Make Gun Companies Pay Blood Money

Leave a comment

This is from Jews For The Preservation Of Firearms Ownership.

Typical Liberal Logic blame the firearms manufactures

for people being murdered but let the criminals get a pass.

The thugs that use guns have stolen them not purchased them.

Start enforcing the gun laws on the books not write new ones.


NOTE: – In our article 6/22/13, “Federal nullification efforts mounting in states” there is reference made to the Supremacy Clause. There is now a footnote memo that has been added to that page to expand and clarify it, following information kindly received from Alan Korwin of


Well, here we go again! More “blame the gun” rhetoric, as if this is going to solve anything. Perhaps further taxes should be levied on automobiles, kitchen knives and baseball bats etc. Note at the end of the article, the author’s email addresses, should you wish to give your own opinion!


By Lucinda M. Finley And John G. Culhane, June 23rd, 2013
Article Source


GUN manufacturers have gone to great lengths to avoid any moral responsibility or legal accountability for the social costs of gun violence — the deaths and injuries of innocent victims, families torn apart, public resources spent on gun-related crime and medical expenses incurred.

But there is a simple and direct way to make them accountable for the harm their products cause. For every gun sold, those who manufacture or import it should pay a tax. The money should then be used to create a compensation fund for innocent victims of gun violence.

This proposal is based on a fundamentally conservative principle — that those who cause injury should be made to “internalize” the cost of their activity by paying for it. Now, gun manufacturers and sellers are mostly protected from lawsuits by federal law.

As it happens, a model for this approach already exists. Under the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, those injured by vaccines are eligible for compensation from a fund financed by an excise tax on the sale of every dose of vaccine. In creating this no-fault system in the 1980s, Congress sought to provide care for those injured by vaccines while protecting manufacturers from undue litigation.

Vaccines are essential for public health but inevitably cause harm to a small number of people. Since all of us benefit from a vaccinated population, the compensation program spreads the costs when things go wrong to everyone who received a vaccination, rather than leaving the injured and their families to bear the cost. It also avoids the time, expense and inefficiencies of litigation, and dispenses with the need to prove fault. The compensation fund thus ensures that vaccine manufacturers will remain in the market rather than being forced out by the prospect of huge legal judgments against them.

Guns, of course, are not essential for public health. But Congress has made painfully clear that it values the largely unfettered ownership of guns and their manufacture — despite the social costs of the violence that results when guns work as designed. For that reason, it makes sense to tax gun manufacturers directly. The result would be that those who derive a benefit from guns — for hunting, target practice, self-defense or simply for collecting — would shoulder some of the social costs of their choice as manufacturers pass along the cost of the tax to them.

Such a tax might also exert at least some economic pressure on manufacturers to market especially lethal guns less aggressively, or to implement safer gun technologies, like “smart guns” that could be used only by the registered owner. Right now, they have no such incentive — they’re immune from most lawsuits, and guns are expressly exempt from regulation by the Consumer Product Safety Commission, which is supposed to protect the public from unreasonable risks from consumer products. (Thus, the commission can ban lawn darts or cork guns, but not real firearms.)

Since safer guns would mean fewer compensable injuries or deaths, the tax should be adjustable, rising when injuries and deaths increase, and falling when they decrease. The tax rate could also be adjusted to reflect the relative lethality of guns. Those guns that are most often used to kill or maim the largest number of people could be taxed at a higher rate, while guns used primarily for hunting or sport that are much less often involved in fatalities or injuries would be taxed at a lower rate.

Gun makers know that their products are lethal, and sometimes used illegally. They know that some of their dealers’ sales practices contribute to guns’ falling into criminal hands. They know that each year a significant number of innocent people will be killed or maimed by the use of guns. But quite often, the shooters themselves cannot be held fully or even partially accountable, financially, because they are unknown, destitute or dead.

A serious discussion will be required about the amount of compensation, and whether victims’ family members would also be entitled to recover from the fund. These important conversations about eligibility and amounts are common to all compensation funds. Just as these questions have been and will be tackled for these other funds, they can be thoughtfully and carefully worked out for this one.

Some of the victims of recent mass shootings — including the massacres at Aurora, Colo., Newtown, Conn., and Virginia Tech, as well as those who survived the 9/11 attack — have recently banded together to ask Congress to enact a National Compassion Fund, to make sure that charitable donations get to their victims rather than being swallowed up in administrative costs.

That’s a good idea, but it is not enough. Gun manufacturers should pony up. A national tax on the sale of guns is the way to do that.


Lucinda M. Finley


Lucinda M. Finley is a professor of trial and appellate advocacy, and vice provost for faculty affairs, at SUNY Buffalo Law School (email: G. Culhane is a professor of law at Widener University and director of its Health Law Institute (

                                    John G. Culhane



State took guns of man for mischief night egg fight

Leave a comment

This is from The Connecticut Post.

This is from the you can not make this stuff up department.

Maybe it is time for Mr. Gorham  to move to a Red State.

He would enjoy more freedom. 

Norwalk Compressor employee James Gorham poses at his place of work in Stratford, Conn. on Friday June 7, 2013. Gorham has his gun permit revoked because he turned up in a database during a check for a misdemeanor arrest when he was 19 in 1971. Photo: Christian Abraham / Connecticut Post

Norwalk Compressor employee James Gorham poses at his place of work in Stratford, Conn. on Friday June 7, 2013. Gorham has his gun permit revoked because he turned up in a database during a check for a misdemeanor arrest when he was 19 in 1971. Photo: Christian Abraham

HARTFORD — A longtime gun owner who recently had his permit revoked over a 1971 Halloween egg fight was the inspiration for an amendment to the state’s new gun law.

James E. Gorham, a 61-year-old Norwalk gun collector and target shooter, received a letter in January ordering him to turn in his guns; his one instance of teenage mischief disqualified him from legal gun ownership.

“I was first contacted by the Norwalk Police Department before I got a certified letter from the State Police,” said Gorham, a businessman. “It was a real surprise. They told me I had been involved in domestic violence and I told them, `You’ve got the wrong person.’ ”

The letter referred to a misdemeanor charge for the egg fight, for which Gorham paid a $10 fine when he was 19.

So Gorham, manager of customer service and sales for the Norwalk Compressor Co., turned in his seven handguns to state police at Troop G in Bridgeport.

But his plight caught the attention of House Minority Leader Lawrence F. Cafero Jr., R-Norwalk, who successfully introduced a change in gun legislation that will allow people like Gorham, with lower-level misdemeanors adjudicated before 1994 that do not involve drugs or firearms, to hold onto their guns.

During the General Assembly‘s debate on the release of photos of the school massacre victims this week, Cafero successfully argued that the rights of his constituent — Gorham — had to be protected and should be part of the amendments to the landmark April gun reforms.

Now, Gorham will get his guns back and he can resume target practice at Blue Trail Range in Wallingford.

The issue surfaced last year, when the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in Newtown sent law enforcement officials scouring through firearms records.

In January, state police ordered Gorham to surrender all his guns because they discovered a “misdemeanor handgun disqualifier” during a routine criminal background check after he used a gift certificate his wife gave him at Christmas to purchase a new new Smith & Wesson .380 revolver.

