Advertisements
Home

The Culture War of Gun Control

3 Comments

H/T JPFO.

With the anti gun crowd it is the same old song the gun is evil.

By Daniel Greenfield. October 8th, 2017
Article Source

After Vegas, the gun control memes and myths come out. It doesn’t matter how wrong they are, they will echo in the mediasphere and then the talking points will leak into everyday conversations.

“Guns are uniquely lethal.”

Last year, a Muslim terrorist with a truck killed 86 people and wounded another 458.

Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel, the Tunisian Muslim killer, had brought along a gun, but it proved largely ineffective. The deadliest weapon of the delivery driver was a truck. Mohammed, who was no genius, used it to kill more people than Stephen Paddock would with all his meticulous planning in Vegas.

Do we need truck control?

Deadlier than the truck is the jet plane. Nearly 3,000 people were killed on September 11 by terrorists with a plan and some box cutters. And then there are always the bombs.

The Boston Marathon bomber wounded 264, a suicide bomber at the Manchester Arena last year wounded 250 and the Oklahoma City Bombing (the only non-Islamic terror attack on the list) killed 168 and wounded 680. Paddock was also stockpiling explosive compounds. If he hadn’t been able to get his hands on firearms, he would have deployed bombs. And potentially killed even more people.

We know how many people Paddock was able to kill with firearms. We don’t know how many people he would have been able to murder with a truck or with explosives.

The mass killer who most ominously resembles Paddock was Francisco Gonzales: a Filipino with financial problems who shot the pilot and co-pilot on a gambler’s special flight from Reno. Back in Reno, Gonzales had told a casino worker that it wouldn’t matter how much he lost. The plane went down with everyone on board. Gonzales had a gun, but his actual murder weapon was a plane.

Guns are not uniquely lethal. We live in a world filled with extremely lethal objects from chemical compounds to big trucks. We can license and regulate some things. But we can’t regulate everything.

“This is the only country where this happens.”

That’s the leftist meme deployed after the Vegas shooting. But Paddock’s death toll narrowly edges out that of South Korea’s rampage killer Woo Bum-kon who murdered 56 people. America is not the only country where rampage killers operate. And their attacks have nothing to do with the racist construct of “white privilege”. It’s the leftist conviction that America is uniquely evil that accounts for the myth.

Seung-Hui Cho, one of this country’s worst rampage killers who murdered 32 people at Virginia Tech, was South Korean.

But the worst rampage killer in South Korea didn’t use a gun. He set a train on fire.

Kim Dae-han, a paralyzed middle aged man, started a subway fire that killed 192 people and wounded 150 others.

Guns aren’t uniquely lethal. Neither is America. Or South Korea. Or anywhere.

“A mass shooting happens in this country every few days.”

There’s no myth that is getting a bigger workout after the Vegas shootings than that of the ubiquitous mass shooter. The myth conflates drug violence in Chicago, which is nearly constant, with rampage killers like Stephen Paddock or Adam Lanza, who are far rarer, and Islamic terrorists like Omar Mateen.

Mass shootings and rampage killers are not the same thing.

Do we really have a “mass shooting” every few days? Most gun violence in this country is really gang violence. The mass shooting trackers list gang violence incidents in urban areas before the Vegas attack. And gang violence doesn’t depend on guns. It sharply rose in the UK despite gun control.

And it’s the left that has crippled the laws meant to fight gangs and drug dealers. Obama initiated a drug dealer pardon amnesty even while calling for more gun control. But the only way to control gang violence is by cracking down on gangs, not on guns. The pro-crime left deems such measures a “school-to-prison pipeline” that’s little more than “modern slavery”. And so the gang violence goes on.

Most gun violence takes place in Democrat territory. And it’s caused by leftist pro-crime policies.

By conflating an Adam Lanza with a gang member shooting up a street corner in Chicago, the media hides what is really going on. Rampage killers are rare. Gang violence is commonplace. By making rampage killers into the face of gun violence, the left gets to blame its own policies on the NRA.

“If only we had gun control.”

Gun control works as well as any prohibitionist policy. It works as long as you follow the law. If you don’t follow the law, then getting the prohibited item is a matter of money and connections.

And it’s those people who shouldn’t have guns that are most likely to be able to get them.

The left will lecture on the failure of drug prohibition, but is sure that gun prohibition would work. Why? Because they usually have some personal experience buying drugs, but little experience buying guns. And so they’re sure that a ban that they would ridicule in any other area will somehow work with guns.

There’s always some country that’s a shining example of how gun control works.

The Europeans, who are progressive, suave and sophisticated, have no doubt figured out gun prohibition, along with socialized medicine. But just this April, a Muslim terrorist opened fire on the Champs-Élysées in Paris with an AK-47 rifle. He killed a police officer and wounded several others.

