Category: Gun Rights

This time from Amanda Marcotte:

But Stop Handgun Violence does not advocate banning handguns. John Rosenthal, who led the call, is himself a gun owner, so you know he’s not kidding around when he says they are not pushing for a handgun ban.

Maybe not now, but for sure he wants Massachusetts style gun controls for the whole country, which have done a fantastic job of making Massachusetts a crime free paradise eh? No, sorry, asking the police if I can exercise a constitutional right is not “reasonable”.

What they are trying to do is demonstrate to the American public that one of the most powerful lobbies in D.C. is an extremist organization the enables criminals and terrorists. The NRA routinely opposes common sense measures, even when they fall short of gun registration, like background checks.

The NRA doesn’t support background checks? That’s news to me. The NRA has always supported NICS (National Instant Check System). But can you show that background checks have done anything to reduce crime? Criminals typically break the law in one way or another to obtain firearms.

And why exactly is registration reasonable? Do you think criminals will register their guns? The police can already trace a gun back to me if it’s recovered at a crime scene. In the immortal words of Tam:

When someone asks you about licensing and registration, pick up a pen and a sheet of paper. Tear the paper in half and hand half to your questioner. Say “Okay, this pen is a gun. The paper I’m holding is my license and the paper you’re holding is the registration. Using only these two pieces of paper, explain to me just how you are going to keep me from shooting someone?“

Exactly.

We’re living in a country where the government is tapping your phones, but because of the NRA, genuine members of Al Qaeda can waltz right into a gun show and buy a gun without getting a basic background check. Most people don’t realize that this is an issue, because they’re aware of the Brady Bill, but the federal law only covers federally licensed gun dealers, and 50% of guns sold in this country are sold by unlicensed dealers, mainly at gun shows

I’d like a citation for that 50% of all guns sold in the country are sold by unlicensed dealers at gun shows. You’re misleading people. There’s nothing special about gun shows. The Brady Act doesn’t apply to private sales between citizens and legal residents (knowingly sell to a prohibited person, or someone who isn’t a citizen, and you’re committing a felony) who are not in the business of selling firearms. Whether they are sold at a gun show, or not, is immaterial. For the record, Pennsylvania prohibits private sales at gun shows, and private sales of handguns entirely. There is no way to legally obtain a handgun in Pennsylvania without a background check. Let me tell you, it’s oh so effective.

As you can imagine, criminals and terrorists are well aware of what the laws are in this country and are going to gravitate towards these gun shows to get their guns.

Do you have real evidence of this? Or are you just repeating what John Rosenthal tells you? I’ve been to a lot of gun shows, there is police and law enforcement visible at all of them I’ve ever been to. It’s generally not the kind of place you want to go if you’re a criminal or a terrorist.

The sad thing to me—for those who’ve seen Bowling for Columbine, you’ll remember this—is that the NRA was ostensibly just supposed to be a rifle association, a hobbyist group for people who like guns. Which isn’t necessarily my thing, but whatever, free country. But they’ve drifted and turned into this hard right wing organization that cultivates paranoid fantasies about elitist liberals snatching away their guns the first chance they get.

Yep, and if it wasn’t for people like Michael Moore and John Rosenthal, who basically deceive the public to push an agenda, it would be again. NRA got involved because people started talking about banning handguns. Is it really paranoia? I can dig up dozens of quotes from people in the gun control movement that do, in fact, say they want to ban guns. Let’s just take a look at what Pete Shields, the founder of Handgun Control Inc (now the Brady Campaign) had to say:

“We’re going to have to take this one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily – given the political realities – going to be very modest. Right now, though, we’d be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal – total control of all guns – is going to take time…..The final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition – except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs and licensed gun collectors – totally illegal.”

Granted that was 1976, but I’ve seen no indication that plan isn’t still being followed. The gun control movement has blown all credibility with gun owners, and that’s why we fight most of this stuff. It’s not paranoia, it’s what they are saying or have said.

Their psychosexual fantasies projected onto real world politics echo the same sex paranoias and misogyny underlying the anti-choice movement. They’re coming to take away your fetuses/guns/whatever the stand-in for your absent phallic power is today. These kind of hateful fantasies shouldn’t have a place in our supposedly reasonable discourse, but not only do fantasies displace reason a lot of the time, they totally trump it, as you can see with the NRA’s insane amounts of power.

If there’s anyone who’s anti-choice, it ain’t me sweetheart. Accusing people of having “psychosexual” issues, last I checked, isn’t reasoned discourse. If you want to have an adult discussion about a topic, you need to treat your opponents as reasonable adults. And you guys wonder why we don’t listen to you?

Needless to say, some of the terrorists that can take advantage of these overly lax gun laws are our homegrown ones of the Eric Rudolph stripe who target abortion clinics. That’s not the sort of thing most people who own handguns or at least support the right to own them would support, and they shouldn’t be supporting the NRA.

Come up some reasonable arguments, and then we’ll talk.

I won’t buy it because it sucks. SayUncle is talking about different reasons. I tend to agree with Bitter. Anheiser Busch has been pretty supportive of us, but I’d be willing to bet that it’s not them that throwing the hissy fit, it’s Sesame Workshop, who own the rights to the Sesame Street trademarks. Basically, if they throw a fit about the use of their trademarks, Anheiser Busch probably doesn’t have much room to tell them to get bent. Sesame Place happens to be in my town, and is the only thing we’re known for.

If you want someone to blame here, blame Bryan Miller, who I’m sure was quick to call the Sesame Workshop to report this “malfeasance”. As far as I’m concerned, he can stay over the river in New Jersey where he belongs, and stop trying to peddle his agenda in my state, and my town.

UPDATE: Bitter has more.

Countertop seems to have a great way to deal with anti-gun hippies.

UPDATE: My evil twin points out:

I think the term “hippie” is used a bit too liberally; true hippies, of which there really aren’t any younger than 65 or so, were way to mellow and stoned for strident confrontation. This was more Million Mom you-must-have-a-small-wiener NIMBY type harrassment than hippie-ish. But I think we all know the type we’re dealing with here, in any event.

I think he’s right about this.   To use an example, I once dated, before I met Bitter, a “college know-it-all” hippy 9 years my junior.  She didn’t like my habit of collecting and shooting arms.  Though, she’s hardly the type that would go up to someone and comment on something like that, she did express to me her disapproval of my hobby.

Her father, who is more of the aging stoner hippy, I don’t think really thinks too much of it.  I think he’s more of the mellow accepting type.  Somewhere along the lines things changed from the 60s style hippy, to the ones that South Park made fun of.

But possibly not.  I think what probably happened was that the 60s hippies mellowed out as they became adults, and were probably just as annoying as young adults as the current generation is today.

If you haven’t seen it already:

History of Gun Control, Part 1

History of Gun Control, Part 2

History of Gun Control, Part 3

Sandy was a great voice for the NRA when she was President.   I’m happy that she’s still on the NRA Board of Directors, and still getting the message out there.

The Tiahrt Amendment stays in place.  Let the hewing and hawing from the anti-gun crowd begin.  Seriously, with everything they put into getting that removed, they have to be feeling pretty browbeat right now.  Gun control is a dying issue.   We shouldn’t get complacent, but we have them on the run folks.

There are no gun shops within The District at all.  So what options do DC residents have if Parker stands.  According to Dave Hardy:

Back 20 years ago, I was told there was a sporting goods store in DC that had an FFL. I doubt you could get one today. A expensive solution might be to buy antique arms, those made before Jan. 1 1899, which are not “firearms” under the Gun Control Act and thus can be sold interstate. Rifles would be easiest to find (Krags, 1893 Mausers, etc.) but at greater expense you could probably get, oh, Colt Single Action Armies, etc..

I thought you could buy long guns out of state, as long as the laws of the resident and dealer’s states were complied with?  I doubt you’ll find an FFL willing to do it, but I think in theory it could be done.

So here’s a question: Does DC’s ban get severed from the rest of their gun laws?  Or do all of DC’s gun laws get removed?   In other word, could I carry a loaded pistol within The District?

There doesn’t appear to be any support in the Illinois House for a high capacity magazine ban:

In the midst of a lengthy impasse over the state budget, Blagojevich has called on lawmakers to ban the sale, purchase and possession of gun clips that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

But observers on both sides of the divisive issue say there are simply not enough votes to get the measure passed.

Of the 60 votes needed for approval, gun control advocates and gun rights groups agree there are only about 50 solid “yes” votes. Not even the bill’s sponsor thinks it has enough support.

I continue to be impressed by the effectiveness of the Illinois State Rifle Association. Working in what can only be regarded as a state with demographics that are very hostile to gun rights, they’ve managed to keep any serious gun control proposals at bay for years. National NRA can only do so much without effective state affiliates, and gun owners in Illinois certainly can claim to have one.  Good show!

You no longer have to worry about spending time in the federal klink for having shoelaces and guns, at least, until they change their mind again.

Pennsylvania is considering some changes in firearms law, it looks like, with the OK from the NRA.  I’ve been a bit out of the loop for the past few days, as I’ve been in Virginia since last Tuesday, but it looks like the definition change in the term “firearm” (which under PA law typically only means handgun, long guns are largely unregulated) in regards to penalties to crimes committed with a firearm.  If that’s the case, I have no problems with this.  If you knock over a liquor store with a shotgun, I don’t see any reason to not charge you as if you had done it with a pistol.  Of course, I think penalties should be stiff even if you use a butter knife, but politicians will be stupid.

I’ll look for actual language for these bills tomorrow, but I trust Hohenwarter isn’t going to agree to anything that’s going to affect law abiding gun owners.

Jesse Jackson is moving his attention whoring campaign to the bay area now.

“We have to look at tighter regulations around sales of guns, where they’re being sold, how they’re being sold, how we’re requiring accountability by those dealers,” Harris said. “We should be looking more seriously at the proliferation of guns in our community, including assault weapons, because there really is no need for an assault weapon in a civil community.”

Jackson is in the Bay Area to raise awareness of gun violence in society at large before a nationwide protest that his civil rights group, the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, has scheduled for Aug. 28.

Of course, what the article fails to mention is that California already has the strictest assault weapons ban in the country.  So if they are having a problem with them in their neighborhoods, wouldn’t that say that the ban is mostly useless?  At least one person has a clue:

Lorrain Taylor of Hayward, whose twin 22-year-old sons were gunned down in Oakland in February 2000 while working on a car, left the rally skeptical.

“I think we’re not looking at the root of the problem. This sounds very political,” Taylor said. “Closing down the gun shops will not stop the violence. … I don’t think the source is the gun stores. It’s a deep spiritual problem.”

Yep. Jesse Jackson is a cheap attention whore. It’s high time the media stopped paying attention to him.