Even though he had no other criminal record and had held valid permits for more than 35 years, police discovered the third-degree assault arrest from his October 1971 mischief night egg fight in Westport, where Gorham went to high school.

He had been working a second job that night, Gorham said, driving a tow truck along Treadwell Avenue, when an egg hit the side of the truck’s windshield. He and his passenger drove to a nearby gas station to clean off the egg. A pump attendant there offered them a few eggs for later that night.

Soon thereafter, Gorham and his friend found the teens who had egged the truck and Gorham hit one of them, a 16-year-old, in the head from a few feet away. The boy complained to his father, and the issue of who instigated the egg confrontation apparently never came up with the Westport police who arrested him, Gorham recalled.

He paid the fine and that was that, until Jan. 24, when he received the police letter. His only remedies were to appeal to the Board of Firearms Examiners or seek a state pardon for the egg-throwing incident.

Similar seizure letters have gone out to other gun owners, but Lt. J. Paul Vance, spokesman for the state police, said last week he doesn’t know how many people were contacted or how many guns have been turned in.

“I haven’t a clue,” said Vance, who declined to talk specifics about Gorham because of confidentiality requirements and wouldn’t confirm that photocopies of the seizure orders were authentic.

“What happens in many cases, prior to the 1990s, someone might have gotten into a minor event,” said Vance, noting that in 1994, following the 1991 ban on assault weapons, lawmakers approved the tougher rules barring those convicted of misdemeanors from obtaining handgun permits.

Vance said that cases such as Gorham’s permit renewal every five years “could have fallen through the cracks very easily” until he tried to buy the new Smith & Wesson after Christmas.

“It’s very rare something like this rises to the surface,” Vance said. “We’ve got to apply the law as it’s written.”

Cafero said his amendment tries to balance the public’s safety with protecting the rights of law-abiding citizens.

“Here was Mr. Gorham, who followed the rules, hadn’t had so much as a traffic ticket, I believe, since he was 19, been married for decades, worked for the same company for years, has had his gun permit renewed every five years,” Cafero said. “We had no right to take away his permit. And this had nothing to do with the law we passed in April. The question is, how many more Mr. Gorhams are there?”

Gorham is relieved the new law will result in the return of his guns, even if it leaves state officials with a little egg on their faces.

Read more:

Colorado shoots itself in the foot … again.

Leave a comment

Hat Tip To LawDog for this article.

I missed this story.


Perrazi is a company which makes very high end, very expensive double barreled shotguns. How expensive? Well, a cheap one costs just shy of $10,000 and one of the expensive ones is close enough to half of a million dollars as to make no never-mind.

I hope that it will not come as a surprise to my Gentle Readers when I state — quite confidently — that double-barreled shotguns costing more than the average American car are NOT the weapon of choice for terrorists, much less the run-of-the-mill gang-banging critter.

Obvious, really.

Matter-of-fact when it comes to guns that the gun-grabbers and VPOTUS Joe Biden (but I repeat myself) consider tolerable, the fact that the multi-thousand dollar Perazzi shotguns are too expensive for the hoi-polloi — and only hold a maximum of two rounds — probably means that Perazzis are last on the list of firearms considered verboten by the leftists.

Well, except for law enforcement in the Great State of Colorado.

On 18 MAY 2013 the current president of Perazzi — the son of the founder of the company — was arrested by the Denver Police Department at the Colorado Gun Collectors Show.

Apparently being the president of one of the world’s foremost shot-gun manufacturers, at a gun-show, with shot-guns … is an arrestable offence in Colorado.


To add the cherry to this little cup-cake of suck and fail, once a pair of very well-paid lawyers secured his release from durance vile, someone at Denver PD thought it was a damned fine idea to “suggest” that the president of one of the world’s foremost high-end shot-gun manufacturers … be out of the State of Colorado before the sun set.

I … don’t know that I have any words.

I am heartened by the thought that a whole pack of lawyers with great big dorsal fins are — no doubt — on the way to Denver as I write this.



Waking the Dragon — How Feinstein fiddled while America burned

Leave a comment

This is from Jews For The Preservation Of Firearms Ownership.

This is a very long article but well worth your time to read it.

This will be my only comment on the article.


By Barry Snell,, May 3, 2013

Article source.

(NOTE: This article has a great many links – bear in mind that over time links can expire.)
Print Friendly and PDF



Along with bombs and bombers, guns seem to be all the media wants to talk about these days. Death is sexy to our miscreant media, especially when people are killed on purpose. And when that happens, it’s all the newspapers and news stations will print and broadcast, in turn making these events appear worse than they are in reality.

To understand this, one need only look at the difference in coverage between the Texas fertilizer plant explosion, which killed at least 14 confirmed people and injured 200 more at the time of writing this, versus the coverage of the Boston Marathon bombing, which only killed three and injured a hundred others. Texas was on TV for a day, tops, while we’re still hearing about Boston and will for many weeks to come.

Where the media really didn’t care too much about the Texas incident, once a kid was killed at a race, the Boston bombing is now a foil for everything from gun control to immigration in the wake of Sandy Hook, with both sides of the political spectrum using it against the other. What about Texas, you ask? Nothing but crickets chirping from the mainstream media at the moment. Recent studies have shown that people who consume large amounts of mass media often feel more insecure, are less informed, or can’t distinguish between news and what passes as news, what with all the opinion you’ll find in news today.

But when it comes to something as deadly serious as guns and crime, Americans can’t afford the media hyperbole, misinformation and disinformation.

We have a lot of liberal columnists working for the Daily. As a conservative, I’m fine with that; they’re the ones who apply for the job, and conservatives usually don’t. Free market, baby, deal with it. But many of our liberal columnists are my friends, with whom I have spent time outside of work, too. And they, along with everyone else it seems, have an opinion about guns, as you can see by glancing through the last few weeks of the Daily’s Opinion section.

It’s been an eye-opening experience for me. As assistant opinion editor and friend, my columnists are important to me both professionally and personally. It’s all the more clear to me now after doing this job that people often opine a whole lot about stuff they don’t have any personal experience with or expertise on. Like guns.

Every time a gun issue comes up in conversation around Daily people or during a Daily editorial board meeting, opinion editor Michael Belding almost always tells me, “you should write a column about that!” I hesitate in doing so and have so far resisted the urge mostly; I wrote three gun-related columns back in 2011 and early 2012, and that was enough to brand me the “gun guy” by some folks who use such terms as epithets.

The desire of others for me to write gun columns is reasonable, though, and I understand it. I’m as much of a “gun expert” as you’re likely to find around here, so having me write about guns in the paper is perfectly rational. I won’t bore you with my “gun resume,” but suffice it to say that prior to coming to Iowa State in 2011, I made a living with firearms in one way or another for several years of my life, and have a few pieces of paper laying around that say I know a bit about them, too.


Today, however, I’m going to break my silence on the gun issue and speak out once more — and for the last time. This is my final column for the Iowa State Daily.


No experience necessary

In the gun debate, I’ve discovered that one cannot be expert enough about guns. Indeed, when it comes to the gun issue, opinion rules. There doesn’t seem to be any opportunity for any genuine, honest debate on guns, and even liberals would agree with that. I’ve often wondered about this over the years. Is it because my side of the debate is actually loony? I don’t think so; at least, I think I’m pretty normal. Sure, we’ve got some oddballs we all wish would go away, just like any group does.

