Category: Anti-Gun Folks

Bitter talks about a rousing endorsement Virginia State Senator Devolites-Davis has gotten from Mayor Bloomberg. She’s running full steam anti-gun in Northern Virginia, which apparently has warmed the mayor to endorse the fellow RINO:

The key issue is guns, where Ms. Devolites Davis has broken with her party to support increased background checks for gun owners, and the National Rifle Association has even endorsed her Democratic opponent, J. Chapman Petersen. …

Ms. Devolites Davis’s campaign said she has supported efforts to keep criminals from buying weapons at gun shows and has backed allowing local governments to ban firearms on school property. Most importantly for Mr. Bloomberg, however, would be her vote against a bill in the Virginia legislature outlawing the sting operations that New York City conducted against gun shops that engaged in illegal straw purchases. …

I hope Petersen creams her in the election. There was a time when the endorsement of the Mayor of New York City would be the kiss of death in a southern election. Let’s hope that’s still the case.

UPDATE: David has more, including the fact that Davis’ daughter was convicted of armed robbery.

UPDATE: Jacob has video.

UPDATE: Countertop is planning on helping out Petersen’s campaign.

I’m actually rather surprised by this latest from Paul Helmke, attacking the fact that the US citizenship test accepts the right to bear arms as an answer to the question “What are two rights of everyone living in the United States?”:

Next, the USCIS neglects eight out of the ten Amendments in the Bill of Rights, including: the right to be secure in our “persons, houses, papers and effects” (Fourth); the right against self-incrimination (Fifth); the right to a speedy and public trial (Sixth); and the right to a trial by jury (Seventh). With so many rights to choose from, it’s as if the USCIS got tired of reading the whole Constitution.

Finally, the “right to bear arms” is, in fact, not available to “everyone living in the United States.” While the U.S. Supreme Court is being asked to revisit this matter in the DC vs. Heller case, the vast majority of the courts have previously ruled that the right of the people to keep and bear arms must be related to service in a well-regulated militia. In addition, well-established and unchallenged Federal law prohibits “many living in the United States,” including juveniles, felons and the dangerously mentally ill (among other categories) from legally possessing guns.

Of all the arguments to make, why pick on the citizenship test?  Regardless of what Paul thinks the second amendment does, or doesn’t mean, a 2003 Gallup/NCC poll found that 68% of Americans believed that the second amendment protects a right to keep and bear arms.  Only 28% believed the Brady interpretation.  Most constitutional scholars these days have rejected that interpretation as well.

I’ll agree with Paul that there should probably be more correct answers on that list, but why penalize new immigrants to this country because they hold similar views as the rest of their countrymen, and because they can read the plain language of the constitution which guarantees that right to the people.

It seems to me the Brady’s could find better uses of their blog other than nitpicking the citizenship test to penalize new immigrants for offering a reasonable answer they happen not to like.  And here I thought the right were the ones who were anti-immigration.

Robb Allen has a rather hilarious example of what the gun industry’s marketing would be like if they actually were marketing to violent criminals, as the anti-gunners propaganda always claims.

Some of you might remember that earlier this year, The Brady Campaign put out a piece called No Gun Left Behind: The Gun Lobby’s Campaign to Push Guns Into Colleges and Schools. Howard Nemerov, who is the “unofficial” investigative analyst for NRA News, has produced an excellent piece [PDF] that highlights many of the Brady Campaigns deceptions in this report. Let’s take a look at one:

To bolster their claims, Brady’s report contains an appendix of stories where alleged CCW licensees broke the law. Of the two cases researched so far, both of these incidents have proven to be self-defense, while Brady insinuates both cases were murder.

Color me unsurprised. In the report it is also detailed that Brady claimed a CCL holder, Jon Loveless, shot a man because he gave him a “weird look”. Howard manages to dig up the context for that accusation:

Loveless told detectives he thought it was going to be a friendly meeting to discuss a piece of radio equipment, but when he pulled his truck alongside Eichhorn’s truck he said Eichhorn had a gun pointed at him.

Loveless, who has a concealed weapons permit, said he retrieved his gun from his glove compartment and pointed it at Eichhorn.

“Loveless claims that he directed Eichhorn to drop the weapon but that Eichhorn got a weird look” on his face,” Detective Jon Thompson wrote. “Believing that Eichhorn was about to fire his handgun, Loveless instead fired his handgun several times.”

So it would seem that even the examples of CCL holders that Brady has managed to dig up and hold out as criminals are turning out not to be criminals after all. Download and read Howard’s whole report.

Wow, this particular post got me pretty riled up:

As Buzzflash says, you can thank the NRA for this “surge” in the vicious drug wars devouring thousands of people in Mexico. As the Post notes, the NRA-led lapse of the U.S. ban on assault weapons is a primary cause of the escalation in the scale of violence.

It helps to know what you’re talking about before typing out accusations like this. The assault weapons ban applied only to semi-automatic rifles, not to automatic rifles like AK-47s. AK-47s have been illegal to import into this country since 1968. You won’t find them at gun shows, because they are illegal. What you will find are semi-automatic rifles that look like AK-47s.

Grenades and grenade launchers are destructive devices and are heavily regulated by the federal government, and generally forbidden to civilian use. There is no such thing as a “cop killer” bullet. Any center fire rifle cartridge will penetrate soft body armor, including rounds common for hunting.

Picked up largely at the many unrestricted gun shows in the Southwest and smuggled in piecemeal past overwhelmed – or bribed – border guards, the heavy weaponry is overpowering Mexican law enforcement and degrading civic society.

Except all the same laws that apply normally, which include background checks for purchases, filling out your form 4473, showing ID and proof of legal residence are as much required at gun shows at everywhere else.

The assault weapon ban lapsed in September 2004, with little demur from the Democrats, who were too busy chasing the mythical “NASCAR vote” to risk looking “soft” on selling souped-up, body-shredding death machines to anyone who put down the cash – terrorists, druglords, mafia goons.

It was allowed to expire because it was worthless. Machine guns are already, for all practical purposes, illegal. The assault weapons ban covered things like pistol groups, flash suppressors, and bayonet lugs. Can you explain how any of these impacts the function of the rifle?

Read the rest of the post. It’s vile stuff. I sincerely hope this blogger can put aside the hate, and start having a serious debate with us about the merits of the laws he proposes we pass.

SayUncle mentioned that Jayne Lyn Stahl was getting some vile e-mail from pro-gun people. She suggested death treats too, though we never saw any of them. Neither, I would wager, did this blogger.

Look folks, I have no doubt at all that there are bozos out there on Al Gore’s Internets. I am intimately familiar with how they operate, and the kinds of things they say. Color me skeptical, though, that she’s getting a barrage of death threats. I would buy one or two. Death threats ought to be reported to the FBI, which I hope Ms. Stahl is doing for those that sent them to her. These aren’t people we want being part of our community.

We’d all be happy to hear and blog about the results of whatever interaction Ms. Stahl has with law enforcement on this matter.

UPDATE: Robb says in the comments:

That site you link to is funny. Bitches about non-proven death threats yet has a banner that calls for the beheading of political opponents. Priceless.

True, but then again I have a joke about Rudy pushing Hilly in front of an oncoming NYC subway train. Then again, I’m not sure this guy is joking.

Diane Edbril, Executive Director of CeaseFire Pennsylvania, has a letter to the editor in the Daily News:

AS EXECUTIVE director of CeaseFire PA, I’d like to respond to some comments made by letter-writer Tom McCourt. Contrary to Mr. McCourt’s assertions, CeaseFire PA has no interest in taking guns away from responsible, law-abiding Pennsylvanians.

Unless that gun happens to be an evil “assault weapon”, such as this one, which is considered an assault weapon under New Jersey’s ban, which is held up by these people as a model for the country.

Our only goals are to reduce gun violence, injury and death. To that end, we support measures that will make it harder for convicted felons and violent youth to obtain handguns, as they do so easily now.

Pennsylvania already has laws on the book that bar violent felons and people under the age of 18 from possessing handguns. It is illegal to sell a handgun to anyone under the age of 21. It is illegal to sell, give, transfer or lend a firearm to someone who is prohibited from possessing a firearm. It is illegal to sell a handgun to someone without a licensed dealer or a county sheriff handling the paperwork requirements and background check.

Evidence shows that when gun laws are tougher, criminals have a harder time getting guns, while legitimate gun owners remain unaffected.

What evidence? Pennsylvania already has a lot of laws on the books to stop criminals from getting guns. They aren’t working. Why is the solution more? Ms. Edbril, would you care to answer Just One Question?

Moreover, CeaseFire PA, like the writer, also supports tougher sentences for illegal handgun traffickers, increased funding for police and more support for education and rehabilitation.

Funny, I only ever see you guys lobbying for gun control laws.

We do not support legislation action in place of any of these other interventions, but in addition.

Oh I understand now. You won’t support getting tough on criminals unless you get your gun control laws.

Only through comprehensive action on a variety of fronts will we succeed in reducing Pennsylvania’s unacceptable rate of gun violence.

Absent Philadelphia, Pennsylvania’s crime rate is on par with Western Europe. Philadelphia has a crime problem because the justice system there is a revolving door for criminals and the cities political leadership refuses to do anything about the problem short of blaming Harrisburg and the rest of the state for is. Forgive me if we don’t want to give in to their cop outs.

We invite the writer to visit the CeaseFirePA.org and Handgun-Sanity.org Web sites so they can get their facts straight.

I already did. You guys should really update your web site before you tell people to go to it. There are broken links, and half the events are out of date. You might think you guys are having trouble raising money or something.

Diane Edbril, Executive Director

CeaseFire PA

Bruce has some interesting information about the violent tendencies of a certain anti-gun journalist.

Well, the Brady’s aren’t the only people who read our blogs. The NRA picked up on “Pistol” Petey Hamm’s comment to Uncle. While I also believe that Mr. Hamm^* was joking, I do stand ready to help embarrass any member of the Brady Campaign staff, or board members.

* That name always makes me think of the great movie quote “Give me Hamm on 5, hold the Mayo.”   We anxiously await Peter’s return to finish the line from the title “I am serious, and don’t call me Petey, or I’ll shoot you”

Peter Hamm says you might want to consider dropping out of college if you don’t like the fact that you can’t carry on campus.