Tag Archives: NRA

Slippery Slopes

The Trace: The NRA Has Been Making the Same Slippery Slope Argument Since 1934
Confronted with federal regulation that sought to restrict access to certain types of military-style firearms, as well as taxes on handguns, the NRA rallied its members in opposition. Its stance was less categorical than it is today, as the organization declared itself “absolutely favorable to reasonable legislation” that confined itself to submachine guns and sawed-off shotguns, exclusively. At the same time, the group was developing the argument that gun restrictions on any kind of firearm were the first step on a slippery slope to a federal registry and excessive gun taxes.

Since then, the slippery slope apparently hasn’t included mail order bans, age limits, a new class of prohibited persons, ex post facto misdemeanor prohibitions, prior restraint background checks, “gun-free” zones, an “assault weapon ban,” arbitrary new definitions of machine gun, state-level bump-fire bans, and an upcoming federal ban on bump-fire stocks that would make any semi-auto a machine gun.

The NFA is also notable as the first major federal victim disarmament legislation for which the NRA rolled over and bared its belly.


Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills.

paypal_btn_donateCC_LG


Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Trump: Never?

So Trump spoke to the NRAAM…

“Your second amendment rights … will never, ever be under siege as long as I am president.

Please note that the NRA leadership has supported all these (except raising age limits to 21), too. LaPierre and Cox still seem to be there, so don’t tell me about the new Board.

“Never.” I wonder…


Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could use the money, what with truck repairs and bills.

paypal_btn_donateCC_LG


Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Welcome to the party, pal

Gun Owners of America finally notices the semiauto problem with bump-fire bans, and the crowd — finally — goes wild.

Let me tell you about a little-known pro-RKBA group. While GOA ignored this until a couple of weeks ago (when I started getting fundraising emails mentioning bump-fire stocks), and the National Restrictions Rifle Association actively pushed for it, The Zelman Partisans has been trying to warn you.

For months.

