when it was published. I also don't know if these lists are maintained regularly.
Note that the congressional one has a scroll bar built into the webpage. You only see 4 at first glance. You have to scroll to see the much longer list.
After browsing the two lists, ask yourself, is there any other single topic that has so many different legislative proposals related to it?
Not all of these bills are anti-gun. Some are to expand gun rights. I didn't attempt to count them but my impression is that the majority are anti-gun / gun control proposals.
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/07/gun-control-legislation.html
Firearms Blog Collections
Saturday, July 13, 2013
Chicago Politicians Blame Gun Rights for Gun Violence
July 13, 2013
Apparently, Democratic Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel was at it again, blaming gun rights for Chicago's continuing violent crime in the wake of a holiday bloodbath in the city. Neither of these articles mentions the numbers but I think I've read elsewhere that approximately 70 people were shot, approximately 12 of whom were killed over the 4th of July, Independence Day weekend.
The "Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms" (CCRKBA) was not particularly gentle in their statement about Emanuel's gun control rant. And why should they be when Emanuel and other gun control advocates continue to target ineffective policies that are not solutions, continue to target firearms that are used in a very small fraction of crime, and continue to infringe on the 2nd Amendment rights of citizens that "shall not be infringed"?
http://www.thegunmag.com/ccrkba-rips-emanuel-for-blaming-chicagos-violence-on-gun-rights/
Democratic US Representative Robin Kelly of Illinois and Chicago wants stricter gun control laws. What a surprise, right? I mean she's a Democrat (though not all Dems are cut alike), she's from Illinois and most notably, Chicago. I believe she was also well supported financially by Mayor Michael Bloomberg's fortune when she ran for her position in recent months. So, really, no surprise here. What is a surprise is that she finally got something right when she said, or admitted, "the big picture solution to gun violence involves better job opportunities and community involvement." She completely misses the point elsewhere where she wants to limit the 2nd Amendment rights of 300+ million people because of the illegal activities of a few by infringing on the rights of those millions who will abide by laws and don't commit the crimes with guns while not affecting the behavior of the criminals who are acting in violation of the law already and won't change their behavior because they'd be violating one more law - the typical gun control illogical circle of thought.
It's interesting that she calls for "a bill that would require the Surgeon General to make an annual report to Congress on the public health impact of gun violence. “When you have the proper data, it helps you with putting together the proper policy recommendation.” " when what she really means is she wants data the gives her and her gun control advocating colleagues an excuse to infringe on the constitutional rights provided by the Constitution that they all swore an oath to uphold. They also have a really nasty, persistent habit of ignoring the hard data that shows gun control doesn't work and gun rights provide a lot of good in protecting people and property from crime, injury and death. If they were so eager to make the right policy decisions with the right data then they'd be actively and aggressively repealing a lot of the overly restrictive gun control laws already enacted and restoring fuller 2nd Amendment rights to American citizens that they and their predecessors have taken away.
This is the same Kelly who recently said she wants to go to "war" with the NRA. (See related blog, below.) So, what data is it she wants and what does she want to do with it, again?
Something keeps happening with this webpage where it becomes unavailable so I'm posting the text in its entirety.
"Rep. Robin Kelly Calls For Stricter Gun Control In Wake Of Violent Weekend
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2013/07/08/rep-robin-kelly-calls-for-stricter-gun-control-in-wake-of-violent-weekend/
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/07/chicago-politicians-blame-gun-rights.html
Firearms Blog Collections
Illinois Firearms Blogs
Illinois Politician Wants War With NRA
Apparently, Democratic Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel was at it again, blaming gun rights for Chicago's continuing violent crime in the wake of a holiday bloodbath in the city. Neither of these articles mentions the numbers but I think I've read elsewhere that approximately 70 people were shot, approximately 12 of whom were killed over the 4th of July, Independence Day weekend.
The "Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms" (CCRKBA) was not particularly gentle in their statement about Emanuel's gun control rant. And why should they be when Emanuel and other gun control advocates continue to target ineffective policies that are not solutions, continue to target firearms that are used in a very small fraction of crime, and continue to infringe on the 2nd Amendment rights of citizens that "shall not be infringed"?
http://www.thegunmag.com/ccrkba-rips-emanuel-for-blaming-chicagos-violence-on-gun-rights/
Democratic US Representative Robin Kelly of Illinois and Chicago wants stricter gun control laws. What a surprise, right? I mean she's a Democrat (though not all Dems are cut alike), she's from Illinois and most notably, Chicago. I believe she was also well supported financially by Mayor Michael Bloomberg's fortune when she ran for her position in recent months. So, really, no surprise here. What is a surprise is that she finally got something right when she said, or admitted, "the big picture solution to gun violence involves better job opportunities and community involvement." She completely misses the point elsewhere where she wants to limit the 2nd Amendment rights of 300+ million people because of the illegal activities of a few by infringing on the rights of those millions who will abide by laws and don't commit the crimes with guns while not affecting the behavior of the criminals who are acting in violation of the law already and won't change their behavior because they'd be violating one more law - the typical gun control illogical circle of thought.
