Advertisements
Home

GOA Sends Open Letter to GOP to “Do Something” on Pro-Gun Bills

1 Comment

H/T Bearing Arms.

Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell are a couple of swamp monsters that will sell their mothers to appease the drive by media.

Earlier today, Gun Owners of America issued a press release that calls on Republican congressional leadership to step up and push forward pro-gun legislation currently in the pipeline.

GOA Sends Open Letter to GOP to “Do Something” on Pro-Gun Bills

Springfield, VA – Gun Owners of America (GOA) addressed an open letter to Senate Leader Mitch McConnell and Speaker Paul Ryan — urging them to act on pro-gun legislation.

Tim Macy, chairman of Gun Owners of America, wrote, “A little over a month ago, it appeared that Congress would pass legislation long desired by gun owners.  Sadly, it now appears that the gun agenda is on the back burner.”

Furthermore, it appears some Republicans are supporting failed gun control measures.

“To make matters worse, some Republicans are even falling over themselves, looking for ways to appease The Washington Post, the New York Times, CNN, and MSNBC with a new package of gun controls, centering on ways to buck up the anti-gun Brady law,” Macy continued.  “But here’s the irony: Shooters in virtually every major mass shooting in recent years passed the Brady check. And the one that didn’t, in as [Adam Lanza] in Newtown, killed his mother and stole her guns.”

Macy then highlighted everyday citizens, like the hero Stephen Willeford, who use their guns in self-defense to stop mass shooters in their tracks.  And Macy encouraged Republican leaders to loosen existing gun control restrictions.

“If Republicans want to energize their base, please consider enacting real public safety improvements that involve protecting liberty, not taking it away,” Macy concluded. “So, as you scramble around looking for ‘something to do’ about recent criminal acts, act on legislation that will restore American’s right to keep and bear arms such as concealed carry reciprocity, the Veterans Protection Act, suppressor deregulation, and the Buck Restoration of Rights Amendment.”

The McConnell-Ryan letter was also cc’d to President Donald Trump.

Tim Macy, or another GOA spokesmen, is available for interviews.Gun Owners of America is a nonprofit lobbying organization dedicated to protecting the right to keep and bear arms without compromise. GOA represents over 1.5 million members and activists. For more information, visit GOA’s Newsroom.

At this point, Republicans are playing defense as emboldened Democrats push more and more gun control legislation forward despite maintaining a minority.

The GOP is the ostensibly pro-gun party, yet they have stalled on laws that gun rights activists have long sought, including national reciprocity and the Hearing Protection Act that was folded into the SHARE Act. Lawmakers were primed to permit the lawful sale of suppressors at gun stores without the rigamarole currently involved in obtaining them.

However, the moment Las Vegas happened, congressional Republicans backed off completely.

It’s understandable, to a point. The optics on passing pro-gun legislation in the wake of such a tragedy is less than ideal. However, it’s worth noting that the other side doesn’t care. It’s perfectly acceptable to pass gun control legislation at such times, but not pro-gun laws that have no bearing on the tragedy in question.

The reality is that GOA is right. Republicans in Congress definitely need to step up, grow a set, and pass the laws they were elected to pass by their constituents.  The SHARE Act and national reciprocity need to become the law of the land, and that needs to happen now.

 

Advertisements

The Hyperbole Of The Hysterical Anti-Gun Left

1 Comment

H/T Bearing Arms.

The knee-jerk “Do Something”-ism is they battle cry of the loony anti gun crowd.

The anti-gun left has always been known for their hysteria. Their knee-jerk “Do Something”-ism is a staple of their political stance, particularly when it comes to guns. A single misuse of a gun can easily result in millions of dollars spent all focused on taking away the rights of people who have done absolutely nothing wrong.

While they’re at it, there’s often a fair bit of hyperbole on full display.

Take the Atlanta Journal-Constitution‘s Mike Luckovich and his take on the Sutherland Springs shooting.

Becket Adams, for the record, is being sarcastic there. For the record, here are his words regarding the cartoon:

Get it? The NRA represents some thousands of legal and lawful gun owners across the U.S., so they’re, um, worse than al Qaeda and the Islamic State. Yes, the NRA is worse than two terrorist groups that have made their mark by marauding through the Middle East, killing, torturing, raping, and pillaging as they please, beheading and setting people on fire for the cameras.

A very fine and well-reasoned position!

