Tag Archives: gun control

Precedent

FAA Finally Admits Names And Home Addresses In Drone Registry Will Be Publicly Available
The FAA finally confirmed this afternoon that model aircraft registrants’ names and home addresses will be public. In an email message, the FAA stated: “Until the drone registry system is modified, the FAA will not release names and address. When the drone registry system is modified to permit public searches of registration numbers, names and addresses will be revealed through those searches.”

“Wait, what’s that got to do with RKBA, or Jews, or whatever?” I pretend to hear you mutter.

Let’s take it a step at a time. The Federal Aviation Administration, in response to a few incidents involving RC drones near aircraft — none of which caused deaths, injuries, nor even an aircraft crash — issued a new, retroactive rule requiring a national registration database of nearly all drone owners. [ding]

Lacking new legislation to authorize this, the FAA simply, and arbitrarily, redefined toys to be aircraft requiring registration. [ding ding]

Despite telling prospectively compliant drone owners that their personal data (name, address) would be kept private, in fact, they plan a publicly searchable database. [ding ding ding]

“So what?” you might wonder. Hopefully not though, since I’d expect regular TZP visitors to be ahead of me here.

President Barrycade has stated his intent to issue executive orders to implement gun control, since he lacks legislation to do so.

Reportedly, one element of this will be to — again, lacking new enabling legislation — simply redefine occasional sellers as “dealers”. Bound books, 4473s, NICS checks, ATF inspections, and all. [ding]

Hey, it worked for the FAA, and they don’t even have an executive order. [ding ding]

The ATF already has their searchable FFL database. [ding ding ding]

Since Obama and other blood-dancers have stated publicly that they wish to crack down on private sales, it seems safe to assume this will be in one EO or another. But what if he emulates the FAA a little more closely?

Imagine “redefining” all firearms as NFA items. Just like toys became airplanes. Or how atmospheric plant food became a pollutant.

Or how a shoe string became an NFA machine gun.

Registration. Permission slips. Inspections. And maybe that database would become publicly searchable, too. Oh, well; for once we might be glad of ATF incompetence.

There is precedent for registering undesirables.

Fortunately, there’s an easy answer to any such moves.

No.

Your move.

Backing up those brave words might be a little harder, but let me leave you with two quotes.

And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say goodbye to his family?”
– Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
, The Gulag Archipelago

The sheer immorality of victim disarmament aside, one would hope every government thug out there would stop to consider all the possible ramifications of kicking in several million doors because the occupants are well armed.
– Carl Bussjaeger

When the law is twisted by arbitrary, unilateral redefinitions, there is no law to break.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Faith and Firearms

I’m not a religious person, and most people who know me know this. I have a pretty good sense of who I am as a Jew who escaped the Soviet Union in 1979. I have written on the topic of being Jewish, being abused by one’s government, and being able to stand up to it. Being a Jew is what formed my views on gun rights to begin with before I ever knew what the Second Amendment was.

But I’m not religious at all. If I had to describe myself, I’d say I’m more of the agnostic/atheist variety. So when I tackled the subject of faith and firearms for Concealed Carry magazine more than a decade ago, I had to approach my father – a faithful Jew since we stepped foot onto American soil in 1980 – and some of his contacts.

I wanted to know whether many Jewish organizations in the United States had any basis for supporting disarmament, and whether they were misinterpreting Jewish law.

This week’s poll promfaith-and-firearms-coverpted me to see if the article I wrote all those years ago is available online, since it is still as appropriate today as it was more than 10 years ago when I wrote it.

The full article is here, along with a view from the Lutheran perspective. Here’s a bit.

The fact is that gun control subverts and violates Judaic law. According to Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO), the sanctity of life is a core Jewish value. Rabbi Isaac Leizerowski, after having conferred with several of his colleagues, agrees that the right to self-defense is MANDATED by Jewish law. From the sanctity of Life comes an imperative to safeguard Life. The directive to defend your life is written in the Talmud, the 70-volume Code of Jewish Law, in at least three places. “And the Torah says, ‘If someone comes to kill you, arise quickly and kill him.’”

Have a good weekend!

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

LA City Council Requires Tougher Storage Laws

So the Lost Angeles (spelling intentional) City Council has decided to mandate tougher storage laws to ensure that no children accidentally shoot themselves in their fair city.

“I am tired and I know you all are too of reading of grieving parents who have lost their children through unintentional and totally preventable shootings,” said Laurie Saffian with Women Against Gun Violence.

Yes, do it for the children! Because we haven’t heard that well-worn trope before!

A violation will be a misdemeanor. Officials say there won’t be patrols checking homes to make sure the law is being obeyed, and they admit it will be difficult to know until after an incident occurs.

“Sadly, it will also come into play after tragedies occur or after near tragedies occur,” Krekorian said.

So the idiots can’t enforce it without massive violations of the Fourth Amendment, and they’ve essentially passed a new law that has no hope of reducing accidents – all to remedy a problem that pretty small, according to that bastion of conservative reporting, the Washington Post.

We know how many gun deaths were declared accidental (591 in 2011, the CDC says). And we know that 102 people killed in these accidental gun deaths in 2011 were younger than 18, according to Vernick, with half of these children younger than age 13.

In 2013, the last year for which statistics are available, 59 children under the age of 13 died due to accidental gunfire. Compare this to the 577 in that same age bracket who drowned, and 51 and 55 who died of poisoning and falls respectively. Why is it that gun grabbers aren’t lobbying for swimming pool control?

This new law can’t be enforced, and it will more likely than not be completely useless at deterring accidental deaths.

But you know what it will do?

It will ensure that any armed thug who breaks into your home will have complete access to your body, your loved ones, and your property with impunity.

Unless, of course, you think your encounter with an armed intruder will go something like this:

DOOR FLIES OPEN, ARMED INTRUDER ENTERS

You: Oh, my goodness! You have a gun! How did you possibly get one with all the strict gun laws we have in Lost Angeles?

Intruder: Shut up and lie down.

You: Oh, NOES! What are you planning to do to me?

Intruder: Well, first I’m going to tie you up and rape you. And then I thought I’d walk around and help myself to your stuff. That OK with you?

You: No! As a matter of fact, I bought a gun to protect myself against just such an eventuality!

Intruder: Well, where is this mythical gun?

You: It’s locked up right now. City Council says I must.

Would you mind waiting right there while I run and fetch it?

Intruder: Oh, sure! I’ll wait here. After all, I’d like to afford you a level playing field before I rape and rob you! Go for it. I’ve got all the time in the world!

There's no facepalm strong enough for this lunacy!
There’s no facepalm strong enough for this lunacy!

In what lunatic world do these imbeciles live?

What good is a tool of self defense if you cannot immediately use it in times of need?

And what good is a right, if you are forced to submit to idiot regulations that have no hope of preventing violence and serve to put you at a disadvantage in the face of an armed enemy?

Good luck, LA. You’ll need it.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

NOT. ONE. INCH. NOT. ONE. INCH.

France has helpfully drafted a proposal to the U.N. to internationalize the Temple Mount, Har ha-Beyit. They feel that seizing control of a section of Israel’s sovereign and most holy ground will somehow calm the violence. I never accused the U.N. of being clever, but I never thought them that stupid either.

UNESCO was planning to vote on making the Kotel, the western wall of King Solomon’s temple a islamic holy site. Mind you since it is a Jewish site now, Jews, Christians and muslims can and do go there to pray now. But if it’s changed to a muslim site, then it will be as the Temple Mount. Only muslims will be allowed to pray there.

Even more insane, barry urged Israel to hand over half of Jerusalem, the Kotel, The Temple Mount, Old Jerusalem, and the tomb of Jesus to the Hamas-Fatah terrorist organizations.
Bibi’s response? Israel cannot accept the draft resolution of the council.

Damn skippy.

Appeasement does not, nor will it ever work.

The attacks against Jews are growing more violent and aimed at larger groups. (The escalating stages) The stabbing attacks are turning into attacks against a larger group. The bus attack in Jerusalem one week ago  attacking the passengers.

“…Yisrael – the other driver, my friend – got out of the bus and ran towards my bus (shouting): ‘stop, stop, there’s a terrorist in the bus.’ …he shouted to me ‘he’s slaughtering them, he’s slaughtering them,’ and we had nothing we could do, we were trying to contact the police, there’s nothing we could do.”…..A senior security official told The Jerusalem Post that the series of attacks increasingly appears to be “a planned and timed assault.”

Damn skippy. They are.

The other bus attack was at the Be’er Sheba bus station, and came less than a week later. He was apparently financed by a new terrorist group that was recently established in the Gaza Strip by Iran and Hizballah, more hard core than Hamas. Good thing barry is releasing the monetary sanctions against Iran, huh? WOWZA, who could have seen that coming? A rise in terrorism against Israel with the release of sanctions money and financial aid?

What you may not be aware of and I haven’t heard it mentioned is something special about the Be’er Sheba bus station.

In Israel, Jewish history is everywhere. Literally. Under the floor of the Be’er Sheba bus station are Avraham’s wells. Right, the Avraham in Sepher Bereshit/Genesis. Avraham, the Patriarch.

Avraham's Wells
Avraham’s Wells

 

There was an attack of another kind this week. Joseph’s tomb (article from 28 April, 2011). On the 16th palestinians set fire to the tomb of one of the Patriarchs. And again, last week.

Seems the arabs have something against Jewish Patriarchs lately, again, always.

The so-called “Oslo Accords” signed between Israel and the Palestinians in 1995 stipulated that Joseph’s Tomb would remain an Israeli-controlled enclave open to Jewish worshippers and religious students.But at the start of the Al Aqsa Intifada in 2000, a Palestinian mob backed by Palestinian Authority police officers assaulted Joseph’s Tomb, killing an Israeli soldier in the process. Israel subsequently surrendered control of the site on the condition that the Palestinian Authority would protect and maintain it.

I ran across something very interesting the other day. A story about the number of times America has pressured Israel. What made it more interesting is what happened in America within days or hours of signing, but you can read that if you want to. But here are the times:

1991 30 October – The Oslo AccordPresident George H. Bush promoted and proudly signed the infamous Oslo Accord at the Madrid Peace Conference on October 30, 1991. The Oslo Accord was labeled a “Land for Peace” accord that demanded Israel award their land to the Palestinian murderers and terrorists in exchange for peace. The perverse Oslo proposition was simple: give us your land and we’ll stop killing you.

1992 23 August-A year later, President Bush literally picked up the pieces from Oslo attempting to rob Israel again. Meeting in Washington D.C. Bush and crew again attempted to “sell” the fictitious Madrid “Land for Peace” agreement.

1994 16 January-President Bill Clinton meets with terrorist and Israel hater Syria’s President Hafez el-Assad in Geneva. They talk about a peace agreement with Israel that includes Israel giving up the Golan Heights.

1998 28 September-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright finishes the final details of an agreement which requires Israel to surrender 13 percent of Yesha (Judah and Samaria). President Bill Clinton meets with Yasser Arafat and Netanyahu at the White House to finalize another Israel “land for peace” hoodwink. Later, Arafat addresses the United Nations and declares an independent Palestinian state by May 1999.

1998 30 November-Arafat arrives in Washington again to meet with President Clinton to raise money for a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as the capital. A total of 42 other nations were represented in Washington. All the nations agreed to give Arafat $3 billion in aid. Clinton promised $400 million, and the European nations $1.7 billion.

1998 12 December-President Clinton arrives in the Palestinian-controlled section of Israel to discuss another “land for peace” fiasco.

2001 8 June-President George W. Bush sends Secretary Tenet to Jerusalem to promote his “Roadmap to Peace,” the continuation of the failed Oslo Accord.

2005 23 August-Israel completed the evacuation of the Gaza Strip and gave it to the Palestinians. The Gaza Strip evacuation came directly from President Bush’s “Roadmap to Peace.”

Every time Israel has ceded land for peace it doesn’t work, it will not work this time.

I think we know something about “reasonable compromise” and appeasement.

How Reasonable Compromise Works
How Reasonable Compromise Works

 

An appeaser is one who keeps feeding the crocodile in the hope it will eat him last”~~ Winston Churchill

Israel and gunowners have both got to stand our ground this time. As the democrats debate on TV who can most proudly try to steal our G-d given rights, and the world tries to pressure Israel into ceding even more land, we can not give in. The results of what we have already given so far has cost us too dearly. We can not give in again.

NOT. ONE. INCH.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

How Do Those Shackles Taste, Lawson?

Lawson Clarke is an ad exec from Massachusetts and a “Gun Owner Who is Perfectly Comfortable With Gun Control.”

Translation: he’s a serf, who has no comprehension of the meaning of a right and thinks the Second Amendment protects his “right” to hunt.

In his article for NPR, he details the laborious process he underwent as a Massachusetts resident to get state permission to exercise his rights, and he apparently doesn’t mind the numerous forms, background checks, and exorbitant costs associated with being able to exercise a fundamental right, because MASS SHOOTINGS!

STEP 1: I enrolled in a four-hour firearms safety course registered with the state.

A safety course is always a good idea. Only four hours? Most gun owners I know train much more often and much longer with their self-defense tools. But when mandated by the state, it really becomes a perfunctory gesture. I won’t even get into the whole “registered with the state” thing!

STEP 2: I joined a properly licensed gun club to demonstrate I was merely interested in hunting and recreational shooting. While this was by no means mandatory, it was encouraged by my local police department.

I wonder how much the kickback is for said “encouragement.” And I wonder why this particular brand of stupid doesn’t consider paying to join a club “encouraged” by the police to “prove” that you are only interested in exercising your right to engage in activities that have little to do with the intent of the Second Amendment isn’t a gross violation of said right and a twisted perversion of freedom.

STEP 3: I then visited my local police station, where I presented my application for a license to carry, my firearm safety certificate and a letter from my gun club stating my membership was in good standing.

STEP 4: Along with my paperwork I had to pay a $100 application fee. NOTE: In Massachusetts a firearms license is only valid for six years, and the $100 application fee is due any time I reapply.

A $100 fee to exercise a right, eh? I have to wonder once again if this serf even understands the basic definition of a right.

I also have to wonder how poor people, who ostensibly don’t live in safe, often gated communities (unlike Boston ad executives), but want a means to protect their homes against armed thugs, can afford all these extra expenses in addition to the several hundred dollars for the purchase of the actual gun!

Why do you hate poor people, Lawson?

STEP 5: I sat through a face-to-face interview with a police officer and submitted to a preliminary background check.

STEP 6: My photo and fingerprints were taken and filed digitally with the Massachusetts State Police, along with the Massachusetts Department of Mental Health and the national criminal records database.

Are you applying for a top secret clearance or begging the “authorities” to allow you to exercise a fundamental right?

STEP 7: I made an appointment at the police firing range on Moon Island in Boston Harbor to demonstrate my proficiency with a firearm in front of a state trooper.

Hopefully it wasn’t this guy.

A Massachusetts State Trooper is expected to survive after accidentally shooting himself in the leg, State Police said.

Ooops!

STEP 8: I waited approximately 30 days for my license to be approved.

STEP 9: My class A license to carry arrived in the mail.

I’m sure if you ask any assailant trying to victimize you really nicely to wait until you get your state-sanctioned permission to own a firearm, they’ll oblige. No. Really! Stop laughing!

STEP 10: I visit a nearby gun store, which by law is registered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms as well as the Massachusetts Firearms Records Bureau. After presenting my license to the clerk, I was then allowed to browse the store’s inventory.

It’s instructive that you need a license to even go shopping in the People’s State of Massachusetts! But apparently, that bit of statist ploddery doesn’t bother Lawson either.

STEP 11: I selected my very fist firearm: a 30/30 Winchester Model 94, a tried and true staple of New England deer hunting.

Because that’s what the Second Amendment is really about — deer hunting. It says so right there in the text. Wait… no? But… but… but… we in Massachusetts know what the Second Amendment is about! We KNOW freedom, darnit!

STEP 12: While in the store I submitted to yet another background check, this time over the phone with the FBI.

Sure! What’s another background check to make a constitutionally-protected purchase between master and slave?

STEP 13: I waited three days.

Luckily you weren’t a woman who was being stalked and needed a tool to protect herself, eh? But I’m sure if you asked very nicely, the stalker or a violent ex would wait for you to finally purchase your gun!

STEP 14: I returned to the store and picked up my Winchester 30/30, effectively adding my name to the list of over 250,000 legal gun owners in Massachusetts.

Good to know that you don’t mind being added to a state-maintained list of innocent people whose only crime was a desire to exercise their rights. How do those chains taste? Want a gold Star of David so you can be properly identified?

From start to finish, the entire process unfolded over the course of several months, but then again so did acquiring my driver’s license and first car. In fact, one could argue automobiles and firearms are equally lethal machines: each responsible for over 30,000 deaths per year in the United States; so perhaps there’s justification for requiring patience in this endeavor.

I’m willing to bet that acquiring your driver’s license took several months, because the state wanted to ensure that while you’re operating a machine weighing several tons on public roadways, that you are properly educated and trained to do so. I’m also fairly sure you didn’t have to sit down for an interview with law enforcement or undergo two background checks to buy a car or get a license to drive it.

Did you have to pass a background check to buy your car? Did you have to get fingerprinted like a common criminal? Did you have to wait several days before you could take your car home? I don’t think so, Sparky.

Don’t conflate purchasing a car with the months of bureaucratic hoops you had to jump through to purchase a gun. The auto purchase takes a couple of hours and the mere ownership of it does not require training, background checks, fingerprinting, or even a license! The mere purchase requires you have money or sufficient credit to pay for said vehicle. Purchase and operation of the vehicle are two separate things. Of course, I don’t expect someone who doesn’t comprehend or respect the plain language of the Second Amendment to understand that nuance.

As a gun owner, I’m perfectly comfortable with the notion of sensible gun control, and in the stark light of recent tragedies, I’d say the process of acquiring my first firearm in Massachusetts was exactly as difficult as it needed to be.

While we’re all thrilled that you’re “perfectly comfortable” – OK, we really don’t give a damn, but still… – let me ask you something, Lawson: Are the people who take the time to go through months of background checks, the training, the fingerprinting, and the waiting periods the ones committing violent acts with firearms? Are all these measures effective crime reduction techniques?

Nope.

Massachusetts has a national reputation as a bastion of gun control, but crimes and injuries related to firearms have risen — sometimes dramatically — since the state passed a comprehensive package of gun laws in 1998.

Murders committed with firearms have increased significantly, aggravated assaults and robberies involving guns have risen, and gunshot injuries are up, according to FBI and state data.

But… but… but… that’s because illegal guns are flowing from other states!

That’s not what I asked, Sparky. Are the people who are legally licensed to keep and bear arms in Massachusetts the ones committing the crimes?

gun stats

Judging by the records kept in these states, nope! The majority of people willing to undergo all that rigamarole will, in fact, never commit a single crime with that gun, so how is it, exactly, you think you’re helping mitigate violence by subjecting yourself to statist regulations?

Some vocal conservatives are quick to accuse Massachusetts of being a bastion for the liberal elite who are grossly out of touch with the fundamentals of the Second Amendment. It seems they’ve forgotten this is where the “shot heard round the world” was fired in the name of Independence; where simple colonists in 1775 formed a militia and rose up in arms against a formidable force of British Army regulars.