It's interesting that she calls for "a bill that would require the Surgeon General to make an annual report to Congress on the public health impact of gun violence. “When you have the proper data, it helps you with putting together the proper policy recommendation.” " when what she really means is she wants data the gives her and her gun control advocating colleagues an excuse to infringe on the constitutional rights provided by the Constitution that they all swore an oath to uphold. They also have a really nasty, persistent habit of ignoring the hard data that shows gun control doesn't work and gun rights provide a lot of good in protecting people and property from crime, injury and death. If they were so eager to make the right policy decisions with the right data then they'd be actively and aggressively repealing a lot of the overly restrictive gun control laws already enacted and restoring fuller 2nd Amendment rights to American citizens that they and their predecessors have taken away.
This is the same Kelly who recently said she wants to go to "war" with the NRA. (See related blog, below.) So, what data is it she wants and what does she want to do with it, again?
Something keeps happening with this webpage where it becomes unavailable so I'm posting the text in its entirety.
"Rep. Robin Kelly Calls For Stricter Gun Control In Wake Of Violent Weekend
CHICAGO
(CBS) — After a
violent and deadly holiday weekend, a Chicago Congresswoman is calling for gun
control legislation, reports WBBM’s Brandis Friedman.
While visiting a
church over the Independence Day weekend, 2nd District Congresswoman Robin
Kelly noted rampant gun violence has taken certain freedoms from residents.
“They don’t feel free
to sit on their porch steps, they don’t feel free to go play in the park, or
walk to the store and send their kids to school,” said Kelly.
Kelly is asking her
colleagues in Washington D.C. to revisit gun control legislation by introducing
a bill that would require the Surgeon General to make an annual report to
Congress on the public health impact of gun violence.
“When you have the
proper data, it helps you with putting together the proper policy
recommendation,” said Kelly.
The Democratic
Congresswoman adds the big picture solution to gun violence involves better job
opportunities and community involvement."http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2013/07/08/rep-robin-kelly-calls-for-stricter-gun-control-in-wake-of-violent-weekend/
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/07/chicago-politicians-blame-gun-rights.html
Firearms Blog Collections
Illinois Firearms Blogs
Illinois Politician Wants War With NRA
Friday, July 12, 2013
Marine Stops Crime
July 12, 2013
I don't normally cover specific incidents of positive uses of firearms. There are too many to cover, frankly. But some get special recognition. This is one.
Marine veteran stops carjacker with hostage at knife point with use of his legal concealed pistol in Florida.
http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/police-marine-corps-veteran-stops-carjacker-holdin/nYkCj/
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/07/marine-stops-crime.html
Firearms Blog Collections
I don't normally cover specific incidents of positive uses of firearms. There are too many to cover, frankly. But some get special recognition. This is one.
Marine veteran stops carjacker with hostage at knife point with use of his legal concealed pistol in Florida.
http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/police-marine-corps-veteran-stops-carjacker-holdin/nYkCj/
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/07/marine-stops-crime.html
Firearms Blog Collections
Wednesday, July 10, 2013
Assemblyman Steve McLaughlin Opposes New Yorks's SAFE Law
July 10, 2013
These two New York Assemblymen do NOT agree and may never. But it makes for good viewing.
Most of you probably won't spend the 16:39 to watch the video of this debate but if you have an interest in the gun control / 2nd Amendment debate, or New York's "Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement (SAFE)" law, or if you just like watching a hearty debate then you might enjoy it.
I support Republican Assemblyman Steve McLaughlin's position supporting the 2nd Amendment rights of citizens. I don't support him because he's Republican or just because he's supporting gun rights for all. I support him because of what he has to say. Listen to the arguments. Regardless of which side of the debate you're on, imagine the whole mass of cascading questions and challenges that logic would lead to. McLaughlin makes his point and shows the erroneous nature of the gun control position - it makes NO sense. If anything, McLaughlin could have gone MUCH harder and MUCH deeper. Perhaps with more time he would have.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmQjKK0Lcu4
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/07/assemblyman-steve-mclaughlin-opposes.html
Firearms Blog Collections
New York Firearms Blogs
These two New York Assemblymen do NOT agree and may never. But it makes for good viewing.
Most of you probably won't spend the 16:39 to watch the video of this debate but if you have an interest in the gun control / 2nd Amendment debate, or New York's "Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement (SAFE)" law, or if you just like watching a hearty debate then you might enjoy it.
I support Republican Assemblyman Steve McLaughlin's position supporting the 2nd Amendment rights of citizens. I don't support him because he's Republican or just because he's supporting gun rights for all. I support him because of what he has to say. Listen to the arguments. Regardless of which side of the debate you're on, imagine the whole mass of cascading questions and challenges that logic would lead to. McLaughlin makes his point and shows the erroneous nature of the gun control position - it makes NO sense. If anything, McLaughlin could have gone MUCH harder and MUCH deeper. Perhaps with more time he would have.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmQjKK0Lcu4
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/07/assemblyman-steve-mclaughlin-opposes.html
Firearms Blog Collections
New York Firearms Blogs
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)