  • The Zelman Partisans Statement on Proposed Legislation to Ban “Bump-Fire Stocks” and other accessories. (October 5, 2017)
    Basically this Constitution-shredding Senator wants to redefine “machine gun” by how fast you can make something fire, rather than being designed to fire automatically as long as the trigger is depressed. Apparently Jerry Miculek is going to be outlawed.
  • Training Wheels (October 25, 2017)
    That is incorrect. An automatic weapon — a machinegun — is designed to fire multiple rounds per trigger operation. Bump-fire stocks in no way affect that operation/rounds relationship. If you put a bump-fire stock on a semiautomatic rifle, you still individually operate the trigger for each round fired. Bump-fire stocks don’t make the weapon fire faster. The theoretical rate of fire of the rifle is determined by the physics of the internal parts.
  • The fix is in: proposed rulemaking on bump-fire
    Instead of looking at mechanical function, and simple physics, in this document the ATF has adopted the media and gun controller definition of “if it’s fast, it must be a machinegun.” The intent is preordained regardless of comments.
  • Commenting Now Open: Application of the Definition of Machinegun to “Bump Fire” Stocks and Other Similar Devices. (December 29, 2017)
    Considering bump-fire stocks, and other accessories, to be machineguns would not simply regulate a physical device. It effectively outlaws the bump-fire TECHNIQUE, and even pulling the trigger faster than some arbitrary threshold.
  • That’ll be our first one-term president in a while (February 20, 2018)
    I wish I could be surprised, but even before Trump began to look like a serious candidate– well before he got the R nomination — I warned that his new-found verbal respect for RKBA was belied by a long anti-RKBA history.
  • “Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Kinda cool.”* (February 26, 2018)
    “Machinegun” is defined in statutory law. Short form: a firearm that fires more than one round per trigger operation.If that can be changed by executive order, instead of congressional legislation, then everything is a machinegun waiting for the pen-stroke.What can he — would he — do with that pen?
  • Screw Physical Reality (March 10, 2018)
    If words having meaning, this is impossible without making every semiautomatic firearm an NFA item. Please note that this redefines machinegun without offering any grace period or grandfathering for existing gear.
  • Bump-fire Banned (March 23, 2018)
    And yes; The Zelman Partisans opposes this. Accepting this is in no way a compromise. We did not get reciprocal carry. We did get a dangerous Fix NICS. And this isn’t a merely bump-fire ban; it’s effectively a ban on semiautomatic firearms (and if you think Feinstein, Schumer et al aren’t aware of that, you weren’t paying attention): parts is parts.
  • Bumping Off the Truth (March 25, 2018)
    As noted on Friday, President Trump and AG Sessions announced a coming ban of bump-fire stocks (“bump-stock-type devices,” as the rule notice so eloquently puts it); no grandfathering, get rid of it or go to prison for possession of an unregistered NFA item.
  • Theoretically Speaking (March 28, 2018)
    In every case, bump-fire stocks (and trigger cranks and “Multi-burst Trigger Activators”) are bad merely because they assist the shooter in approaching the firearm’s inherent theoretical maximum rate of fire. The semiautomatic rate of fire is the problem.Take away the bump-fire stock, crank, or multi-burp shoulder thingy, and the evil — to the gun ban bunnies — rate of fire remains.
    Does anyone reading this honestly doubt that establishing the precedent of the theoretical rate of fire being the problem is exactly what they want?
  • “Bump-Stock-Type Devices” (sic) Commenting Now Open (March 29, 2018)
    The NPRM falsely states: “Specifically, these devices convert an otherwise semiautomatic firearm into a machinegun by functioning as a self-acting or self-regulating mechanism that harnesses the recoil energy of the semiautomatic firearm in a manner that allows the trigger to reset and continue firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter. Hence, a semiautomatic firearm to which a bump-stock-type device is attached is able to produce automatic fire with a single pull of the trigger.”
  • Bump Stocks Matter: Banning Semiautomatic Firearms (April 2, 2018)
    If this were a move to specifically ban bump-fire stocks or trigger cranks on product safety grounds (unstable, inaccurate, etc.) you’d see a lot less opposition to it. But if you read the language of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking [NPRM] (and every submitted bill I’ve tracked down so far), that isn’t what is being addressed. It is clearly and explicitly a “problem” of “rate of fire,” in that these devices — training wheels — assist the shooter in merely approaching the semiautomatic firearm’s theoretical rate of fire. (In the case of bump-fire, by using recoil to let the trigger reset, for the next manual operation.)

That’s a partial listing. You can find more.

You know what else “increases” the rate of fire? The breechloading Ferguson Rifle. Pre-measured paper cartridges. Revolvers. Bolt/lever action rifles with magazines. Slicked bolts and polished trigger groups. New springs.

Anything that improves the action.

Might I suggest joining the one pro-RKBA group that has consistently warned of, and opposed, these bans other others ignored, under-stated, or even supported them?



Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could use the money, what with truck repairs and bills.

paypal_btn_donateCC_LG


Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

They could start by firing LaPierre

(I originally posted this on my personal site, but it bears repeating; and TZP gets more traffic than I do.)

NRA Launches Drive to Add 100,000 Members in 100 Days
Fox News reports that NRA media relations manager Jason J. Brown said, “The NRA’s strength is in our dedicated and politically savvy members. Over the next 100 days we hope to welcome 100,000 new freedom-loving Americans to our ranks. The threat to our Second Amendment has never been greater.”

Seriously. Fire Wayne LaPierre. Chris Cox, too.

Then repudiate ERPOs and bump-fire bans. Apologize for opposing constitutional carry, for helping draft “assault weapons” bans, and endorsing obviously anti-human/civil rights politicians. Hell, apologize for supporting NFA ’34, GCA ’68, FOPA ’86, et cetera (it’s a long list).

And I’ll at least think about maybe joining.

Not until.


Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could use the money, what with truck repairs and bills.

paypal_btn_donateCC_LG


Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Extremism

One Henry Blodgett, editor-in-chief of Business Insider, thinks the NRA are a bunch of extremists.

HENRY BLODGET: The NRA’s extremism hurts gun owners, NRA members, and America (not worth a link; search the title if you wish)
Henry Blodget explains how the extreme rhetoric of the NRA leadership mischaracterizes the views of many NRA members and gun owners’ views on common-sense gun laws. Following is a transcript of the video.

The NRA has backed firearms registration, background checks, nonresident sales bans, mail order sales bans, new machinegun bans, gun-free zones, “assault weapons” bans, due process-free “no-fly/no-buy,” bump-fire stock bans, and enforcement of all unconstitutional anti-firearms laws (3 strikes), and CCW licensing. They opposed constitutional carry.

How “extreme.” “No virtue” there.

You want to see “extremism” in defense of liberty (which I’ll remind you is no vice?)

“Jews. Guns. No compromise. No Surrender.”
A group of Jews and friends who stand uncompromisingly for the right to keep and bear arms — and the entire Bill of Rights.

Yes, the NRA mischaracterizes the views of gun owners.

But not in the way you wish.

Funny how the media never contacts The Zelman Partisans for a sound bite.


Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could use the money, what with truck repairs and bills.

paypal_btn_donateCC_LG


Ed. note: This commentary appeared first in TZP’s weekly email alert. If you would like to be among the first to see new commentary (as well as to get notice of new polls and recaps of recent posts), please sign up for our alert list. (See sidebar or, if you’re on a mobile device, scroll down). Be sure to respond when you receive your activation email!

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

For whom does the NRA speak?

Good question. Bad answers.

While the reality is far more complex than Mr. Scott seems to “feel” (I won’t credit him with thought), the truth is that the NRA leadership does speak for very few of the 55 million to 120+ million American gun owners.

The lamestream media likes to pretend it does, out of laziness that lets them use “NRA” for “all those backwards, gun-clutching,  rednecks.” Until it suits their (and Scott’s) purpose to explain that gun owners really want a lot of infringements of their human/civil rights. Then that “radical” NRA is a bunch of out-of-touch whackos.

Let me tell you the truth about us non-NRA gun owners. A lot of us hate the NRA. Because the leadership are money-grubbing appeasers and compromisers, who use every new infringement they allow or even promote as an excuse for fundraising to “fight” that infringement.

The reality is that millions of the rest of us are armed, trained, and practiced. And we didn’t spend our hard earned dollars on guns and ammo so we could give them up.

What are you going to do about it?

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

NRA Hypocrisy Warning

Now where did I see this predicted?

Hawaii: More Anti-Gun Bills Introduced
As previously reported last week, Senate Bill 2046 was introduced, aimed at criminalizing certain firearm parts, accessories and modifications. The trend continued this week as more anti-gun legislation was filed prior to the close of the bill introduction deadline. Please contact committee members and urge them to oppose these bills! Click the “Take Action” button below to contact committee members.

What did the purveyors of fearmongering fundraising expect when they endorsed bump-fire regulat… Oh. Yeah. More opportunities for fundraising to fight what they endorsed.


Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar.

paypal_btn_donateCC_LG



Ed. note: This commentary appeared first in TZP’s weekly email alert. If you would like to be among the first to see new commentary (as well as to get notice of new polls and recaps of recent posts), please sign up for our alert list. (See sidebar or, if you’re on a mobile device, scroll down). Be sure to respond when you receive your activation email!

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

NRA delenda est

The National Rifle Association was once a good thing. Back in the 19th century it encouraged firearms ownership and marksmanship. For a long time it was the place to go for high quality training.

I used to be an NRA member. I quit a couple of decades ago.

While the NRA was still good on training, I finally noticed other things. Well, thing; fundraising. To fight “gun control.” A lot of fundraising. I could get 3-4 mailings a week.

Yet somehow we got the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act (“assault weapons ban”), Brady waiting periods followed by (replaced with at federal level) preemptively-prove-your-innocence checks, “gun-free” school zones, Project Exile (shifting unconstitutional firearms cases to federal court for more severe penalties), and more.

And well before that, the NRA went along with the NFA ’34 (registration/taxation), GCA ’68 (no more mail order), and FOPA ’86 (no more new NFA items for you).

