The Minuteman » Gun Grabbers

Category Archives: Freedom

Don’t Panic and Remain Calm…

By | | , , , , , ,
7 Comments

So evidently a bunch of people on our side of the debate have gone into PSH and labeled Alan Gottlieb a traitor.

I dont trust ANY media, they lie…

But Allen Gottlieb, if this is true as stated, you suck moonbat dick. Fuck you. 

Never Compromise….. come fucking take them.

*blink*  Not to mention the other post hiding behind a login calling Gottlieb a traitor.  Seriously folks, are you that retarded and gullible.

First the primary source for your branding him a traitor is the Seattle Times which is notoriously anti-gun.  So your reactions have served to help cripple funding to one of the biggest legal branches we have to defeat legislation.  This is the principal man behind winning Heller and McDonald and you’re going to call him a traitor over what some liberal rag says.  Are you stupid?

This man thinks in terms of a long chess game. He doesn’t just think one or two moves ahead, he thinks well beyond what most of us can even readily comprehend.

There’s a couple of things everyone needs to realize.  First, our win is not guaranteed  look at New York.  Yeah they were blue, but look at how they accomplished it.  If the Peoples Republic of Puget Sound wants to push something through, we can try to hold them off but I will refer you back to the King Dome/Safeco Field incident.

Second given that a win is not assured, we must take actions and measures to either kill a bill or force an actual compromise.  The act of doing the latter can force the former.

It has become obvious though that the actions of our enemies has forced a wedge in-between us.  Many instead of using our heads instead brand our allies as traitors for no real good or solid reason.  Instead they believe false lies and misrepresented truths as well as labeling others as something they are blatantly not.

Tell me, what happens when you attack a friendly, especially a friendly who is out in front leading a charge?  You destroy his ability to continue to fight for you.  You destroy his ability to trust you for support.  You destroy his morale.

Going and publicly bad mouthing our supporters is nothing more than destroying those who support and fight for our cause.  You do so without actually knowing what’s going on and on the word of someone who wants to destroy you.

Here’s Alan’s statement:

First you should know that I do not support Washington House Bill 1588 as it is currently written.

My support for a state universal background check bill must include a substantial victory for gun owners that includes, but is not limited to repealing, prohibiting and destroying the current state handgun registration system and the data base of several million records of gun owners and their firearms that include the type of handguns and the serial numbers.

This would be a huge victory for our gun rights. We would be the first state to repeal a gun registration system. Think about that and what it means for your privacy as a gun owner and the fact that we all know historically that registration leads to confiscation.

In addition, if you have a carry permit you will be exempt from additional background checks. No checks would be required for transfers between family members. If you are a member of an organization like the Washington Arms Collectors that does a background check for membership, you would be exempt from additional checks to buy a firearm at their gun shows.

There are other inclusions that must be made as well that are good for our rights and freedom that need to be in a final bill to have my support.

My guess is that the gun grabbers will not go along with these provisions and kill the bill. If they do the “blood” so to speak is on their hands, not ours.

There are other smart, tactical, political and morally justified reasons why I have taken this position that I do not want to make public at this time. We do have enemies and I am not going to telegraph our strategy to them by spelling out our battle plans.

I enjoy winning our freedoms more than the fight. I wish I can say that about some of my critics who have pre-judged without knowledge what it is that I am doing.

Anyone who knows me knows that for the past forty years my efforts have expanded and protected our right to keep and bear arms from local city councils all the way to the United States Supreme Court.

Alan Gottlieb

As I said, this man is thinking not just tactically but strategically.

So tell me, who is the bigger enemy to freedom?

  • The guy thinking this through and has the ability to force a real compromise, one big enough the supporters may very well kill the bill?
  • The bunch of gullible idiots who believe half-truths and attack their own on the word of an enemy that wants to see them destroyed?

By all means contact Alan and voice your concerns, but I suggest you think long and hard about who you’re labeling a traitor.  Especially if your goal is to either kill the bill or get an actual compromise.  I’m here to tell you if I get something crammed down my throat, I want them to at least pay with something.

Our enemies want something for nothing.  That’s not happening anymore but if you just sit there in the corner and keep screaming and attacking those on your side, they may very well still get it.

h/t Phil

Quote of the Day – RobertaX (2/25/2013)

By | | , , , ,
2 Comments

Defending yourself is not a matter of “punishment.”  You’re not out to correct your assailant’s behavior, you’re wanting to stop it, as quickly and effectively as possible, with the least collateral damage.  Whatever does that is what you should do.

RobertaX – Pizza Robber Update
February 25, 2013

[I’ve never quite understood the method of thinking that ties self-defense into punishment.  Can I not kill someone until after they’ve killed me?  Is that the new standard now?  When it comes to rape then, can a woman only rape her assailant back after she’s been violated?  Why is she not allowed to stop the threat.  Yes some times stopping the threat does involve the assailant’s body reaching room temperature but that’s the risk of their profession.

You know how the assailant would still be alive?  By not attacking his intended victim.  Why is this so hard for some people to understand?

In the words of Malcolm Reynolds:

“I didn’t kill him, he killed himself. I just carried the bullet for a while.”

The criminal made his choice and in the middle of the crime the victim can, and should, do all that he can to protect himself and family.  Someone is threatening force against them and they are not and should not be required to be mind readers to determine if the threat is real or just words.  If you use something that looks like a gun in a threatening manner, it’s a gun, and I will not fault the individual who defends himself from you.

The criminal takes a risk that someone might defend himself, and if the criminal continues to fight even when presented with force being applied back from the victim,  the onus for the outcome lies squarely with the aggressor.  Stop blaming victims for the outcome of actions and choices made by criminals. -B]

 

Quote of the Day – Kathy Jackson (2/22/2013)

By | | , , , , ,
1 Comment

Like you, I want safer families and safer communities. Like you, I think it is appalling when bad people use firearms to do bad things. And like you, I want to see lower rates of violent crime and higher rates of good people staying safe. That is why I am a strong supporter of liberal laws in the area of concealed carry, and it’s why I am in favor of laws that improve the ability of ordinary people to protect themselves wherever they go. It’s also why I support the freedom to purchase and own firearms without a lot of bureaucratic tangles. Because I want good people to be safer, I support laws that make it easy for good people to protect themselves from violent crime.

Kathy Jackson – “Reasonable” Restrictions

February 22, 2013

[Like Kathy, I don’t see anything “reasonable” about restricting a human right.  Heck, I’ve described it previously.  My care and concern is for the law-abiding.  More specifically the innocent who would be victimized. There is nothing “reasonable” about trying prevent these people from obtaining arms.

Many look at 1588 and consider it reasonable.  The more I think about that bill, the more I become very concerned and very afraid.  The burden of proof will be on the seller that he complied with the law.  It will be nothing more than a gotcha used when they want to hang you but cannot find something else.  There are some serious problems with it and on the surface it sounds like a good law.  No law-abiding person wants to just hand a firearm over to someone who is prohibited.

My problem is instead of creating a tool to help those people perform that function, they have created a method to hang that citizen should the government ever feel like doing so.

They could easily indicate on people’s drivers licenses, which are renewed every 5 years, whether someone is a prohibited person.  Do it on EVERY license.  Make this valid instead of the NICS check as well, which would be much like the Idaho CPL in Idaho.  You have now alleviated federal burden and created a tool to help every citizen in keeping guns out of the hands of prohibited people.

Now what happens if the persons status changes?  The state confiscates the old license and issues a new one.  What about those without license, Washington has state issued ID as well, not to mention most owners would become weary of those who refuse.  Could bad guys still forge a license or the endorsement?  Yeah, but it’s merely a tool to help and you’re not going to hang someone who honestly intends no harm in the process.

It’s a crime to knowingly transfer a firearm to a prohibited person.  You have given an extra tool to the citizen to verify that person isn’t prohibited   The fact it is on everyone’s license prevents a registry.  The biggest issue is those who don’t have a license or state ID, it honestly shouldn’t be required to exercise a human right.  I view this mainly as a tool to help honest people and most people can easily exercise good judgement and currently they do for the most part.  No legal requirement to check, this prevents the catch-22 of placing bureaucratic onus on the seller, but having it there most people will do the right thing.  Heck, honest buyers will pull it out just to prove they’re good to go.  No need to record anything, no need to write it down.  It’s merely a tool to aid an honest transaction.  Yup, you have the stamp of approval and you’re old enough and you’re in state.  We’re set.

Instead our elected representatives our creating a bureaucratic mess that we will have to maintain to prove our innocence.  They aren’t interested in improving safety or helping the law-abiding do the right thing.  No, all they want is another law they can use to hang a gun owner with when they feel like it. -B ]

 

Washington State, Good News and Bad News

By | | , , , ,
7 Comments

So most people have heard by now that atrocious “Assault Weapons Ban” has been killed off.  Do not believe any of the lies the sponsors are feeding now that it’s been uncovered it would destroy the 4th amendment as well.  This is the same bill they introduced in 2009.  What does scare me though is the number of people who weren’t even aware of 5737 and actually asked me if I was kidding when I mentioned it.

So the good news is we stopped that piece of horrible legislation from moving forward.  The bad news is Bill 1588 is moving forward.  It was passed through the House Judiciary Committee with the support of a Republican.

Rep. Mike Hope – From Lake Stevens

If you live in his district, I highly suggest you make sure that he is not re-elected.  He has shown what he thinks of you and your right to keep and bear arms.  The only way a law such as this could be enforced is through universal registration, and never mind the additional burden to federal services.

A right delayed is a right denied and that’s exactly what they would do by forcing everything through NICS.  Make no mistake about this folks, there are simple things they could do to aid honest law-abiding people keep guns out of the hands of criminals as well as improving the load on the Federal system.  Instead they decide to attack the innocent and criminalize them.  Instead they do everything they can to prevent the law-abiding from being able to easily and effectively obtain arms.  Make no mistake about the problems behind background checks.

What happens when I loan a friend a side arm for a USPSA match because his broke?  What happens when another friend wants to use my AR for a coyote hunt and I’m not going to be there?  The whole system is nothing more than a sham to destroy the ability for gun owners to be able to freely associate and exchange firearms.  Tell me, if I know Bob and Bob has firearms, why can I not let him borrow one of my firearms?  Yes this type of BS background check legislation serves to criminalize exactly that type of incident.

Start ringing the rules committee, hopefully we can kill it there.

Quote of the Day – Oleg Volk (2/21/2013)

By | | , , , , ,
Comments Off on Quote of the Day – Oleg Volk (2/21/2013)

Sharing skills that a prospective partner lacks makes them more independent. That, in turn, makes the relationship more honest. A person who doesn’t strictly need you for a meal ticket or protection but chooses you anyway is more likely a true love. By contrast, politicians need dependent voters and foster learned helplessness with their policies.

Oleg Volk – Independent Women
February 13th, 2013

[In case it isn’t fully apparent, let me also use the other way Oleg presented this.

homedefense_612HC-P_5155web

Image By Oleg Volk.
A Picture is worth 1000 words.

We’ve had a pile of politicians lately showing their true colors towards independent women as well as their overall lack of respect for them, Jay G even has a nice list of different statements showing the truth and hypocrisy of their behavior.

All the women in my life are very independent and frankly, I’d rather keep it that way.

I’ve mentioned before why I get angry, that however didn’t even touch on the fact that I see that same type of behavior as attempts at enslavement and forced dependence.  When someone argues you or some class of people shouldn’t have access to arms, be them students, women, blacks, or any other discriminatory measure, know they mean to make that class dependent, not independent.

It’s all a matter of trust in the end and they don’t trust you. -B]

SSCC #529 – Frederick County

By | | , , ,
Comments Off on SSCC #529 – Frederick County

Disturbing barely begins to describe this incident.

Bailey says he died after resisting arrest by three deputies at a Frederick movie theater. An employee had called police because Saylor wouldn’t leave his seat after a movie.

Bailey says Saylor cursed at the deputies. She says he became medically distressed while they were escorting him in handcuffs from the theater.

The victim in question had down syndrome.  Instead of using their brains, they immediately resorted to force and killed a mentally disabled man, in this case over the price of a movie ticket.

Have no fear though folks because this is how the department is handling the situation.

Meanwhile, all three deputies remain on regular duty.

I’m reminded of this particular incident out of Spokane.  Not to mention this incident where  police assaulted a mentally handicapped boy while ignoring the statements of both the parents and neighbors.

Here comes the problem.  At what point should you intervene if you see something like this happening?  Many would say, “Not my problem” and you’re inviting a legal battle against you, but at the same time we should work to protect the weakest in society, especially from the current thugs that seem to take pleasure and joy in killing them for sport with government protection.*  That’s why they’re working so hard to kill their hesitation right?  With officers like these fine people here not to mention others like this, it’s no wonder the State of Maryland is fighting so hard to keep it’s citizens from actually being able to get concealed weapons permits.

State Sponsored Criminal #529: The Frederick County Police Department

Because by all means use force in such a manner as to cause the death of someone over a nothing more than a movie ticket.

*If they weren’t taking pleasure and joy in it, they would be in jail awaiting trial at a minimum of manslaughter if not murder.  Not to mention they would be permanently fired from their jobs.

h/t Bonnie

ArmaLite is Permanently off my Shopping List

By | | , ,
5 Comments

Initially it seemed like a misunderstanding though the response from the president makes it obvious who they support and who they hate.

Thanks for posting this email. I just received a concerned telephone call about it, an email from the staffer who stimulated the mail.

I think a bit of clarification is in order.

The root of the matter is a HUGE series of inquiries by both email and telephone asking ArmaLite to cut off sales to New York and other states which deny its citizens the right to own our rifles, as several other firms have done. Some of the contacts have been duplicates of others and some were so redundant that they appeared to be spam. Many of them have been rude and I’m afraid one of my staffers thought that he was responding to a spammer and was more terse than he should have been. Once he realized what happened he came to me and apologized.

My purpose here is to pass on his apology from the corporate level and to answer the initial question: What is ArmaLite going to do?

ArmaLite is continuing a policy put into place when California first banned our rifles. That policy remains:

1. We will not sell to those states which deny it’s honorable citizens the right to own ArmaLite’s.

2. We do not halt sales to individual officers even in problematic states. I am a former Police Officer myself, and the staffer who stimulated the recent anger is a currently serving one. We are well familiar with the fact that most rifles serving Police Officers are purchased by the officers themselves, and that they shouldn’t be punished for the actions of their political elite. 
We consider sales to those sate subdivisions which are not engaged or potentially engaged with disarming its citizens. DNR and Forestry Departments, for instance, sometimes serve in remote areas that conceal drug farms and their officers deserve good hardware. 

3. We will not sell to those lower political subdivisions that deny their honorable citizens the right to own ArmaLite’s. Chicago, for instance, prohibits its citizens from owning ArmaLite’s within the city limits so we make no effort to sell into that city. We have many friends on the Chicago Police Department and have continued to sell to them individually.

Our observation is that most County Sheriffs disagree with banning sales of our rifles and many publicly refuse to enforce such laws. We sell to those departments and to their Deputies, but will not sell to those County departments headed by Sheriffs who would deny their citizens the same rights.

In short, Americans need not worry that ArmaLite is selling to those who betray them.

As you can see by reading posts on the topic, some readers have been harsh with their criticism of ArmaLite. It was in response to this atmosphere that my staffer reacted harshly. He’s come to me and apologized and I personally am passing my own apology along with his.

But don’t be mistaken, ArmaLite is strongly involved with both personal, corporate, and political efforts at the State, National, and International level to protect our civil rights. And we’ll continue to support your shooting needs as the situation moves forward.

Respectfully,
Mark Westrom
President,
ArmaLite Inc.

Let me translate points 2 and 3 for everyone.:

1. We will not sell to those states which deny it’s honorable citizens the right to own ArmaLite’s with the following exceptions.** 

2. Thankfully when states decide to intrude on the right of citizens to own arms, they exempt those who work for law enforcement.  Therefor we will continue to sell firearms to individuals who work in law enforcement.  While not being sold to the department, the states allow them to have arms that are otherwise outlawed from the rest of the citizenry.  We are perfectly fine with this discrepancy and honestly welcome and encourage it.  It is much easier to abuse citizens when we have a monopoly on force.

3.  Even if for some reason police officers are prohibited from ownership, we instead will sell to the political body that created the regulation.  In so doing we are helping to ensure that the political body is the only group effectively armed and can abuse it’s citizenry as it pleases.  Even better though is the fact that many of our arms can be stolen off the trains, whereby criminals can also be armed meaning the political body continues buying even more firearms from us.  Sure the law-abiding may be caught in the cross fire but honestly who cares right?  If you want to make a socialist utopia  you need to break a few eggs.

*When county sheriff’s protest the banning of our rifles we will feign support by continuing to sell to them but not sell to other departments that would deny citizens those same rights.*

**What we really mean is we will purely abide by the law and screw you the law-abiding citizen while continuing the hypocrisy of arming those who get a exemption by their employment.

Now I put that section in stars because honestly I don’t know how that section can reconcile with the previous two.  Tell me, if they’re going to stop selling to sheriffs who don’t support the right to arms, why are they going to continue selling to other places they don’t?  The answer is simple, they aren’t willing to put their money where their mouth is regarding the right to keep and bear arms.

They see the government as a bigger cash cow than the civilian market.  They could have handled this situation considerably better, but they sunk that ship instead.  Trying to feign support is never a good idea as it makes you look like a sell out, which is exactly how they look.  If they had said they would only sell to departments they would have been in a much better position.  Point 2 though shows them as the hypocrites they are. 

ArmaLite has now taken the position on my list that Smith and Wesson once had.

Quote of the Day–John Eastborough (2/19/2013)

By | | , , , , , ,
3 Comments

Liberal Rape Tips: urinate on yourself to ruin your rapist’s mood. Republican Rape Tips: pull out a Glock and make him piss HIMSELF.

John Eastborough – Tweet

February 19, 2013

[So in case you missed it yesterday, a Colorado state legislator said the following:

“It’s why we have call boxes, it’s why we have safe zones, it’s why we have the whistles. Because you just don’t know who you’re gonna be shooting at. And you don’t know if you feel like you’re gonna be raped, or if you feel like someone’s been following you around or if you feel like you’re in trouble when you may actually not be, that you pop out that gun and you pop … pop around at somebody.”

Then our boy genius, Joseph Salazar doubled down on stupid by issuing the following “apology”.

“I’m sorry if I offended anyone. That was absolutely not my intention,” Salazar said. “We were having a public policy debate on whether or not guns makes people safer on campus. I don’t believe they do. That was the point I was trying to make. If anyone thinks I’m not sensitive to the dangers women face, they’re wrong.

“I am a husband and father of two beautiful girls, and I’ve spent the last decade defending women’s rights as a civil rights attorney. Again, I’m deeply sorry if I offended anyone with my comments.”

Emphasis mine.

Mr. Salazar, you state that you’re a defender of women’s rights yet you are arguing for their disarmament as well as the removal of their right to choose their method of self-defense.  Yes Mr. Salazar I get angry when hypocrites like you spout their lies and attempt to trample the rights of the innocent.

You argue that we should make safe zones, because you know gun-free and drug free zones have worked so well.  Your call boxes and whistles are merely methods to call for help.  When you call for someone else to come help you, mainly the police, what are you doing?  You are calling for someone else to bring their gun.  Tell me Mr. Salazar, why not cut the response time from minutes to mere seconds?

Is it that you like rapists and thieves and want to see them work in a safer environment?  Do you dislike the idea of a woman being independent and self-reliant?

Mr. Salazar, you argue that women are more likely to shoot someone who isn’t a threat to them, can you present actual factual documented evidence of that your assumption has happened?  Not only that it has happened though, but with such a frequency as to out weight the number of women who have lawfully defended themselves from an aggressor.  Or is this merely a similar claim to the argument that there will be blood in the streets over parking spaces if citizens are allowed to carry concealed weapons?

The fact is Mr. Salazar you honestly hate women and the law-abiding public.  You would rather they be easy disarmed prey for your criminal friends.  The thought of a rapist eating lead at the hands of their intended victim upsets you and that Mr. Salazar tells me all I need to know about your character, more specifically your lack there of.

If Mr. Salazar is your representative, I highly suggest you let him know* how you feel. –B ]

*You can also call him at 303-866-2918.