Gun Control

Back in 2008 we were being informed that the source of 90% of the guns used in crimes in Mexico were being supplied from America and smuggled in to the country. These numbers were railed and the truth exposed about how the statistics were completely twisted. So when this came across my email today I was, needless to say, not terribly shocked.

Prisoners in a northern Mexico jail were allowed out at night to carry out murder-for-hire jobs using jail guards' weapons and vehicles, officials said Sunday, revealing a level of corruption that is stunning even in a country where prison breakouts are common as guards look the other way.

So let me get this straight. Prisoners in jail for breaking the law were let out, supplied with weapons, vehicles, and clothing. Yet those guns were somehow magically supplied by American smugglers, NOT the Mexican government. Heaven forbid anyone actually look at what the problem really is. Evidently the media and other bigots think the only solution is to restrict the rights of honest, hard working law abiding citizens.

Mayor Daley unveiled his new set of laws to infringe and deny a specifically enumerated right today. Let's break down the bullets one by one.

The measure, which draws from ordinances around the country, would ban gun shops in Chicago and prohibit gun owners from stepping outside their homes, even onto their porches or garages, with a handgun.

How does one move the weapon to and from the firing range? Furthermore why can a homeowner not carry a firearm on his own property? How does one even bring the weapon home after purchase if it is not allowed outside the house? There may be exemptions in his ordinance, however knowing Daley and his previous history I doubt it. Also, with the lack of gun shops in the area, one will have a difficult time obtaining a weapon.

Limit the number of handguns residents can register to one per month and prohibit residents from having more than one handgun in operating order at any given time.

Mayor Daley and his group of cronies have already started working on their new methods of victim disarmament after the McDonald ruling. Due to the ruling they can no longer maintain an outright ban so instead they have a new solution to their self constructed crisis.

"One handgun is sufficient for self-defense. We believe that a limitation on the number of handguns to one-per-person-per-residence would be consistent with Supreme Court" rulings overturning handgun bans in Chicago and Washington D.C., Georges told the City Council's Police Committee.

What research was done to reach the conclusion that one firearm is sufficient? If you allow one firearm, why do you need to further restrict them? Reading further provides their warped answers.

In London, where gun control is in effect, a gunman shot a bunch of unarmed citizens.

A taxi driver described as quiet but friendly went on a shooting spree across a picturesque rural area of northwestern England on Wednesday, killing at least five people and wounding 25 others before apparently turning the gun on himself, officials said.

The rampage, in a region famed for its tranquil beauty, shocked a country where handguns are banned and multiple shootings rare — it was Britain's deadliest mass shooting since 1996.

And people wonder why we gun owners in America prefer to stay armed. Being able to shoot back is preferable to being placed in a box.

~Janelle~

An officer was shot and killed during a robbery attempt today in Chicago. Mayor Daley is using this opportunity to say that a stricter handgun ban would have prevented the shooting.

The 30-year-old officer was shot as he left his father's house on the South Side early Thursday morning by would be robbers.

"If this person didn't have this, never happened," the mayor said, holding up a handgun on display for the news conference.

Instead of fixing the issue that has caused people to open carry as a public statement, Lori Saldaña just wants to stop them from making their statement.

To some lawmakers, carrying around an empty gun seems threatening. In a quick response to this perceived but non-threat, AB1934 was drafted to make it a crime to carry an empty firearm in plain view. The bill's author, Assemblywoman Lori Saldaña, D-San Diego, is quoted as saying, "What I'm concerned about is people, who have no training, can carry a gun for no other purpose than to make a public statement."

California is a may-issue state. Translation for the uninitiated; do you like kissing ass? Because if you want a license, start kissing your local sheriffs ass. People to protest this have been doing protests legally by carrying unloaded firearms openly. Instead of looking at the flaws in the process, she intends to further restrict and punish law abiding citizens. I find it interesting that some law makers are uncomfortable by firearms being in possession of their constituents, is it because they're afraid that one day they may be held accountable for their actions?

Son, don't go pointing guns at people unless you mean it!

Do you want fries with that gunshot wound to the leg?

That is what one Arkansas would-be robber may have been asked, as the Burger King worker he allegedly tried to holdup Monday grabbed the gun and fired it right back at him.

Good for the store clerk, may she get exactly what she wants for Christmas this year. A note to her boyfriend if she has one, she's a keeper!

Senator Lautenberg feels that it is better to expand the areas of an airport so murderers can work unhindered law abiding citizens cannot protect themselves.

"In the post-9/11 world, it simply defies common sense that it would be legal to carry a gun into an airport," he said in a statement. "Our airports face threats every day and allowing someone to walk into a major airport with a loaded gun is a recipe for disaster. My legislation will ban guns in airports and make air travel more safe and secure."

Already you cannot carry a firearm on a plane legally. What is changing is that when your family comes to pick you up from the airport they cannot be armed. Your husband or wife will have to leave their self-defense tools in the vehicle, to possibly be stolen, instead of carrying them with. Your family is just meeting you at the baggage claim and then walking back to the car, they're not going anywhere near the "secured area". Why would you need a gun though, all those security guards inside make it perfectly safe. Sure you feel safe inside, but what about all those people outside. They know you're unarmed so instead the thug can wait to rob you in the garage where there are no security guards. Way to go genius!

Also, I love the use of the 9/11 crutch. I'm surprised I don't hear more Pearl Harbor crutches currently to support internment of the Japanese. But we can totally trust the government. I would also like to point out the Democrat hero FDR interred the Japanese. Still trust those democrats?

So I came across this online tonight, "A gun took his son, now Rock Hill dad puzzled by NRA rally." I fail to understand how the gun magically pointed itself at your son, pulled its own trigger, and then hopped in the car and drove off.

In 1998, Krenn's 16-year-old son, Erik, was dropping off a buddy on Rock Hill's South Jones Avenue when four guys carjacked Erik.

Oh wait, it was four individuals that car-jacked your son Erik, pointed the firearm at your son, and then pulled the trigger. These four individuals had no respect for the law then, what makes you think that banning firearms from the hands of law abiding citizens is going to change anything.

As the Founding Fathers knew well, a government that does not trust its honest, law-abiding, taxpaying citizens with the means of self-defense is not itself worthy of trust. Laws disarming honest citizens proclaim that the government is the master, not the servant, of the people. -- Jeff Snyder

[After writing the previous post, I felt this as fitting quote. –B]

Obama claims to support second amendment rights, and states his administration has

So the city of Harvey Illinois, a suburb of Chicago had 21 guns stolen. It is a suburb of the same Chicago that some politicians claimed recently the National Guard was needed to bring the murder rate under control.

Let me get this straight, the bigots claim that civilians are too irresponsible and are not capable of safely handling and storing a firearm, yet the bastion example of Law Enforcement for a single municipality looses 21 by themselves. Lest the fact that the ATF has lost firearms that were then later used to commit crimes. Though I am beginning to see a pattern emerge from behavior of those determined to be "duly qualified" to carry and handle firearms.

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." -- H. L. Mencken

[Somehow after the attempted bombing in Times Square the idea that the rights of law abiding citizens needed to be further restricted for our own safety is by no means a coincidence. Our would-be masters know the above and adhere to the policy, "Let no good crisis go wasted." I am ashamed that Michael Bloomberg is an Eagle Scout, obviously he learned nothing from that trail. –B]

So I was searching around catching up on recent events and stumbled across an article from The University of Washington. Evidently the college Republicans and Democrats had their debate recently.

I was skimming through the article, it had the standard boiler plate arguments about "cap and trade" and concealed carry on campus. What caused the sudden in-depth review of the article is the following line:

'"A green economy doesn't have to be a successful one," Rigsby said'

Talk about a blast from the past. I found a bunch of stuff I handed out at school from time to time.