Like I say, I quit back in the ’90s when I realized that the NRA just used the fear of gun control as a money-making tool. The NRA needs gun control to “fight.”

They need it so much that they helped write an “assault weapons” ban for a city in which I lived; my ten-round-fixed-magazine SKS was illegal. The NRA said they had to do that or someone else would have written a worse law. As was, that law was so bad the state supreme court tossed it in its entirety.

When I lived in New Hampshire, RKBA activists spent years working for Constitutional carry. We finally lined up enough — too often reluctant — votes to pass it and a governor who said he’d sign it.

Lo and behold, the NRA sent in a lobbyist for the first time in a decade who told the reluctant Republicans that the NRA did not support the bill. That gave the weasels the necessary wiggle room to render the bill “Inexpedient To Legislate;” they killed it in an after hours session after the bill’s backers went home to sleep, believing it was passing, unknowing of the NRA’s backstabbing. (The NRA later claimed that never happened; that they merely told the law-makers that the bill needed to duplicate federal law language regarding prohibited persons. Legislators explaining themselves to pissed off constituents gave my version of the story.)

The NRA watched the concealed carry insurance industry grow, and decided to try it, too. Among their first actions was to ban their competition from their annual gathering.

The NRA is even having trouble with training these days.

Skipping plenty of other despicable NRA actions and inactions, Some Asshole shoots up a Las Vegas country music festival in a “gun-free” zone. Even as early police statements said the shooter used at least one fully automatic rifle and two “bump-fire” stocks, the NRA sharpened its knife and taped targets to honest gun owners’ backs.

The National Rifle Association preemptively surrendered by calling for the ATF to reevaluate bump/slide-fire stocks and regulate them as NFA items. Because they help shooters pull the trigger a bunch of times pretty fast.

The Zelman Partisans objected to further regulation, as did Gun Owners of America.

The NRA went into CYA mode with the red herring that they never called for a ban on any firearm. We know that.

We also know that what they did was signal to victim disarming scum like Dianne Feinstein that deep pockets NRA was cool with regulation.

Feinstein offered a bill banning bump-fire stocks and anything else that would help a semiautomatic firearm faster, effectively redefining “machine gun” as anything that shoots arbitrarily fast regardless of actual operation.

The NRA said, “Nah, we want bureaucratic regulation, not legislation.”

Feinstein said, “Nope.”

Pro-RKBA people were still noting the NRA’s surrender signaling to gun control-inclined Republicans. The NRA said, “No, we didn’t.”

Republican Rep. Carlos Curbelo Introduces Gun Control Bill for Bump Stocks.

Gee, we never saw that coming. Oh, wait…

We did. We told the NRA. They blew us off.

I expect a flurry of fundraiser flyers in the mail: “Help the NRA/ILA fight the DC Bump Ban.”

Set aside the surrender-signaling for a few moments. Go back to the part where the NRA said they want the ATF to regulate stocks. Think on that.

Way back when, the original National Firearms Act draft called for hand guns to be regulated just like machine guns, suppressors, short-barrel shotguns, yadda yadda. It was unpassable that way, so hand guns were stripped out. We were left with — still unconstitutional — restrictions set by Congress, which at least pretends to be answerable to the people.

The NRA, in contrast, is calling for the ATF to have the power to arbitrarily add stuff to the NFA. You know, the guys who brought us Fast & Furious resulting in deaths in Mexico, the United States, and France. The folks who are apparently answerable to nobody.

Raise your hands: Who thinks the ATF wouldn’t abuse such power? (No, not you, LaPierre and Cox; we know you’re moronic quislings. And you, too, Gottlieb.) Anyone else?

Next question: Are you going to scribble down your credit card number or write a check to the NRA/ILA when you get those inevitable flyers to “Help the NRA/ILA Fight the ATF”?

For a long time after I quit the NRA, I said they’d never get another penny from me until they learned to respect the Second Amendment. More recently I said they have proven themselves an unredeemable deadly enemy and will never get another penny, period.

That is not enough. I am tired of the NRA presenting itself as speaking for all gun owners. They don’t speak for me, and likely not you.