Do you think those colonists registered their weapons? You think they paid some gold to be able to keep a simple defense tool in their homes? They would have probably slapped you stupid at the thought, you quivering-lipped coward! I would submit that given your ardent willingness to submit yourself to onerous infringements of your rights, you are the one who has forgotten Massachusetts’ history of liberty. Not only that, but you spit in its face!

You’re welcome, by the way.

Oh, please shut your ignorant yap! If it had been you and your fellow vassal colostomy bags fighting the war for Independence, begging the government’s permission to allow you to own a simple firearm, we’d still be a British colony!

Trust me, in Massachusetts we know our history and we know the significance of the Second Amendment. However, we also understand that owning firearms is an immense responsibility, and we have carefully balanced our right to keep and bear them with what I would argue are an appropriate amount of institutional safeguards.

You keep referring to that knowing the significance of the Second Amendment thingy… I do not think it means what you think it means.

If you know your history and the significance of the Second Amendment, then you should also know that responsibility has nothing to do with paying bribes to petty statists to allow you to exercise a fundamental right.

And no, I don’t trust you when you tell me how much you respect the right to keep and bear arms, even as you gleefully submit to noxious infringements on said right! Thanks for playing.

Is it a perfect system everyone can agree on? Certainly not. But in a time when contentious shouting has largely supplanted meaningful debate, perhaps that’s too much to hope for. However, there is data to suggest our state gun ownership laws are working. Well, that is to say, they seem to work better than the gun policies of most other states. In a recent study, Massachusetts stands out as having one of the lowest rates of gun-related deaths, second only to Hawaii, a state with a population one-fifth our size.

Actually, no. And the statistics you cite for only one year are deceptive at best. If you refer to the Boston Globe article I cited above, you will see that gun-related deaths have nearly doubled from 1998 when your state first ushered in its tyrannical infringements on people’s rights!

In 2011, Massachusetts recorded 122 murders committed with firearms, a striking increase from the 65 in 1998, said Fox, the Northeastern professor. Nationwide, such murders increased only 3 percent from 1999 to 2010, the CDC says.

There were increases in other crimes involving guns in Massachusetts, too. From 1998 to 2011, aggravated assaults with guns rose 26.7 percent. Robberies with firearms increased 20.7 percent during that period, according to an FBI analysis conducted for the Globe.

So not only has gun-related violence increased in Massachusetts since the package of draconian gun control measures was passed, but said violence has increased at a higher rate than the rest of this country! How are those “gun ownership laws” working out for you, Lawson?

Clearly the epidemic of gun violence is an issue that needs to be addressed on a national level. For any gun owner or gun rights advocate to suggest otherwise is not only stubbornly myopic, but inhumane.

And here we have the emotionalist rhetoric we’ve so grown accustomed to from gun-grabbing freaks and their obedient chattel.

If you don’t support tyrannical infringements on your rights, you’re heartless.

If you don’t useless bureaucracy to make your right to self defense cost-prohibitive, you’re stubborn.

If you aren’t willing to submit yourself to a metaphorical anal probe in order to exercise your fundamental rights – an anal probe that has no hope of actually reducing violence – you’re myopic and inhumane.

Clearly you haven’t heard the news that overall, violence has been on the decline in the United States. So maybe, before you decide to spew another load of nonsense into the Interwebz, you’ll do some research, and also look up the meaning of the word “epidemic.”

So if we’re earnestly looking to take steps towards reducing the number of gun-related deaths in the United States while respectfully preserving our Constitutional right to legally own firearms, perhaps the rest of the country should, once again, look to Massachusetts to lead the way.

And watch our gun-related violence nearly double, as it did in Massachusetts? You’ve got to be kidding me!

Please keep your statist mitts off my rights. I can see you obviously enjoy your shackles, but the rest of us are just a bit smarter than that! So just go back to licking the boots of your masters and leave the rest of us alone.

Stick to advertising, Lawson. Obviously logic, basic research, and policy are not your strong points!

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

More Anti-Gun Loonery from the Soccer Mom Cabal

I initially posted this fisk at the Liberty Zone, but I thought that even though a renewed push for gun control is going on in my own state, it’s actually a nationwide problem, so I decided to post it here as well.

My husband got so angry with our local officials, he took his anger out in writing on the top Virginia political conservative blog. Angry Rob is angry. And he has every right to be. These gun-grabbing embarrassments are doing a blood dance on the corpses of innocent victims of violence!

But on top of all that, which would amount to a disgusting display by itself, they are flat out LYING. No, Del. Hope, buying a gun at a gun show is NOT “as easy as buying a pack of bubble gum at the 7-Eleven.” Purchases at a gun show of firearms happen the same way they do outside of gun shows, and Patrick Hope knows this. Dealers are required to perform background checks, private sellers are not. He also knows that the Smith Mountain Lake murderer, a disgruntled former co-worker of the two victims, passed a background check to purchase the gun he used. The fact that he and his cohorts got 30,000 signatures for their petition doesn’t matter, other than to demonstrate how easy it is to prey upon low-information folks to advance a cause.

Rob and I once had a very respectful, decent conversation with Del. Patrick Hope during Virginia Lobby Day. He spewed anti-Second Amendment platitudes, cited faulty information, and listened respectfully when I called him on it and corrected him. He also seemed genuinely interested in the facts I gave him about gun safety, background checks, etc.

Apparently, that was just lip service…

And his “guns are oh-so easy to get” mantra is being echoed by Shannon Watts wannabes in the Old Dominion. It is one of these ignorami that I fisk below.


 

Why is it that no matter how much you correct, inform, reason, and debate with gun grabbers, they continue to contend long-discredited, disingenuous crap in order to promote their odious agenda? It seems there’s a cabal of soccer mommies out there whose sole mission is to become the next Shannon Watts. Frankly, they’re unoriginal and uninformed, and yet some newspapers pick up their spew and run with it as if they’ve discovered the Dead Sea Scrolls. Such is the case with the latest anti-gun mommy in my own backyard, who recently penned a column for The Roanoke Times entitled, “Why should it be easier to own and operate a gun than a car?”

Let’s put aside the obvious stupid of this question, and do a little fisking.

Melynda Dovel Wilcox lives in Alexandria, VA, and she’s the mommy of two high school students. Alexandria is in my backyard, so I take a keen interest in any kind of disinformation being spread “for the children.” She writes:

In no other country is driving and owning a car as quintessential to the culture and lifestyle as it is in the U.S. So it’s no surprise that, for Virginia teenagers, turning 16-plus-three-months is noteworthy because they can get their driver’s license. With two 17-year-olds in my household, I’m well-versed in the steps required for the commonwealth to grant this privilege. It’s an arduous process — rightly so — and as a citizen I’m grateful to the government for implementing these measures to better protect all drivers and pedestrians.

Here Wilcox makes an interesting statement. Driving on public roads is, in fact, a privilege. Many will confuse the right to travel with the right to drive, and that’s just not right. U.S. jurisprudence confirms this fact in Miller v. Reed. There is no right to drive a vehicle on public roads enumerated in the Constitution, and since driving a motor vehicle on public roads is, in fact, a privilege, the government is well within its right to regulate it.

Wilcox then goes through a litany of allegedly “arduous” steps one must take to become a legal driver in Virginia.

Personally, having had two kids go through the process, I don’t think it’s all that onerous, but then again I’m not a spoiled Alexandria mommy, who thinks attending a 90 minute session with her kid (twice)  to cover parental responsibilities of having a teenage driver in my house, is a terrible imposition.

First, all 10th-graders receive 36 hours of classroom driver education in their required health and physical education classes.

Students can apply for their learner’s permit at age 15 ½ and must produce original documents proving their identification and residency. They must also pass a knowledge exam and a vision screening.

Next, provisional drivers must log 45 hours of driving time with an adult passenger and take a behind-the-wheel course consisting of fourteen 50-minute in-car sessions from a commercial driving school. One program in Northern Virginia, I Drive Smart, costs $499 and is taught by current and retired police officers. During the final session, the instructor administers the driving test and issues a temporary license. Not counting time spent on homework for the classroom portion and studying for the Department of Motor Vehicles exam, that’s more than 82 hours of instruction and training.

It’s amazing how first world problems can impact one’s worldview! Eighty-two hours of instruction is a little more than 10 days. Ten days’ training to operate a complex machine made of steel, glass, and plastic, capable of traveling at speeds in excess of 100 miles per hour – a machine that was involved in 32,719 deaths in 2013, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

Hey, Melynda! Know what it takes to gain the privilege to drive in Germany?

First, you have to pass an onerous theory test, which a full third of test-takers fail. You need a vision and a road test, as well as first aid training. That’s right – first aid – an eight-hour class. An actual license is handed out when the driver turns 18, by the way. None of this 16 and three months garbage. Oh, and by the way – you bitch about a $500 cost to train your precious snowflake to drive? It costs about €1400 in Germany. Still think that’s onerous?  You’ll need a minimum of twelve 90 minute on the road training sessions, four of which have to be on the Autobahn and at speed, and about three of those have to be at night. That’s a minimum By the way, if you take your training in an automatic transmission, you’ll only be licensed to drive that. Driving a manual transmission automobile when you’ve only qualified on an automatic is considered driving without a licence.

These extended driving sessions are followed by the so-called advanced, test-preparation phase, containing further exercises and preparation for the test itself. In all cases, the instructor may only terminate instruction when he is convinced that the learner driver involved has actually acquired the knowledge and skills required to pass the test.

The goal of driving instruction is no longer just to impart knowledge and techniques, but also to put across the social and ethical values, in other words to inculcate behavioral patterns and attitudes which are no less significant in reducing accident risks than the actual driving skills themselves.

[…]

The driving test consists of a theoretical and a practical part. An officially recognized expert or examiner for motor vehicle traffic is responsible for the entire test. If a candidate fails, the test can be repeated. Candidates are only admitted to the practical test when they have passed the theoretical part.

The theoretical test uses multiple-choice questions to establish whether the candidate has the necessary knowledge. A candidate passes the test if he does not exceed the permissible number of errors laid down in the test statutes. The theoretical tests should, in principle, be carried out in German, but the basic material may also be examined in various foreign languages.

The practical test consists of a test drive which includes certain basic driving tasks. The tasks, which are laid down in the test statues for each class of licence, are intended to demonstrate that the candidate is capable of properly operating and controlling the vehicle. The test drive is, above all, intended to demonstrate that even in difficult traffic situations the candidate is capable of safely driving the vehicle and adapting his driving to the situation.

The driving test is also carried out on country roads and motorways. A candidate passes the practical test if the basic driving tasks are accomplished without error and during the test drive he does not commit any grave errors or accumulate an excess of minor errors.

Still want to complain how hard it is, Melynda? Didn’t think so. Moving on.

To own a car in Virginia, you must register the vehicle in both the state and local jurisdictions, and registration must be renewed annually or bi-annually. The owner must carry liability insurance or pay a $500 uninsured motorist fee, and have annual safety inspections performed on the car, and in some areas, periodic emissions inspections.

Wrong. To DRIVE a car in Virginia, you must register it. You don’t need insurance to merely own it, and you don’t need to register it if it’s merely sitting on your property. There’s a difference.

The comparison between car ownership and gun ownership is remarkably apt.

No. It’s not. One is a constitutionally guaranteed right, and the other is a car.

There were about 254 million cars registered in the U.S. in 2012, and varying estimates of 270 million to 310 million guns. In 2012, there were roughly 33,500 traffic fatalities and almost 32,000 people died from gun violence.

How many of these were suicides? Oh, two-thirds? You know what a suicide is? Intentional. Can we say “disingenuous comparison,” boys and girls? I knew you could!

But there are some startling differences: Traffic fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled have been on a downward trend since 1963 due to safer cars, safer roads and better-trained drivers. In some states there are fewer highway deaths now than there were in the 1940s. By contrast, between 2000 and 2013, the number of mass shootings and resulting casualties rose dramatically, according to an FBI study released last fall. (There have been 135 school shootings since Newtown.)

I knew we would eventually get to the lies, obfuscations, and lies. Oh, did I say “lies” twice? Using Everytown’s misleading statistics doesn’t bolster your credibility, Melynda. Neither does quoting an FBI study which the media clubbed to death like a baby seal without actually understanding the misleading verbiage in the study.

And then there’s the vast difference in requirements to own and operate a gun. No permit is required to purchase or possess a rifle, shotgun or handgun in Virginia. No registration is required either, except for machine guns.

Guess what, Melynda! No permit is required to purchase a car either. You need a permit and a license to DRIVE a motor vehicle on a public road, but if I want to keep a vehicle in my garage, or drive it on my private property, I can! You obviously don’t know the difference between “drive” and “own.” Perhaps an English lesson is in order?

Gun sales at licensed gun dealers require a criminal background check, but private sales or sales at gun shows by private individuals do not, despite repeated efforts in the state legislature to change that law.

The law at gun shows is the same as the law anywhere else in Virginia, Melynda. Differentiating private sales at gun shows from anywhere else shows how ineptly you manipulate words.

In short, the Commonwealth of Virginia has no information about whether gun owners know how to safely store a gun and ammo, for example, how many guns they own, or whether they have committed a violent misdemeanor or have a history of domestic violence.

The Commonwealth of Virginia has no business knowing how many guns one owns – or how many knives – or how many cars, for that matter. As we said previously, no one needs to register a car if they don’t plan to drive it on public roads. The state also doesn’t know how many motor vehicle accidents any given driver has had, UNLESS they were reported to police and the DMV. Care to guess how many Virginians commit hit and runs, or merely settle the cost of repairs among themselves?

One wonders how many mass shootings and other gun deaths could be prevented if prospective gun buyers were required to have just eight hours of training from police officers—one-tenth of that required for drivers;

Police officers such as this?

https://youtu.be/9ABCiPJRCyA

Hate to tell you this, Cupcake, but you quite obviously don’t know most gun owners. Most gun owners train much more than just 8 hours with professionals much more skilled than the “professional enough” DEA agent giving a presentation on gun safety in that video. We shoot consistently. We practice, because shooting and handling firearms is a skill – a perishable one. Additionally, if you think a lack of training is responsible for mass shootings, you may want to check your facts.

Newtown, Aurora, Tucson, Isla Vista… you know what they had in common? Mental health issues. If you think registering firearms will somehow prevent violent acts by crazies, I have this bridge…

if they were required to register their guns each year (with a new background check performed each time); and if they were required to carry liability insurance, with insurance proceeds used to compensate victims of gun violence and their families.

You know how many are killed by accidental shootings? About 600 per year, according to the CDC. That’s what liability insurance covers. Since about 21,000 of the firearm fatalities are suicides, I doubt most insurance companies will cover that.

None of this would pose a significant burden on hunters or other recreational gun owners.

No? An average pistol costs several hundred dollars. Add to it registration fees, training fees, and insurance premiums, and you’ve just made a tool of self defense cost prohibitive for the people who need it most. People in not so nice neighborhoods that you and your shielded cohorts in Alexandria only tremble at the thought of entering. Those poor people, who want to protect their families, may not be able to afford to do so, because Melynda thinks that the right to keep and bear arms only pertains to hunters and recreational shooters.

As much as the DMV is loathed and derided, certainly almost no one decides against buying a car because the registration process is too onerous. It’s likewise absurd to allow people to own and operate a gun without any safeguards in place to protect ordinary citizens and innocent children.

You don’t allow me to exercise my rights, you pernicious, misinformed fascist! I protect my innocent children with that tool of self defense you think you and your petty tyrannical pals think you have the authority to allow me to keep.

Every year, legions of teenagers happily give up 82 hours of free time in exchange for the privilege of driving. It’s the price that our society has deemed appropriate and acceptable to advance the common good. Isn’t it time that we make the same trade-offs for guns as we do for cars?

I’ll make you a deal, Melinda. Let’s regulate cars the way we regulate guns, OK?

Your precious teenagers won’t be able to purchase a car until they are 18. Sorry, Punkins! You’ll have to wait. They will have to pass a criminal background check, and if they committed a crime, got caught with some dope, or aren’t able to prove their residency, they will not be able to make said purchase. They want to buy an extra fast sports car? They don’t need that, but they will have to get a special license to own one, and they will have to be 21 years of age to purchase one. Every time they purchase a vehicle, they will have to undergo a background check, fingerprints in some states, and fill out a form that will be kept on file with the auto dealership for the duration of that business’ existence. And if the State Police come back with an inconclusive check, or they have a record, or mental health issues, no-go on that car boys and girls! Oh, and in some jurisdictions, you’ll have to wait three days before purchasing said car.

Subject of an active misdemeanor or felony arrest warrant from any state? Sorry. Can’t buy that car.

Are you 28 years old or younger, have ever been adjudicated delinquent as a juvenile 14 years of age or older at the time of offense of a delinquent act, which would be a felony if committed by an adult? Sorry. Can’t buy that car.

Were you adjudicated as a juvenile 14 years of age or older at the time of the offense of murder in violation of § 18.2-31 or 18.2-32, kidnapping in violation of § 18.2-47, robbery by the threat or presentation of firearms in violation of § 18.2-58, or rape in violation of § 18.2-61? (If adjudicated as a delinquent for these offenses, you must answer yes. You are ineligible regardless of your current age and prohibited for life unless allowed by restoration of rights by the Governor of Virginia and order of the circuit court in the jurisdiction in which you reside.) Sorry, you can’t buy that car.

Have you been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime punishable by more than 2 years even if the maximum punishment was not received? Sorry, can’t buy that car.

Is there an outstanding protective or restraining order against you from any court that involves your spouse, a former spouse, an individual with whom you share a child in common, or someone you cohabited with as an intimate partner? Sorry, you aren’t purchasing that car.

Is there an outstanding protective or restraining order against you from any court that involves stalking, sexual battery, alleged abuse or acts of violence against a family or household member? No car for you!

So will you call for closing that car loophole that permits private individuals to sell motor vehicles to others without a background check?

I didn’t think so.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

“Shocking” Study: Criminals Don’t Buy Guns Legally

Cross posted at the Liberty Zone.

I know you’ll be shocked to know this, but apparently criminals don’t undergo background checks at shops or gun shows in order to purchase guns they use in crimes. I don’t know how this happened, but I, for one, am surprised beyond all belief! After all, don’t criminals get guns from evil gun dealers/gun shows/pawn shops/flea markets?

Apparently not. Believe me, I was just as shocked as you were to find out that criminals get guns from… well… mostly other criminals!

I don’t know about you all, but my worldview has now been shattered.

And if you think all that was easy to write with a straight face, trust me, it wasn’t. As a matter of fact, I kind of look like this now.

stressed

In all seriousness, researchers Philip J. Cook, Susan T. Parker, and Harold A. Parker found some interesting results about where criminals get guns – results gun rights advocates knew about: Our respondents (adult offenders living in Chicago or nearby) obtain most of their guns from their social network of personal connections. Rarely is the proximate source either direct purchase from a gun store, or theft.

[S]urvey evidence provides strong evidence that the gun market is sharply differentiated by the characteristics of the individual who is seeking a gun. Adults who are entitled to possess a gun are more likely than not to buy from an FFL. On the other hand, those who are disqualified by age or criminal history are most likely to obtain their guns in off-the-books transactions, often from social connections such as family and acquaintances, or from “street” sources such as illicit brokers or drug dealers. While some of these illicit transactions are purchases, they also take a variety of other forms.

Translation: law-abiding citizens purchase guns legally. Criminals purchase their guns through illicit sources or personal connections.

The study discusses a social network – personal connections that allow criminals who would otherwise be ineligible to purchase guns to easily get them. Whether it’s addicts who get their hands on firearms and sell them to get a profit to buy drugs or someone in the “hood” that hasn’t been nabbed for a major crime, has a FOID card, and can legally purchase firearms and resell them to others in the hood who cannot, obtaining firearms illegally despite stringent laws doesn’t appear to be all that difficult based on this study.

Oh, and then I find this little tidbit interesting. The same gun grabbers who whine that only police and military should have access to firearms will find the following finding disturbing: two respondents in the survey mentioned that guns come from corrupt police.

Guns are from the “government” or corrupt police. R52. “Police take guns and put them back on the street.” R69: “Crooked officers put guns back on the streets.” 

A few things I get from this study:

  • Enhanced background checks will do nothing to stop criminals from using their social networks from procuring guns.
  • Government is part of the problem.
  • All it takes is one person who is not prohibited from owning guns to start distributing them to his buddies who are.

So what can be done?

Certainly more laws called for by feckless politicians won’t remedy the issue. Criminals don’t care about laws. That’s why they’re criminals. I was struck by the fact that many of these criminals were apparently purchasing firearms primarily for self defense. “Many gave some version of the phrase ‘I’d rather be judged by 12 than be carried by six.’ ” Pollack said.

These people live in rough neighborhoods. They don’t exactly have access to gated communities and armed guards. They are the ones who are more likely than not to need armed protection. Now, by saying this, I AM IN NO WAY IMPLYING THAT THIS IS A MITIGATING FACTOR. I’m certainly not an apologist. That said, I can also understand why the people in “the hood” would feel the need for armed protection more than your suburban soccer mom screeching for more gun control because of something she saw on the news. (Yes, I’m talking to you Shannon Watts!)

Given the fact that most of these criminals obtained guns from their connections in the hood, will any politician call for denials of gun purchases merely based on where the buyer lives? Cue screeches of RAAAACCCCCIIIIIIIIIISSSSMMMMM!

Given that these connections are social in nature, will politicians call for limiting cell phone usage of people in “the hood”? Maybe preventing them from associating with one another? Or maybe deny certain individuals who legally are eligible to purchase a firearm the right to do so based on who their friends are? Yeah, can’t wait to see how that works out!

But in their zeal to appear as if they’re “doing something” some families of the victims demand,  they forget that doing something that would prove to be ineffective is akin to doing nothing at all. Well, nothing other than interfering with the rights of law abiding citizens to exercise their rights.

I suspect politicians know this, but the urge to get re-elected is much like the urge to mate during Pon Farr. Common sense pretty much flies out the window, and what’s left is this primal urge to remain in power. My own State Delegate Patrick Hope confirms this phenomenon. “People are angry,” Hope said. “People are angry by the inaction.”

So strong is the urge to remain in office, that politicians are even willing to lie. Yeah… I know you’re shocked by this phenomenon.

Currently, there is a loophole in Virginia that doesn’t require background checks for sales at gun shows. Hope said he went to a gun show and asked if he could get a gun without a background check. Instead of raising red flags, the vendors were more than happy to help him.

A) The majority of vendors at gun shows who sell guns are FFLs, which means they are required by law to run a background check! And they are meticulous. Know why? Because any discrepancy in records, any anomaly means they could lose their license and their livelihoods!

2) What Hope and other gun grabbers want isn’t background checks at gun shows, where the “loophole” is nonexistent. What they want is to stamp out private sales – to prevent people from legally selling their own property to others – an inexcusable infringement on property rights.

And here’s the thing. Nothing in these proposals would have stopped the shooting of two television station employees in Roanoke. The shooter had no criminal record, no mental health disqualification, nothing that should have prevented him from making that purchase.  The illegal alien who shot Kate Steinle got the gun from a careless law enforcement officer, who left his firearm in the car. The Islamic fundamentalist loon who shot up recruiting stations in Tennessee was also able to pass a background check. Would politicians now calling for more gun control advocate a denial of Second Amendment rights if one is a Muslim? I’d love to see the screeching from CAIR if that ever became a proposal!

Bottom line is this: the study above shows without a doubt that law abiding citizens are not the problem, and more laws are not the solution. As a sheriff I know once told me, laws are for the law-abiding.

Maybe politicians should focus on root causes of violence, rather than blaming the tool.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Never Forget

I don’t normally blog on Jewish history. I leave it to others, who are much better versed than I. However, when a friend posted this on Facebook, I simply couldn’t resist sharing.

jews

It’s a reminder. Never forget that once you cede that your rights are merely privileges granted at the whim of a government, they can be taken away at that same whim.

Carry on.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

By The Rocket’s Red Glare

Americans and the rest of the world have been assured in no uncertain terms that the Iranian nuclear arms deal will keep us, and the rest of the world safer.

The Iran nuclear deal “will make America and the world safer and more secure”, President Barack Obama said on Saturday.The 159-page agreement between six world powers and Iran was finalized this week in Vienna, after extensive talks. On Saturday, Obama used his weekly address to seek support among voters, prior to the congressional vote on the deal and against a backdrop of Republican-led opposition.“This deal will make America and the world safer and more secure,” Obama said.“Still, you’re going to hear a lot of overheated and often dishonest arguments about it in the weeks ahead.”

He has for 3 years referred to any opposition to giving nuclear capability and money to a country that hates America and Israel as “noise”.

But now we have the John Kerry brokered deal. And it will keep us and Israel safer.

There’s been a little squabbling over it.  President Sotero assures the Jewish community that oppose giving a country determined to wipe the one Jewish state in the world off the map nuclear capabilities that they need to put their “emotions” aside. He then assured everyone that he was pro-Israel. I suppose this was necessary since he is in favor of allowing a country determined to wipe Israel off the map to have a nuclear weapon. But he also feels that once the agreement has been signed sealed and sold out by Congress that Israeli-American relations will improve. Since the deal also involves giving Iran the technology to defeat any attempts Israel might make to defend herself by pre-emptive strikes I find this delusion astonishing.

As he has in previous speeches and interviews, Obama sought to refute criticism of the accord point by point. He disputed the notion that Iran would funnel the bulk of the money it receives from the sanctions relief into terrorism, saying Iranian leaders are more likely to try to bolster their weak economy. He also said the agreement wasn’t built on trusting Iran’s government, which frequently spouts anti-American and anti-Israeli rhetoric.

Keep that bit in mind.

Last month, National Security Adviser Susan Rice admitted that some of the money due to be released as part of the deal negotiated by the U.S. led P5+1 “would go to the Iranian military and could potentially be used for the kinds of bad behavior that we have seen in the region.”

Ok, first this is the woman that makes the round of Sunday Talk shows telling America the reason for the attack and resulting deaths in Benghazi was a youtube video. Second, Susan Rice and the word “Security” should never been in the same sentence, let alone job description. Beyond that her idea of “bad behavior” defies understanding. Bad behavior is a two year old stamping it’s feet and yelling “NO” at it’s mother, it’s a teen-ager speeding or your horse kicking, nipping or bucking. But I guess if you are part of the Sotero regime then terrorism is “bad behavior”, you know, just part of the “noise”.

Aside from the soon-to-be-released billions, Iran’s finances will also be strengthened by the easing of trade embargoes that have seen a horde of major international business – many from P5+1 countries – rushing to sign lucrative deals with the ayatollahs. Earlier this week, British Foreign Minister Philip Hammond scoffed at the fears of Israel and many Arab countries in the Middle East, saying the deal would “slowly rebuild their sense that Iran is not a threat to them.” Less than 24 hours later, the spokesman for Iran’s top parliament member said, “Our positions against [Israel] have not changed at all; Israel should be annihilated.”

Last week I was pretty much away from the computer, but the first part of last week I found out that rockets has been fired into the Golan by Iran. So I wonder if Barry, Phil & Susie will suggest that Iran go into a time out?

But wait there’s more. Iran is wisely and peacefully spending your taxpayer money every bit as carefully as the obamas on one of their many vacations.

How silly to think American tax money would ever be spent to harm Israel. They’re probably just cranky and need to go for a nap, right Susie?

Especially shocking considering Iran had been engaged in activity hostile to Israel for he last 20 months in the North. Who ever could have imagined it would continue on a bigger scale if they had more money and basically no restrictions?

Wonder if barry is making the rounds at cocktail parties saying “Well butter my butt and call me a biscuit! I really thought they’d put that money into their economy! That was why the people voted for the current regime”.

Then there are the various and sundry terrorist organizations now competing for funding from Iran & it’s unfrozen assets. They do this by committing terrorist acts against Israel to show Iran they can produce results for the money. So Susie, is that “bad behavior” or just “acting out”?

If you want to consider that often what happens in Israel becomes mirrored in America I shudder. Or as I hear a radio talk show host from Israel say often “Coming soon to a theater near you” when talking about what America is creating for herself.

All this has been about nuclear weapons, and putting America, Israel and the rest of the world at risk. And Barry is willing to do that as he assures America it will keep “us” safer. Despite evidence to the contrary, he says it will keep “us” safer.

So next time you hear Barry talking about how “common sense gun control will keep us safer” and that most gun owners want it, remember a couple things. He lies like a rug and two he ignores all evidence to the contrary to further his agenda.

If he is willing to put the world at risk with a nuclear weapon in Iran’s hands, why would you even wonder if the safety of you or your family is really his concern? I suppose though, if we ask ourselves who the “us” is that he wants to keep safer, his statements would make sense if it is the muslim terrorists and thugs. Because his plans and ideology certainly will keep them safer. Perhaps he identifies more with them, thus it will keep “us” safer.

 

Iran's peaceful program
Iran’s peaceful program
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

The Ever Helpful NRA

Backed by the National Rifle Association, the Senate’s No. 2 Republican leader is introducing legislation that would reward states for sending more information about residents with serious mental problems to the federal background check system for firearms purchasers.

The bill promoted Wednesday by Sen. John Cornyn, who has an A-plus rating from the NRA for his gun rights record, is far more modest than a Senate measure expanding background check requirements that the organization and Republicans helped defeat two years ago. Cornyn’s proposal also is narrower than a measure a top Senate Democrat announced this week.

Recent shootings have drawn attention to weaknesses in the background check system. The gunman in last month’s killings in a Louisiana movie theater had mental problems that went unreported to the federal database.

“Gaps in existing law or inadequate resources prevent our communities from taking proactive steps to prevent them from becoming violent,” Cornyn, R-Texas, said in a written statement.

Jennifer Baker, spokeswoman for NRA legislative affairs, said the bill took “meaningful steps toward fixing the system and making our communities safer.”

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/cornyn-nra-gun-background/2015/08/05/id/665507/

Way cool Jen! Everyone wants safer communities. And maybe you have a really good “in” with someone like, oh an Eric Holder, or say a Loretta Lynch? No? Then you are flying as blind as John Heinz-Kerry. While he doesn’t know everything that is in the Iranian nukes side deals that have been made, the NRA, doesn’t know WHO gets to decide WHAT are mental problems and HOW severe they are do they?

The SAF that thinks Universal Background Checks are a peachy idea, and WHAT could possibly be bad about that? The NRA now thinks a federal government that has IRS employees targeting conservatives, the DOJ selling guns to Drug lords, inciting violence and persecuting law enforcement officers, a NSA that has been exposed as spying on ordinary citizens and foreign countries, ICE and Border Patrol that are told to practice catch and release, the EPA wanting to go after farmers for “farm dust” will be responsible enough with the NICS check not to abuse a power to prevent citizens from owning guns which the current regime, well, hates. All that lovely obamacare data, just lingering in a electronic database. The federal government would never abuse that, right? I mean look how well the plethora of other governmental agencies have behaved under the current regime.

So, what are reasons to be denied your Second Amendment rights now, without the NRA’s helpful bill?

Well, if you are a Veteran and need help managing your finances, that will do it.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/22/is-the-veterans-affairs-dept-trying-to-preventing-some-vets-from-owning-guns/

http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/feds-sued-for-snatching-veterans-gun-rights/

http://www.wnd.com/2013/03/senators-aim-to-protect-vets-gun-rights/

http://www.wnd.com/2015/06/vets-told-they-can-buy-back-2nd-amendment-rights/

What kinds of things can cause you to be accused of mental illness? Depends on what country you live in, but some of these, wow.

http://listverse.com/2015/07/24/10-crazy-cases-of-people-wrongfully-committed-to-insane-asylums/

The NRA will send out those helpful little orange cards, and people will believe them. In my state they have caused harm and prevented some wonderful candidates from being elected. And yet, people think they are a good source of information. Wow. Just, wow.

States are going to be bribed and paid off to send more info on their citizens to the Federal government? What a great bill! Awesome! What could possibly go wrong?

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail