But remember….

If you attempt to use a firearm to defend yourself, the attacker will take it and kill you with it.

At this point, I would say the Brady campaign should be forwarding this advice to criminals, not the law abiding.

My applause to the woman who fought back and won.


H/T to Uncle for the idea to use the Gun Control line.

Firearms in Commerce

On September 14, 2010 at 10am, the Senate Judiciary Committee will be holding a hearing to determine regulation of the manufacture of firearms. This is probably a new tactic to regulate the manufacture which is one of the few routes left after Heller and McDonald.  The economy is in the tank and they’re meddling even further in things that they shouldn’t be.  In the end, the idiots in DC wonder why unemployment is so high.

UPDATE: This hearing is about the BATFE Reform Act.

Mexican Prisoners Acted as Hitmen

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.

The Saga Continues

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.

The one gun per month limit is totally arbitrary and without basis. If you limit people to one gun per month, why not one book per month or one vehicle per month? Limiting law abiding persons from buying something makes absolutely no sense. Criminals have already gotten a large supply of firearms into a city where they were previously totally outlawed; limiting purchases changes nothing for the criminals. Even more than that, what qualifies the weapon as having been disabled? Is it just simply removing the firing pin, fully disassembling the weapon, or permanently doing damage to the weapon? A homeowner should be able to have as many weapons as they desire at their disposal. They might want to keep one in their bed room and another hidden in their living room where they spend most of their time. What does the limit of one firearm do other than harm the law abiding because criminals ignore it anyway?

Require residents in homes with children to keep them in lock boxes or equipped with trigger locks.

So you can be killed while trying to get to your weapon in an emergency. Defensive weapons need to be kept at the ready. If you’re leaving your property, then yes properly store them, the same goes if you have small children. However there are other methods that can keep a weapon at the ready and out of the hands of a small child.

If you say BS and that is merely just endangering the child because they will get curious and do something stupid here is my personalized response. I grew up in a house with a rifle on the wall, I remember it distinctly and cannot think of a time I looked at the wall and didn’t see it there. I still have that rifle today and it is kept in my safe because I have a different ready rifle for serving the same purpose. The magazine was always loaded and a round in the chamber. My parents were never concerned because they raised me around firearms, taught me proper handling, and made sure that my curiosity was always satisfied in a proper and safe manner. Kids do stupid things because their parents attempt to hide and shield them from it. All this does is prevent the child from knowing, understanding, and learning proper and safe gun handling. Education is the best solution to any problem. If you disagree, look at sexual education. Abstinence only education obviously doesn’t work, a proper rounded education works. That includes touching the subject everyone would much rather avoid. Furthermore, it was that training and education that probably saved my life when I was at a friend’s house in 4th grade and he pulled out his dads rifle. After slapping the muzzle away he said, “Don’t worry it’s unloaded.” I asked, “How is anyone supposed to know that,” and then racked the bolt. At which point I left immediately and walked home. I never went over to his house again. Later in class he asked why I left, I told him, and low and behold during the conversation it was discovered he knew where dad’s rifle was, but not how to handle it. He was curious about it and thought I would be curious too. His lack of education from his parents, coupled with unsatisfied curiosity became the classic story book of disaster that is used by the gun control crowd to say we need to keep guns away from kids. How does prohibition of something stop curiosity? That’s right it doesn’t, that action actually makes it worse.

Require prospective gun owners to take a four-hour class and one-hour training at a gun range. They would have to leave the city for training because Chicago prohibits new gun ranges and limits the use of existing ranges to police officers. Those restrictions were similar to those in an ordinance passed in Washington, D.C., after the high court struck down its ban two years ago.

There is nothing wrong with training but the truth of this measure is to prevent people from getting licensed to have a firearm. If no new ranges can be built, and existing ranges are limited to police officers, where are prospective citizens to go to satisfy your bureaucracy? Oh that’s right out of the city costing them more money and time, and also requiring the probable precursor of private transportation. If you want this restriction, you need to provide the means for it to be readily obtainable. Saying you can have a firearm if you do X, Y, and Z and then outlaw W which is required by X isn’t really lifting the ban now is it? It is shielding the idea of the ban behind bureaucracy.

Prohibit people from owning a gun if they were convicted of a violent crime, domestic violence or two or more convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Residents convicted of a gun offense would have to register with the police department.

Is there a method of having this right restored? This section is a sympathy token to make people against this law look bad. However most of those same prohibitions are actually already on the books. So why add them again? Instead enforce the laws you already have on the books. The more serious problem with this is that often the legal system is abused and people’s rights are affected unjustly.

Calls for the police department to maintain a registry of every handgun owner in the city, with the names and addresses to be made available to police officers, firefighters and other emergency responders.

No, no, and HELL NO. This is a presumption that all gun owners are going to be criminals. Canada has already discovered that their registration is a huge waste of resources and is totally unsuccessful. Even more than that though, this is the primary reason why the Jew’s in the Attic test was invented! All that does is provide a list of who to disarm prior to the roundup for the concentration camp. With what happened after Katrina, that idea requires a serious go to hell message to be sent. Daley would in no way shape or form miss an opportunity to abuse his citizens like the way New Orleans did.

Still, the mayor, whose office is trying to craft an ordinance that will withstand legal challenges, had to back off some provisions he’d hoped to include, including requiring gun owners to insure their weapons and restricting each resident to one handgun.

No he’s not. What he’s doing is crafting a piece of legislation which is still violating people’s rights and doing it in such a way that it will take years to get through the courts. Mayor Daley and crew receive no punishment when they pass a law that violates someone’s rights. They do it because they can and there are no repercussions to those involved. Someone needs to be charged and thrown in prison over that last piece of legislative crap as well as this one. It is a lack of accountability that is allowing these atrocities to continue. It’s high time we find a way to add serious accountability to those who pass illegal laws.

And the new games begin.

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.

“Limiting the number of handguns to one-per-person would reduce the number of handguns in circulation, reduce the ability of people to act as straw purchasers of handguns for others who are not entitled to possess handgun and reduce the number of handguns that would be available to children in the home.”

Oh, so they are just going to limit the rights of law abiding citizens to help enforce laws currently on the books? I fail to understand how laws stop someone who is intent on breaking the law from violating them. Just like a lock will not keep someone out who is intent on breaking into my house. But their heinous restrictions don’t stop at just one gun limitations.

A Chicago ban on gun dealers would be similarly motivated, Georges said. She noted that there are 45 dealers within 13 miles of the city’s limits and ten within one mile.

“Gun dealers have access to large quantities of guns. Gun stores, therefore, present a serious risk of guns flowing quickly into the community and into the hands of criminals through theft or through illegal trafficking,” Georges said.

Your new solution to outlawing guns becomes obvious; don’t outlaw the guns, just outlaw the dealers. If we can’t prevent someone from owning one, just prevent them from buying one. This follows along the same line that was used in the Heller decision regarding fully automatic weapons.

Accordingly, under Heller, Fincher’s possession of the guns is not protected by the Second Amendment. Machine guns are not in common use by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes and therefore fall within the category of dangerous and unusual weapons that the government can prohibit for individual use. Furthermore, Fincher has not directly attacked the federal registration requirements on firearms, And we doubt that any such attack would succeed in light of Heller.

It is ironic that the legality of machine guns would be determined by common use because it is artificial regulation and control through the NFA and GCA of 1968 that prevents their common possession. Previously unconstitutional legislation created the conditions necessary to make it allowable under the constitution according to the court. However the law is not a fluid object subject to interpretation or changing political environments, it either is legal or it is not. There is no grey area. Just the same there is no gray area about whether a law is trampling someone’s rights or not. Also I feel that the phrase “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” to be quite clear and concise.

Lyle I think said it best:

Try this mind experiment, next time you see or think of someone or some activity that you hate, or that someone else hates.  Ask yourself; “who’s rights are they violating, or trying to violate?”  That’s a very clarifying and even liberating question.  If the answer is “no one’s” then move along.  Nothing to see there.  It’s time to dig in and start minding your own business, and hopefully you’ll have the freedom to mind your own business without someone trying to mind it for you.

More than playing outlawing games though, Daley and crew are not arguing facts, they are not arguing reality, they are arguing potentiality. Potentiality is not fact, it’s not reality, it hasn’t happened. Potentially Mayor Daley can run someone over with his car and flee the scene committing vehicular assault/homicide and hit and run; therefore his license should be suspended.

Ultimately anything is a potentiality, however statistics don’t lie and the potentialities they argue are some of the most outlandish around.


Side-note:There is a serious issue with the picture in the news article.

Keep your booger finger off the trigger! Especially while loading. Yet another person unfamiliar with firearms handling them for the wonderfully unbiased media.

So, how’s that gun control working for ya?

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.


Mayor Daley, your ignorance is showing

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.

Mayor Daley, how is it a criminal is going to obey your law? Aren’t criminals defined by the fact that they break the law?

“Access to guns in America, everybody can have guns, doesn’t matter who they are, doesn’t matter if they have a criminal record, or not, they have access to guns and that’s the most frustrating issue.”

They have access to guns in your view because they can break the law and steal them. How do you believe we should solve this issue? By making good disarmed victims for the criminals to prey upon. Smart thinking there, where did you get your degree, Head Up Rear University? Mayor Daley has a city with crime completely out of control with some of the most strict gun control in the country. However instead of blaming crime on his failed policies and admitting he was wrong, he just continues to create excuses.

It is most ironic that it was the officer’s father who carried a firearm that dealt with the threat.

In the Wortham case, the officer’s father, a retired Chicago Police officer, rushed to his son’s aid. Using his own handgun– retired police officers are allowed to legally keep their weapons– he shot two of the suspects, killing one of them.

It’s amazing what can happen when one is allowed to defend themselves. The retired officer was allowed to carry a gun. So instead of being dependent upon his phone and the police department; he was instead allowed to be self-reliant. As such, he survived and was able to shoot two of the suspects. Mayor Daley, I suggest you remove your head from a particular body cavity, stop acting like a bigot, and take a serious look around. Your policies are killing your citizens, not firearms. What are the real reasons behind your incessant disarmament of honest law abiding citizens?

That’s a California politician for ya!

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?