But all the pro-gun people I know are normal people too — people so normal that nobody knows they’re gun people until they’re told. In fact, there are so many gun owners that if we are all crazy like some suggest, the daily crime rate in America would look more like our crime rate for the entire decade combined, and CNN would actually have something to report on other than thelatest gossip.

That is to say, there’s a hundred million of us, owning a few hundred million guns combined, and we contribute to society peacefully every day. Many of us even literally protect society for a living, or used to.

I’ve come to realize after the Sandy Hook shooting that the reason we can’t have a rational gun debate is because the anti-gun side pre-supposes that their pro-gun opponents must first accept that guns are bad in order to have a discussion about guns in the first place. Before we even start the conversation, we’re the bad guys and we have to admit it. Without accepting that guns are bad and supplicating themselves to the anti-gunner, the pro-gunner can’t get a word in edgewise, and is quickly reduced to being called a murderer, or a low, immoral and horrible human being.

You might think that’s hyperbole too, but I’ve experienced it personally from people I considered friends until recently. And every day I see it on TV or in the newspapers, from Piers Morgan to the Des Moines Register’s own Donald Kaul, who among others have actually said people like me are stupid, crazy or should be killed ourselves. YouTube is full of examples, and any Google search will result in example after example of gun-owning Americans beinglampoonedridiculed and demonized by the media and citizens somewhere.

Hell, it’s even gotten so bad that a little kid was expelled from school recently for biting a Pop Tart into the vague shape of a handgun during lunch break (it looked more like Idaho to me).

Liberals always make the common plea, “We need to get some experts to solve this problem!” for any public policy issue that comes along, which is a good thing. But when it comes to the gun issue, gun expertise is completely irrelevant to the anti-gunner — people who probably have never fired a gun or even touched one in real life, and whose only experience with guns is what they’ve seen in movies or read about in bastions of (un)balanced, hyper-liberal journalism, like Mother Jones. That a pro-gun person might actually know a lot about their hobby or profession doesn’t stand up against the histrionic cries of the anti-gunner.

How can we “gun people” honestly be expected to come to the table with anti-gunners when anti-gunners are willfully stupid about guns, and openly hate, despise and ridicule those of us who own them? There must first be respect and trust — even just a little — before there can be even the beginnings of legitimate discussion of the issue.


Death by a thousand cuts

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because anti-gunners always talk about 90 percent of Americans supporting this gun control measure, or 65 percent supporting that one, as if a majority opinion is what truly matters in America. We don’t trust anti-gun people because you think America is a democracy, when it’s actually a constitutional federal republic. In the American system, the rights of a single individual are what matters and are what our system is designed to protect. The emotional mob does not rule in America.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because they keep saying they “respect the Second Amendment” and go on about how they respect the hunting traditions of America. We don’t trust you because you have to be a complete idiot to think the Second Amendment is about hunting. I wish people weren’t so stupid that I have to say this: The Second Amendment is about checking government tyranny. Period. End of story. The founders probably couldn’t have cared less about hunting since, you know, they just got done with that little tiff with England called the Revolutionary War right before they wrote that ” little book” called the Constitution.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because they lie to us. President Obama directly says he won’t tamper with guns or the Second Amendment, then turns around and yet pushes Congress to do just that. We don’t trust anti-gunners because they appoint one of the most lyingand rabidly (and moronically) anti-gun people in America, Vice President Biden, to head up a “task force” to “solve” the so-called “gun problem,” who in turn talks with anti-gun special interest groups instead of us to complete his task.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because they tell us they don’t want to ban guns, only enact what they call “common sense gun laws.” But like a magician using misdirection, they tell everyone else they want to ban every gun everywhere. While some are busy trying to placate us with lies, another anti-gunner somewhere submits a gun ban proposal — proposals that often would automatically make us felons for possession. Felons, for no good reason. And you anti-gunners can roll up your grandfather clauses and stuff them where the sun don’t shine. If it ain’t good enough for our grandchildren in 60 years, it ain’t good enough for us right now.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because they make horrifying predictions about how there will be blood in the streets, gunfights on every street corner and America will become the Wild West again if citizens are allowed to carry concealed firearms. We don’t trust anti-gun people because we know that despite the millions of Americans who have carry permits, those who carry guns commit crimes at a much lower rate than people who don’t. We know because we know ourselves and we’re not criminals. We know because concealed carry is now legal nearly everywhere, and guess what? Violent crime continues to go down. What a shocker.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because they say gun control is about crime control. Anti-gunners claim that ending crime and ” saving children” is why they want to ban so-called “assault weapons.” Yet our very own government says that assault weapons are used in less than two percent of all gun crimes and Department of Justice studies say the last assault weapons ban hadlittle or no effect on crime. Other studies suggest gun control may even make crime worse (one need only look to high crime rates in places where there’s a lot of gun control to see the possible connection).

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because when it comes to their “We need gun control to save the children” argument, many of us can’t understand how an anti-gun liberal can simultaneously be in favor of abortion. Because you know, a ban on abortion would save a child every single time. I’m personally not rabidly against abortion, but the discongruence makes less sense still when the reason abortions are legal is to protect a woman’s individual rights. That’s great, but does the individual rights argument sound familiar? Anti-gunners think that for some bizarre reason, the founding fathers happened to stick a collective right smack dab at the top of a list of individual rights, though. Yeah, because that makes sense.


Truth, treason and the empire of lies

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because they are purposely misleading to rile the emotions of the ignorant. We don’t trust anti-gunners because they say more than 30,000 people are killed each year by guns — a fact that is technically true, but the key piece of information withheld is that only a minor fraction of that number is murder; the majority issuicides and accidents. We don’t trust anti-gunners because we know accidents and suicides don’t count in the crime rate, but they’re held against us as if they do.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because suicide is the only human-inflicted leading cause of death in America, and that violent crime has been on the decline for decades. We also know that 10 people die daily in drownings, 87 people die daily by poisoning, more than 20,000 adults die from falls each year, someone dies in a fire every 169 minutes, nearly 31,000 people are killed in car accidents annually and almost 2,000 are hammers. Yet fewer than 14,000 people are killed by guns of any kind each year.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because not only is the violent crime rate approaching historic lows, but mass shootings are on the decline too. We don’t trust anti-gun people because they fail to recognize that mass shootings happen where guns are already banned — ridiculous “gun-free zones” which attract homicidal maniacs to perpetrate their mass shootings.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because school shootings have been happening forever, but despite them being on the decline, the media inflates the issue until the perception is that they’re a bigger problem than they really are. We don’t trust anti-gunners because they’re busy riling up the emotions of the ignorant, who in turn direct their ire upon us, demonizing us because we object to the overreaction and focus on the wrong things, like the mentally ill people committing the crimes.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because they look down on us for defending the Second Amendment as vigorously as they defend the First Amendment — a fight we too would stand side-by-side with them on otherwise. We don’t trust anti-gunners because someone defending the First Amendment is considered a hero, but a someone defending the Second Amendment is figured down with murderers and other lowlifes. Where the First Amendment has its very own day and week, both near-holy national celebrations beyond reproach, anti-gunners would use the First Amendment to ridicule any equivalent event for the Second Amendment, like they did for a recent local attempt at the University of Iowa.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because anti-gun people put us down with dismissals like “just another dumb redneck with a gun.” We are told all over the Internet that we deserve to be in prison for being awful, heartless people; baby-killers and supporters of domestic terrorism, even. We don’t trust anti-gun people because even our own president says people like me are “bitter” and “cling to our guns and religion.” One need only go to any online comments section of any recent gun article in any of the major newspapers to see all this for themselves.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because they seek to punish us for crimes we didn’t commit. We don’t trust anti-gunners because we know that the 100 million of us are peaceful, law-abiding citizens who love this country and our society as much as the next liberal. Yet when one previously convicted felon murders someone with a stolen gun five days after his release from prison, or things like the Newtown shooting happen, guns are blamed — and therefore lawful gun owners too, as there is guilt by association, apparently.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because when things like the Boston Marathon bombing happen, everyone correctly blames the bomber, not the bomb. Nobody is calling for bomb control because killing people with bombs is already illegal — just like killing people with guns is illegal too.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because they’re fine with guns protecting the money in our banks, our politicians and our celebrities, but they’re against us using guns to protect ourselves, our families, or even our children in schools. Legislative trolls like Dianne Feinstein cry havoc about me protecting my life, while standing comfortably behind armed guards —and the .38 Special revolver she got a California carry permit for. We don’t trust anti-gunners because they tell us our lives aren’t important, or at least are less important than the life of some celebrity like Snooki, who can have all the armed guards her bank account can afford.


A dangerous servant and fearful master

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because they completely ignore the fact that true conservatism is about, in part, the preservation of traditions and long-standing principles. We don’t trust anti-gunners because the American Revolution was kicked off by an attempt at gun control when the British marched to Concord to seize the colonists’ muskets and powder. Since the shot heard round the world was fired on Lexington Green, the possession of a firearm has been the mark and symbol of a citizen, distinguishing them from a subject of a monarchy or tyrannical government. We don’t trust anti-gunners because they prefer the post-modern world where anything means anything, and they therefore don’t understand the power of or need for the preservation of traditions — or at least, ones of which they don’t personally approve.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because in a single breath they tell us that the Second Amendment is irrelevant today and should be repealed because semi-automatic weapons didn’t exist when the Bill of Rights was written, then turn around and say the First Amendment protects radio, television, movies, video games, the Internetdomain namesFacebook and Twitter. Carrying liberal logic on the Second Amendment through to the First Amendment, it would only cover the town crier, and hand-operated printing presses producing only books and newspapers, and nothing else. Even anything written with a No. 2 pencil or ballpoint pen would not be included. And those of you belonging to religions that formed after the 1790s? You’re screwed under liberal logic, too.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because, while liberals seek to expand government regulation and services — things that may not be bad or ill-intended on their own — they simultaneously try to curtail the Second Amendment. We don’t trust anti-gun people for this reason because history shows us that every genocide and democide is preceded by expansion of government power and guncontrol. We don’t trust anti-gunners because here in America, gun control is rooted in slavery and racism, with some of America’s modern anti-gun laws being direct copies of former Nazi laws that banned gun possession for Jews, blacks, gays and other “undesirables.”

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because anti-gunners tell us that the police and militaryare the only people who should have guns (which is a joke in itself), and that we need to give up our own guns and trust the government. We don’t trust anti-gunners because we know that hundreds of millions of people have been killed by their own governments in the last century, and not a single law seeking to ban the government from possessing guns has ever been submitted. Yet when but a few thousand people are killed by civilian criminals, tens of millions of American citizens like myself who did not commit any crimes at all are subjected to gun restrictions and personal persecution at the hands of emotional anti-gun bigots.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because anti-gunners insult us for our opposition to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (aka the “ATF”). We don’t trust anti-gunners because we know the ATF is hardly a law enforcement agency but is really a glorified tax collection agency that has abused, ruined the lives of, or murdered dozens of innocent gun owners through overzealous enforcement of gun-related tax and paperwork regulations. Just ask Louis KatonaPatty and Paul Mueller,John Lawmaster, Tuscon Police Lt. Mike Lara or any of thedozens of other victims of criminal ATF agents. Where was the ACLU for all that? And it doesn’t help that President Obama tried to appoint known anti-gunnerAndrew Traver to be the ATF director. Check out the ATF’s ” Good Ol’ Boys Roundup,” “Project Gunrunner” scandal and their loss of department guns for a little F-Troop entertainment sometime, too.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because they always bemoan the NRA, claiming the NRA is the source of all their anti-gun legislation problems. We don’t trust anti-gunners because it never occurs to them that perhaps it’s not the NRA per se that has the power, but the millions of members that belong to it, and the millions more Americans who otherwise support it and its mission. The NRA is probably the largest private organization in America; maybe that has something to do with its influence … ? We also don’t trust anti-gunners because they’re too ignorant to understand that the NRA only represents a minority of us anyway.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because while they were crying about the victims of 9/11 or Aurora or Sandy Hook, and thanking God they weren’t there, I and many other gun people like me were crying because we weren’t there, and asked God why we couldn’t have been. Many of us wish we were on one of the 9/11 airplanes, and not because we have a death wish but because we have a life wish. Because when we sit in silence and the world’s distractions fall away, the thought creeps in: Could I have made a difference?

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because I and many of us are what they call ” sheepdogs” and we’re proud of that. Yet anti-gunners make fun of us, calling us “cowboys” and “wannabes” for it. Wanting to save lives and being willing to sacrifice one’s own to do it used to be considered a virtue in this country. Anti-gunners think they have the moral outrage, but the moral outrage is ours. I have never expressed any of these feelings openly to anyone because they are private and deeply personal. Screw you for demeaning us and motivating me to speak them.


Do unto others

No, anti-gunners, we don’t trust you. And you’ve given us no reason to, either. We gun owners obey the law each and every day, same as you. We defend your nation, protect your communities, teach your children, take care of you when you’re sick, defend you when you go to court or prosecute those who do you wrong. We cook and serve your food, haul and deliver your goods, construct your homes, unclog your sewers, make your electricity, and build or fix your cars.

We are everywhere and all around you, and we exist with you peacefully. You are our friends, neighbors and countrymen, and we are these things proudly. We mourn with you when radicals crash airplanes into our buildings, when hurricanes destroy the lives of our people, or when the criminal and mentally ill kill dozens of our school children. We cheer with you when USA wins the gold medal, when terrorists like Bin Laden are brought to justice, or when we land a machine built by American hands on Mars.

So what more can we do to earn your trust, your love and your acceptance other than surrender our rights, bow down to you and take your non-stop attacks?

Anti-gunners label people like me “gun nuts” even though we’reanything but nutty. Our enjoyment of firearms doesn’t define us; it is but a single value and right we enjoy and cherish, among many other rights and values we enjoy and cherish — including the very same ones anti-gunners do too — like the First Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights.

No, anti-gunners are absolutely right: There can be no rational debate on this issue anymore. Anti-gunners don’t understand guns, they don’t understand crime, they don’t understand American history and traditions, they don’t understand gun owners and don’t care to understand us, and they reduce people like me to a debasing label or a number they’ve got no clue about.

Anti-gunners reject our passions, our traditions, our knowledge, our experiences, our beliefs, our wisdom, our rights. Anti-gunners reject our very individuality by reducing us to labels, stereotypes and false or distorted statistics. Screw you for destroying that individuality and denying our humanity.

I am proudly one of many: a caring, friendly, loyal and loving human being. I am an educated and intelligent person, and while I may not be the best-looking guy, friends tell me I have a great personality (yay?). Perhaps more importantly though, I am a proud citizen of this country, and I’d perform any sacrifice for others so that they may not themselves have to sacrifice.

And unlike most anti-gunners, it seems, I have served my community and nation in various roles throughout the years — roles that, ironically, often entailed guns. Where I was once given a uniform and a gun, and trusted with it to ensure the safety and security of others, I am now a pariah among many of the very people I sacrificed for. I am sadly one of many here, too. What a terrible, hurtful insult and betrayal!

An anti-gunner reads a book though, or sees a documentary on TV — or perhaps worst of all, gets a degree — and suddenly they have the almighty authority and expertise to tell us how we ought to live our lives, replying to our objections to their onslaught by throwing pictures of dead kids in our faces and commanding us to shut up, because we’re just a bunch of stupid radicals and liberals alone know what’s best for America.

You anti-gunners out there will lead us down a path you do not want to go down. Your lack of care and understanding of those who abide by America’s oldest and deepest-rooted tradition will cause a social rift in this country of the likes we have never seen in America’s young history. Your lack of understanding chances causing a civil war — a civil war that will be far worse, more acrimonious, more prolonged and more deadly than the last one.

Anti-gunners may think the military could prevent such a thing — an argument often used against us pro-gunners — but with only a few million people in the military, and with the United States containing 300 million citizens spread across nearly four million square miles, many of whom are themselves veterans, well, military occupation of this country is impossible. It doesn’t help that most street cops (opposed to their politician bosses) are pro-gun, too. And what happens when the civilian industries that support the military stop producing the supplies our military needs?

The rift is already beginning. We must mend fences … Now.


Sleeping dragons and terrible resolve

I do not want to live through a war in my own backyard. I do not want our children to grow up in such an America, either. So anti-gunners: Please stop, I beg you. See the writing on the wall before it’s too late.

Yes, there is a terrible crime problem, and yes, that problem sometimes involves guns — but it is the perpetrator that is the problem, not the instrument. Yes, there is a great divide between liberals and conservatives on the issue of guns. And while I will be the very first person to criticize the Republican Party on its many and frequent mistakes, and even stand with my democratic friends in my disfavor of those things, on the gun issue it is not the conservatives who are mostly in the wrong this time.

We want the crime and killings to stop as much as you do, so to my fellow citizens who are anti-gun I say: So long as you deny our humanity, so long as you malign our dignity, intelligence and wisdom, so long as you seek to shade us under a cloud of evil that we do not partake in or support, so long as you tell us that because we own guns we are terrible people, you will prove yourselves absolutely right in that we won’t come to the table to talk with you.

And there will be no hope for resolution but through victory by force initiated by one side or the other, God help us, for we will not plow for those who didn’t beat their swords into plowshares.


Barry Snell is a senior in history and political science from Muscatine, Iowa.



Leave a comment

This is from Human Events.

I am glad to see gun owners pushing back against gun grabbers.

I once thought highly of Gov.Chris Christie how ever the way he

has kissed Obama’s ass has lower my opinion of him.

The gun grabbers do not want the masses armed yet they

carry a gun and have armed guards.


Garden State gun owners rise up against gun grabbers

Porky and Dorky.



In a united effort to stop New Jersey’s assault on gun rights, groups are doing everything possible to convince Garden State politicians their proposed legislation is unconstitutional.

“New Jersey already has among the strictest gun laws in the nation,” said Scott L. Bach, executive director of the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, the state’s premier second amendment organization and official National Rifle Association state affiliate.

Currently everything about firearms is banned except where the state narrowly allows it, said the former auxiliary police captain. “Ownership, possession, use, transportation, transfer, and sale are all illegal in the state of New Jersey except for tiny, confusing exemptions.”


In a united effort to stop New Jersey’s assault on gun rights, groups are doing everything possible to convince Garden State politicians their proposed legislation is unconstitutional.

“New Jersey already has among the strictest gun laws in the nation,” said Scott L. Bach, executive director of the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, the state’s premier second amendment organization and official National Rifle Association state affiliate.

Currently everything about firearms is banned except where the state narrowly allows it, said the former auxiliary police captain. “Ownership, possession, use, transportation, transfer, and sale are all illegal in the state of New Jersey except for tiny, confusing exemptions.”


In a united effort to stop New Jersey’s assault on gun rights, groups are doing everything possible to convince Garden State politicians their proposed legislation is unconstitutional.

“New Jersey already has among the strictest gun laws in the nation,” said Scott L. Bach, executive director of the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, the state’s premier second amendment organization and official National Rifle Association state affiliate.

Currently everything about firearms is banned except where the state narrowly allows it, said the former auxiliary police captain. “Ownership, possession, use, transportation, transfer, and sale are all illegal in the state of New Jersey except for tiny, confusing exemptions.”


In reaction to the Newtown tragedy, legislators introduced gun control laws in January that range from the sublime to the ridiculous, he said.  “More than 80 new bills are pending.”

New Jersey Gov. Christopher J. Chris” Christie held four public hearings across the state that addresses the proposals, he said.  Assuming office in Jan. 2010, Christie became the first Republican to win a statewide election in New Jersey in 12 years.

Statehouse sources close to the legislation said that gun rights advocates are walking a tightrope: Christie is better than a Democrat, but he gives them no overt support or encouragement.

Bach said the claims by gun rights opponents that more gun control laws will encourage public safety and reduce violent crime is a fallacy with no depth.

“The notion that criminals follow gun laws is absurd. New laws will only restrict honest citizens and no one else,” he said.

“Gun statistics show gun ownership is at an all-time high, and gun accidents are at an all-time low,” said Bach, who is also a practicing attorney and National Rifle Association board member.

Regardless of the facts, the state legislature is moving swiftly to penalize innocent gun owners, he said. “The state house will adopt whatever the gun ban movement promotes.”

New Jersey has a political culture that hates gun rights, he said. “It’s unfortunately a gun-banner’s dream here.”

The people are mobilized to counteract these proposals, he said. “The legislature has awakened a sleeping giant in an election year.”

Gun owners, hunters and sportsman are extremely agitated and highly motivated to defeat unconstitutional laws and the politicians who promote them, Bach said.

“This is pure political opportunism at its worst and it’s going to backfire badly on them,” he said.

“The Democrat-controlled state assembly passed gun control legislation in one day,” said Frank Jack Fiamingo, president and founder of New Jersey Second Amendment Society. NJ2AS is a non-partisan, not-for-profit organization dedicated to protecting the rights of law-abiding gun owners in New Jersey.

The state senate is proceeding with a more measured approach, he said. “They invited the top five gun rights organizations to provide testimony.”

“From three out of the four hearings, 98 percent of the attendees were pro-Second Amendment rights’ activists,” said the semi-retired business owner and pistol shooting hobbyist.

The existing gun laws in New Jersey are already defective, Fiamingo said. “There is no clear right to keep and bear arms.”

The average citizen can apply for a permit, but the likelihood is they will not get one, he said.  “The laws are set up that we are guilty until proven innocent.”

Even with a permit to carry a hand gun, the unloaded firearm is lawfully possessed only in one’s home or to and from a gun shop, he said. “If you stop at the grocery store for milk, you are subject to arrest.”

“In New Jersey, there is no lack of gun laws to challenge,” said Daniel L. Schmutter, a litigation partner at the law firm of Greenbaum Rowe Smith & Davis, LLP.

“Part of my practice is to represent firearm associations and individuals whose Second Amendment rights have been violated,” said the civil rights and constitutional law advocate.

Schmutter has submitted five amicus curiae briefs to the Supreme Court of the United States and the New Jersey Supreme Court, one of which was cited by Justice Samuel Alito in the 2010 landmark case McDonald v. Chicago.

If some of these provisions pass then that will determine which legal challenges are apparent, he said. “I am preparing for the aftermath if needed.”

Innocent gun owners do not pose a threat to society, he said. “Gun owners improve public safety.”

Keeping guns out of the hands of lawful citizens does nothing to improve the situation with violent crimes, Schmutter said.  “People need to understand that there is a large difference between law abiding citizens possessing firearms and criminals possessing firearms.”


Report: Boston attack suspects not licensed to own firearms

Leave a comment

This is from The Hill.

So they want to use this bombing to call for more gun laws.

How well did the gun laws of Massachusetts work?

I have a news flash for you more gun control fools

criminals and terrorist to not comply with gun control laws.


The two suspects in the Boston Marathon bombings were not licensed to have the firearms they used in several shootouts with police on Friday, Reuters reported Sunday night.

The news that the suspects were not authorized to own firearms will likely add fuel to calls for tougher gun laws – an issue that was put on the back-burner last week after the Senate blocked the central elements of a gun-control package backed by President Obama.


Because Massachusetts state law bars handgun ownership for those younger than 21, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, age 26, was the only brother who could have obtained a license from the town of Cambridge, Mass., where he lived. But he didn’t take that step, Dan Riviello, spokesman for the Cambridge Police Department, told Reuters.

“There is no record of him having a license to carry,” Riviello said, according to the news service.

Massachusetts state law allows residents under 21 to have rifles, but only those weapons holding 10 rounds of ammunition or less, and only then if the holder has a police-issued ID card.

Several local jurisdictions where the younger brother Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 19, has lived and studied told Reuters they have no record of issuing him such a card.

Police say Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev went on a deadly shooting spree Thursday and Friday, killing a university policeman before confronting local officers in a wild firefight in the middle of a Watertown, Mass., street that left the elder brother dead and a transit policeman injured.

In between those two attacks, the brothers allegedly carjacked a motorist at gunpoint, later releasing the unnamed victim unharmed.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev then led law enforcers on an exhaustive manhunt, which ended in his capture Friday night after yet another dramatic shootout with police.

He remains in a Boston hospital in serious but stable condition, according to the head of the Boston police, recovering from injuries that may include a self-induced gunshot wound to his neck.

Read more:
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook



The Difference Between a Vote and a Gun?

Leave a comment

This from Girls Just Wanna Have Guns.

I present this without comment.



What’s the difference between a vote and a gun? Votes kill slower.

That’s a startling thought. However, it is true. Thus, both are a big responsibility.

As a person who legally owns a gun (as opposed to gang bangers who are not interested in obeying the law and doing the right thing and may illegally have a gun) you have the responsibility to keep the gun safely stored and carried. You have the responsibility to handle it properly, practice with it safely (if you practice at all) and remember to leave it locked up at home if you go into certain buildings (post offices, government buildings, etc.; depending on the laws of your state). If you own a gun that you don’t carry with you, like a rifle, shotgun, or the ever-popular AR-15, you have the responsibility to make sure that it is kept in your gun safe at home, or stored in such a way that it cannot be taken if your house is robbed. That’s a big responsibility. It takes a lot of care, thought and planning ahead.

Owning a gun means informing those who question you and educating them on why gun ownership is not dangerous to them. It means talking to people about the Second Amendment and what it means to you — and to them. It means teaching your children about gun safety and deciding when each of them is responsible and mature enough to handle a gun.

Gun ownership means staying informed of changes in the laws that govern your ownership and reacting accordingly. It also means understanding the impact that those changes will have on your gun ownership. Will a new law require that you properly dispose of a fifteen round magazine and cut back to no more than nine rounds? Will it require that you use stock magazines instead of after market high capability magazines? Will it require any kind of registration of anything you already own, re-licensing, or is there anything new you need to do?

The same care, thought and planning ahead is needed for your vote.

Your gun possession also means that you have to stand up for your Second Amendment rights and be ready to do your due diligence and inform yourself as to who is running for public office so that you can support and vote for those who will stand up for your Second Amendment rights. It’s not good enough to just vote the party line. RINOs and Independents can be as anti-gun rights as any progressive Democrat. So voting party line can be as losing a proposition as voting against the Constitution.

Your vote determines who will be in the House, Senate, presidency; as well as state, county and city governments. They will make the laws that will govern our federal and local governments — possibly for years to come, if not for the rest of your life. Your vote determines what kind of money the government will take out of your pocket as well as for what that money is used. What if you decide to vote without informing yourself and your vote winds up putting someone in office who not only is anti-Second Amendment, but also votes to use your money to fight your right to “keep and bear arms”? Would your vote represent you, your beliefs, desires, and political principles? If not, then why vote blindly? Why vote party line if that person is not truly committed to standing for whole U.S. Constitution and the rights that is delineated within it as your God-given rights?

Remember, just because the party platform states the beliefs you have, that does not mean that the individual politician/candidate who has voluntarily associated themselves with that party actually has those beliefs. Want an example? How many of you remember Rush Limbaugh’s “Operation Chaos” in which he encouraged his listeners to change to the Democratic Party for their area’s Primary Election so that they could vote for Hillary Clinton and keep her in the race for a while longer? Remember how successful that was? Remember that those people, soon after the primaries, switched back to their original party? Did they believe in the Democratic Party platform while they were in it to vote for Hillary? No? Same thing happens for candidates. They may have switched to a more conservative party in order to run without opposition, to look more conservative than they really are, or to please their wife, campaign manager, or golf buddy. Who knows why?

The real questions to ask a political candidate are not, “What party do you belong to?” “Is there a (D), (R), (I), etc., after your name?” or even “Do you believe in the Second Amendment?” Instead ask, “When it comes to taking away our Second Amendment rights, indeed any constitutional rights, when will you be pushed to the stopping point and say ‘Enough! I will be pushed no further!’?” If the candidate answers honestly (which is a questionable thing with today’s candidates [Just an aside here: Don’t you wish they would make a “Truth in advertising” law that covers politicians?]), you can gauge what is important to that candidate by how far they are willing to be pushed. When will they stop “compromising”? Something to remember about that is that “compromise” always meansyou give something up. What are you willing to give up in order to vote for a candidate who will compromise, “reach across the aisle”, cooperate, be “bipartisan”?

For that is what is happening. You are being made to give something up in voting for a candidate who will compromise instead of a candidate who will hold the line and push back harder than their opposition. They are getting a reputation for “cooperation” and probably benefiting from it. After all, McCain goes to dinner with president then attacks Sen. Rand Paul for a filibuster that got an answer from the current administration to an important question that pertained to our rights. It was McCain, however, who got the accolades from the liberal media, not Paul who stood up for the rights of the journalists who trashed Paul. Amazing to see that the Senator standing up for the journalists’ rights was trashed while the Senator willing to compromise and sell out the rights of the journalists was hailed as a heroic “bipartisan”.

Your “right to keep and bear arms” is important enough for you to do your due diligence and to spend the next twenty months (now until November 2014) learning who is running for office, hearing them speak and asking them questions when they are available to answer them (or making a special effort to contact them) and educating others about what you have learned. It’s also important enough for you to stand up and do the right thing — even if it means voting “outside of the box” and outside of your political party. Studying the candidate is the only way to be sure who you are getting as a representative. Make the time and the effort or pay the price later.

As you can see, it is imperative that you educate yourself about who the candidates are, what they believe and how far they are willing to “compromise” (read: how much are they “willing to give up“). For as surely as a gun can kill, politicians can also kill: they kill good laws via votes; kill babies en utero via making laws that allow such a thing to happen; kill rights via laws they vote in favor of. Current example: we currently have an administration that is trying to kill our Second Amendment rights. The way they’re going about it is just slower than a bullet from a gun.


For Some, Owning Guns Doesn’t Necessarily Mean Liking Them


This is from The New York Times.

This story is a liberal bull sh#t job from the beginning.

These two people look like the belong is some liberal college.

Oh my the neighbors have assault weapons and are trouble makers.

This is liberal for they support and defend The Constitution.

I am proud to be called a trouble maker by liberals.

I am a proud supporter and defender of The Constitution.


         Kay H. Wilson and her husband, Richard, keep a handgun in their home in Texas; he also has an heirloom rifle that has not been fired since he was a boy. Ms. Wilson has written about her “love-hate relationship with guns.”


The national debate over firearms regulation is often presented as a battle of extremes: those who view any effort to tighten gun laws as an infringement of rights versus those who see guns as a menace to society.

But gun owners like Michael Kundu come from a largely unexplored middle ground — a place of nuance and contradiction.

Mr. Kundu is a master marksman from rural Washington who owns pistols and assault rifles for self-defense, all while claiming to detest the presence of guns in his life and in the broader American culture.

“I’d love to see all guns destroyed,” he said. “But I’m not giving up mine first.”

Mr. Kundu, 48, who works for the federal government, is a conflicted gun owner, one of many such Americans whom researchers and social scientists are just beginning to study as a potentially moderating influence in the escalating gun debate.

In Mr. Kundu’s case, the conflict is that he enjoys competitive shooting even as he perceives danger in what he describes as a local arms race that he feels powerless to escape.

Out of “common sense,” he said, he needs to be as armed as his neighbors, some of whom he describes as troublemakers with assault rifles. “It is so discouraging, so paranoia-inducing,” he said. “It makes one feel as though you’ve got to be continually vigilant and defensive instead of living your life free.”

Other gun owners interviewed for this article expressed similar reservations, citing their enjoyment of hunting or of introducing family members to the sport while expressing support for stricter gun control legislation. Mr. Kundu, for instance, supports a ban on the kind of assault weapon that he owns, a rifle manufactured by Panther Arms.

It is these voices of ambivalence that policy makers say are likely to be drowned out by the passion at the extreme ends.

“Their views don’t get represented in the debate, and it’s one of the consequences of the polarized nature of our politics,” said Patrick J. Egan, an assistant professor of politics and public policy at New York University. “If all sides had more of an incentive to moderate their arguments in a way that would be appealing to people like this, you could imagine it being a more constructive conversation than it currently is.”

Clearly, not all gun owners are Second Amendment absolutists. Many recent surveys show that majorities of gun owners do favor certain gun control proposals, like making private gun sales subject to background checks. But the extent to which gun owners feel of two minds about owning guns is something polls and surveys typically do not address.

“We’ve been struggling with this whole realm of issues — feelings about guns,” said Michael Dimock, the director of the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. “And that’s because we’ve talked a lot about gun policy, but not about gun culture.”

In a survey it began conducting last month, Pew for the first time asked gun-owning respondents “whether they enjoy having guns, whether they feel uncomfortable about them, and whether they feel safer for having them,” Mr. Dimock said. Those results are expected to be published in a coming report.

“I think it’s easy for a lot of people to assume that all gun owners oppose gun control and all nonowners favor it,” he said. “But our polling data suggests that the correlation is nothing like that. Rather, most Americans appear to have mixed feelings about gun laws.”

Kay H. Wilson, a blogger in Waco, Tex., who recently wrote a post about her “love-hate relationship with guns,” said, “We need people to speak up.” Ms. Wilson describes herself as “a pretty good dang shot” when she practices her aim at a family farm in West Texas, but also said, “I’m no lover of the personal handgun.”

While she and her husband, Richard, have a gun in their suburban home for personal protection, they store it and the bullets in separate rooms. And Ms. Wilson acknowledges that she would sooner throw her cat at an intruder than shoot someone. The gun does not make her feel safer.

“I believe that if I had a gun under my pillow ‘for protection’ from intruders,” she wrote in her blog, “the intruder could be upon me before I could wake up and they could possibly overpower and kill me.”

So why do the Wilsons, who favor stricter gun control, own a pistol?

“It’s there just in case,” said Mr. Wilson, 56, a chiropractor, who also owns an inherited heirloom rifle that has not been fired since he was a boy. “I think you have to be really smart and know what situations it might be useful for. In some situations, yes, you’d be better off not going for it.”

Sonia Wolff, a novelist in Los Angeles, felt compelled to buy a pistol a few years ago for self-defense, a decision she wrote about in The Los Angeles Times. “I had never wanted a gun,” the introduction states. “Now I own a Smith & Wesson revolver. Why?”

The short answer, she said in an interview, was, “When push comes to shove, I’d rather have one.”

But she added, “If I had my way in the best of all worlds, nobody would have a gun.”

Mr. Kundu, the competitive sharpshooter, agreed. “I’ve always thought the Second Amendment is secondary to everyone being able to feel safe and secure in their lives,” he said. “Fewer guns would lead to fewer deaths, there’s no question about that.”

Still, he has trained his wife and teenage sons on his firearms. “I insisted that they be proficient,” he said. “We put out wooden blocks and bricks so they could see how devastating and damaging a bullet can be.”

John Flores and Patricia Speed, a married couple in San Francisco, own two 9-millimeter handguns and a Winchester Model 70 rifle because they have recently come to enjoy shooting at ranges. They say they enjoy the concentration it takes to be a good marksman and find the practice relaxing.

But as first-time gun owners, they say they were shocked by how easily they bought the guns and feel uncomfortable about storing them — even unloaded in a locked safe — in their home.

“It freaked me out how easy it was to buy a gun,” said Ms. Speed, 30, a graphic designer. “I think it’s harder to get an iPhone than it is a gun. Now I’m a gun owner who believes there needs to be way more regulation.”

The couple does not talk much about their guns with other people, especially since the school shooting in Newtown, Conn., that took the lives of 20 children and 6 adults.

“Conversation becomes very antagonistic very quickly,” Ms. Speed said. “It’s hard to have a rational conversation when people are so emotional about it. I’ve just kept my mouth shut.”



5 Things the Gun Grabbers Apparently Don’t Understand

1 Comment

This is from Clash Daily.

How many times has Josh Marshall has passed concealed carries,

and was not aware of that fact.?

People like Josh Marshall turn my stomach.


Screen Shot 2013-03-06 at 8.57.48 AM

“I’m not a gun owner and, as I think as is the case for the more than half the people in the country who also aren’t gun owners, that means that for me guns are alien. In the current rhetorical climate people seem not to want to say: I think guns are kind of scary and don’t want to be around them.” — Josh Marshall

maturity.” — Sigmund Freud

Sorry, but your Second Amendment rights no longer apply because liberals like Josh Marshall tinkle on themselves every time they come within fifty feet of a gun. This is really what the debate on gun control in America comes down to in the end: people who lose nothing if guns are banned because they don’t use them demanding that everyone else be disarmed. Meanwhile, trying to reason with gun control advocates is like arguing with a four year old about whether her imaginary friend is real or not. It doesn’t matter how clearly you prove your case; she’ll be pouring her pal tea two minutes after you’ve left the room. Speaking of imaginary…

1) A “gun free zone” won’t keep bad people with guns away: The basic problem with a “gun free zone” is that anyone you can’t trust with a gun will bring it in anyway while it will cause the people you’d want armed in a dangerous situation to leave their weapons behind. If this concept actually worked, we’d just train all of our soldiers in Jiu-jitsu and then we’d declare everywhere we sent them to be a “gun free zone.” Admittedly, Mortal Kombat: Afghanistan sounds like it would be an amazing movie, but someone needs to inform Democrats that the world doesn’t really work this way.

2) Criminals and lunatics don’t obey gun laws: The belief that someone who’s planning to go on a killing spree is going to turn in a gun because it’s made illegal is almost as nuts as going on the killing spree. Yet, the gun grabbers in the Democrat Party operate on the assumption that nut jobs like Adam Lanza or a gangbanger who sells crack for a living is going to get rid of a high-capacity magazine if Congress says he can’t have it. That’s like a prohibitionist who gets upset about alcoholism and deals with the problem by demanding that all the people without drinking problems have to be kept away from booze.

3) We already have somewhere between 200-300 million guns in this country: Adding to the last point, ever heard this old joke?

A drunk loses the keys to his house and is looking for them under a lamppost. A policeman comes over and asks what he’s doing. “I’m looking for my keys” he says. “I lost them over there”.
The policeman looks puzzled. “Then why are you looking for them all the way over here?”
“Because the light is so much better”.

If there were no already existing guns in America, gun control could conceivably help keep weaponry out of the hands of criminals and mass murderers. However, in a nation that’s already armed to the teeth, the next Adam Lanza, Jared Loughner, Tookie Williams or Mumia Abu-Jamal has already got his gun and new laws will only disarm law abiding Americans.

4) Gun owners aren’t required to explain a “need” for our Second Amendment rights: Why do gun owners “need” their guns? The same reason that Rosa Parks “needed” her seat at the front of the bus. In other words, it’s our constitutional right; so kiss off! If you need more of an explanation than that, why does California “need” to have its votes counted in the next presidential election? Why do we “need” so many liberal newspapers? Why not close a few? Why do movie stars “need” to make so much money for their films? Why don’t we confiscate it? What was it that Ann Coulter said?

“Free people are not in the habit of providing reasons why they ‘need’ something simply because the government wants to ban it. That’s true of anything — but especially something the government is constitutionally prohibited from banning, like guns.”

5) You’re not fooling us: Liberals like to think they’re smarter than everyone else, but they’re as transparent as glass to anyone who’s paying attention. That’s why gun sales have blown up like a can of shaving cream in a microwave. If Barack Obama, Diane Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden and the rest of the Democrat gun grabbers in Congress could get away with it, they would ban and confiscate every gun in America tomorrow — and people know it. Anything short of, “Nobody is allowed to own a firearm except the government,” is unacceptable to them and that’s why they always seem so ghoulishly pleased after tragedies like the Gabrielle Giffords shooting or the Newtown massacre. Everybody else is thinking of the victims, while they’re twirling their mustaches Snidely-Whiplash-style and repeating, “Never let a serious crisis go to waste,” to each other.

Read more:
Get more Clash on ClashDaily.comFacebookTwitter, and YouTube.


MILLER: The gun-show loophole myth

1 Comment

This is from The Washington Times.

Part two of the Times random act of journalism.

The Times may become a source for actual journalism.


FBI checks have to be fixed; new laws not needed on private gun sales.


For the first time in 14 years, the CEO of the National Rifle Association (NRA), will testify on Capitol Hill. Wayne LaPierre’s appearance Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee underscores how seriously the nation’s largest gun-owners organization takes the latest assault on the Second Amendment.

Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy, Vermont Democrat, invited former Rep. Gabrielle Gifford’s husband, Mark Kelly, among others, to testify for the other side. In his prepared remarks, Mr. LaPierre will say, “When it comes to the issue of background checks, let’s be honest: Background checks will never be ‘universal’ because criminals will never submit to them.”

(This is the last of a four-part series on dispelling gun myths. Click here to read part one: The Assault Weapon Myth.  Click here to read part two The High-Capacity Magazine Myth.  Click here to read part three The Cop-Killer Bullet Myth.)

Currently, a gun owner who goes to a retail shop to purchase a gun from a licensed dealer is subject to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. The system, run by the FBI reviews criminal history, mental health and restraining-order records to weed out those who are legally barred from gun ownership.

The gun grabbers’ real goal has always been universal registration, and tracking every gun owner in the country would be a big step in that direction.

“The law already requires licensed gun dealers to run background checks, and over the last 14 years that’s kept 1.5 million of the wrong people from getting their hands on a gun,” said Mr. Obama, when he announced his gun-violence task force results on Jan. 16. “But it’s hard to enforce that law when as many as 40 percent of all gun purchases are conducted without a background check.”

The 40 percent figure that Mr. Obama and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat, cite so frequently comes from a 1997 Justice Department survey. A closer look at that 40 percent number reveals it includes 29 percent of gun owners who said they got their guns from family members or friends and acquaintances.

That leaves 11 percent of firearms obtained through unfamiliar people. Of these, 3 percent reported they got their firearms “through the mail,” a process that requires a background check from a federally licensed firearms dealer. Four percent said “other,” and 4 percent made their purchase at a gun show.

The “gun-show loophole” is an exaggeration designed to foster the false impression that this is how the bad guys acquire firearms. A 2001 Justice Department survey found 0.7 percent of state and federal prison inmates bought their weapons at a gun show.

Gun shows aren’t the equivalent of the Wild West. The vast majority of vendors at the shows are fully licensed dealers who must run the FBI check at the time of sale. What the gun grabbers are really after are transactions between private individuals trading or selling their personal property.

The White House publicity blitz is having an effect on public opinion, as a recent poll put support around 90 percent for criminal-background checks for all gun sales. Washington politicians are determined to do “something” about the Newtown, Conn., shooting, but it makes no sense to put so much effort into an area where criminals aren’t buying their guns.

More good would be done by strengthening the current background-check system by ensuring states submit felony convictions and mental health records. That’s the most effective way to keep guns out of the wrong hands.

Read more:
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter


Older Entries Newer Entries

%d bloggers like this: