Tag: 2nd Amendment

This is how “Sensible gun control” really works

When your government disarms you in the name of public safety and security, the only people with guns will be the agents of the state and the criminals. In Brazil, a nation with one of the world’s most draconian gun control frameworks in place, crime also sets a world record. Case in point stories like this one:

After two members of the Australian Paralympic sailing squad were robbed at gunpoint, Australia’s Olympic team leader is urging Brazilian authorities to implement Olympic-scale security now in Rio de Janeiro “before an athlete gets hurt.”
The weekend incident in Rio highlighted fears of crime against foreign athletes ahead of the Aug. 5-21 Summer Games.

An estimated 85,000 police and soldiers will be patrolling the streets during the Olympics and Paralympics, but violent crime remains a fact of life in Rio.

This shit can’t be made up. In a country where owning a gun carries swift and horrible repercussions, gun wielding criminals robbed some handicapped Olympians despite the fact that the government claims some 85K agents of the state are out patrolling the streets to prevent this sort of crime.

Reality is that when seconds count help will always be minutes late. That’s why the best defense is people that have the ability to defend themselves. Of course, had Brazilians been able to defend themselves, they would have likely lynched their corrupt and criminal political aristocracy after the recent revelations of how hard they have been screwed by them. And I have no doubt that these scumbags that passed these laws’ primary reason behind the “sensible gun control laws” was to make sure that scenario couldn’t play out, from the start.

The left in this country wants to disarm the citizenry for the same reason. They have lost any desire to waste time pretending they aren’t crooks, as the past 7 years clearly show us, and if it was up to them things would only get worse. But the fear of an armed response from an angry people still holds some sway, so from that we get the surreal world we have today where terrorist attacks by islamist monsters warp into calls for disarming law abiding citizens.

Say what you want, but the forefathers that created this once great nation had the prescience to realize that the constitution was worthless paper without it also guaranteeing the people with the means to protect their rights from a calous political class claiming to want to do something noble and good and robbing us of said freedoms and the ability to protect them especially. Collectivism may claim noble intentions, but it is a scourge on humanity.

NYT admission that democrats are anti-second amendment thugs

The NYT OpEd page carries an article by Lois Becket which all but admits that democrats manufactured the term assault weapon because they hate armed citizens, and it now being admitted because this author thinks they should ban handguns:

OVER the past two decades, the majority of Americans in a country deeply divided over gun control have coalesced behind a single proposition: The sale of assault weapons should be banned. That idea was one of the pillars of the Obama administration’s plan to curb gun violence, and it remains popular with the public. In a poll last December, 59 percent of likely voters said they favor a ban. But in the 10 years since the previous ban lapsed, even gun control advocates acknowledge a larger truth: The law that barred the sale of assault weapons from 1994 to 2004 made little difference. It turns out that big, scary military rifles don’t kill the vast majority of the 11,000 Americans murdered with guns each year. Little handguns do. In 2012, only 322 people were murdered with any kind of rifle, F.B.I. data shows.

The continuing focus on assault weapons stems from the media’s obsessive focus on mass shootings, which disproportionately involve weapons like the AR-15, a civilian version of the military M16 rifle. This, in turn, obscures some grim truths about who is really dying from gunshots. Annually, 5,000 to 6,000 black men are murdered with guns. Black men amount to only 6 percent of the population. Yet of the 30 Americans on average shot to death each day, half are black males.

It was much the same in the early 1990s when Democrats created and then banned a category of guns they called “assault weapons.” America was then suffering from a spike in gun crime and it seemed like a problem threatening everyone. Gun murders each year had been climbing: 11,000, then 13,000, then 17,000. Democrats decided to push for a ban of what seemed like the most dangerous guns in America: assault weapons, which were presented by the media as the gun of choice for drug dealers and criminals, and which many in law enforcement wanted to get off the streets. This politically defined category of guns — a selection of rifles, shotguns and handguns with “military-style” features — only figured in about 2 percent of gun crimes nationwide before the ban.

Emphasis mine. That term – assault weapons – was manufactured by democrats to push the anti-second amendment agenda. At least the author now admits that the problem the left has with guns is that their is no legal solution to people that feel life is cheap and that don’t care about laws, and making up shit to scare people doesn’t really stop crime. But her solution seems to be more of the same. The only way to reduce gun crime is to educate people about guns and to really put the type of people that use guns to commit the crime of murder out of circulation. But demcorats don’t want to do either. Roll back the stupid laws and actually deal with the criminals as criminals.

Who’s Packing?

In the “Magisterial Prerogative” post I talked about the enemy of the rule of law is an arbitrary fashion in law enforcement. No where is this more prevalent than in the issuing of concealed weapons carry permits. Each county has it’s own set of hoops applicants must jump through, some logical, but most designed solely to make the process so onerous as to discourage applying. Here in California that is about to change;

California must allow law-abiding citizens to carry concealed firearms in public, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday, striking down the core of the state’s permit system for handguns.

In a 2-1 decision, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said San Diego County violates the Constitution’s Second Amendment by requiring residents to show “good cause” – and not merely the desire to protect themselves – to obtain a concealed-weapons permit.

State law requires applicants to demonstrate good cause, as well as good moral character, to carry concealed handguns, while leaving the permit process up to each city and county. The ruling, if it stands, would require local governments to issue permits to anyone of good moral character who wants to carry a concealed gun for self-protection.

“The right to bear arms includes the right to carry an operable firearm outside the home for the lawful purpose of self-defense,” Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain said in the majority opinion.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the most overturned (code for “these clowns could not magistrate their way out of a cardboard box”) appeals court, like ever, I am surprised.

I think the fact that someone values his life (and that of his family) and wants to protect them, that is “good cause” enough as far as I’m concerned. I am equally troubled by the other hurdle of “good moral character”, what the hell does that even mean? It can’t have anything to do with a past criminal record, other laws address that, no it’s like what is “family values”? it is at it’s root arbitrary. If a guy has a suspended driver’s license, is unemployed, shacking up with the mother of his kids but not married, visits the nudie bar from time to time, likes to tie one on once and a while, does not recycle, lets the weeds in front of his house grow out of control, what is the criteria for this?

In the same ruling, the justices said restrictions on carrying concealed weapons were “presumptively lawful,” meaning that they would be upheld unless shown to be unreasonably burdensome.

Yes, and one of those that come immediately to mind is the requirement to take and pass a gun safety class, does anyone think this is “unreasonable burdensome”? In order to obtain a driver’s license one has to learn how to drive, seems reasonable, same with walking around with a loaded firearm. I have never taken a gun safety course, seemed rather silly for me, but I would hope that all classes involve a rudimentary understanding of the law as it applies to when/under what circumstances you are justified in using deadly force, and some examples of idiots that got this wrong and are now behind bars because of it.

I know the typical lefty argument is that we will not be safer if everyone walking around is packing, if that were true they might be right, but a large segment of society wants nothing to do with guns and would not get a permit or carry under any circumstances anyway. But for those that do, the Second Amendment guarantees their right to do so. If they abuse or misuse that right, it is on them to know what they are doing.