The NRA claims 5 million members (the numbers are questionable). Estimates of American gun owners range from 60 million to as many as 120 million. So best case scenario for the NRA is that they actually speak for 8.3% of gun owners. Maybe a mere 4%.

I know of people who’ve “joined” the NRA only because it was a requirement to use a specific shooting range, or other facility.

So here’s this big money group representing a tiny fraction of gun owners using its resources to screw us all over, trampling rights, and begging for more.

It is no longer enough just to stop supporting the bastards. The NRA/ILA have hundreds of millions of dollars in assets. Every principled member could (and should) quit today, and the they can continue to fund human/civil rights violations for years.

The NRA, as an organization, must die. I suggest civil suits under 18 U.S. Code § 241 – Conspiracy against rights. Those who have donated to the NRA Foundation can sue for return of their donations on the grounds that the NRA misrepresented how donations would be used.

NRA delenda est

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

here’s what the nra just endorsed for president

The NRA just endorsed Donald Trump for president at its national convention.

This is what they endorsed.

 

I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record. — Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000

It’s often argued that the American murder rate is high because guns are more available here than in other countries. Democrats want to confiscate all guns, which is a dumb idea because only the law-abiding citizens would turn in their guns and the bad guys would be the only ones left armed. The Republicans walk the NRA line and refuse even limited restrictions. — Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000

Q: Do you support the California law allowing judges to confiscate someone’s gun if they are deemed to be a threat to themselves or others?

A: This is something to look into–people with mental health problems are on the streets who shouldn’t be. — Source: CNN SOTU 2015 interview series: 2016 presidential hopefuls , Sep 20, 2015

Q: You’ve talked about wanting to keep the terror watch list but, under current law, individuals on the terror watch list and the no-fly list have been allowed to buy guns and explosives. Are you OK with that?

TRUMP: We have to have a watch list, but we have the laws already on the books as far as Second Amendment for guns, if people are on a watch list or people are sick, this is already covered in the legislation that we already have,

Q: But under current law people on the watch list are allowed to buy guns.

TRUMP: If somebody is on a watch list and an enemy of state and we know it’s an enemy of state, I would keep them away, absolutely. –ABC This Week 2015 interviews of 2016 presidential hopefuls , Nov 22, 2015

Donald_Trump_GunSo the NRA – an organization that is supposedly dedicated to preserving our Second Amendment rights – America’s First Freedom – endorsed a candidate who implied that the NRA is uncompromising and that Republicans are wrong not to bend on at least some restrictions.

The NRA endorsed a candidate who thinks it may be acceptable for a judge to confiscate the property of an individual with some nebulous concept of “mental health problems.”

The NRA endorsed a candidate who believes people placed on a secret no-fly list without due process should be relieved of their right to keep and bear arms.

The NRA endorsed a candidate who has publicly voiced his support for an “assault weapons” ban and who wants a waiting period before anyone is allowed to make a constitutionally protected purchase. Of course, now he claims he no longer supports the ban on those scary black rifles. Just in time to run for President as a Republican.

Congrats, NRA. You’ve endorsed a flip-flopping, tyrannical weasel, who has hoodwinked a plurality of Republicans into supporting him, and you fell right in line with the rest of those who care more about “winning” than they do about the direction this country is taking.

You care more about defeating the evil Hillary than you do about endorsing someone who has zero respect for basic human rights and believes they should be subject to the whims of politicians.

America’s first freedom, indeed.

Nauseating.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Idiots Trip Over themselves to Alienate Critical Voting Demographic

I posted this at the Liberty Zone yesterday, but I felt a slightly different version of it needed to be posted here as well, just so you can further understand your adversary. I say “adversary,” because 4/5 of the idiots on the stage during the Democratic debate the other night actually named their fellow Americans as their “enemies,” and I want to be a bit more classy than that.

I’m not even kidding. Enemies.

…CNN’s Anderson Cooper noted that each of the candidates had made a number of enemies during their careers in politics and asked them which enemy they were most proud of.

