The Minuteman » Gun Rights

Category Archives: Politics

Quote of the Day – Paul Barrett (4/24/2013)

By | | , , , , ,
Comments Off on Quote of the Day – Paul Barrett (4/24/2013)

The gun debate has been tilting toward the pro-gun side for more than a dozen years. The Boston Marathon bombings will continue that trend.

Paul Barrett – The Boston Terror Will Benefit the NRA, Hurt Gun Control

April 23rd, 2013

[Let me start off by saying, Paul was trying to be fair though there were a few comments that I don’t really agree with.  For example attacking Wayne LaPierre or this little bit at the end of his article.

But the NRA and some of its friends are not interested in rational discourse. They thrive on slippery-slope reasoning, according to which any limit on guns is a mere precursor to firearm registration and confiscation. As any gun manufacturer will tell you, the 9/11 attacks helped sales at firearm counters around the country and strengthened the NRA’s hand in lobbying against greater federal restrictions.

Paul most people, even the NRA, are willing to have a rational discourse.  The problem is there are so many irrational people on the other side trying to control the conversation the only reasonable thing is to just shut it all down.  For example look at Fienstein and what she was pushing and trying to tack on to that bill.  Moving further forward that bill honestly didn’t have anything really to do with background checks.  The people pushing for the bill even admit it would have not made any difference at  any of the mass shootings.

So is it irrational that we want to put on the breaks, let the emotion die, and approach this in a rational and reasoned manner instead of an emotional hysteria?

There were a few other errors, such as the comment regarding background checks for commercial firearms sales.  That is already required by federal law, so are we redefining commercial sales to include any sale?  Including letting someone borrow a firearm? At which point if you exempt it, today’s exemption is tomorrows loophole, not to mention how do you define and prove “borrowing”.

Paul’s conclusion though is correct and can easily be seen with this poll.

Sixty-nine percent say if they were in a situation similar to Bostonians, they would want a gun in their house.  

That includes a large 88-percent majority of those in gun-owner households, as well as 50 percent of those in non-gun homes.

As noted by Weer’d the lock-down also occurred in one of the most difficult areas to get a gun permit.  I expect there will be a large influx of new owners in that area.  Many of them will have an experience much like this individual.

“You’ll need a license for that,” the clerk informed me when I asked to see a modestly-priced BB gun.  Surprised but undaunted, I whipped out my drivers license and slid it across the counter.  At which point it was obvious to me that it was obvious to him I’m not a gun person. 

“To buy a gun in New Jersey you need a Firearm Purchaser ID Card from your Township’s police chief.  Even a BB gun.  Can’t even take one down to show you without it.”

Many had a wake up call last Friday.  Couple that with incidents like this, it’s no wonder people want to buy firearms for their own defense.

Then Angela Kramer softly pleads for help as the gunman who killed her parents and brother seconds earlier searches for her inside the family’s Darien home.

“I’m in my house. There’s shooting,” Kramer tells the operator in a low voice immediately after the loud gunshot.

…

Kramer’s 911 call lasted for more than 55 minutes until police searched the darkened house and rescued her from her hiding place.

Boy, Chicago’s restrictive gun laws while pushing reliance on the police really helped that family now didn’t it.

Last weeks incident served as wake-up call to many, doubly so since it was a citizen who was confined to his house that found the man on the run after they lifted the lock-down.  I’m sure that man probably would prefer to have a firearm the next time he investigates something out of place.

*As an additional aside.  I’ve met Paul and his wife both and they were both extremely nice.  I do not think Paul was trying to slight gun owners as a whole or even directly wanted was was really in that bill.  Odds are the particular publication for which he works had a serious hand in the tone of the article.

I do not know of any gun owner who actively supports giving firearms to criminals.  We all know damn well how that would have a negative affect on us and our rights.  What we don’t want though is the state coming in and arbitrarily denying or delaying the rights of law-abiding people because in the end, we know the criminals will still get their hands on a firearm.  The comments within that article do nothing more than aid in driving a wedge and turning off the other side causing them to ignore you and your position.

I do not think any firearm owner would complain about providing additional tools to aid people in “doing the right thing”.  Where we all have a problem is trying to trace that and enforce it under law.  It becomes this complicated problem fraught with danger because it will become all to easy to criminalize someone who would actually be innocent. -B]

 

Yet Another Lie From Our Fearless Leader…

By | | , , ,
2 Comments

“The Administration strongly supports S. 743, which will level the playing field for local small business retailers that are in competition every day with large out-of-state online companies,” reads the Obama administration’s statement on the policy.

*Blink*.  Seriously anyone who believes that helps small business is a burger, fries, and a drink short of a Happy Meal.  All you have is an empty box full of napkins.

All this serves to do is raise costs equally across everyone, small and large businesses alike.  In the end that will affect small businesses more because it will trim down their profit margin if they attempt to stay competitive.  Larger retailers have a larger profit margin and can eat the smaller loss.

The assumption for the above is that the majority of my business is coming from local states.  Not only that, but that I can in no way compete with local companies merely because of sales tax.  Further many of the large retailers do have to charge sales tax because they have store fronts within the state.

So all this law would do, is cause small businesses to have to raise prices and append an additional tax.  Large companies would have to do it just the same but they could more easily eat the cost giving them an advantage over small business.  This is merely another example of how this Administration hates small business owners.

As a small business owner the mere mention of this while claiming it will help me is down right offensive, doubly so since that no talent ass-clown of a President accused me last Wednesday of being a liar for telling the truth.  Here we are not even a week later and that narcissist is lying and trying to tell me swallow this pill of cyanide because it will help my business.  This coming from a man who’s never run a business in his life.

Mr. President, shut the hell up and stop trying to destroy my business.  It’s hard enough to get the damn thing rolling without you meddling in it and causing us to have to raise prices.

Quote of the Day – Joe Huffman (4/18/2013)

By | | , , ,
1 Comment

Yes. It was shameful that so many people put so much effort into attempting to infringe upon a specific enumerated right. This forced millions of other people to put their own effort into stopping that attempt. The entire country, especially the politicians, had important other things to do and we had to take time out to fight the statist scum.

Joe Huffman – Quote of the day—President Barack Obama

April 18th, 2013

[QTFMT.  I spent a lot more time over the past 4 months defending my rights and civil liberties than I should have had to.  I could have invested that time elsewhere but instead I had to fight to the best of my ability to protect my rights and those of my future children.

The good news is we won this battle.  Apparently Obama is guaranteeing that there will be a round two.  Good luck with that.  You’ve now placed a target on a large number of your senators backs and midterm elections are always moving closer.  Nice of you to force other politicians to fall on your sword for idiotic policies Mr. President.

Now pardon me while I go spend some time with friends and family like I should have been the past 4 months. -B]

 

Quote of the Day – Barack Obama (4/17/2013)

By | | , , ,
4 Comments

The gun lobby and its allies willfully lied about the bill.

Barack Obama – In Response to the Gun Control Vote

April 17th, 2013

[Said like a true politician.

No Mr. Obama, we just don’t take kindly to being lied to, abused, mistreated, and being held responsible for the actions of others.  You and your cohorts tried to pass a bill and we merely read it and told everyone one’s in it.  You can go read in the bill yourself about every statement I’ve made regarding the bill.

You’re upset because you couldn’t pull the wool over our eyes and we fought back.

Lastly Mr. President, what part of “Shall Not Be Infringed” is so hard and difficult for you to understand?-B]

Our own worst enemies

By | | , ,
1 Comment

Seriously folks, we are our own worst enemies.

image

Pardon my straight face but I spent this morning searching for where the NRA is supporting the compromise.  Seriously  I went through all the NRA-ILA feed again trying to find it.  Tried to find it using Google.  Lastly I sent an email to Sebastian asking him to confirm this stance if possible.

I did find this which I am reposting in full just to illustrate the sheer “WTFO!?” moment I had when I saw the above image on Facebook.

Dear Senator,

I am writing regarding the National Rifle Association’s position on several firearms-related proposals under consideration in the Senate.

S. 649, the “Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013”, introduced on March 21, contains a number of provisions that would unfairly infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners.  This legislation would criminalize the private transfer of firearms by honest citizens, requiring friends, neighbors and many family members to get government permission to exercise a fundamental right or face prosecution. The NRA is unequivocally opposed to S. 649.

In addition, the NRA will oppose any amendments offered to S. 649 that restrict fundamental Second Amendment freedoms; including, but not limited to, proposals that would ban commonly and lawfully owned firearms and magazines or criminalize the private transfer of firearms through an expansion of background checks.  This includes the misguided “compromise” proposal drafted by Senators Joe Manchin, Pat Toomey and Chuck Schumer.  As we have noted previously, expanding background checks, at gun shows or elsewhere, will not reduce violent crime or keep our kids safe in their schools.  Given the importance of these issues, votes on all anti-gun amendments or proposals will be considered in NRA’s future candidate evaluations.

Rather than focus its efforts on restricting the rights of America’s 100 million law-abiding gun owners, there are things Congress can do to fix our broken mental health system; increase prosecutions of violent criminals; and make our schools safer.  During consideration of S. 649, should one or more amendments be offered that adequately address these important issues while protecting the fundamental rights of law-abiding gun owners, the NRA will offer our enthusiastic support and consider those votes in our future candidate evaluations as well.

We hope the Senate will replace the current provisions of S. 649 with language that is properly focused on addressing mental health inadequacies; prosecuting violent criminals; and keeping our kids safe in their schools.  Should it fail to do so, the NRA will make an exception to our standard policy of not “scoring” procedural votes and strongly oppose a cloture motion to move to final passage of S. 649.

Sincerely,
Chris W. Cox

Tell me, where in that letter does it say the NRA is accepting the “compromise”?  An hour ago the NRA-ILA feed was posting information about the possible filibuster from Paul and the other Republicans.

There was another comment from the NRA-ILA as well, found via Sabastian.

Expanding background checks at gun shows will not prevent the next shooting, will not solve violent crime and will not keep our kids safe in schools. While the overwhelming rejection of President Obama and Mayor Bloomberg’s “universal” background check agenda is a positive development, we have a broken mental health system that is not going to be fixed with more background checks at gun shows. The sad truth is that no background check would have prevented the tragedies in Newtown, Aurora or Tucson. We need a serious and meaningful solution that addresses crime in cities like Chicago, addresses mental health deficiencies, while at the same time protecting the rights of those of us who are not a danger to anyone. President Obama should be as committed to dealing with the gang problem that is tormenting honest people in his hometown as he is to blaming law-abiding gun owners for the acts of psychopathic murderers.

That isn’t a statement to accept it, it’s a statement of, if you’re serious about fixing “the problem” then actually do so!

Why do we need to drive a wedge between gun owners for particular groups?  More specifically why do some people feel the need to spread lies and falsehoods to vilify those who are on the same side?  What service does that do other than damage those who support you?

Seriously folks, don’t believe everything you see, especially on Facebook and even the blogs.  Not everyone spends time and effort trying to confirm or disprove the facts.  Just because it has a thousand likes, or has been shared hundreds of times doesn’t make it true.

Update from Sebastian: The Graham Bill clarified mental adjudication and is perceived,  at least by him, it was an attempt to get Dems to bite on something.  When it comes to vote vs. filibuster, since the NRA will be scoring cloture on S. 649, they would like to put some of these folks on record to hang them in 2014 and 2016.  NAGR is merely criticizing because they don’t have the risks or ability to decide strategically what happens in this fight.

*My comments on the email I got from Sebastian.  It makes sense but I have NOT found anything to confirm that the NRA is against the filibuster either.  Honestly I think this was just a big fat troll to drive a wedge.

Quote of the Day – Michael Bane(4/9/2012)

By | | , , , ,
1 Comment

Yes, the words of victims have special poignancy, but what they don’t have is any special truth. Grief drives us to look toward the heavens and demand an answer from any nearby Deity. Grief drives us to demand a solution to the fundamental insoluble problem, which is that the world is as it is. Bad things happen, often to good people, and grief drives us to…do something.

To me there is no greater sin…and I use the word “sin” specifically…than harnessing grief to serve a crass political agenda.

Michael Bane – RIVERDANCE With Blood

April 9th, 2012

[QTFMFT!  The other side of this debate points at us as if we are heartless and have absolutely no empathy with the victims.  That is merely a tactic they use to dehumanize their “enemy”.

We know that being a victim doesn’t make you magically knowledgeable about a subject.  We know that the only thing it does is give you the perspective of being a victim.  It doesn’t mean that because you say “Doing X” will actually make it better.  Other than being a victim, what supporting facts and evidence do they have?

This comes right back to the rules for coping with tragedy.

There are those who hate those rules because emotion is the only argument they have. -B]

 

SSCC Honorable Mention: Florida Highway Patrol

By | | ,
1 Comment

Roughly two weeks ago, Florida Highway Patrol trooper Charles Swindle was fired for “conduct unbecoming of a public employee” after he offered a state lawmaker, Rep. Charles McBurney (R-Jacksonville), a warning for doing 87 mph in a 70 mph zone. The incident reportedly occurred in November.

Swindle first checked with his sergeant and then told McBurney: “I’m cutting you a break.” The trooper cited the lawmaker for lacking proof of insurance — a $10 ticket opposed to a $280 fine for speeding.

Serious props to the representative for calling attention to it.  It does kind of bug me that the officer was fired over this incident, especially since much more serious incidents seem to walk right on by without a blink.  Don’t get me wrong, getting canned makes sense, it’s the fact that you have incidents like Officer Roid Rage who keep their job.

What is interesting though is why he would extend this type of gratuity toward a lawmaker.  Everyone is bound under the same laws.  That said, yes officers do have some discretion in issuing warnings or tickets.  In this case he seemed to be constantly giving lawmakers a free pass.  I don’t know if it was to garner support for the FHP or if it was an effort to remember names later if need ever arose.

Either way we’re all equal under the law and this officer didn’t feel that was the case.

State Sponsored Criminal Honorable Mention: Charles Swindle

Because by all means let the people who wrote the laws get away with breaking them.

via Bob S. and Archer

This seems to be a pattern…

By | | , , , ,
1 Comment

First here’s what was snapped out of a recent article that hit Drudge today.

The bill’s sponsor, Democrat Sen. Steve Hobbs of Lake Stevens, said Tuesday that he had not read the amendment, but he was aware of concerns from high-tech industries.

The bill in question would mean that I could be compelled to release my user credentials to a prospective employer for my online account.  Who here thinks this is either a good or acceptable idea?  Anyone?  Bueller?

Now I bring this up because just a short while ago we saw the same response regarding a bill that would have violated people’s 4th amendment rights.

One of the bill’s sponsors, State Sen. Adam Kline (D-Seattle), told the Seattle Times that he didn’t properly vet the bill prior to jumping on board. He claims he didn’t realize the bill authorized police searches.

Joe wants people to be held accountable for the laws they push.  This includes sponsoring a law.  If you cannot be bothered to spend the time reading a bill, you should not be sponsoring it.  Even more than that, you should be held accountable for what’s written in it.  Ignorance of what is hidden within isn’t an excuse and you should be held accountable no matter what.