Two months later, another Islamic terrorist with an AK-47 rammed his car into a police van on the Champs-Elysees.

French gun control was working wonderfully.

The Bataclan attackers and other members of their cell had no trouble getting their hands on Kalashnikovs either. The Charlie Hebdo attackers used an AK knockoff.

Muslim terrorists were able to repeatedly strike in France despite its gun control laws. And they used the weapons that the media refers to with ominous dread as “assault rifles”.

“We have so many weapons in Paris,” the spokesman for France’s police union had complained.

The French authorities seize some 1,200 “assault rifles” every year. Meanwhile in the capital of the European Union, you can get a “military weapon” for $500 in half an hour.

Gun control works as well at keeping guns out of the hands of terrorists as enforcement does at keeping drugs out of the hands of criminals.

Legal firearms make it easier for people to defend themselves and for the authorities to track criminals. Criminalizing firearms just creates a massive black market in which anything goes.

The Charlie Hebdo terrorists brought a rocket-propelled grenade launcher to the party. That’s what happens when you let the black market take over. You don’t control guns. Instead you feed a black market and lose all control over the sorts of weapons being sold in your country.

After every attack, the clamor for “common sense” gun control begins by political hacks, talk show hosts and celebrities who don’t set foot outside their homes without an armed guard. None of these “common sense folks” seem to know the first thing about guns. And none of them care.

Gun control isn’t a policy. It’s a moral panic. Like prohibition, it’s a xenophobic reaction to a different culture that shares the same country with them. Guns have come to embody a rural conservative culture in the minds of urban leftists the way that alcohol once embodied foreign immigrants to prohibition activists and the way that drugs represented urban decadence to rural America.

It’s why the “common sense solution” talk quickly gives way to broad denunciations of a “national gun culture”, of “white privilege”, of rural folk “clinging to their bibles and guns”, of American militarism and toxic masculinity, and of all the things for which guns are merely a symbol to the leftists who hate them.

A cultural critique is very different than a common sense solution. It isn’t guns that the left wants to ban. It’s people. It was never really about banning guns. It was always about the culture war.

Advertisements

Why a Suppressor is Not a Silencer

Leave a comment

H/T JPFO.

Holly Weird through there movies have convinced many people that sound suppressors actually make a gun silent when it is fired.

An Opinion By William J. Ellis, Guest Contributor. September 18th, 2017

1: How Semantics Are Defeating Sensible Gun Legislation

The Hearing Protection Act of 2017 is still awaiting a hearing in Congress. (Editor’s note: We since have on the table the “Sportsmen’s Heritage and Recreational Enhancement Act”, which seeks to incorporate suppressors – see item 9/12/17). The bill seeks to lift the restrictions placed on the use of suppressors put in place by the National Firearms Act of 1934. This earlier act requires additional, lengthy background checks on those who would like to buy a suppressor, and imposes a $200 tax on their sale. It also proposes that suppressors no longer be counted as equivalent to handguns, as per the Gun Control Act of 1968, lifting the requirement for a NICS check during the purchase of suppressors.

Though the bill is eminently sensible, debate about it has been characterized by a stunning level of ignoranceby those who oppose it. It seems that some Democrats, in particular, have never actually used a suppressor, but are nevertheless absolutely sure that they oppose them.

If you’re reading this, I’m betting that you’ve used a “silencer”, and what I am about to say will not be news to you. However, in case there are any liberals reading, let me enlighten you: guns fitted with suppressors are still incredibly loud.

The debate about the bill is sadly an example of one of the long-standing problems about discussions of Second Amendment rights in the US. Those who actually use guns on a daily basis, and know how they work, argue reasonably that certain restrictions should be relaxed. Those who vehemently oppose gun rights, having never used a gun in their life, are motivated by imaginary dangers and mistaken beliefs. For the benefit of this latter group, let’s take a short history class.

2: Suppressors vs. “Silencers”

It is true that suppressors, when they were invented back in 1909, were originally marketed as “silencers”. However, this was always an inflated claim, akin to calling a flannel shirt an “arctic coat”. As anyone who has ever used one knows, guns fitted with a suppressor are loud. As loud, in fact, as a pneumatic drill hitting concrete, which I’m sure no-one has trouble hearing, even Democrats.

In this area, though, it seems that many people have mistaken advertising claims for reality. In the imaginations of some opposing the bill, no doubt informed by Dick Tracy and James Bond movies, suppressors allow would-be shooters to kill people silently. They argue, incredibly, that allowing people to buy “silencers” would increase the rate of school shootings, a belief which completely ignores the fact that hand guns fitted with suppressors can no longer be concealed, and rifles fitted with the same become all but unusable in tight spaces.

Not only does this mistaken belief make sensible legislation on suppressors impossible, it also leads to many people overlooking the more mundane dangers of not using a suppressor. At the moment, the cost and extra bureaucracy involved in purchasing a silencer deters many people from getting one. This is a shame, because it means that many people have a difficult choice to make — wear ear protection, and potentially be unable to hear anything else around them, or don’t, and risk hearing damage.

That’s why the bill is called the Hearing Protection Act, after all.

3: Skewed Statistics

On the better-informed side of the debate, the gun control group Americans For Responsible Solutions continue to selectively push statistics that make it appear that the current restrictions are not burdensome. According to this group, the rapid rise in sales of suppressors in recent years proves that the $200 tax stamp is not a big problem for gun owners.

I don’t know about you, but $200 on top of the cost of a suppressor sounds like a lot to me. In a lot of cases, this tax represents 50-100% of the price of the item, a huge level of taxation in anyone’s book. And while the Washington consultants who oppose the bill might be able to find $200 down the back of their sofa, for the majority of Americans it represents a significant burden.

Especially because, remember, this is a tax on a safety device. I’m still mystified that this point is not raised more regularly, because to my mind it seems incredible that an item designed to protect the user is taxed.

In addition to this monetary burden, the bureaucracy currently involved in getting a suppressor deters many shooters from investing in a device that could save their hearing. Under current legislation, prospective suppressor owners must go through a lengthy application process which involves them providing personal information, a passport photo, and also giving their fingerprints. Many, rightly, are reticent to provide such details for inclusion on a federal database.

And, even when responsible gun owners jump through all these hoops, ATF approval to buy a suppressor can still take up to a year. In this context, then, it is not surprising that many hunters continue to use dangerously loud guns.

4: The Actual Numbers

Despite such incredible claims that, as Kristen Rand of VPC said in a press release dated June 27, “silencers are military-bred accessories that make it easier for criminals to take innocent lives and threaten law enforcement. Existing federal law has kept crimes committed with silencer-equipped firearms rare,” the number of crimes committed with suppressors is incredibly low.

Not to labor the point, but this will not be a surprise to anyone who has ever actually used one. If you’re going to commit a crime with your weapon, fitting a suppressor will actually make this much more difficult. As Jeremy Mallette, social media director for Silencer Shop in Austin, told guns.com back in August, suppressors add considerable length to any firearm – making concealment impossible – and block the shooter’s front sight picture. “You can’t conceal a handgun anymore with one on and on a rifle, it would make the rifle very unwieldy,” he said. “That’s my biggest retort. (Some people) think silencers would be useful in these shootings and that’s just not the case.”

But let’s look at the numbers, for the sake of balance. Knox Williams, president and executive director for the American Suppressor Association, told guns.com that of the 1.3 million suppressors in circulation, his group can only fund 16 instances of criminal use since 2011. “That translates to the misuse of a glaringly low percentage of suppressors in circulation — roughly 0.000012308 percent,” he said.

That’s pretty low.

5: The Case For Sensible Reform

I’m a reasonable guy, and realize that some types of weapons and accessories need to be restricted. However, when it comes to suppressors I have repeatedly tried and failed to see why such heavy restrictions are in place. It seems to me that the current legislation — which, remember, is from 1934 — is completely out of date. Nobody is going to buy a suppressor in order to commit a crime with their weapon.

The Hearing Protection Act proposes to remove suppressors from the NFA process, but leave GCA mandates in place. While the NFA claim that this could lead to an increase in crime using suppressors, in reality I think they fear a reduction in their own power rather than a preposterous increase in crime.

And whilst I can accept that a lot of the American public have no need nor desire to own firearms, and that they are somewhat ignorant as a result of this, I cannot forgive such ignorance when it comes to federal agencies. The NFA knows damn well that “silencers” are used in a vanishingly small number of crimes, but still seems content to continue to further myths about this fact.

The real danger here, of course, is that when the Bill finally gets a hearing, Congress will focus on the rare but dramatic instances where suppressors have been used in shootings, and ignore the everyday damage that not using them does to the hearing of thousands of shooters across the country.

JPFO Gun Confiscation Clock Moves Closer to Midnight

3 Comments

H/T JPFO.

Trump Sleep,” Bloomberg Cash, Spell Trouble for Gun Ownership
The symbolic Gun-Confiscation Alarm Clock, which tracks the overall threat to America’s right to keep and bear arms, has inched closer to midnight.