Indeed.

For the record, the leadership of Al Quida directed attacks are responsible for how many murders conducted by their members? As of 2008, the most recent year I can find numbers for after a quick search, we’re looking at over 4,400 dead, most of them from 9/11. That number has almost certainly increased since then, but this will work for us for right now.

The leadership of ISIS has ordered attacks responsible for how many dead? Not counting people killed in the Syrian civil war in which ISIS is a major player, the New York Times reported more than 1,200 killed as of 2016. Again, that number is a bit higher, especially if you count the slaughter of innocents in ISIS-controlled territories in the Middle East.

That means between the two groups, at least 5,600 innocent men, women, and children have been slaughtered in the service of their ideology.

How many have been killed in NRA-ordered attacks? None.

How many attacks has the NRA ordered? None.

Wait, this can’t be right. We’ve already been told that the NRA is a terrorist organization and the cartoon indicates they’re more deadly than ISIS and Al Quida. This just can’t be!

Well, it can.

The left loves their hyperbole, but they don’t actually want people to know it’s hyperbole. They want people to accept the premise at face value. They want people to associate the NRA with terrorists, paint it as some kind of “Evil Empire” that they will castigate automatically without a second thought.

If called on it, these folks will know that no, the NRA isn’t directlyresponsible, but they’re still responsible dagnabit! Somehow.

Which is why we need to call out people like Mike Luckovich on his nonsense. Yes, he has a First Amendment right to draw any cartoon he wants. We have a First Amendment right to point out that he’s a blithering idiot for equating a civil rights organization with genocidal terrorists who throw gays off of buildings, behead people for having the wrong religion, and stone women to death for the crime of being a rape victim.

Ain’t America great?

Dem-Backed Wisconsin Bill Seeks To Impose New Regulations On Gun Stores

Leave a comment

H/T Bearing Arms.

The gun grabbers are trying everything they can to undermine the Second Amendment.

Democrats in Wisconsin are looking to use a different tactic in their war on guns and gun rights. While the Second Amendment is the law of the land, and the Supreme Court has ruled that it extends to state and local governments, that simply restricts how the government can interfere with an individual’s right to keep and bear arms. With varying degrees of interference, of course.

Wisconsin Democrats are instead looking to target gun stores instead.

The proposal, LRB-3860, requires firearms retailers to lock all guns in a secured safe or steel gun cabinet or on a secured rod or cable when the when the business is closed or unattended. The sponsor said it comes as a response to a series of high-profile gun store burglaries in the state.

“I was shocked by the ease with which these criminals were able to steal multiple unsecured firearms. As a result, these guns are now out on the streets posing a danger to the community,” said state Rep. Lisa Subeck, D-Madison, in a statement. “The legislation I am introducing today will make it harder for criminals to get their hands on dangerous weapons by ensuring they are stored safely and securely after hours where they are sold.”

According to data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, 7,488 firearms were reported stolen from federally licensed dealers last year but only 44 of those were in taken during burglaries in Wisconsin. The state saw 31 guns stolen in 2015.

On the surface, this looks to be more about preventing thefts than anything else. In fact, that may be what some of those who support the proposal are thinking it’s all about.

However, it may also represent a new tactic in the anti-gun arsenal.

The Second Amendment is clear, and while the Supreme Court has claimed that some limits on the kinds of guns that can be owned by civilians, that’s something many anti-gun zealots are probably not eager to challenge. Not with the Court’s current make-up, at least.

However, the Second Amendment doesn’t explicitly preclude attempts to regulate the sale of guns.

Wisconsin’s bill may ostensibly be about preventing theft, it may also serve as a trial balloon. Democrats may be floating this bill to see if gun rights activists will martial their forces to fight it. Especially since the easy counter is how no one wants guns to be stolen.

On the surface, this bill seems fairly innocuous. While it calls for securing guns after hours, it doesn’t require all firearms to be moved to the vault or other excessively burdensome acts. The fact that a lock and cable system is allowed–something far easier to do yet still somewhat secure–makes it a bit harder to oppose and not look like you’re in favor of making things easier for crooks.

But I don’t think it’s about that. Not in the long game, anyway.

See, Americans are comfortable with regulations impacting private businesses. For better or worse, this is considered normal. The gun grabbers may well be planning on increasing regulations on gun dealers to the point that it becomes prohibitively expensive to sell them. Either that or prices on the guns themselves will increase until their out of the price range of the average shooter.

Either way, they have managed to keep guns out of the hands of the rabble like you and me.

Maybe I’m just being paranoid, but since anti-gun crusaders have turned any and all tragedies into an excuse to restrict our rights, I think it’s understandable.

 

Boston Globe Calls For Gun Confiscation

Leave a comment

H/T Bearing Arms.

What would  fierce patriots such as James Otis, Samuel Adams, John Adams, John Hancock, and Paul Revere think of the Boston Globe’s position on firearm confiscation?

Within any gun debate, gun control advocates will typically spout some platitude about how they’re not wanting to ban guns outright, just certain guns. Maybe they’re saying they don’t want the hunting rifles, but do want the modern sporting rifles like the AR-15, whatever. Regardless of the specifics, they’ll routinely say they don’t want all the guns.

Of course, that’s a load of bovine excrement.

While some gun control advocates may, indeed, be sincere about their lack of desire for the confiscation of all firearms, there are more than enough who do. Take, for example, David Scharfenberg at the Boston Globe.

Scharfenberg wrote an op-ed last week all about how we need gun confiscation here in the United States, much like Australia had.

Still, even if we find a way to keep guns out of the hands of people who have engaged in disturbing or violent behavior — no small task, given all the stories of the troubled shooters who slipped through the cracks — it will only get us so far.

The United States’ astronomically high rates of firearm violence aren’t rooted in some unique American propensity for derangement and delinquency. Studies show our levels of mental illness and basic criminality are on par with other wealthy countries.

Other common explanations, like the social fissures created by our racial diversity, have been debunked by researchers, too. The only explanation left — an explanation borne out by a number of careful studies — is the sheer size of the American arsenal. There are 310 million handguns, shotguns, and semi-automatic weapons in American homes, garages, and waistbands.

Ultimately, if gun-control advocates really want to stanch the blood, there’s no way around it: They’ll have to persuade more people of the need to confiscate millions of those firearms, as radical as that idea may now seem.

And this is why gun rights advocates fight any and all gun control measures so vehemently.

Scharfenberg is simply stating an endgame that we already know is on the agenda. Today, the boogieman is the so-called assault rifle. Tomorrow, it’ll be the semi-auto handgun. Then it’ll be the “sniper rifle,” which most of us know as a hunting rifle. Yes, they want the guns. They want them all, and they won’t be happy with any ground given until they have them all.

It doesn’t matter that much of our gun violence is gang-related. It doesn’t matter that you can find far fewer guns in places like South America, yet much higher rates of violence. It doesn’t matter that most of our gun violence is centered on American cities, indicating the issue is something more localized than guns per capita.

No, none of that matters.

All that matters is blaming the tool sufficiently that people will gladly give up their firearms so our betters can make decisions for us. They can keep us safe and sound…except they can’t. Even if they desperately wanted to, they can’t.

The United States isn’t England, Australia, or any other country on Earth. We do have the Second Amendment, and we do have massive numbers of people who will vocally defend that amendment, many with their lives if necessary, but more importantly, we have a different culture than those nations. That different culture means what may work over there won’t necessarily work over here.

That’s especially true for gun confiscation programs.

Not that it matters, though. Democrats know damn good and well that trying to take all the guns is a non-starter, at least in one fell swoop. They know they need to take them incrementally.

Republicans, despite some recent squishiness on guns, aren’t likely to give up that kind of ground anytime soon. Bump stocks are one thing. Modern sporting rifles are another.

But never let a gun control advocate say that they, as a group, don’t want all the guns. Of course, they do, and the Boston Globe pretty much admitted it.

5 Gun Myths That Need To Die…Horribly

Leave a comment

H/T Bearing Arms.

These myths need to be killed then buried with a stake through there hearts.

The world is full of gun myths, most are born out of pure ignorance. The people who write Hollywood screenplays and direct action sequences aren’t exactly gun people, so it’s somewhat understandable that they botch so much.

However, there are a few myths that seem to float around people who, in theory, should know better. These are the myths that supposed gun people tend to perpetuate.

1. You Don’t Have To Aim A Shotgun

We’ll start with this one because it’s a classic.

The idea is simple. The argument is that a shotgun with a barrel only slightly above legal length will, when fired, put out such a wide swath of hate and shot that aiming the weapon becomes pointless. This is why people like to recommend shotguns to people who want something for home defense, but don’t really want to practice with it.

While the shot does spread out a bit, it’s not nearly as much as some people would like to think. A shotgun can be a little more forgiving in the aiming department than a handgun or a carbine, but you still have to have the gun pointed in the right spot, otherwise, you’re going to miss. There’s no way around that one.

2. The 5.56 Round Was Created To Wound The Enemy, Not Kill Them

The idea is straightforward. The military developed the 5.56 round not so much to kill the enemy, but to wound them. Proponents of this myth state that a wounded man takes more people off the battlefield–the wounded man, stretcher bearer, and medics–whereas killing the enemy only takes one man off the field.

It almost sounds plausible until you remember that wounded people can return to kill you later. Those who remove the wounded man from the field will also return to kill you.

Wounded men are not now, nor have they ever been the goal of our armed forces. Dead enemy soldiers are people who will never menace our people again. Make enough dead enemy soldiers, and the enemy decides peace is preferable to war regardless of the cost, and we win. That’s not nearly as likely to happen if you wound people.

Now, we can debate the lethality of the 5.56 versus, say, 7.62×51 all day long, but to say that the 5.56 round was designed to wound is ridiculous.

3. Knockdown Power

“I’m gonna use me a .45 cuz even it’s got plenty of knockdown power.”

No, it doesn’t. That’s because there’s no such thing.

The idea with knockdown power is that a round is so powerful that it’ll knock down anyone you shoot with that round. However, even a rudimentary understanding of physics should tell you just how wrong this concept is. Newtown’s Third Law states that for every action, there is an equal but opposite reaction. For our purposes here, that means any power strong enough to knock someone down is probably enough to knock the shooter down as well.

Yes, there are various things that can factor into reducing felt recoil, but it still wouldn’t be enough to keep you from hurting every time you pulled the trigger.

4. It’s Dangerous To Walk Around With A Round In The Chamber

There are people walking around right now carrying a weapon that doesn’t have a round in the chamber. Why? Because it’s dangerous!

Now, this isn’t all that much of a myth per se, because a round in the chamber is more dangerous than an empty chamber, but so what? Negligent discharges don’t happen if you keep the booger hook off of the bang switch, so having a round in the chamber won’t matter if you keep our finger off the trigger.

But what’s really dangerous is walking around with a self-defense tool that’s useless because you believe this next myth.

5. You’ll Have Time To Chamber A Round During Self Defense Scenarios

This one will get people killed. Plain and simple.

The idea here is that having a round in the chamber means you may have a negligent discharge, so it’s safer to carry with an empty chamber. After all, you’ll be able to rack the slide before you need to shoot…

…except, you can’t. Not always.

If you need a gun, you generally need a gun right freaking now! You don’t have time to pull some movie badass stuff where you rack the slide, make a witty one-liner, and then get to down to the business of shooting. That’s not how it works at all. Especially since in most cases, if you’re needing a gun, it’s because the bad guy is right there in front of you and armed.

What are you going to do then? Remember, there are no “times outs” in the real world.

 

So those are five gun myths that supposed gun people need to stop spreading.

What are your favorite myths that need to die in a fire?

North Las Vegas Domestic Dispute Shooting Ruled Self Defense

Leave a comment

H/T Bearing Arms.

The abusive bastard got what he deserved for hitting his wife. 

Any man that hits a woman is not a man but a punk asshole that deserves to die.

A North Las Vegas woman apparently shot and killed her husband during a domestic dispute on Friday. Police have ruled the shooting self-defense after their investigation.

“All of the evidence and witnesses indicated the shooting was in self-defense,” Officer Eric Leavitt told reporters. He said investigators based that conclusion off of two eyewitness statements and information from about 10 others who described the incident.

In a statement, police said the shooting happened around lunchtime after an argument between the man and a 26-year-old woman turned physical and the woman opened fire, striking the man. When police arrived, officers found him with multiple gunshot wounds. He was pronounced dead at the scene.

In the driveway of the residence where the shooting occurred, there was a white sedan with a busted window, although it wasn’t immediately clear if the vehicle damage was related to either the dispute or the shooting, The Las Vegas Review-Journal reported.

Authorities have not released the names of either the man or the woman involved, but the parents of the deceased man spoke with reporters and said the woman who shot him was his wife. They also said the couple has two children together, although it’s unclear if they were home at the time of the incident.

Parents of the deceased claim that the man was previously involved with gangs when he lived in Compton, California. However, they claim he had cleaned up his life after moving to Las Vegas with the woman and their two children.

The parents are also skeptical of the claim of self-defense, though that’s hardly unusual.

Large numbers of women look at guns as a scourge to women, that men use them to gun down wives and girlfriends in domestic violence situations, yet this incident shows the reality. Men are often able to kill and maim women with their bare hands, while women are physically unable to defend themselves from such attacks.

That’s where a firearm comes into play.

It doesn’t take a lot of upper body strength to pull a trigger. Even especially weak women can manage it just fine.

Guns can negate the strength advantage men typically have and allow women to even the odds. Even the biggest, meanest, most aggressive man becomes just as susceptible to a few rounds of 9mm as the next person.

Firearms aren’t the bane of women, despite what some gun grabbers like to say, but a tool women can use to protect themselves not just from domestic violence but any other predator who would see their gender as making them easy prey.

Whether that’s quite what happened in Vegas or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is that a woman feared for her life in the face of a man who was most likely large and stronger than her, and she had the means to keep herself safe despite those physical differences. In this is a lesson for other women, particularly those who have reason to fear a man in their life.

If you don’t want to be a victim, a gun gives you a far better chance than a restraining order, the police, or harsh language.

Deserter Bergdahl Dodges Prison Time, Receives Dishonorable Discharge

Leave a comment

H/T Bearing Arms.

I still say the yellow bastard should have been shot.

Many of us veterans don’t like speaking ill of others who served. While we all know that there were people who were grade “A” screw-ups that we served with (or were), we tend not to bash them. However, there are always exceptions.

A prime exception is Bowe Bergdahl, who recently plead guilty to desertion. Now he’s been sentenced, and…well, you’ll see.

Bowe Bergdahl received a dishonorable discharge from the US Army but will avoid prison time for desertion and misbehavior before the enemy after abandoning his outpost in Afghanistan in 2009, a military judge ruled Friday.

The judge also ruled that Bergdahl’s rank be reduced from sergeant to private. Additionally, he will be required to pay a $1,000 fine from his salary for the next 10 months.

“Sgt. Bergdahl has looked forward to today for a long time,” Eugene Fidell, Bergdahl’s civilian attorney, said at a news conference after the sentence was announced.

“As everyone knows he was a captive of the Taliban for nearly five years, and three more years have elapsed while the legal process unfolded. He has lost nearly a decade of his life.”

The sentence is effective immediately, except for the dishonorable discharge, which Bergdahl is appealing, according to Fidell.

Un-freaking-believable.

It’s important to note that Bowe Bergdahl willfully walked away from his post. His status as a “captive of the Taliban for nearly five years” is completely and totally because of his desertion. If his attorney thinks he’s deserving of any sympathy for his ordeal, he can forget it.

It’s worth remembering that Bergdahl was traded for five high-value prisoners by the Obama administration. In other words, five terrorists were returned to circulation so we could get a deserter back. To make matters worse, we got to hear from the White House about what a hero Bergdahl was and all that.

The fact that Bergdahl is walking away without prison time, is probably even worse.

Folks, desertion is a serious thing. I remember the guy from my company in boot camp who jumped the fence and was picked up at the train station. He was gone for mere hours and got only a slightly less serious sentence than Bergdahl. He was administratively separated rather than dishonorably discharged.

And this wasn’t during a war, and most certainly not in a war zone.

Bergdahl did, and he’s basically walking.

Oh, I know, a dishonorable discharge isn’t exactly nothing. He’s essentially deemed a felon for all practical purposes, which will negatively impact job prospects and civil liberties, but it still feels…insufficient.

You see, Bergdahl’s desertion was bad enough. However, his decision also impacted American service members who were killed and wounded while searching for him. He put lives at risk. He cost lives. His decisions directly impacted the United States Army’s ability to wage war, if only for a short time.

And he’s not going to spend a single day in prison for it.

If that wasn’t enough, though, the audacity of this man and his attorney to have the nerve to appeal his discharge? Seriously? He’s fortunate not to be rotting and beautiful and scenic Fort Levinworth, and he’s going to appeal his dishonorable discharge?

I’ll give Bergdahl this, I don’t think his desertion had anything to do with cowardice. After all, it takes some massive cajones to try this on.

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: