Category: Anti-Gun Folks

States United to Prevent Gun Ownership opened a phony gun shop in New York City to sell fear and shame. I agree with people who say this is desperation. Their real fear is that with a few more favorable court rulings, we’ll be opening real gun shops in New York City, selling real and legal guns, to ordinary people who aren’t celebrities or rich bankers as under the current privileged regime.

But to do that, we need another strong Supreme Court ruling from the courts. To get another strong Supreme Court ruling form the courts, we have to win the 2016 Presidential elections so we have a chance of making this a 6-3 or 7-2 Court on a strong Second Amendment. The chances of the entire Heller 5 surviving another Democratic Administration is practically nil. If we lose 2016, we will almost certainly lose the Second Amendment as any real meaningful protection. That’s what’s at stake. That’s why I’m so disappointed seeing people falling into Obama’s trap and tuning out. That’s what he wants you to do. That’s why he hasn’t moved to the center. He’s willing to burn it all down to get what he wants, and it would seem a lot of us are willing to let him.

After ATF’s capitulation, the Democrats were quick to show their true colors and wave the gun control flag proudly. First out was Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY) with H.R. 1358 “To enact into law a framework for deciding whether certain projectiles are primarily intended for sporting purposes for purposes of determining whether the projectiles are armor piercing ammunition.” It looks like we’re going to have another bill later this week, introduced by Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA). Unlike Engel’s bill, which we do not have language for yet, Speier has introduced her bill in previous Congresses. Her bill would ban all centerfire rifle ammunition, because it changes the standard to apply to any ammunition capable of penetrating body armor typically worn by police officers, and which is designed to stop handgun rounds, not rifle rounds.

This is all fine by the Democratic Party of Barack Obama. It’s not that there haven’t been reps out there on the anti-gun fringes for a long time, introducing bills like these that they can put on a press release knowing they will die in committee. What’s different now is they are out, proud and loud about how anti-gun they are. Take Steve Israel for example, calling ATF “cowards” for backing down from a clearly unworkable proposal. There was a time when the Democratic Party believed that gun control was an issue that was keeping them out in the wilderness, and started to walk away from it. We have to ensure they stay out in the wilderness, for a while, until it’s become apparent they’ve really learned their lesson.

Last legislative session Ohio passed a comprehensive pro-gun reform bill, as many of you may remember. Earlier this week, the Executive Director of Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence “writes in opposition to HB 234, which deals with gun regulations,” to a Cleveland paper. Now, I’m not any kind of high-price political consultant, nor do I hold any kind of political science degree, but I think I’m on safe grounds when I say that the time to “write in opposition” to a bill is before the bill is passed and signed into law by the Governor. I had to check the date on the article to make sure it wasn’t post dated. But it gets better.

One of the provisions of the law is that it made an Ohio CHL a substitute for a NICS check. This is pretty common in other states which meet the federal standards. But Ms. Thorne doesn’t like that:

Let’s say your neighbor Bob wants a gun or applies for a concealed weapons license. He has to pass a background check before he can get either. Everything checks out, so now he’s a “good guy with a gun.” One day, Bob commits a crime. Previously, since Bob now has a record, he can’t buy more guns. However, under the new law, his concealed weapons license allows him to bypass that background check, allowing him to buy more dangerous weapons.

No. If Bob is convicted of a crime that strips away his gun rights, he cannot possess or purchase firearms, and his concealed carry license will be taken from him. This is finding a loophole where there is no loophole. Bob won’t be able to pass a NICS check or have a CHL to present to the dealer. He’ll have to either put up a straw buyer (illegal), buy the gun on the streets (illegal), or steal one (illegal) like every other criminal.

It’s time that we all start taking responsibility for the presence of gun violence in our society. Studies show this public health risk doesn’t discriminate. Gun violence is not just limited to urban areas. In fact, gun violence is increasing across the country, while decreasing in cities.

This is called making up facts. Gun violence is pretty much limited to urban areas, and even there, usually only in a handful of places. Gun violence absolutely does discriminate, or our nation wouldn’t be spending so much time debating about horrifyingly high numbers of black-on-black violence. But nonetheless, gun violence has been going down across the country, not up. And it’s been doing this while we’ve been liberalizing our gun control laws nearly across the board.

The solution lies in personal conversations to create culture change. We can’t be afraid to talk about gun violence.

We’ve been talking about gun violence for years. Our assertion has always been it’s the culture of violence that’s the problem, and it’s not going to be solved by taking guns away from ordinary people, which is what gun control does (criminals still get them). It’s been our assertion that gun control laws interfere with the right of the people who need firearms for self-protection the most: the majority of people who are stuck living in violent neighborhoods who are not themselves violent. We’ve been having this debate, and we’ve been winning. Suddenly the other side acts like the debate has never been had. It has been, and you lost.

… such vandals? Didn’t take long for Conoy Township’s new signs to get vandalized. I have to admit that it does appear that for some people who hate guns, it’s total projection. They have a temper and poor impulse control, and so they assume everyone else must be that way.

Personally, if I were a taxpayer in Conoy Township, I’d be a little miffed my tax dollars were being spent on a political statement. Not that I disapprove of the message, mind you, but it’s money probably better spent on something the township really needs.

It looks like the media is trying to give the City of Lancaster some cover for the fact that they are spending a lot of tax dollars to defend keeping laws on the books that have been illegal for the past forty years. The argument presented is that the city’s insurance is covering the legal costs, though taxpayers are still on the hook for the $25,000 deductible. But who pays the insurance premiums? And who will pay when the insurance premium goes up because the underwriter decides that a city passing illegal laws is a greater risk, and therefore needing to pay a higher premium?

The fact that they are running articles like this is indicative that they may be taking heat for wasting taxpayer money on these suits to defend laws that were never legal in the first place. If that’s true, we need to turn the heat up.