14 minutes to midnight

Maintained by Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, they see heavily funded state efforts to curtail the right to arms by former NY mayor Michael Bloomberg having a dangerous effect. Coupled with a false sense of security gun-rights advocates feel after electing loudly pro-Second Amendment president Donald Trump, increases the actual threat.
Two strong pro-gun-rights bills introduced immediately after Trump’s election have stalled. With Trump under withering attacks by democrats, a compromised media, constant fake news and a distracted Congress, any chances for advances there seem remote. The bills would relax sale of hearing-protection gun “mufflers,” and would make firearm carry licenses valid nationwide, a dearly sought goal of the firearms community. Presently, so-called “right-to-carry” licenses terminate at state lines.
Bloomberg’s millions have created multiple new anti-gun-rights state clubs pressing for repeal of existing civil-rights protections. New bills they’re promoting, which pro-rights proponents say infringe on the Bill of Rights, include national registration of gun owners and their gear, misleadingly labeled loophole or background bills, with no impact on crime.
“When you actually read the bills Bloomberg and his paid allies propose, you find gun-owner registration schemes, regardless of what the media calls them,” says Boyd Kneeland, a spokesperson for the group. Alan Korwin, a nationally recognized expert on gun laws and consultant to JPFO concurs, noting, “The last bill, Manchin-Toomey, authorized national registration and would have made felons of anyone who handed a gun to a friend, but this went unreported in the frenzy to push it into law.” With Bloomberg’s money, a cadre of misinformed moms fearfully marching in lock step, and rights advocates lulled into complacency, the threat to gun rights is greater than most people recognize, Korwin says. A one-minute shift in the clock’s hands may be too modest, he believes. JPFO’s Bill of Rights Sentinel newsletter comes out this month.

If We Talked About Cars the Way We Talk About Guns

2 Comments

H/T JPFO.

By Rob Morse. June 11th, 2017
Article Source

We’ve lived with guns for several centuries. Despite those years of cultural and personal familiarity, some people talk about guns as if they had been invented yesterday. I’m going to try and shift the discussion about guns so we can hear this stale bigotry with fresh ears. More people die each year in car accidents than in gun accidents. How do these anti-gun arguments sound to you when we substitute word for word?

  • Cars are not the answer. Good people leave the driving to the the government.
  • We’re not against car ownership. We simply want you to get proper training before you’re allowed to drive..and we don’t want any driving schools in your state.
  • Only criminals and the police drive fast cars. Why do you need to go that fast? Are you some sort of escaped criminal?
  • You know you’re more likely to have an accident if you have a car at home.
  • Only the police and bus drivers have enough training to drive. That’s why you should leave the driving to them..or walk.
  • Given how dangerous cars are, we think it is inappropriate for teachers to have personal cars at school.
  • Just say no to car and motorcycle violence.
  • vWhy do you need a car? Can’t you wait and take public transportation like everyone else?

  • We need to start training children early, so ban toy cars and toy motorcycles.
  • We’ve evolved past the need for personal transportation.
  • We don’t think you should have a car, but if you do, why would your family need more that one. No one needs a fleet of dangerous cars! (Does that argument sound familiar?)
  • Are you crazy? You know that cars don’t belong on a university campus. Campus is a place for education, not for car racing.
  • Cars don’t belong at church. Cars disturb our spiritual tranquility.
  • You’re so insensitive. You should know that cars don’t belong at a hospital. Some of the people in the hospital are there because of car crashes.
  • You only have a car for an emergency. You haven’t used it, so that is proof no one really needs a car.
  • Only the army or police need a car or truck that holds more than five gallons of fuel. High capacity cars should be outlawed. It is worth it if it saves one life.
  • It is disrespectful of you to have your own car. Don’t you trust the bus company to get you where you need to go?
  • Of course the President of the United States has a motorcade. That is no reason for you to have a car. Just who do you think you are?
  • Car owners are insecure and trying to make up for some personal inadequacy.
  • We’re not against cars. We’re only a car-safety organization and we want a few commonsense car-safety regulations.
  • Other states shouldn’t have to honor your driver’s license. Each state should be able to decide who may and may not drive there.

These sentiments are both shocking and shockingly familiar. This sounds like the sort of things we might have heard a hundred years ago when cars replaced horses. Today, it is the everyday bigotry directed against gun owners.

I don’t believe in voodoo and magical objects. Guns are lumps of metal and plastic. They are neither good nor bad. They don’t have magic powers. We were supposed to get past that mystical view of the world when we were about 16 years old. Most of us have. Clearly, some of us haven’t.

P.S. If you think I want to regulate cars, then your sense of humor is broken.

Infringing the right to bear arms- You can’t carry here

4 Comments

H/T JPFO.

The failed liberal wet dream gun free zones.

By Rob Morse. April 22nd, 2017
Article Source

Your right to protect yourself shall not be infringed..well..except where it already is infringed. That is what my young liberal friend told me. Here is what he said.

I think we should pass a law to ban guns. That way we wouldn’t have any more violence and we could close the prisons. It’d be great.

You think so? We tried it before. It is called prohibition. It failed when we prohibited alcohol. It failed with prohibiting drugs. It is failing today with prohibiting guns.

But we need to do something. Maybe we should take it piece at a time. We don’t have to prohibit anything, we can just regulate all we want. Yeah, that’s it.
I know. Hospitals should be gun free zones. Surely you wouldn’t want sick people to get their hands on guns?

We tried that too. Disarming doctors and nurses isn’t keeping them safe. A shocking fraction of healthcare workers (and here) are attacked on the job each year. If those plastic “no-guns” signs would work anywhere, they should work at a hospital, but they don’t. Hospitals are open both day and night, so I want doctors, nurses and food service workers to be armed for their own protection when they leave the hospital and walk to their car in the dark. Don’t you?

Ah, sure. So gun free hospitals don’t work, but surely you don’t want guns around children in school?

Let’s see if gun-free zones work in schools either. We’ve had several armed attacks in California schools this year, attacks where teachers and students were killed. Did you forget them already? And California has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. When we look across the country, we’ve seen violent attacks in daycare centers, elementary schools, junior high, high schools, trade schools, college, and universities. I guess the attacker doesn’t stop to read the “no-guns” signs in schools.

Right. I read about those attacks. Umm. Can’t we agree that people should be disarmed when they’re drinking, or do you want drunks to have guns?

It isn’t a matter of what I want or don’t want. The politicians went further than banning drunks from carrying. They forbid even the sober people who are designated drivers from exercising their concealed carry rights where alcohol could be served. We saw those “no-guns allowed” signs fail just last year when the rampage killer at the Pulse Nightclub killed 49 people. Years ago, a murderer killed 24 people at Luby’s Cafeteria.

They sure ban guns a lot of places, but I see the problem now. Those are only little private companies, and they can’t force people to disarm. That is why we need to ban weapons in government offices where we can make sure there are no guns.

You mean like city hall, and the post office?

Yes, exactly.

You’re a little young, but have you heard the phrase “going postal”? It means going crazy and killing your co-workers, so yeah, we’ve had attacks in federal buildings before. They are “gun-free” zones, but we’ve had attacks in city sports stadiums, public transit, and municipal picnic grounds. Plastic signs didn’t stop bad guys.

But those aren’t big government installations. You’re thinking too small.

We’ve had attacks in giant military installations, like Fort Hood and the Washington Navy Yard. Fort Hood held about 50 thousand troops. When these government sites were attacked, the murderers were employees who passed a security clearance. We’ve had attacks in city hall too.

We have to think bigger. We need to ban guns in the entire country. Then we’d be safe.

I don’t think you mean that. Mexico has a much higher murder rate than the US. France has more terrorism than we do even though it is a much smaller country. Most private citizens can’t have guns in France or Mexico.

I knew it. That shows that hard power doesn’t work. We need to use soft power to disarm people.

Soft power? You mean like sending messages in Hollywood movies?

Yes. Exactly.

I think you forgot about the rampage murders in movie theaters. We’ve also had murders in churches, in synagogues and in mosques that were “gun-free” zones. Evil doesn’t respect soft power.
The only government buildings that are remotely safe are the ones with metal detectors and armed guards..like they use in jails, yet jails are frighteningly dangerous because they hold bad people. I don’t want good people to live in a jail.

Where do you get all these facts?

They are right in your phone if you want to find them. The real point is that I won’t forget the facts I don’t like. Gun prohibition fails everywhere because you can’t stop evil with ink on paper. Unfortunately, that doesn’t stop politicians and judges from infringing on our rights.

Top Three Worst States For Gun Rights

1 Comment

H/T JPFO.

By Dean Weingarten. April 3rd, 2017
Article Source

Which are the worst three states for exercising your right to keep and bear arms? There are several contenders for that dubious distinction. The worst states can be found with the answers to a couple of questions.

First: Do you have to ask government permission to purchase a firearm? Some states require that you obtain permission before purchasing handguns. A smaller subset require that you obtain permission before purchasing any gun. That infringement is a must have for the worst states. There are twelve states that have the requirement for all guns. They are California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Washington State. Maryland does not make the list, because you do not need a permit to purchase most rifles and shotguns.

Second: Does the state claim the power to arbitrarily deny people the right to bear arms outside of the home, even after jumping through the hoops to obtain a permit? The power may be vested in police chiefs, a board or committee, or some other appendage of the state.

The clear infringement is the state can arbitrarily say “sure, you meet the legal qualifications; you have not committed a felony. You haven’t been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. You have not been involuntarily committed to a mental hospital. You have taken the proper course, passed the test, and are legally allowed by law to own weapons…but…the semi-feudal authority figure does not like the cut of your jib”, so he says “Denied”, and your rights are infringed. This often takes the form of a subjective judgment that you do not have a “good reason” to have a permit. Strangely, those with money and political connections are usually able to come up with “good reasons”. Not having legal access to carry outside the home cuts the list down to six states.

California, Delaware, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York are at the top of the list for states hostile to the exercise of Second Amendment rights.

Of those six states, picking the worst three is much more difficult. There are differences. Delaware Requires a background check, but not a separate license to purchase. While the state is “may issue” in law, it is reported as being “shall issue” in practice. It comes off the list.

Massachusetts requires a permit to buy a gun. They require a permit to carry a gun. One permit will allow you to do both, so people are opting for that permit instead of alternatives that are only slightly less onerous. Because of this , the number of people with Massachusetts carry permits is a respectable 7.6% of adults. Getting a permit may be difficult in Massachusetts. A permit is not guaranteed. Most Massachusetts residents who want one can get one and may bear arms. Massachusetts gets dropped off the list.

California bans private sales. You must go through a government controlled dealer to legally buy a gun. You have to register guns that you make yourself. But California does not require a special state permit to buy a gun. Many areas of California issue concealed carry permits on essentially a “shall issue” basis. California is a contender because of the insane and recent spate of anti-rights laws, but they are off the list of the top three. That leaves the three worst states: Hawaii, New York, and New Jersey.

New Jersey is the worst of the three. While they issue more permits to carry than Hawaii, the permits nearly all go to retired judges, police officers, and people with considerable “pull” (political connections). It is extremely difficult to obtain a New Jersey carry permit. New Jersey had about 1200 permits active in 2016. All other states issue more carry permits than that. All firearms ownership and use in New Jersey is controlled by statute. That is, everything about firearms that is not permitted, is forbidden. There are regular stories about people with innocent intentions being caught up in firearms laws that defy common sense. New Jersey is the only state that defines a tubular magazine fed .22 hunting rifle as an “assault weapon”. For a while, a Daisy BB gun was considered an “assault weapon” in New Jersey. A large, subjective part of what makes New Jersey the worst, is the state structure seems quite willing to ignore their own rules, such as time limits on issuing permits. The impression is the rule of law is more the rule by local power brokers in New Jersey. New Jersey is one of the six states that has no right to keep and bear arms provision in the state constitution.

New York might not have made the list except for the “SAFE” Act passed in 2013. New York eliminated the New York State lifetime handgun permit. Permits now have to be renewed every five years. The SAFE act requires that all firearm purchases go through a government dealer, with extremely limited exceptions. The act requires that all ammunition purchases be done through a licensed dealer, a provision that is not yet fully law in California. There is widespread resistance to the SAFE Act, especially in upstate New York. But 43 percent of New York State residents live in New York City, where it is very difficult to obtain a permit to even purchase a pistol, let alone carry one. In California, while it is very difficult to obtain a permit to carry in the urban centers, it is much easier to purchase handguns legally. In California, carry permits are valid throughout the state. State carry permits in New York are not valid in New York City. Stories where New York authorities ignore their own firearms law to impose more stringent restrictions are rampant. New York is another of the six states that have no right to keep and bear arms in the state constitution.

Hawaii is as bad as New Jersey for most of their firearm laws. They are worse when it comes to issuing carry permits. In a fair number of years, there are no permits issued to private citizens for self defense for the entire state. You have to apply to a permit authority to buy any firearm legally. The authority to buy long guns only lasts for one year. The authority to buy a handgun only lasts for 10 days. There are a fairly large number of long guns that were grandfathered in the law before July 1, 1994. They are not required to be registered. No one knows just how many exist. Hawaii has a better reputation for following their own rules than New Jersey or New York. The Hawaii Constitution’s right to bear arms provision is a copy of the Second Amendment.

Reasonable people can differ on the three worst states for the exercise of Second Amendment rights. Nearly every list will contain New Jersey. Contentions exist about the other two. My vote is for New York and Hawaii.

©2017 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included. Link to Gun Watch.

The majority of gun owners will probably be familiar with the states that make gun ownership and carry difficult or even near impossible, flouting the Second Amendment. However, Dean Weingarten here gives us a run-down of the factors involved within his choice of extreme restriction states.
It is interesting to note – breaking news – that NJ’s Governor Christie is to make a (small) concession on granting of carry permits… hardly enough but maybe it’s a start.

An Open Letter to Every “Mom” From a Victim Turned Survivor

Leave a comment

H/T JPFO.

Little Shannon Watts and her band of brain dead harpies will ignore this letter.

They have but one goal disarming every American.

Whenever I read the latest updates from Mom Demands Action, I can’t help but cringe. This gun control group tries to use their standing as mothers to advocate against the Second Amendment. They use their experience as mothers to claim they know what’s best for each and every one of us.

But they don’t know our story.

They don’t know my story.

Here’s my letter to all of those “moms” out there.