Most of the Democrats at the debate gave predictably boring answers to Cooper’s question. Lincoln Chafee said he was proud that the coal industry disliked him. Former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley said the National Rifle Association. Bernie Sanders said Wall Street. What about Hillary?

“Probably the Republicans,” Hillary responded, in the apparent belief that nearly half the country is her enemy.

So now you know and understand what Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Lincoln Chafee, and Martin O’Malley think of you – whether you’re a Republican, a gun owner, someone who works in finance, or someone who toils in the coal mines, working to bring much needed energy to America. They don’t just disagree with you. They HATE you. They want to rule and control you, and they consider you their enemy.

Congratulations.

Actually, maybe they are the enemy. I report, you decide.

Nonetheless… I had to laugh at the concentrated effort all of the Democrat lunatics on that stage made to distance themselves from the NRA. This is where the NRA is actually useful. They are the boogie man. They are the 800 lb. gorilla feared by the gun grabbers. So they can go on compromising, while groups like the Zelman Partisans, GOA, and others do the actual work. I’m good with that.

However, like it or not, we have the Second Amendment. Like it or not, it protects an existing right. Like it or not, the majority of this nation respects the right to keep and bear arms and does not support additional federal gun control regulations. Like it or not, these are facts, and no amount of mewling from the gun control camp will change it.

That said, it’s interesting to me that last night’s Democratic debate socialist dumpster fire (thanks to my buddy Jason Pye for that quirky, but oh-so accurate, turn of phrase) featured four candidates who were tripping over themselves to portray themselves as the candidate most hated by the NRA!

I didn’t watch the debates, thank goodness. I was really too tired to be that angry on a work night. I did, however, pull up a transcript just to see how these four monkeys would try to out-Marxist one another. From what I read, the debate went pretty much how I expected it to go, but I did find it instructive that given the failing issue gun control has been over the years, these four would be so quick to alienate a broad swath of the American population. I guess they all think that they can count on frothing Bernie Sanders acolytes to supplement the loss in gun owner support?

Filthy hippies and star-struck children.
Filthy hippies and star-struck children.

The first question posed by Anderson Cooper was predictably about gun control.

COOPER: Senator Sanders, you voted against the Brady bill that mandated background checks and a waiting period. You also supported allowing riders to bring guns in checked bags on Amtrak trains. For a decade, you said that holding gun manufacturers legally responsible for mass shootings is a bad idea. Now, you say you’re reconsidering that. Which is it: shield the gun companies from lawsuits or not?

SANDERS: Let’s begin, Anderson, by understanding that Bernie Sanders has a D-minus voting rating (ph) from the NRA. Let’s also understand that back in 1988 when I first ran for the United States Congress, way back then, I told the gun owners of the state of Vermont and I told the people of the state of Vermont, a state which has virtually no gun control, that I supported a ban on assault weapons. And over the years, I have strongly avoided instant background checks, doing away with this terrible gun show loophole. And I think we’ve got to move aggressively at the federal level in dealing with the straw man purchasers.

Translation: No no no! I’m bad on freedom! Just like I’m bad on economic freedom, I’m bad on all the other types of freedom too!

By the way, what’s with the Bob Dole third-person weirdness?

COOPER: Secretary Clinton, is Bernie Sanders tough enough on guns?

CLINTON: No, not at all. I think that we have to look at the fact that we lose 90 people a day from gun violence. This has gone on too long and it’s time the entire country stood up against the NRA. The majority of our country supports background checks, and even the majority of gun owners do.

Translation: I’m Hillary Clinton, and I lie like a cheap rug. If I had bothered to look at statistics provided by the ever-so-biased in my favor Gun Violence Archive, I would have seen that I have nearly tripled my estimate of people lost per day to gun violence. I would have seen that 9,956 people died in firearm incidents through October 1, 2015, and that this number averages to 36, and not 90 people per day, as I claim. If I had done my research, I would also have seen that the majority of people (63 percent or 23 out of those 36 people, according to the CDC) who die in firearms incidents take their own lives, and there’s nothing the government can do about it. If I had done my research, I would have known this, because gun-free Japan has a much higher suicide rate than the United States.

(By the way, I note with no small amount of irony that while California toils to clamp down even more on the right to keep and bear arms, it has legalized suicide.)

Actually I probably did do my research, but it’s so much more effective to inflate firearm death figures, so that I can out-Sanders Sanders with his D- from the NRA!

COOPER: Governor O’Malley, you passed gun legislation as governor of Maryland, but you had a Democratic-controlled legislature. President Obama couldn’t convince Congress to pass gun legislation after the massacres in Aurora, in Newtown, and Charleston. How can you?

O’MALLEY: And, Anderson, I also had to overcome a lot of opposition in the leadership of my own party to get this done. Look, it’s fine to talk about all of these things — and I’m glad we’re talking about these things — but I’ve actually done them.

We passed comprehensive gun safety legislation, not by looking at the pollings or looking at what the polls said. We actually did it. And, Anderson, here tonight in our audience are two people that make this issue very, very real. Sandy and Lonnie Phillips are here from Colorado. And their daughter, Jessie, was one of those who lost their lives in that awful mass shooting in Aurora.

Now, to try to transform their grief, they went to court, where sometimes progress does happen when you file in court, but in this case, you want to talk about a — a rigged game, Senator? The game was rigged. A man had sold 4,000 rounds of military ammunition to this — this person that killed their daughter, riddled her body with five bullets, and he didn’t even ask where it was going.

And not only did their case get thrown out of court, they were slapped with $200,000 in court fees because of the way that the NRA gets its way in our Congress and we take a backseat. It’s time to stand up and pass comprehensive gun safety legislation as a nation.

Translation: I need to sound a bit more radical, so I won’t remind people that even though violent crime has been on the decline in the United States since 1993, Maryland, which has some of the most stringent gun controls in the nation, still comes in as one of the most violent states in the country. Because NRA! And I’m definitely not reminding the audience that Sandy and Lonnie Phillips have been manipulated by my buddies at the Brady Center to file a frivolous lawsuit, which they knew to be frivolous, but I will screech their sainthood from the top of my lungs, because violent crime in Maryland… Um… NRA BAD!

At this point, I have to chuckle, because the conversation between Sanders and O’Malley devolved into a contest about who has the smaller genitalia (translation: who has a lower rating from the NRA).

O’MALLEY: And we did it by leading with principle, not by pandering to the NRA and backing down to the NRA.

SANDERS: Well, as somebody who has a D-minus voting record…

O’MALLEY: And I have an F from the NRA, Senator.

It’s really quite amusing to see two twits arguing about who is more anti-freedom! Say what you will about the NRA – I know I have numerous times – but two guys arguing about who can more effectively alienate a huge chunk of the U.S. population is something akin to two monkeys having a contest to see who can fling a bigger turd. Frankly, in the poo department, I think O’Malley has it.

Of course, Lincoln Chafee (Who? The nitwit from Rhode Island, that’s who!), refusing to be outdone by his statist pals, is touting his F rating from the NRA as a badge of honor.

CHAFEE: Yes, I have a good record of voting for gun commonsense safety legislation, but the reality is, despite these tragedies that happen time and time again, when legislators step up to pass commonsense gun safety legislation, the gun lobby moves in and tells the people they’re coming to take away your guns.

Translation: Must. Use. As. Many. Gun. Grabber. Words. As. Possible. Commonsense gun safety legislation. Commonsense gun safety legislation. Commonsense gun safety legislation. Commonsense gun safety legislation. Commonsense gun safety legislation. Commonsense gun safety legislation. Commonsense gun safety legislation. Commonsense gun safety legislation. Commonsense gun safety legislation. GUN LOBBY BAD!

Who the hell is this douche?
Who the hell is this tool?

The only candidate who didn’t trip over his own winky to screech for more gun control was Jim Webb, whom the NRA seems to like an awful lot. I haven’t seen any Gun Owners of America ratings for Webb, but he at the very least doesn’t seem to be backing away from America’s gun owners, and that makes him smarter than the rest of the barrel of monkeys who infested that stage, competing for who can pick the biggest louse off his/her opponent.

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail