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
Tuesday, July 30, 2013
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
General Gun Control Hypocrisy
July 10, 2013
Is this another example of the hypocrisy on the part of gun control advocates?
Betty Petrenz, an aide to gun control advocating Michigan Democratic Representative John Conyers, illegally brought a firearm into a federal building in Detroit. Result? A ticket. With good behavior it will disappear from her record. Is that how I'd be treated if I carried a handgun into the local federal courthouse or military bases?
Does Betty's boss know she packs heat? Why does she? Does she feel the need to protect herself and not feel confident enough in the police forces to do it for her? Does she simply want to exercise her 2nd Amendment rights? Surely she must be quietly advocating for the proliferation of gun violence, right? Isn't that how law abiding gun owners are characterized by the outspoken gun control zealots? Will we hear from Conyers about this incident that's so close to him personally and professionally? Doubtful.
Do I need to see Betty behind bars in a federal prison to be satisfied? No. I just need the rules to work the same for everyone, regardless of political clout, etc. If carrying a firearm in an area where it's prohibited only equates to a ticket then it should be the same for everyone. A lot of work needs to be done in this country to get rid of the nonsensical laws surrounding firearms.
http://gopthedailydose.com/2013/07/10/democratic-aide-brings-gun-into-courthouse-let-off-with-just-a-ticket/
While the circumstances are completely different, this is reminiscent of the blatant, televised lawbreaking by NBC's David Gregory when he illegally "possessed" a so-called "high capacity" ammunition magazine on his program, Meet the Press - a "crime" for which others have been prosecuted. Charges were not brought against Gregory. Was this media favoritism? Was it favoritism because NBC or Gregory advocate for gun control instead of gun rights? "prosecutorial discretion” was used because “Prosecution would not promote public safety in the District of Columbia, nor serve the best interests of the people." Apparently, if I do it, publicly or privately, it's a crime that jeopardizes public safety but if it'd done publicly on national television despite the facts that "NBC contacted [D.C. police] inquiring if they could utilize a high capacity magazine for their segment. NBC was informed that possession of a high capacity magazines is not permissible and their request was denied." But the final result is that it's okay - as long as you're on the side of gun control.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/police-nbc-asked-for-high-capacity-clip/2012/12/26/4c8f77da-4f76-11e2-8b49-64675006147f_story.html
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-01-11/local/36313264_1_gun-laws-carnage-from-gun-violence-wayne-lapierre
It's not okay for Adam Kokesh, an outspoken gun rights advocate, who was arrested recently after posting a YouTube video of him loading a shotgun in a public place in Washington DC. No one was harmed in the making of the YouTube video. (Regardless, I agree this was a foolish thing to do, made worse by him complicating it with other violations at the time of his arrest.)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/activist-adam-kokesh-reportedly-arrested-in-herndon/2013/07/10/73dbc8c2-e943-11e2-8f22-de4bd2a2bd39_story.html
It wasn't okay for Army veteran Nathan Haddad who was charged with 5 counts of the crime of "possession" of so-called "high capacity" ammunition magazines in New York even though the magazines were empty and there was no accompanying firearm.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/guns/2013/feb/1/miller-ny-vet-arrested-30-round-magazines-part-1/
It wasn't okay for Dustin Reininger who was simply transporting a rifle through New Jersey and stopped at a rest area. The rifle was legal at his points of origination and destination but not in New Jersey. This article says Reininger is now serving time in prison.
http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/the-nonsensical-abuse-of-gun-owners/
And it wasn't okay for Army Lieutenant Augustine Kim when he was transporting his firearms through Washington DC from his parents' house in New Jersey to his home in South Carolina where the firearms were legal in both those locations. Kim was arrested but has been released.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/guns/2012/may/14/miller-injured-vets-guns-stolen-dc/
===
July 12, 2013
Here's more to the story of Betty Petrenz bringing a handgun into a federal courthouse and essentially not being punished and a few other stories where the outcomes were different. "No weapons allowed" and punishment varies from virtually nothing to losing your job to being charged with a crime - it all depends - on who your boss is. Hmmm.
http://www.freep.com/article/20130708/NEWS01/307080018/Conyers-clerk-gun-federal-court
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/07/general-gun-control-hypocrisy.html
Firearms Blog Collections
Persecution of Law Abiding Gun Owners
"Kokesh July 4th Loaded Gun March On Washington"
David Gregory Hypocrisy
Is this another example of the hypocrisy on the part of gun control advocates?
Betty Petrenz, an aide to gun control advocating Michigan Democratic Representative John Conyers, illegally brought a firearm into a federal building in Detroit. Result? A ticket. With good behavior it will disappear from her record. Is that how I'd be treated if I carried a handgun into the local federal courthouse or military bases?
Does Betty's boss know she packs heat? Why does she? Does she feel the need to protect herself and not feel confident enough in the police forces to do it for her? Does she simply want to exercise her 2nd Amendment rights? Surely she must be quietly advocating for the proliferation of gun violence, right? Isn't that how law abiding gun owners are characterized by the outspoken gun control zealots? Will we hear from Conyers about this incident that's so close to him personally and professionally? Doubtful.
Do I need to see Betty behind bars in a federal prison to be satisfied? No. I just need the rules to work the same for everyone, regardless of political clout, etc. If carrying a firearm in an area where it's prohibited only equates to a ticket then it should be the same for everyone. A lot of work needs to be done in this country to get rid of the nonsensical laws surrounding firearms.
http://gopthedailydose.com/2013/07/10/democratic-aide-brings-gun-into-courthouse-let-off-with-just-a-ticket/
While the circumstances are completely different, this is reminiscent of the blatant, televised lawbreaking by NBC's David Gregory when he illegally "possessed" a so-called "high capacity" ammunition magazine on his program, Meet the Press - a "crime" for which others have been prosecuted. Charges were not brought against Gregory. Was this media favoritism? Was it favoritism because NBC or Gregory advocate for gun control instead of gun rights? "prosecutorial discretion” was used because “Prosecution would not promote public safety in the District of Columbia, nor serve the best interests of the people." Apparently, if I do it, publicly or privately, it's a crime that jeopardizes public safety but if it'd done publicly on national television despite the facts that "NBC contacted [D.C. police] inquiring if they could utilize a high capacity magazine for their segment. NBC was informed that possession of a high capacity magazines is not permissible and their request was denied." But the final result is that it's okay - as long as you're on the side of gun control.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/police-nbc-asked-for-high-capacity-clip/2012/12/26/4c8f77da-4f76-11e2-8b49-64675006147f_story.html
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-01-11/local/36313264_1_gun-laws-carnage-from-gun-violence-wayne-lapierre
It's not okay for Adam Kokesh, an outspoken gun rights advocate, who was arrested recently after posting a YouTube video of him loading a shotgun in a public place in Washington DC. No one was harmed in the making of the YouTube video. (Regardless, I agree this was a foolish thing to do, made worse by him complicating it with other violations at the time of his arrest.)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/activist-adam-kokesh-reportedly-arrested-in-herndon/2013/07/10/73dbc8c2-e943-11e2-8f22-de4bd2a2bd39_story.html
It wasn't okay for Army veteran Nathan Haddad who was charged with 5 counts of the crime of "possession" of so-called "high capacity" ammunition magazines in New York even though the magazines were empty and there was no accompanying firearm.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/guns/2013/feb/1/miller-ny-vet-arrested-30-round-magazines-part-1/
It wasn't okay for Dustin Reininger who was simply transporting a rifle through New Jersey and stopped at a rest area. The rifle was legal at his points of origination and destination but not in New Jersey. This article says Reininger is now serving time in prison.
http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/the-nonsensical-abuse-of-gun-owners/
And it wasn't okay for Army Lieutenant Augustine Kim when he was transporting his firearms through Washington DC from his parents' house in New Jersey to his home in South Carolina where the firearms were legal in both those locations. Kim was arrested but has been released.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/guns/2012/may/14/miller-injured-vets-guns-stolen-dc/
===
July 12, 2013
Here's more to the story of Betty Petrenz bringing a handgun into a federal courthouse and essentially not being punished and a few other stories where the outcomes were different. "No weapons allowed" and punishment varies from virtually nothing to losing your job to being charged with a crime - it all depends - on who your boss is. Hmmm.
http://www.freep.com/article/20130708/NEWS01/307080018/Conyers-clerk-gun-federal-court
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/07/general-gun-control-hypocrisy.html
Firearms Blog Collections
Persecution of Law Abiding Gun Owners
"Kokesh July 4th Loaded Gun March On Washington"
David Gregory Hypocrisy
Gun Control Ballot / Legislation Proposal Title Challenge
July 10, 2013
This is interesting - a challenge by a gun rights advocate to rename legislation proposed by gun control advocates to more accurately reflect its contents.
Gun rights advocates have long known that gun control advocates frequently lie, mislead, deceive and mask the truth - about their desires, intentions, data and proposed legislation. They focus on concise sound bites that mask the truth of what they're supposed to represent and then repeat them ad nauseam in a deliberate attempt to mislead the uninformed.
This article says there are 2 challenges in Washington state to have ballot measures renamed to better reflect the negative consequences of the proposed legislation.
http://www.examiner.com/article/exclusive-challenge-filed-to-wagr-gun-control-ballot-title
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/07/gun-control-ballot-legislation-proposal.html
Firearms Blog Collections
This is interesting - a challenge by a gun rights advocate to rename legislation proposed by gun control advocates to more accurately reflect its contents.
Gun rights advocates have long known that gun control advocates frequently lie, mislead, deceive and mask the truth - about their desires, intentions, data and proposed legislation. They focus on concise sound bites that mask the truth of what they're supposed to represent and then repeat them ad nauseam in a deliberate attempt to mislead the uninformed.
This article says there are 2 challenges in Washington state to have ballot measures renamed to better reflect the negative consequences of the proposed legislation.
http://www.examiner.com/article/exclusive-challenge-filed-to-wagr-gun-control-ballot-title
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/07/gun-control-ballot-legislation-proposal.html
Firearms Blog Collections
Tuesday, July 9, 2013
Firearms Insurance Legislation
July 9, 2013
This article claims there are 6 states plus Washington DC that have proposed legislation that would required firearms owners to purchase liability insurance. It iss a very brief summary of the states and status. So far none of the proposals has passed. The list includes:
California
Connecticut
Massachusetts
New York
Pennsylvania
Washington DC
Amounts seem to come in two sizes - $250,000 and $1 million.
It doesn't go into any detail about the numerous opposing arguments, like:
1) Insurance held by law abiding people does nothing to reduce gun violence.
2) This would require citizens to PAY to exercise their constitutionally provided 2nd Amendment rights.
3) This could make gun ownership unaffordable to low income citizens who would like to exercise their rights.
4) At least some homeowners insurance polices already cover firearms related injuries.
5) Specific 'firearms liability' insurance may not even exist today. There would be no requirement for any insurance company to provide it which could effectively become a ban on firearms ownership and 2nd Amendment rights in these jurisdictions.
6) Because these insurance policies don't exist we don't know what they'd cost. I read a comment months ago that mentioned premiums being in the $2500 range. While that may be inflated, it's ridiculously expensive as a mandatory cost to exercise a constitutional right.
7) This appears to be more of an attempt to limit gun ownership in general than to solve any particular or perceived problem.
http://wallstcheatsheet.com/stocks/6-states-plotting-insurance-attacks-on-gun-owners.html/?a=viewall
The author may have missed some states. I don't know if Illinois had a formal legislative proposal or not but Chicago Police Superintendent Gary McCarthy spoke in support of it.
More Moronic Statements from Chicago Police Superintendent Gary McCarthy
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/07/firearms-insurance-legislation.html
Firearms Blog Collections
Firearms Insurance Blogs
California Firearms Blogs
New York Firearms Blogs
This article claims there are 6 states plus Washington DC that have proposed legislation that would required firearms owners to purchase liability insurance. It iss a very brief summary of the states and status. So far none of the proposals has passed. The list includes:
California
Connecticut
Massachusetts
New York
Pennsylvania
Washington DC
Amounts seem to come in two sizes - $250,000 and $1 million.
It doesn't go into any detail about the numerous opposing arguments, like:
1) Insurance held by law abiding people does nothing to reduce gun violence.
2) This would require citizens to PAY to exercise their constitutionally provided 2nd Amendment rights.
3) This could make gun ownership unaffordable to low income citizens who would like to exercise their rights.
4) At least some homeowners insurance polices already cover firearms related injuries.
5) Specific 'firearms liability' insurance may not even exist today. There would be no requirement for any insurance company to provide it which could effectively become a ban on firearms ownership and 2nd Amendment rights in these jurisdictions.
6) Because these insurance policies don't exist we don't know what they'd cost. I read a comment months ago that mentioned premiums being in the $2500 range. While that may be inflated, it's ridiculously expensive as a mandatory cost to exercise a constitutional right.
7) This appears to be more of an attempt to limit gun ownership in general than to solve any particular or perceived problem.
http://wallstcheatsheet.com/stocks/6-states-plotting-insurance-attacks-on-gun-owners.html/?a=viewall
The author may have missed some states. I don't know if Illinois had a formal legislative proposal or not but Chicago Police Superintendent Gary McCarthy spoke in support of it.
More Moronic Statements from Chicago Police Superintendent Gary McCarthy
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/07/firearms-insurance-legislation.html
Firearms Blog Collections
Firearms Insurance Blogs
California Firearms Blogs
New York Firearms Blogs
Sunday, July 7, 2013
Firearms Documentaries
July 7, 2013
You don't have to be a particular fan of rapper Ice-T to appreciate that he's recently narrated a documentary about gun rights entitled, "Assaulted: Civil Rights Under Fire."
"gun rights are civil rights.
The documentary accomplishes this by showing that the right to keep and bear arms was hedged in by our Founding Fathers as a right that existed long before American government did. As such, it is a right the government can neither give nor take away--a right that "shall not be infringed." It is sacrosanct, like other civil rights."
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2013/07/05/Ice-T-Gun-Rights-Are-Civil-Rights
Preview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDziWcKQxr8
And here's an earlier article about it: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06/04/is-owning-a-gun-an-important-civil-right-eye-opening-new-movie-aims-to-change-americans-views-on-firearms-and-liberty/
And now there's another documentary called "A GIRL AND A GUN" that "candidly explores the modern American woman through intimate portraits of several women that revolve around fundamental issues of preservation, power, feminism and violence. Punctuated with archival footage and expert commentary to provide a rich historical and cultural context, the film presents a complex and empowering perspective on a deadly serious issue."
http://www.ammoland.com/2013/07/in-the-midst-of-americas-debate-over-gun-control-a-new-documentary-on-women-firearms/#axzz2Y0C6yY7Z
Neither will be widely distributed so anyone wanting to see them will have to put forth some effort. I hope to see both and I hope you will too.
===
August 7, 2013
Here's a third 2nd Amendment documentary being undertaken in 2013. "Infringed: Second Amendment in the Crosshairs" is another I look forward to watching.
http://girlsjustwannahaveguns.com/2013/08/infringed-second-amendment-in-the-crosshairs/
http://www.infringedthemovie.com/about-the-film.html
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/07/firearms-documentaries.html
Firearms Blog Collections
Firearms Statistics Blogs
You don't have to be a particular fan of rapper Ice-T to appreciate that he's recently narrated a documentary about gun rights entitled, "Assaulted: Civil Rights Under Fire."
"gun rights are civil rights.
In other words, they are rights inherent to American citizens. Or as the HHS.gov websiteputs it: "Civil rights are personal rights guaranteed and protected by the U.S. Constitution."
Therefore, just as rights to speak freely, to vote, and to practice one's religion are civil rights, so too are the rights embodied in the 2nd Amendment. This is the central point of the documentary, Assaulted: Civil Rights Under Fire.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2013/07/05/Ice-T-Gun-Rights-Are-Civil-Rights
Preview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDziWcKQxr8
And here's an earlier article about it: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06/04/is-owning-a-gun-an-important-civil-right-eye-opening-new-movie-aims-to-change-americans-views-on-firearms-and-liberty/
And now there's another documentary called "A GIRL AND A GUN" that "candidly explores the modern American woman through intimate portraits of several women that revolve around fundamental issues of preservation, power, feminism and violence. Punctuated with archival footage and expert commentary to provide a rich historical and cultural context, the film presents a complex and empowering perspective on a deadly serious issue."
http://www.ammoland.com/2013/07/in-the-midst-of-americas-debate-over-gun-control-a-new-documentary-on-women-firearms/#axzz2Y0C6yY7Z
Neither will be widely distributed so anyone wanting to see them will have to put forth some effort. I hope to see both and I hope you will too.
===
August 7, 2013
Here's a third 2nd Amendment documentary being undertaken in 2013. "Infringed: Second Amendment in the Crosshairs" is another I look forward to watching.
http://girlsjustwannahaveguns.com/2013/08/infringed-second-amendment-in-the-crosshairs/
http://www.infringedthemovie.com/about-the-film.html
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/07/firearms-documentaries.html
Firearms Blog Collections
Firearms Statistics Blogs
"Polls give a skewed picture of gun issues"
July 7, 2013
I still haven't read any of John Lott's books but the more I hear or read what he has to say the more convinced I am that there's at least SOMEONE out there who actually knows that they're talking about with firearms issues. Maybe it's that "great minds think alike" thing. ;-)
This article suggests that "Polls give a skewed picture of gun issues". In the immortal words of Gomer Pyle, "Surprise, surprise, surprise." followed by the 21st century lexicon term, "Not!"
"While deserving our greatest sympathy for the tragedy they have personally suffered, Giffords and Kelly are plain wrong about the “common-sense gun-control proposals” they advocate.
Wait a minute, stop the presses! You mean someone wants gun control advocates or uninformed voters to get SPECIFIC?!?! We can't have that. It would undermine the whole gun control campaign, nationwide, overnight!
"For example, a mid-April poll by the Pew Research Center provides one such illustration when it asks voters whether they were happy that the Senate bill had been defeated. While 67 percent of Democrats were “disappointed” or “angry” about the defeat, more Republicans and independents were “ very happy” or “relieved” than upset by the defeat.
Kelly often points out how the approval rating for some of the senators who voted against gun control has dropped over the past six months or so. Most of this polling is from the Democratic polling firm Public Policy Polling. Rasmussen Reports finds President Barack Obama’s own disapproval rating on guns also rose by 13 percentage points from February to early June. In April, a Quinnipiac University poll found only 41 percent of Americans approved of Obama's stand on gun control."
The President's "disapproval" rating on gun control rose 13 points. Hmmm, what are we going to do about this? (Insert Democratic and gun control shuffle here.) Lie! Distract! Repeat the lies! Throw shiny things!
"The polls frequently ignore that gun-control advocates don’t feel very intensely about this issue. The latest Gallup poll in late June finds that gun control doesn’t even reach the top 15 issues that Americans were most concerned about. In April, gun control ranked ninth, but just 4 percent of Americans were most concerned about that issue."
Where have I heard this before? Thinking...
"Note these questions emphasize the supposed benefits from background checks but leave out concerns about a gun registry and the fees imposed on gun transfers, and that almost everyone stopped by the current background-check system was a falsely flagged, law-abiding citizen who had a similar name to the person whom the government wanted stopped."
OMG! What?!? You mean those millions of 'criminals' who we've been told have been denied the ability to purchase firearms through background checks are actually NOT the criminals they've been reported to be? It could be ME because a criminal might share my name? Surely our elected leaders would have told me that all this proposed legislation could affect ME! Wrongly!
"A March survey of active duty and retired police by PoliceOne, with more than 400,000 police officers as members, found that only 12 percent of the 15,000 who responded think that universal background checks will reduce violent crime. Because respondents were self-selecting, the survey was not scientific and, therefore, its accuracy can’t be determined. But it does show that a significant number of police are dubious about the proposal."
(Insert Harry Caray's voice here.) Holy cow! Not even the police believe background checks are the answer? This simply cannot be true! Senator Dianne Feinstein told us that gun control had the support of "all the police". And what's this? An admission that the data is not scientific? I KNOW I've never heard that kind of admission from a gun control advocate! But this sounds strangely familiar. Still thinking...
"Unfortunately, despite Kelly’s claims, a background check would not have stopped the man who shot his wife from getting a gun. Jared Loughner had never been legally found to suffer mental illness, nor had he ever been convicted of a crime. Nor would any background checks on private transfers have stopped the Connecticut, Wisconsin, Colorado or other attacks. In addition, the system couldn’t work without government registering all guns.
Expanded background checks might well be reasonable, but only if the current system is fixed."
Got it! I know where I've come across these things before. Right here in this blog and in the sources I've provided when writing it!
2nd Amendment and gun rights advocates share data and sources and openly discuss them. Gun control advocates lie, deceive and mislead.
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/editorials/2013/07/05/1-polls-give-a-skewed-picture-of-gun-issues.html
John Lott's books at Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=john%20lott&sprefix=john+lot%2Caps&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3Ajohn%20lott
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/07/polls-give-skewed-picture-of-gun-issues.html
Firearms Blog Collections
Firearms Statistics Blogs
I still haven't read any of John Lott's books but the more I hear or read what he has to say the more convinced I am that there's at least SOMEONE out there who actually knows that they're talking about with firearms issues. Maybe it's that "great minds think alike" thing. ;-)
This article suggests that "Polls give a skewed picture of gun issues". In the immortal words of Gomer Pyle, "Surprise, surprise, surprise." followed by the 21st century lexicon term, "Not!"
"While deserving our greatest sympathy for the tragedy they have personally suffered, Giffords and Kelly are plain wrong about the “common-sense gun-control proposals” they advocate.
The couple’s message emphasizes polling data, which they claim finds that 80 percent to 90 percent of Americans are in favor of expanded background-checks legislation.
The polls showing such overwhelming support really ask little more than whether people want to stop criminals from obtaining guns, not whether voters actually favor the legislation that Giffords and Kelly support."Wait a minute, stop the presses! You mean someone wants gun control advocates or uninformed voters to get SPECIFIC?!?! We can't have that. It would undermine the whole gun control campaign, nationwide, overnight!
"For example, a mid-April poll by the Pew Research Center provides one such illustration when it asks voters whether they were happy that the Senate bill had been defeated. While 67 percent of Democrats were “disappointed” or “angry” about the defeat, more Republicans and independents were “ very happy” or “relieved” than upset by the defeat.
Kelly often points out how the approval rating for some of the senators who voted against gun control has dropped over the past six months or so. Most of this polling is from the Democratic polling firm Public Policy Polling. Rasmussen Reports finds President Barack Obama’s own disapproval rating on guns also rose by 13 percentage points from February to early June. In April, a Quinnipiac University poll found only 41 percent of Americans approved of Obama's stand on gun control."
The President's "disapproval" rating on gun control rose 13 points. Hmmm, what are we going to do about this? (Insert Democratic and gun control shuffle here.) Lie! Distract! Repeat the lies! Throw shiny things!
"The polls frequently ignore that gun-control advocates don’t feel very intensely about this issue. The latest Gallup poll in late June finds that gun control doesn’t even reach the top 15 issues that Americans were most concerned about. In April, gun control ranked ninth, but just 4 percent of Americans were most concerned about that issue."
Where have I heard this before? Thinking...
"Note these questions emphasize the supposed benefits from background checks but leave out concerns about a gun registry and the fees imposed on gun transfers, and that almost everyone stopped by the current background-check system was a falsely flagged, law-abiding citizen who had a similar name to the person whom the government wanted stopped."
OMG! What?!? You mean those millions of 'criminals' who we've been told have been denied the ability to purchase firearms through background checks are actually NOT the criminals they've been reported to be? It could be ME because a criminal might share my name? Surely our elected leaders would have told me that all this proposed legislation could affect ME! Wrongly!
"A March survey of active duty and retired police by PoliceOne, with more than 400,000 police officers as members, found that only 12 percent of the 15,000 who responded think that universal background checks will reduce violent crime. Because respondents were self-selecting, the survey was not scientific and, therefore, its accuracy can’t be determined. But it does show that a significant number of police are dubious about the proposal."
(Insert Harry Caray's voice here.) Holy cow! Not even the police believe background checks are the answer? This simply cannot be true! Senator Dianne Feinstein told us that gun control had the support of "all the police". And what's this? An admission that the data is not scientific? I KNOW I've never heard that kind of admission from a gun control advocate! But this sounds strangely familiar. Still thinking...
"Unfortunately, despite Kelly’s claims, a background check would not have stopped the man who shot his wife from getting a gun. Jared Loughner had never been legally found to suffer mental illness, nor had he ever been convicted of a crime. Nor would any background checks on private transfers have stopped the Connecticut, Wisconsin, Colorado or other attacks. In addition, the system couldn’t work without government registering all guns.
Expanded background checks might well be reasonable, but only if the current system is fixed."
Got it! I know where I've come across these things before. Right here in this blog and in the sources I've provided when writing it!
2nd Amendment and gun rights advocates share data and sources and openly discuss them. Gun control advocates lie, deceive and mislead.
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/editorials/2013/07/05/1-polls-give-a-skewed-picture-of-gun-issues.html
John Lott's books at Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=john%20lott&sprefix=john+lot%2Caps&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3Ajohn%20lott
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/07/polls-give-skewed-picture-of-gun-issues.html
Firearms Blog Collections
Firearms Statistics Blogs
Concealed Carry Licenses Growing
July 7, 2013
Firearms live among us - everyday and everywhere.
This is probably not news to gun-rights supporters. According to this article, "A growing number of Americans are getting permission to carry firearms in public—and under their clothes—a development that has sparked concern among some law-enforcement authorities.
Applications for "concealed-carry" permits are soaring in many states, some of which recently eased permit requirements."
Here are some of the figures and growth rates the author provided.
"Since July 1 of last year, Florida has granted more than 173,000 new concealed-carry permits, up 17% from the year before and twice as many as five years ago, for a total of about 1.09 million permits in the state.
Ohio, meanwhile, is on pace to nearly double last year's total of 65,000 new permits, which would be nearly three times as many as in 2007. And Oklahoma, Tennessee, Wyoming and Nebraska all have nearly matched or surpassed last year's totals with half of 2013 still to go.
A dozen states surveyed for this article, including Texas, Utah and Wisconsin, issued 537,000 permits last year, an 18% increase compared with a year prior and more than double the number issued in 2007. Early figures for 2013 show many states are on pace for their biggest year ever.
About eight million Americans had concealed-carry permits as of last year, the Government Accountability Office said in what it called a conservative estimate."
I have debated with people who think they'll be safer if people are not allowed to carry guns. They don't want them in their neighborhoods or in the cars in traffic with them or on the public transportation they ride. Some of these people are completely naive or choose to remain ignorant of that face that those firearms are already in their communities and at their places of work. The GAO "conversative" estimate is that there are 8 MILLION lawful concealed carry license holders. That's their "conservative" number and it doesn't acknowledge those carrying without permits - whether for criminal or good purposes.
I don't know how the 2010 census data breaks down by age, particularly those aged 21 or older, but those 8 million license holders represent 2.5% of the total US population and the number is growing.
"States across the U.S. have loosened restrictions amid a spate of mass shootings in public spaces, making it easier to get concealed-carry permits and allowing concealed weapons in more places, including schools, churches and bars."
How's this for a statement? "Craig Steckler, president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, said he could remember only "one instance in which someone effectively defended himself" with a firearm during his 21 years as police chief in Fremont, Calif." Casually, I'd say that just about makes Steckler criminally negligent - either in a complete lack of awareness bordering on insanity or blatantly lying to the public with his statement. I personally know of 2-3 just among my friends and I haven't asked any of them. Those are the ones that were volunteered to me. Besides that there have been dozens of confirmed defenses with firearms in the news this year which are generally getting more publicity in non-mainstream media this year because of the heightened awareness due to the post-Newtown debate and controversy.
Check out this article for more information about changes across the nation affecting lawful concealed carrying of firearms.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323689204578573763575086702.html
Not everyone is on board, however. As the previous article pointed out, even though at least 20 states have recently loosed concealed carry laws, there are some that have made them more restrictive including Connecticut, Colorado, California, Delaware and Maryland. Illinois is the only state that currently does not allow any lawful concealed carry but they've been orderd by a federal circuit court to permit it this year and their allowable time frame is rapidly diminishing.
Here's an article about Connecticut's Governor Dannel Malloy trying to make it more difficult for citizens of that state. This is an interesting case because, again, it's not a "direct assault" on the rights of citizens through the law. This is an "indirect attack" by trying to oust a pro-2nd Amendment member of the state's "Board of Firearms Permit Examiners" - getting rid of the people in authority who oppose gun control thereby affecting future concealed carry license approval rates. "Many gun rights advocates have seen the governor’s move as that to upset the balance of the board in favor of anti-gun members." Duh!
The person in Governor Malloy's 'sites' is M. Peter Kuck who "has a consistent record of voting to overturn local police chiefs and granting pistol permits." And "Apparently the governor is not only targeting Malloy, but other Second Amendment supporters on the board as well."
You have to love this comment by the gun control advocating governor's spokesperson. "The governor has made no secret of his efforts to improve public safety. Clearly, his work on the gun violence prevention bill was a huge step forward. But making sure the spirit of that law is reflected in the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners must be a part of that effort as well." Kind of says it all, doesn't it? The governor wants the board to be anti-gun, anti-2nd Amendment. Doing so will be another "step forward" in 'reducing violence'. Will they ever stop with their lying, misleading rhetoric? No, unfortunately they won't.
http://dcclothesline.com/2013/07/07/ct-governor-malloy-tries-to-boo-member/
And let's not forget the recent overstepping of Illinois Governor Pat Quinn, as outlined in these articles and the blog link, below.
http://www.thegunmag.com/il-gov-quinn-plays-emperor-with-citizens-civil-rights-says-ccrkba/
http://www.examiner.com/article/ill-governor-quinn-sets-stage-for-ccw-confrontation
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/07/concealed-carry-licenses-growing.html
Firearms Blog Collections
Illinois Lawful Carry of Firearms Gets Closer
Firearms live among us - everyday and everywhere.
This is probably not news to gun-rights supporters. According to this article, "A growing number of Americans are getting permission to carry firearms in public—and under their clothes—a development that has sparked concern among some law-enforcement authorities.
Applications for "concealed-carry" permits are soaring in many states, some of which recently eased permit requirements."
Here are some of the figures and growth rates the author provided.
"Since July 1 of last year, Florida has granted more than 173,000 new concealed-carry permits, up 17% from the year before and twice as many as five years ago, for a total of about 1.09 million permits in the state.
Ohio, meanwhile, is on pace to nearly double last year's total of 65,000 new permits, which would be nearly three times as many as in 2007. And Oklahoma, Tennessee, Wyoming and Nebraska all have nearly matched or surpassed last year's totals with half of 2013 still to go.
A dozen states surveyed for this article, including Texas, Utah and Wisconsin, issued 537,000 permits last year, an 18% increase compared with a year prior and more than double the number issued in 2007. Early figures for 2013 show many states are on pace for their biggest year ever.
About eight million Americans had concealed-carry permits as of last year, the Government Accountability Office said in what it called a conservative estimate."
I have debated with people who think they'll be safer if people are not allowed to carry guns. They don't want them in their neighborhoods or in the cars in traffic with them or on the public transportation they ride. Some of these people are completely naive or choose to remain ignorant of that face that those firearms are already in their communities and at their places of work. The GAO "conversative" estimate is that there are 8 MILLION lawful concealed carry license holders. That's their "conservative" number and it doesn't acknowledge those carrying without permits - whether for criminal or good purposes.
I don't know how the 2010 census data breaks down by age, particularly those aged 21 or older, but those 8 million license holders represent 2.5% of the total US population and the number is growing.
"States across the U.S. have loosened restrictions amid a spate of mass shootings in public spaces, making it easier to get concealed-carry permits and allowing concealed weapons in more places, including schools, churches and bars."
How's this for a statement? "Craig Steckler, president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, said he could remember only "one instance in which someone effectively defended himself" with a firearm during his 21 years as police chief in Fremont, Calif." Casually, I'd say that just about makes Steckler criminally negligent - either in a complete lack of awareness bordering on insanity or blatantly lying to the public with his statement. I personally know of 2-3 just among my friends and I haven't asked any of them. Those are the ones that were volunteered to me. Besides that there have been dozens of confirmed defenses with firearms in the news this year which are generally getting more publicity in non-mainstream media this year because of the heightened awareness due to the post-Newtown debate and controversy.
Check out this article for more information about changes across the nation affecting lawful concealed carrying of firearms.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323689204578573763575086702.html
Not everyone is on board, however. As the previous article pointed out, even though at least 20 states have recently loosed concealed carry laws, there are some that have made them more restrictive including Connecticut, Colorado, California, Delaware and Maryland. Illinois is the only state that currently does not allow any lawful concealed carry but they've been orderd by a federal circuit court to permit it this year and their allowable time frame is rapidly diminishing.
Here's an article about Connecticut's Governor Dannel Malloy trying to make it more difficult for citizens of that state. This is an interesting case because, again, it's not a "direct assault" on the rights of citizens through the law. This is an "indirect attack" by trying to oust a pro-2nd Amendment member of the state's "Board of Firearms Permit Examiners" - getting rid of the people in authority who oppose gun control thereby affecting future concealed carry license approval rates. "Many gun rights advocates have seen the governor’s move as that to upset the balance of the board in favor of anti-gun members." Duh!
The person in Governor Malloy's 'sites' is M. Peter Kuck who "has a consistent record of voting to overturn local police chiefs and granting pistol permits." And "Apparently the governor is not only targeting Malloy, but other Second Amendment supporters on the board as well."
You have to love this comment by the gun control advocating governor's spokesperson. "The governor has made no secret of his efforts to improve public safety. Clearly, his work on the gun violence prevention bill was a huge step forward. But making sure the spirit of that law is reflected in the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners must be a part of that effort as well." Kind of says it all, doesn't it? The governor wants the board to be anti-gun, anti-2nd Amendment. Doing so will be another "step forward" in 'reducing violence'. Will they ever stop with their lying, misleading rhetoric? No, unfortunately they won't.
http://dcclothesline.com/2013/07/07/ct-governor-malloy-tries-to-boo-member/
And let's not forget the recent overstepping of Illinois Governor Pat Quinn, as outlined in these articles and the blog link, below.
http://www.thegunmag.com/il-gov-quinn-plays-emperor-with-citizens-civil-rights-says-ccrkba/
http://www.examiner.com/article/ill-governor-quinn-sets-stage-for-ccw-confrontation
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/07/concealed-carry-licenses-growing.html
Firearms Blog Collections
Illinois Lawful Carry of Firearms Gets Closer
Friday, July 5, 2013
"7 Gun Control Facts That Are Actually Myths"
July 5, 2013
Good, concise article that debunks 7 of the most common claims by gun control advocates. It doesn't go into a lot of detail but does provide some links to amplifying information.
1. Myth: The Second Amendment does not guarantee the individual right to bear arms and only applies to a well-regulated militia.
2. Myth: More guns equals more gun crime.
3. Myth: The UK and Australia gun bans have reduced violent crime.
4. Myth: Assault weapons are firearms that our military uses in war.
5. Myth: The 1994 Assault Weapon Ban didn't work because it wasn't strong enough.
6. Myth: You don't need an AR-15 because it has no legitimate purpose.
7. Myth: 40% of firearms are sold without background checks.
http://www.policymic.com/articles/24124/7-gun-control-facts-that-are-actually-myths
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/07/7-gun-control-facts-that-are-actually.html
Firearms Blog Collections
Firearms Statistics Blogs
Good, concise article that debunks 7 of the most common claims by gun control advocates. It doesn't go into a lot of detail but does provide some links to amplifying information.
1. Myth: The Second Amendment does not guarantee the individual right to bear arms and only applies to a well-regulated militia.
2. Myth: More guns equals more gun crime.
3. Myth: The UK and Australia gun bans have reduced violent crime.
4. Myth: Assault weapons are firearms that our military uses in war.
5. Myth: The 1994 Assault Weapon Ban didn't work because it wasn't strong enough.
6. Myth: You don't need an AR-15 because it has no legitimate purpose.
7. Myth: 40% of firearms are sold without background checks.
http://www.policymic.com/articles/24124/7-gun-control-facts-that-are-actually-myths
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/07/7-gun-control-facts-that-are-actually.html
Firearms Blog Collections
Firearms Statistics Blogs
Thursday, July 4, 2013
"Gun Control Anthem"
July 4, 2013
This may be old news to some but singer Heather Renee has created a 4:01 "Gun Control Anthem" that is now available on YouTube and iTunes. Personally, I'm wondering if it would be more properly named "Gun Rights Anthem" or something else to indicate it's pro-gun rights message.
Check it out on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W23C-lm6OdE
https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/gun-control-anthem/id664934198?i=664934281
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/07/gun-control-anthem.html
Firearms Blog Collections
This may be old news to some but singer Heather Renee has created a 4:01 "Gun Control Anthem" that is now available on YouTube and iTunes. Personally, I'm wondering if it would be more properly named "Gun Rights Anthem" or something else to indicate it's pro-gun rights message.
Check it out on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W23C-lm6OdE
https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/gun-control-anthem/id664934198?i=664934281
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/07/gun-control-anthem.html
Firearms Blog Collections
Tuesday, July 2, 2013
Real Consequences of Colorado Gun Control Laws
July 2, 2013
New York and Colorado were first to enact new gun control legislation in the wake of the horrific Sandy Hook Elementary shooting on December 14, 2012. Both have suffered ridiculous unintended consequences for doing so. Both states are facing fierce opposition to their new laws too from citizens, law enforcement, gun rights groups, in lawsuits and, in the case of Colorado, a recall election for 1-2 politicians.
This article discusses in detail why one part of Colorado's new gun control law is unenforceable as written without breaking a law - either Colorado's or the US Constitution. It doesn't go into the Constitution part but there's that pesky thing about 'depriving of property' in there that has a direct bearing on this situation. "The Colorado Bureau of investigation “advises local law enforcement to ignore and violate new Colorado gun laws." " That's right, law enforcement is going to violate the law in order to follow the law. Ridiculous.
The bottom line is that if a so-called "high capacity" magazine is stolen, with or without its firearm, and it was recovered by police, returning it to the owner would be a violation of the new Draconian gun control laws which prohibit any TRANSFER (not just sale) of "high capacity" magazines even though they are grandfathered in the new law. In most cases these are really standard capacity magazines that were designed with the firearm but Colorado now defines "high capacity" as being more than 15 rounds, not as restrictive as New York's 7-round limit or the 10-round limit of California and other states.
Please, tell me how such a poorly written law is either "common sense" or "reasonable" because that's what gun control advocates have been using as their mantra as they push their agenda across the country.
New York was in such a hurry that they violated their own state's constitution in ramming through the new bill and it was so poorly written that it didn't allow for the fact that 7-round or fewer magazines didn't exist for many, perhaps most, handguns in common usage and it didn't exempt law enforcement officers (LEO) from the ridiculous and overly restrictive 7-round magazine capacity limit. It has also resulted in wrongful CONFISCATION of firearms from at least one New York citizen.
When I first began writing about the gun control debate I mentioned unintended consequences as being one of the risk in pushing through any new legislation so quickly. Gun rights people are well aware that gun control advocates are exactly the wrong people who should be writing such laws because of their ignorance as a group of the firearms, the technology, the issues and the facts. Their motivation and agenda, hidden or otherwise, is also very much in question. There's no doubt that some have good intentions even if they're misguided but there's also NO doubt some are the "gun grabbers" that vocal gun rights advocates scream about. They've been caught admitting it in their own words numerous times. So which is it? Is this an "unintended consequence" or was this by design by the "gun grabbers"?
http://www.examiner.com/article/sheriff-says-cbi-advises-breaking-law-stolen-gun-owners-to-be-victimized-twice
===
July 27, 2013
Well, here's a real consequence of Colorado's new gun control laws that gun control advocates didn't count on.
The seemingly very popular among gun control advocates, but completely ineffective in reducing gun violence, "gun buy back" programs are now illegal as planned in Colorado - and probably in other states too.
http://www.dailycamera.com/boulder-county-news/ci_23717880/organizers-cancel-boulder-gun-buyback-at-request-sheriff
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/25/gun-buyback-canceled-because-new-gun-laws/
Personally, I think the whole thing is silly. If these people are so anxious to get rid of unwanted firearms, can't they just turn them into their local police departments directly and ask that they be disposed of, without personal financial reward? You don't see news articles covering long lines or hordes of people wanting to do something for nothing on this topic though, do you? I don't recall the specifics now of Colorado's new gun control laws. It'd be significant if the background check requirement applies to "sale" vs. "transfers". If transfers are not covered then these people could "give" their firearms to a representative person or organization who could then dispose of them in bulk. To be safe, it'd have to be without reward because 'receiving something of value' for 'something of value' is probably considered a sale, though there are probably ways around that too for the creative minded.
Another of those consequences is included in this 8:24 video beginning around the 1:00 mark. This does discuss the need for background investigations for transfers or loans of more than 72 hours. Listen to how ridiculous this is. Loan a gun to someone to go hunting? If the transfer is for more than 72 hours then get, and pay for, a background check. Return the firearm? Get and pay for a background check. Go on vacation or business travel for more than 72 hours and leave your guns with someone else? Same thing on both ends. As written, it even applies to sheriff's deputies who are taking possession of firearms in the line of duty! Evacuate your house with your firearms due to wildfire or flood and go to a friends house? If the guns are left there more than 72 hours then a background check is needed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zx12J2pSb8A
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/07/real-consequences-of-colorado-gun.html
Firearms Blog Collections
Colorado Firearms Blogs
So-Called "Gun Buy Backs" Illegal?
New York and Colorado were first to enact new gun control legislation in the wake of the horrific Sandy Hook Elementary shooting on December 14, 2012. Both have suffered ridiculous unintended consequences for doing so. Both states are facing fierce opposition to their new laws too from citizens, law enforcement, gun rights groups, in lawsuits and, in the case of Colorado, a recall election for 1-2 politicians.
This article discusses in detail why one part of Colorado's new gun control law is unenforceable as written without breaking a law - either Colorado's or the US Constitution. It doesn't go into the Constitution part but there's that pesky thing about 'depriving of property' in there that has a direct bearing on this situation. "The Colorado Bureau of investigation “advises local law enforcement to ignore and violate new Colorado gun laws." " That's right, law enforcement is going to violate the law in order to follow the law. Ridiculous.
The bottom line is that if a so-called "high capacity" magazine is stolen, with or without its firearm, and it was recovered by police, returning it to the owner would be a violation of the new Draconian gun control laws which prohibit any TRANSFER (not just sale) of "high capacity" magazines even though they are grandfathered in the new law. In most cases these are really standard capacity magazines that were designed with the firearm but Colorado now defines "high capacity" as being more than 15 rounds, not as restrictive as New York's 7-round limit or the 10-round limit of California and other states.
Please, tell me how such a poorly written law is either "common sense" or "reasonable" because that's what gun control advocates have been using as their mantra as they push their agenda across the country.
New York was in such a hurry that they violated their own state's constitution in ramming through the new bill and it was so poorly written that it didn't allow for the fact that 7-round or fewer magazines didn't exist for many, perhaps most, handguns in common usage and it didn't exempt law enforcement officers (LEO) from the ridiculous and overly restrictive 7-round magazine capacity limit. It has also resulted in wrongful CONFISCATION of firearms from at least one New York citizen.
When I first began writing about the gun control debate I mentioned unintended consequences as being one of the risk in pushing through any new legislation so quickly. Gun rights people are well aware that gun control advocates are exactly the wrong people who should be writing such laws because of their ignorance as a group of the firearms, the technology, the issues and the facts. Their motivation and agenda, hidden or otherwise, is also very much in question. There's no doubt that some have good intentions even if they're misguided but there's also NO doubt some are the "gun grabbers" that vocal gun rights advocates scream about. They've been caught admitting it in their own words numerous times. So which is it? Is this an "unintended consequence" or was this by design by the "gun grabbers"?
http://www.examiner.com/article/sheriff-says-cbi-advises-breaking-law-stolen-gun-owners-to-be-victimized-twice
===
July 27, 2013
Well, here's a real consequence of Colorado's new gun control laws that gun control advocates didn't count on.
The seemingly very popular among gun control advocates, but completely ineffective in reducing gun violence, "gun buy back" programs are now illegal as planned in Colorado - and probably in other states too.
http://www.dailycamera.com/boulder-county-news/ci_23717880/organizers-cancel-boulder-gun-buyback-at-request-sheriff
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/25/gun-buyback-canceled-because-new-gun-laws/
Personally, I think the whole thing is silly. If these people are so anxious to get rid of unwanted firearms, can't they just turn them into their local police departments directly and ask that they be disposed of, without personal financial reward? You don't see news articles covering long lines or hordes of people wanting to do something for nothing on this topic though, do you? I don't recall the specifics now of Colorado's new gun control laws. It'd be significant if the background check requirement applies to "sale" vs. "transfers". If transfers are not covered then these people could "give" their firearms to a representative person or organization who could then dispose of them in bulk. To be safe, it'd have to be without reward because 'receiving something of value' for 'something of value' is probably considered a sale, though there are probably ways around that too for the creative minded.
Another of those consequences is included in this 8:24 video beginning around the 1:00 mark. This does discuss the need for background investigations for transfers or loans of more than 72 hours. Listen to how ridiculous this is. Loan a gun to someone to go hunting? If the transfer is for more than 72 hours then get, and pay for, a background check. Return the firearm? Get and pay for a background check. Go on vacation or business travel for more than 72 hours and leave your guns with someone else? Same thing on both ends. As written, it even applies to sheriff's deputies who are taking possession of firearms in the line of duty! Evacuate your house with your firearms due to wildfire or flood and go to a friends house? If the guns are left there more than 72 hours then a background check is needed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zx12J2pSb8A
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/07/real-consequences-of-colorado-gun.html
Firearms Blog Collections
Colorado Firearms Blogs
So-Called "Gun Buy Backs" Illegal?
"Best 2nd Amendment speech ever" opposing New York's "SAFE" Law
July 2, 2013
This 2:58 YouTube video's title is "Probably the best 2nd Amendment speech ever". I don't know if I'd go quite so far with the praise but I found it well worth watching.
It's one of many individuals' testimonies that I've watched this year as gun control has been considered and debated in Congress and state legislatures throughout the country. Many repeat some of the same gun-rights supporting rhetoric but some definitely have unique features or points in them. This one opposing New York's "Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement (SAFE)" law is strongly worded and emotionally charged by combat veteran and law enforcement officer (LEO), Aaron Weiss, speaking to the Dutchess County Legislature in New York on March 11,2013 is one of those.
In my opinion the ending about politicians having to "go in the door first" is a distraction. While it may be true, it holds little or no weight in the overall debate. He could have been more effective with other uses of those last, precious few seconds.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lh1zornUVv8
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/07/best-2nd-amendment-speech-ever-opposing.html
Firearms Blog Collections
This 2:58 YouTube video's title is "Probably the best 2nd Amendment speech ever". I don't know if I'd go quite so far with the praise but I found it well worth watching.
It's one of many individuals' testimonies that I've watched this year as gun control has been considered and debated in Congress and state legislatures throughout the country. Many repeat some of the same gun-rights supporting rhetoric but some definitely have unique features or points in them. This one opposing New York's "Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement (SAFE)" law is strongly worded and emotionally charged by combat veteran and law enforcement officer (LEO), Aaron Weiss, speaking to the Dutchess County Legislature in New York on March 11,2013 is one of those.
In my opinion the ending about politicians having to "go in the door first" is a distraction. While it may be true, it holds little or no weight in the overall debate. He could have been more effective with other uses of those last, precious few seconds.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lh1zornUVv8
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/07/best-2nd-amendment-speech-ever-opposing.html
Firearms Blog Collections
"most first-time (firearms) buyers are subject to background checks"
July 2, 2013
Another gun control survey that diminishes claims by vocal gun control advocates by showing that "most first-time (firearms) buyers are subject to background checks"
The usefulness of this survey is of limited value in the overall gun controldebate for reasons mentioned in the article including a small sample size and an inaccurate reflection of the whole gun ownership community.
There's no link to the actual survey or excerpts of the statistical results for viewing.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/1/gun-control-survey-finds-most-first-time-buyers-ar/?page=all
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/07/most-first-time-firearms-buyers-are.html
Firearms Blog Collections
Another gun control survey that diminishes claims by vocal gun control advocates by showing that "most first-time (firearms) buyers are subject to background checks"
The usefulness of this survey is of limited value in the overall gun controldebate for reasons mentioned in the article including a small sample size and an inaccurate reflection of the whole gun ownership community.
There's no link to the actual survey or excerpts of the statistical results for viewing.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/1/gun-control-survey-finds-most-first-time-buyers-ar/?page=all
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/07/most-first-time-firearms-buyers-are.html
Firearms Blog Collections
Monday, July 1, 2013
Perhaps the US Government should get its own business in order instead of meddling in ours
July 1, 2013
Wouldn't it be nice if our federal government got its own house and business in order before it tried meddling in ours?
Fast and Furious gun running, Benghazi cover-up, IRS targeting of conservatives, NSA tapping and logging US citizens' communications and more. Now the US Park Police has 'lost track' of nearly 1600 firearms in their possession, 1400 of which were supposed to have been destroyed.
Firearms storage and registration laws have been proposed in Congress and many state legislatures and some have passed. Why should US citizens be held to such requirements when the federal government can't do likewise?
"The report noted that similar problems discovered in 2008 and 2009 were never fixed, and scalded the agency's managers for a "decade-long theme of inaction and indifference." "
Would we get a decade to 'fix' the problems our governments find in our practices and then if we didn't get it right in that time still be given a pass? I think not.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57591525/inspector-general-u.s-park-police-lost-track-of-hundreds-of-guns/
===
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/07/perhaps-us-government-should-get-its.html
Firearms Blog Collections
Wouldn't it be nice if our federal government got its own house and business in order before it tried meddling in ours?
Fast and Furious gun running, Benghazi cover-up, IRS targeting of conservatives, NSA tapping and logging US citizens' communications and more. Now the US Park Police has 'lost track' of nearly 1600 firearms in their possession, 1400 of which were supposed to have been destroyed.
Firearms storage and registration laws have been proposed in Congress and many state legislatures and some have passed. Why should US citizens be held to such requirements when the federal government can't do likewise?
"The report noted that similar problems discovered in 2008 and 2009 were never fixed, and scalded the agency's managers for a "decade-long theme of inaction and indifference." "
Would we get a decade to 'fix' the problems our governments find in our practices and then if we didn't get it right in that time still be given a pass? I think not.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57591525/inspector-general-u.s-park-police-lost-track-of-hundreds-of-guns/
===
- DB: Not sure what to make of this, but with the way things are going with the Government these days, anything is possible. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/08/09/high-ranking-mexican-drug-cartel-member-makes-explosive-allegation-fast-and-furious-is-not-what-you-think-it-is/
- ME: Wow. Very interesting. The article was too long to keep my attention to the end. I think I read 2/3 of it but that was enough. That would certainly explain Attorney General Eric Holder's lack of cooperation during the Fast and Furious inquiries. If this turns out to be true I'd personally love to see Holder behind bars. His contempt for citizens' rights and Congress is inexcusable at this point.
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/07/perhaps-us-government-should-get-its.html
Firearms Blog Collections
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)