Archive for the 'Gun Control' Category

David Codrea.

So the actor who went from a TV cowboy, to earn international fame as the iconic Man with No Name in spaghetti Westerns, with perhaps his most famous role being the .44 Magnum-wielding Dirty Harry, supports a rabid gun-grabbing zealot?

That may not be his intent, but it may be, and regardless, that’s the effect this has. Irrespective of whatever other reasons Eastwood may have, he is supporting a billionaire who will add the weight of the U.S. government to disarm his countrymen, including Eastwood and his fans. He is, to put it bluntly, but accurately, giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

So what makes people think that Hollywood actors are such paragons of value judgment righteousness?  Maybe he is just getting senile in his old age, or thinks this sort of virtue signalling is necessary before he meets his maker.  That would betray a shallow intellect, but most Hollywood types have a shallow intellect.

Doubtless though, Bloomberg and the forces of darkness will use this to their advantage for the idiots among us.  The best way to mitigate the damage is to teach the masses.  That’s a long term project.

NRO.

The third thing that stands out about Buttigieg’s military service is his bizarre brag that he used to travel around Afghanistan in various motor vehicles. Has anyone who has ever served the U.S. military on overseas land not driven around? When he launched his campaign last April he bragged about “119 trips I took outside the wire, driving or guarding a vehicle.” That’s . . . not a thing. There are no such stats. Sorties in aircraft are an official military statistic. Motor-vehicle trips are so routine no one would bother to keep track, any more than someone would log how many times Pete Buttigieg took a shower. No one cares. So Buttigieg himself created this phony statistic. Picture it: He made himself a little Hero’s Log but all he had to put in it was “routine trips.” It’s pathetic. It’s hilarious. It’s apple-polishing, résumé-buffing, box-checking, attention-seeking vaporware. Just like his whole career.

But because of his military “experience” and “training,” he knows that his “weapons of war” have no place in America – except with the police.

Hey Pete.  My son wants to know how many satellite patrols you went on, and how many times you were shot at?

How Latinos Vote.

In separate questions, Latinos were presented with hypothetical races between Donald Trump and varying Democratic candidates. Bernie Sanders receives the strongest share of the Latino vote relative to Trump; 80 percent say they would vote for Sanders, while a mere 16 percent would vote for Trump. Joe Biden also wins a significant share of Latino voters: 72 percent (Biden) to 19 percent (Trump).

We know what Joe Biden thinks of guns.  How about Bernie?

• Take on the NRA and its corrupting effect on Washington.
• Expand background checks.
• End the gun show loophole. All gun purchases should be subject to the same background check standards.
• Ban the sale and distribution of assault weapons. Assault weapons are designed and sold as tools of war. There is absolutely no reason why these firearms should be sold to civilians.
• Prohibit high-capacity ammunition magazines.
• Implement a buyback program to get assault weapons off the streets.
• Regulate assault weapons in the same way that we currently regulate fully automatic weapons — a system that essentially makes them unlawful to own.
• Crack down on “straw purchases” where people buy guns for criminals.
• Support “red flag” laws and legislation to ensure we keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers and stalkers
• Ban the 3-D printing of firearms and bump stocks

You think maybe the Latino vote will affect future gun control?  You think this has anything to do with immigration?

Tell me it can’t happen.

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — Having a few too many at home shouldn’t make handling one’s own firearm illegal, according to an Ohio man challenging his arrest on a charge of possessing a weapon while intoxicated.

The Ohio Supreme Court plans to hear arguments in his case Tuesday, with a decision not expected for several weeks.

Attorneys for defendant Fred Weber say the 2018 arrest was unconstitutional because he was in his own home and the weapon was unloaded. Weber was arrested in southwestern Ohio by sheriff’s deputies after Weber’s wife placed a 4 a.m. 911 call saying her husband had a gun and was drunk.

Inside Weber’s house, deputies saw Weber holding an unloaded shotgun in his hand with the barrel pointed down, according to court records. Weber told officers he was drunk, and officers described him as “highly intoxicated,” the records show.

Weber’s attorneys argue that Weber never should have been charged or convicted under current law, since there was no evidence the shotgun was being carried with an intent to use it.

Furthermore, the law itself is flawed because it means nearly anyone with a gun at home who also consumes alcohol is breaking the law, Weber’s attorneys argued in a filing with the Ohio Supreme Court last year.

“Whether one is drunk or sober should have nothing to do with the right to possess a firearm in the hearth and home,” said attorney Gary Rosenhoffer in an Aug. 20, 2019, filing. As a result, the law is a violation of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, Rosenhoffer argued.

Prosecutors disagree with Weber’s argument and say the law was constitutional as applied to his situation.

By handling his weapon while he was drunk, Weber scared his wife enough that she felt compelled to call police, Nick Horton, a Clermont County assistant prosecutor, said in a Sept. 18 filing.

Weber, “by holding his firearm while intoxicated, was not exercising his right to bear arms in a virtuous manner,” the prosecutor said.

Not only do we have a police/prosecutor state that can predict the future with red flag laws, but they can also decide what’s virtuous and what’s not.

CNN.

A group of seven measures to restrict gun rights in Virginia was advanced by a state Senate committee on Monday.

The Democratic-led Senate Judiciary Committee voted to pass legislation ranging from a measure that would provide for expanded background checks on any gun sales or purchases to one that would create an order allowing for the temporary removal of guns from a legal owner if a court determines that the person poses a threat of harm to themselves or others.

According to Tanya Schardt, a senior counsel for the gun-control group Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the bills passed in a near party-line vote, with Democrats in favor and Republicans against.

The bills are the remaining part of a package of eight gun violence prevention measures proposed by Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam, a Democrat, in a July 2019 special session of the Virginia Assembly following a mass shooting in Virginia Beach.

The temporary defeat of the AWB was only a small victory.  Red flag laws and UBC are a big and serious deal.  Fight it.  Don’t comply.

Oh, the FFLs will have to comply, but you don’t.  And neither do the local and county LEOs.  Make sure they’re on your side.

David Codrea.

“People openly carried guns, even assault rifles, to the recent gun rally at the Capitol,” a Friday opinion piece titled “Gun Rally Smacked of Fascism” in The Salt Lake Tribune whines. “The reason for brandishing guns is hard to fathom.”

If they were actually brandishing them, it would be. Except Utah criminal code is quite clear that:

“‘Threatening manner’ does not include: the possession of a dangerous weapon, whether visible or concealed, without additional behavior which is threatening…”

Not only does Utah suffer from the progs who have relocated there to the large cities such as Salt Lake, but you need to remember that both the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the LDS church are viscerally and irrationally opposed to gun rights.  Utah isn’t as friendly a state for gun owners as you might think they would be because of the strength of the LDS.

Oh, both of those groups allow for LEOs to have weapons, but as for people who aren’t “the only ones,” they are deeply opposed to firearms ownership or use.  I recall asking an LDS friend once about guns in his church and what would happen if an armed intruder came in and started shooting families.

His response centered around off-duty LEOs who were members of the congregation.  No one else carries.  The church leadership is deeply opposed to it.  I’ve also had this conversation with a JW, insofar as it was possible.  He was much more emotional about it, but in line with his church’s beliefs, which means deeply opposed.

I pity the gun owners in Utah, but their pleas might fall on deaf ears, not just with the pols, but with most of the people too, at least as many who identify as LDS.

This comes to us via Ammoland.  The actual link to Pete’s web site is here.

Close the “boyfriend loophole” in federal law to help prevent domestic abuse, including within the LGBTQ community. Federal law prohibits anyone convicted of a misdemeanor domestic violence crime from buying a firearm. The law as currently written, however, only protects those who are married to, live with or have lived with, or have children with their abuser. Pete supports federal legislation requiring that state or local law enforcement be notified whenever anyone, including a domestic abuser or convicted stalker, tries to buy a gun and fails a required background check.

Repeal PLCAA to stop shielding the gun industry from liability for negligent practices that lead to gun violence. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) shields the gun industry from civil liability for business practices that directly threaten public safety. Civil liability, which is used as a critical check for nearly every American industry and product, must also extend to the gun industry.

In other words, he supports bankrupting Remington (and other manufacturers) when their products are used in the commission of a crime.  I don’t suspect he also supports bankrupting Ford.

Ban the sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. As a veteran, Pete knows that military-grade weapons have no place being sold to civilians. The same is true for high-capacity magazines. We’ve already decided that certain weaponry—like tanks and rockets—are unacceptable in civilian hands. Congress should similarly reinstitute a ban on selling federal assault weapons and magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

Here’s his “military experience.”  It’s why he calls himself a veteran.  He says he was bored and spent his time driving dignitaries around (behind a paywall unless someone can give me another URL).

But don’t for a moment think that he’s the only creep in the democratic race.  Remember the twenty things about Bernie Sanders that you probably didn’t really want to know.

And then there’s Joe Biden, who likes it when little black children rub his leg hairs.  No, this isn’t a joke.  Or back to Sanders for a moment, read this missive from a number of years ago.

It sounds Nietzschean to me.  I think he’s a nihilist.

So, do you feel like you’re at a circus freak show?

News from Louisiana.

SHREVEPORT, La. – The Caddo Parish Commission’s proposed resolution urging state lawmakers to strengthen the state’s gun laws and ban automatic weapons failed to win majority approval at Thursday’s meeting.

The commission voted 6 to 6 on the resolution authored by Commissioner Lyndon Johnson that brought out a full house of citizens opposed to the measure. The tie vote means the resolution failed and will not advance to the Legislature.

The resolution that came out of Tuesday’s work session sought to encourage the Legislature to change gun laws by setting mandatory requirements for owning and carrying a firearm as well as making it illegal to possess and use assault weapons, which were described as full automatic and semi-automatic with magazines/clips over 20 rounds. The only exception was for active military or law enforcement.

So gun owners in this Parish have a lot of work to do.  Six of the commissioners need to be thrown to the curb.

Via reddit/firearms.

This is wickedness.  The Holy writ: “For the Scripture says, “YOU SHALL NOT MUZZLE THE OX WHILE HE IS THRESHING,” and “The laborer is worthy of his wages.”  [1 Timothy 5:18].

So says the Lord.  The obvious solution is to pay the legislators nothing for their “services” and see how they like it.

Cute title, huh?  It’s not mine.  It comes to us via the UCLA Newsroom.

Some gun control advocates believe the amendment was never intended to guarantee an individual’s right to bear arms.

Dunbar-Ortiz offered a darker view of the founders’ intent: “The violent appropriation of native land by white settlers was seen as an individual right in the Second Amendment” — one of several points in U.S. history when the right to bear arms was invoked to secure white privilege.

“That long, intergenerational, violent struggle to take the land is why descendants of those mostly Anglo and Scots-Irish settlers today believe they are the authentic lords of the United States and should govern — a kind of blood right,” she said.

Even as she delivered blunt appraisals of modern-day policing, the National Rifle Association, Republican leaders and the Junior ROTC — a program that she believes is responsible for the “normalization of militarism for children” — Dunbar-Ortiz shared stories of her own immersion in gun culture. She grew up around firearms in rural Oklahoma, and in her 30s, she joined an armed radical-left group that amassed a huge arsenal.

“A firearm slung over your shoulder or a 9 mm Browning tucked under your belt creates a sense of amplified power, without which you feel naked and vulnerable,” she said. “Guns are awesome. They are also beautiful objects that are addictive.”

[ … ]

“If we do hope to develop long-lasting gun reform, it cannot be done in a vacuum and without consideration for the legitimate claims of gun advocates,” he said.

Dunbar-Ortiz offered a counterpoint. Invoking her extensive experience with communities fraught with guns, she said, “I don’t think it’s worth your time to try to convert them, frankly.”

Instead, she called on passionate grassroots organizers to fight for gun control laws at the state and local levels.

“I think the social movements are going to be more important than candidacy to change things,” she said. But, she cautioned, “I doubt that any common-sense firearms regulation can be enacted until the Second Amendment is understood to represent white supremacy and genocide.”

It would be too involved to give this a complete fisking, but a few things jump out at me.

First, it’s apparent that these so-called “scholars” have never really read the founders with open minds and thus they have no idea what they really said or why they said it.  I’ll say again, my professor Dr. C Gregg Singer, made clear many times that one cannot be a real student of history unless he studies the primary source documents of the era.  So for example, if you really want to understand why the American war of independence happened, you must read the newspapers, speeches and especially read the sermons of the day.  The pulpit controlled the war effort.

Second, Dunbar-Ortiz, whomever that is, doesn’t think dialogue is useful (no doubt that’s probably correct).  Instead, the suggestion is to rely on “gun control laws at the state and local levels.”  Or in other words, take guns away from peaceable men by relying on … you guessed it, men with guns.  The cognitive dissonance is rich and rewarding (at least for me).  Whether they’re happy or not all depends upon who has the guns, yes?  It didn’t take long for Bohemian hippies to turn into full-orbed communists, did it?

Finally, the real “gun problem” isn’t a gun problem, it’s a cultural problem caused in part by government subsidies, welfare and SNAP payments, which disembowel the inner cities and create and sustain fatherless families.  Other gun owners are usually peaceable men.  And yet, these people want to control and disarm peaceable men to the point that they have forums, wring their hands, speak in somber and solemn terms, and recommend draconian legislation, laws and regulations.

And they accuse us being being a cult!  As I’ve said before, the desire to control other men is the infallible sign and premier vice of the wicked.  So rather than being an illumination about gun owners, they have shined the light on themselves.  Their article title was too clever by half.