Dear “Moms,”

I am a Second Amendment advocate and I want to tell you my story. I want to tell you why I’m pro-gun and why you do NOT speak for me.

A few weeks shy of my 19th birthday, I was sexually assaulted in my college dorm room. My virginity stolen from me by a guy I had just met. I was new to the adult world, 600 miles from home, and forced to press charges against my perpetrator.

Everywhere I turned, I was afraid – paranoid even – that he was behind me, lurking and watching my every move. I felt insecure. For the first time in my life, I was afraid. Afraid to walk to class, afraid to walk to the dining hall, afraid of staying on campus – until eventually, everything I did was out of fear of my attacker.

That experience in my life was horrific, but it was an eyeopener. It made me realize two things:

1. The world isn’t always peaches and sunshine.
There is evil in the world and people who want to hurt you.
2. At the end of the day, the only person who can
protect me is me.

When you talk about campus carry advocates being drunken college kids who are going to shoot each other up, you’re utterly wrong. You’re talking about people like me. You’re talking about young women just like my 19-year-old self who are in need of protection.

What do you propose we do to defend ourselves? Carry a rape whistle and hope someone hears us? Dial 9-1-1 and wait until the cops show up?

Why should a survivor, like me, advocate in favor of victimhood? That is what your group is all about – creating more victims.

Instead of relying on others to protect me, I rely on myself…and my proficiency with my firearm.

I will never apologize for doing everything in my power to make sure other women don’t have to go through the horrendous pain I went through.

I will never apologize for advocating for women to protect themselves.

But I will call out people like you who try to keep me, and others like me, from protecting ourselves.

Sincerely,

A victim turned survivor

Five facts that ‘gun control’ advocates hate

3 Comments

H/T Jews For The Preservation Of Firearms Ownership. 

The gun control crowd never lets facts get in the way of their propaganda.

The Second Amendment is constantly under attack by gun control advocates. They will stop at nothing to take away an individual’s right to self-defense. “JPFO” is taking a stand by spreading awareness about prominent myths that are constantly spewed by these authoritarians. The following info-graphic debunks five talking points used by anti-gun groups. We aim to share this message with as many people as possible to bring reality back to America.
Info-graphic provided by “www.gunsforsalereviews.com“.

5-facts-800x875

It’s Time to Eliminate The Gun Control Laws: Yes, All Of Them

1 Comment

I think this is a great idea.

Many of the laws were passed as result of some tragic event the content is a lot of emotional stuff and not much substance.

 

America’s Most Aggressive Defender of Firearms Ownership

Source: It’s Time to Eliminate The Gun Control Laws: Yes, All Of Them

America’s Real Gun Problem — The Gun Myths

1 Comment

This is from JPFO. 

Nothing points out the bankruptcy of our nation’s gun-control debate better than the mythologies that surrounds it.

Prior “common sense” proposals are perpetually abandoned. The so-called “news” media adopts each new absurd gun-control scheme dutifully, promotes it uncritically, then drops it like a hot potato when it is proven worthless and runs to the next latest greatest bit of hoplophobic (morbid gun fear) ridiculousness.

In effect the nation endures a serial mythology, with new myths invented constantly, so we lose sight of each established myth as new ones spring into the public eye.

This obscures the former paranoid fabrications, frustrating our efforts “to get to the heart of the problem,” which then never get adequately described. You’ll recognize them instantly, from the constant hammering of the not-too-distant past–try some of these on for sighs (sic)–

America has a gun problem (gun-violence problem?) because:

There are too many guns;

There are too many of the wrong kind of guns;

There is too much ammunition;

It’s too easy to get guns;

The guns are in the wrong hands;

There is too much crime;

The guns have pistol grips, flash hiders, folding stocks, features too numerous to list;

We have too many criminals, a permanent criminal underclass, non-existent families, no father figures, single-parent households, out-of-wedlock births, substandard government housing ghettos, gang environments, racial disparities, illegal aliens, black-on-black murders, five cities that account for most of it, poverty, inequality, inner cities;

It’s TV, movies, MTV, rap music, hip hop (there’s a difference?) the pop culture, the gangsta culture, a lack of culture, debauched culture;

Violent video games are the problem;

It’s the immoral unwinnable drug war;

The problem is the NRA, that’s it right there;

The gun companies control the politicians;

American men have small gonads and use guns as substitutes;

It’s the objectification of women;

Breakdown of the moral fabric is the cause;

It started when we banned God from the public square;

There is not enough education about guns;

We need more gun laws;

We need better gun laws;

We need the gun laws enforced;

We need universal background checks;

We need universal gun registration;

We need the Feinstein gun law;

We need the Manchin-Toomey gun law;

We need to disarm the criminals already;

The criminal justice system is just a revolving door;

They should just take all the guns away;

No one thinks about who is ‘they’;

Or what they would do with all these dangerous guns;

They is OK if it’s the current guy but certainly not if it’s Bush;

We have to keep guns out of the hands of the wrong people;

Why does anyone need a (fill in the bad gun of the day);

We need more people carrying guns to stop the criminals;

It’s the poverty;

It’s the income inequality;

It’s the super rich;

This list has no end but I’m going to stop now.

If you examine this too-familiar list you’ll notice most blame goes to something other than the perpetrators themselves. If you believe in personal responsibility for your lot in life you know that’s wrong. (My guru taught me, with great insight: “If you want to know what you want, just look at what you have.”) In court, at least, the perp is responsible for the “gun violence,” what rational people call crime. But I digress.

The Serial Myths That Cloud the Solution

To fix America’s purportedly severe gun problem, an ongoing series of solutions have been proposed by the so-called “gun-control” advocates. These are people who, by and large, do not own guns, or use guns, and have little if any experience with guns. As a direct consequence of that, each of their proposed solutions have turned out to be mythological–that is, not grounded in reality.

This doesn’t stop the feckless media from trumpeting the inane plans loudly. The schemes are soon found to be preposterous, quickly abandoned, and new myths are invented, which are hoped against hope to address the purported problem. The cycle repeats.

“Purported problem,” because under careful scrutiny, an inconvenient truth arises. The so-called “gun problem” is not a monolithic dilemma, it has distinguishable elements.

Fully 6,000 of the tragic deaths annually are young black men killing each other in ghettos, typically in drug-related battles, making these war deaths, in the federally funded war on some drugs. Government declared war, combatants killed. Solution: declare a truce, save 6,000 lives.

Checking the stats, fully another half of so-called gun deaths are elder suicides, pointing out the disturbing fact that many Americans, approaching the end of their lives, find themselves in constant pain, alone, penniless or nearly so. Without resources, they turn to the option of ending it all, with reliable means. More than a gun problem, this is a medical issue, and a social-welfare issue, one which society sweeps under the rug. It is useful as an unexamined statistic, to build political capital for infringing on the right to keep and bear arms, but it is hardly an honest gun problem. These people need help. Society is unwilling to provide it. No solution available at present.

When we subtract crime numbers from the crime-ridden cities, we find America has brighter prospects than Scandinavia, usually held up as a paragon of virtue. But that’s a distraction to this paper’s theme. The myths perpetually created to justify denying or infringing upon the civil right to arms needs cataloging, to bring it into the full white light of day. Here’s a start. I’m omitting the juiciest. More coming soon. Hey–write to me with yours, make my job easier (ask your friends too).

The Armed Pilot Myth: Armed airline pilots will freak out, leave the cockpit, and shoot unruly passengers, or the guns will just go off presenting an unacceptable hazard to air travel, since planes will explode when shot. Proven false. After the 9-11 attacks, when radical muslims murdered unarmed pilots, Congress argued literally for years and finally implemented the Federal Flight Deck Officer program, arming pilots nationally, with no ill effect. (In early years, planes carrying U.S. Mail required pilots to be armed.)

The National Parks Carry Myth: Discreet carry in national parks by the public will result in poached animals, murdered visitors, accidental shootings and terrified tourists. Proven false. In 2014 when Congress removed the ban on personal arms in National Parks and Monuments, amidst a great hue and cry, replacing it with the carry laws of each of the states in which the parks resided, no untoward incidents have been reported. Decent people now carry there the same as in the rest of their states.

The Off-Duty Officer Myth: Off duty or retired LEOs, if given national freedom to carry, particularly outside their jurisdiction, will mistakenly shoot innocent civilians and cost cities billions in liability. Proven false. When the LEOSA act passed in 2004, after multiple failed attempts, every honorable former and current peace officer gained the ability to carry discreetly nationwide (a precursor for the public’s similar right,which hasn’t yet materialized). Further law was needed to let officers carry safe hollow ammunition, to which some jurisdictions ignorantly raised objections.

The Saturday-Night-Special Myth: The big problem was cheap guns used in spontaneous shootings, and crime would drop if these were eliminated. Proven false. This term traces back to the 1930s, when police would refer to cheap guns in the bad part of town as “N-Town Saturday Night Specials.” Polite society dropped the N-word in later years. When it became obvious that the neighborhood and not the gun type was the problem, the term fell into disuse, but its proponents never fessed up to the nonsense, they just dropped it.

The Melting-Point Test Myth: Guns must be able to withstand enormous temperatures in order to be safe enough to make and sell. Proven false. A poorly concocted idea that circulated briefly, guns are no more subjected to abnormal temperatures than any other products, and withstand them as well as most household items. The attempt to outlaw certain firearms by this contrivance was demonstrably bogus and has largely been dropped.

 

Older Entries Newer Entries

%d bloggers like this: