Tag: Gun laws in the United States

Government attempt to create a gun database fails

Profiting from the tragedy that cost a bunch of innocent kids their lives at the hands of a mentally unstable person, the collectivist gun grabbers in the People’s Republic of Connecticut, more successful in using that crisis to help cement the power of an already bloated government than the feds were at the same, passed a host of unconstitutional gun grabbing laws. Only problem for the anti-2nd amendment political class is that even in a deep blue state like Connecticut, where the libtardedness runs deep and strong, things have not gone as planned. See, these collectivists have a track record of pretending they don’t mean to fuck us citizens over, only to then do just that, and thus, it looks like their attempt to force people to help them put together a gun grabbing registry, has failed, and failed miserably.

HARTFORD — Amid concerns about gun owners who failed in their last-minute attempts to register now-illegal assault weapons and large capacity ammunition magazines, lawmakers are considering granting an amnesty period for people who missed the registration deadline.

The comprehensive gun-control bill enacted last spring required owners of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines to register the guns and declare ownership of the magazine if they wished to keep them.

And guess what happened? The majority of them decided that they were better of not registering at all and waiting for this to end up resolved in court, with the likely verdict that state of the People’ Republic of Connecticut had violated their second amendment rights smacking this idiotic law down. That’s because these people know that allowing the marxist government gun grabbers to put together a registry was just the precursor to just that: an exercise in government sponsored gun grabbing. So now that their attempt failed, and knowing full well this law will not survive a legal challenge, they agents of the state think they have found an out. As the Courant reports:

About 50,000 assault weapons were registered last year, and close to 40,000 people declared possession of magazines – many of them doing so during the final days of December. But legislative leaders in recent weeks have raised concerns with the governor’s office that some individuals who attempted to register their weapons were prevented from doing so as a result of early post office closings on New Year’s Eve.

“It had come to my attention and the attention of others that many people who were attempting in good faith to comply with the law…were not able to because of what I would argue were circumstances not under their control,” said Senate Minority Leader John McKinney, who said he has been in discussion with other lawmakers about a possible amnesty period for people who tried to register but failed to do so.

Post offices closed at noon on Dec. 31, and as a result, “many citizens” dropped their paperwork in the mail on Dec. 31, but had it returned because it was not postmarked until Jan. 2, said McKinney, who last week wrote a letter to the governor’s office asking them to process the applications postmarked Jan. 2.

The governor’s office responded Tuesday with a letter to legislative leaders in which they maintained the law prevents them from processing the late applications.

Yeah, sure the reason you only had less than an estimated 5% of people register is because the post office was closed. Those other 95% just sent it late. And I got a bridge to sell you too. Fucking idiots. Most of the people that own these weapons the state was so desperate to build a database about are not died in the wool progtards, so they knew and know better than to register anything. Smart move on their part. Here is my prediction: that this amnesty thing will fail just as miserably as the original drive did and most people will ignore it. The non-idiots in the People’s Republic of Connecticut know better than to help the government get the information it needs to help it deprive us of our 2nd amendment rights. The morons that think this law was a good idea just don’t get it.

Progtard narrative misleading yet again

Let me start by saying that the death of a child is a terrible thing, but I just can’t stand the progtard’s deceptive use of tragedy to rob us of our freedoms, especially when statistics tell a different story than the one they want you to hear. From this stupid article:

About 500 American children and teenagers die in hospitals every year after sustaining gunshot wounds — a rate that climbed by nearly 60 percent in a decade, according to the first-ever accounting of such fatalities, released Sunday.

In addition, an estimated 7,500 kids are hospitalized annually after being wounded by gunfire, a figure that spiked by more than 80 percent from 1997 to 2009, according two Boston doctors presenting their findings at a conference of the American Academy of Pediatrics, held in Orlando, Fla.

Eight of every 10 firearm wounds were inflicted by handguns, according to hospital records reviewed by the doctors. They say the national conversation about guns should shift toward the danger posed by smaller weapons, not the recent fights over limiting the availability of military-style, semi-automatic rifles.

“Handguns account for the majority of childhood gunshot wounds and this number appears to be increasing over the last decade,” said Dr. Arin L. Madenci, a surgical resident at Boston’s Brigham and Women’s Hospital and one of the study’s two authors. “Furthermore, states with higher percentages of household firearm ownership also tended to have higher proportions of childhood gunshot wounds, especially those occurring in the home.”

Among homes with children, rates of gun possession ranged from 10 percent in New Jersey, for instance, to 62 percent in Montana, the researchers found.

Madenci, and his colleague, Dr. Christopher Weldon, a surgeon at Boston Children’s Hospital, tallied the new statistics by culling a national database of 36 million pediatric hospitalizations from 1997 to 2009, the most recent year for which figures are available.

During that period, hospitalizations of kids and teens aged 20 and younger from gunshot wounds jumped from 4,270 to 7,730. Firearm deaths of children logged by hospitals rose from 317 in 1997 to 503 in 2009, records showed.

Among those victims may have been 3-year-old Will McAnaul, who died on July 21, 2009 in Dayton, Ohio. The preschooler discovered his father’s loaded handgun under his parents’ bed and accidentally shot himself.

You get a whole bunch of numbers, numbers that are not adequately explained, and then they focus on one case: the tragic death of a 3 year old. Because that sob story is far more likely to appeal to their agenda than pointing out that most of those deaths and injuries happen to gangbangers under the age of 20. It is outright despicable that this author is that much of a scumbag.

Yeah, the death of this poor, young, child is a horrible tragedy, but this vile and deceptive story leaves you believing that this scenario is the norm, not the exception. Nothing could be further from the truth. The vast majority of the killed and hurt are gangbangers doing their thing. The story doesn’t even mention these facts. This piece masquerades as news, but it is nothing but propaganda, and despicable propaganda that uses the death of a child to push a vile agenda. These people are scum, I tell you.

Why the LSM is not talking much about the NAVY yard shooting any more..

I think the first, and most obvious reason, is that the LSM can not use this incident to push for more gun control, without some serious problems for the government gun grabbers, from those of us that are not going to just swallow their bullshit without checking the facts. From the article:

In Washington, D.C. on Monday, Aaron Alexis gunned down twelve people. As if designed to preempt the scripted reactions of those who fight for an anemic interpretation of the Second Amendment, the Navy Yard massacre included no assault weapon. Alexis committed his crimes in a virtually gun-free zone. His background had been checked in order to gain the active security clearance he held prior to the shooting. While I’m usually game for a good discussion of the proper limits of the Second Amendment, that alone cannot sensibly be the focus here.

So Alexis didn’t use that AR-15 that gave the gun grabbers a boner, as they originally tried to pretend he had. And, while the LSM ran away from reporting this, just as a vampire runs away from sunlight, it turns out that Alexis was a big lib and Obama supporter too. Can you imagine the fucking howling from the LSM had this guy been shown to be a conservative or Tea Party supporter? In fact, they all speculated he was one of these right from the start, and like a lot of other shit, they had it all wrong. Worse of all, while the leftists morons went out of their way to pretend that the problem was with the usual background checking procedures law abiding citizens have to go through to buy firearms, which they claim the NRA has kept from being effective, the fact remains that to hold a security clearance Alexis went through a much more thorough background check, run on behalf of the government, and passed that. Do you think that if he got through a government security background check a more beefed up check of any kind to purchase weapons would have made a difference? Really? Maybe they should have made that area a “gun-free-zone“! Oh wait, as someone much wiser said: yeah, I thought so.

Anyway, there are lots of unanswered questions the LSM now no longer cares about since the story can not be used to push more gun grabbing. For example, how many people in the US have reported on the stand-down order given to the NAVY yard SWAT team? Or what about rescinding the Clinton era order that disarmed the people on military bases? I have my beliefs of why Clinton did this – he was making sure that military he loathed couldn’t do shit to him – and I am pretty sure the fact that the left & congress don’t trust the enlisted men in the military that do not depend on their political largesse for their career advancement like the officers, had a lot to do with this idiotic decision. So now we have had an Islamist radical and an angry leftist prove how dumb disarming base security has played out in the real world, but I bet the call will be for even more gun-free, gun-free-zones.

The media now see this story as detrimental to the gun grabbing agenda. So the story will go away or die down. And then, later, when they hope most people have forgotten the facts, they will rewrite what really happened to push the gun grabbing agenda. Me, I spent the past weekend in Maine shooting at some stuff with people that respect firearms and are law abiding. Disarming people like us isn’t going to stop gun violence of any kind, and would certainly not have prevented the shooting at the NAVY yard in D.C. I bet you armed guards with orders to shoot to kill on the base however would have stopped the NAVY yard shooter. He would have picked some other “gun-free-zone” to go do this thing at, is my guess…

Clearly We Are Paranoid

The last few months, we’ve been told that the Democrats are only seeking sensible gun control. Mother Jones listed “they’re coming fer our guuuuns” as their #1 myth in their debunking. Clearly, only a paranoid Right wing loon would actually believe that … aw, crap.

Oregon has a new gun law proposal. Jazz Shaw runs down the basic:

Creates crime of unlawful possession or transfer of assault weapon or large capacity magazine.

Punishes by maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment, $250,000 fine, or both.

Requires current owners to dispose of or register assault weapons and large capacity magazines.

Think about that. You could be put in prison for ten years for having a magazine larger than some legislators think you should or having a gun that looks kind of scary. Those are the same sentences you would get for having an illegal full-on machine gun. In addition to machine-gun like penalties, there are machine-gun like restrictions. Owners have to discard or destroy them. Some may be allowed to keep them but will be forced to register and cops will be authorized to check to make sure the weapons are stored safely.

The way machine guns are regulated is the way the gun grabbers want every weapon to be regulated. They have stated as much on numerous occasions, only backing off for the last few years because gun control isn’t popular. Oregon’s law makes it clear that the intention is to extend the law further this time; at least as far as they think they can get away with for now.

Biden Advises Law Breaking

Ladies and gentlemen, what would we do without Joe Biden. The other day, he addressed the issue of an assault weapons ban by saying that he advises his wife, while living in their “secluded” home, to defend herself with a shotgun. If she hears strange noises, she should empty both barrels into the air to scare them off.


A sergeant with the Wilmington, Del., police department explained to U.S. News that city residents are not allowed to fire guns on their property.

The sergeant, who preferred not to be identified, said that Wilmington residents are also not allowed to shoot trespassers. “On your property you can’t just shoot someone,” he said. “You have to really feel that your life is being threatened.”

Defense attorney John Garey—a former Delaware deputy attorney general—agreed, and added that several criminal charges might result if Jill Biden took her husband’s advice.

“In Delaware you have to be in fear of your life to use deadly force,” Garey said. “There’s nothing based on his scenario alone” indicating a reason to fear imminent death, he noted.

Garey said that under Biden’s scenario, Jill Biden could be charged with aggravated menacing, a felony, and reckless endangering in the first degree.

Other states have similar or even more stringent restrictions on firing weapons as warning shots because blasting off in random directions is dangerous. And, as it happens, more people are killed by shotguns every year than are killed by assault weapons.

I post this to make a semi-serious point: even a lot of people who are supposed to know this stuff have no idea how guns work or what the gun laws are in their own state. This isn’t just some random Democrat. This is man who headed up the Administration’s gun control proposals.

I suspect that Joe was talking out of his ass, since his house is not, in fact, very isolated (the linked articles shows another house within 100 feet and there’s a school nearby). But this may be one of those times when what came out of Joe’s ass is more informative than what came out of his mouth.

The Weapons Limit

Having thought about Barack Obama’s gun plan, I’m still convinced that most of it is a non-issue: the government doing what it is supposed to do with background checks and enforcing laws. The only issue that is likely to be really contentious is the assault weapons ban (and related bans on high-capacity magazines).

I oppose the ban for a number of reasons, the biggest of which is that I think it will be ineffective. There is little evidence that the previous ban or state-level bans accomplished much: crime fell before they were passed and continued to fall after they went. Criminals continued to acquire not just assault weapons but fully automatic weapons.

But I’ve also been thinking about a quote from P.J. O’Rourke Parliament of Whores. In talking about the crack epidemic, he spoke to a doctor on the front lines about what he’d do if were the drug czar. The doctor said he would make a big splash about something unrelated like assault weapons and wait for the problem to burn itself out. O’Rourke noted that this was exactly what William Bennett subsequently did.

Assault weapon bans — indeed gun controls in general — are and always have been a distraction. The real causes of crime — poverty, broken families, educational dysfunction, hell maybe even lead — are far more difficult to address and liberal solutions to these problems have usually proven ineffective. By contrast, assault weapons are easy to address and easy to rally liberals around. They sound sensible to people who don’t like guns in the first place. They make politicians feel like they’re “doing something” even when they’re not.

I also think the assault weapons ban is really a culture war issue in disguise. I recently flew out of Pittsburgh and sat next to a college student from Alabama who talked about guns and how much he liked his AK. We’ve had plenty of discussions in the comments about guns. It’s clear that many of the readers of this blog are comfortable with guns and are even enthusiasts. But that are others who are uncomfortable around guns of any type. And when you look at that way, it’s no different than someone trying to ban porn or whatever because they don’t like it. It’s cultural chauvinism masquerading as common sense.

Liberals often say that no one “needs” an AK-47. That’s irrelevant and I think the attempts of people to justify these weapons under hunting, sport or revolutionary grounds are misguided. Owning guns is a right; it is the government that must justify its restrictions, not we who must justify our ownership. There isn’t a “need” for trashy music. There isn’t a “need” for risque television shows. There isn’t a “need” for Justin Bieber. But we allow these things because we believe in free speech. Gun owners do not need to justify a “need” so that their benevolent government can grudingly let them bear arms.

As is always the case with cultural issues, I think these is best resolved at the state level. If Californians are uncomfortable with assault weapons, let them ban them. If Alabamans are happy with assault weapons, let them keep them. It’s ridiculous to try to impose a national standard of what guns we are and are not comfortable with.

But doesn’t an assault weapons ban violate the Second Amendment? I don’t think so. The American people have long recognized that the Second Amendment does not give an unlimited right to weapons. Machine guns are banned, explosives are banned, nuclear weapons are banned. SCOTUS has upheld this. The difference between tyranny in freedom is much larger than the difference between an AK-47 and a hunting rifle.

Moreover, if we’re worried about tyranny, I would say the Second Amendment is only one of our concerns. Conor Friersdorf made this point some time ago:

I think law-abiding Americans should always be allowed to own guns.

But if you’re a conservative gun owner who worries that gun control today could make tyranny easier to impose tomorrow, and you support warrantless spying, indefinite detention, and secret drone strikes on Americans accused of terrorism, what explains your seeming schizophrenia?

Think of it this way.

If you were a malign leader intent on imposing tyranny, what would you find more useful, banning high-capacity magazines… or a vast archive of the bank records, phone calls, texts and emails of millions of citizens that you could access in secret? Would you, as a malign leader, feel more empowered by a background check requirement on gun purchases… or the ability to legally kill anyone in secret on your say so alone? The powers the Republican Party has given to the presidency since 9/11 would obviously enable far more grave abuses in the hands of a would be tyrant than any gun control legislation with even a miniscule chance of passing Congress. So why are so many liberty-invoking 2nd Amendment absolutists reliable Republican voters, as if the GOP’s stance on that issue somehow makes up for its shortcomings? And why do they so seldom speak up about threats to the Bill of Rights that don’t involve guns?

I am very happy that people are passionate about the Second Amendment and eager to defend gun liberty. I just wish they brought that same passion to other infringements on our First, Fourth, Five and Sixth Amendment rights. Because if we pay attention to those, we will never need a “Second Amendment Solution”.

Ah, those dreaded words. It’s become fashionable on the Left lately to mock the idea of rebellion. They’ve been dismissive of the Second Amendment because, they argue, a revolution against a tyrannical government would be impossible given that the government has tanks and nukes. That sounds clever and it certainly is snide.

It’s also absurd. Our own military — the one with the tanks and nukes — has had a devil of a time with a bunch of guys with small arms and improvised explosives. I know the Left likes to pretend our wars ceased to exist once Obama was elected, but the shattered bodies and souls coming back speak otherwise.

Sheer numbers tells us that a revolution is possible, tanks be damned. There are 1.4 million active duty members of our military. Assuming they all turned on us, they would still be outnumbered by the legal gun owners of Kentucky. Every hunting season, my state of Pennsylvania fields one of the largest standings armies in the world to take out a bunch of deer (and with remarkably few accidents, I might add). The idea that the Second Amendment isn’t a bulwark against tyranny is absurd.

I don’t believe that our government will ever become truly tyrannical. I don’t think that a “Second Amendment Solution” will ever be necessary. At the same time, however, I don’t think we should be gambling our future on my optimism.

No law and/or ban will stop crazy and/or evil from doing what they want.

Holy f-ing cow! While I still believe the revelation is just speculation at this time, it looks like our crazy mass murderer decided to kill those innocent people because he was worried about being committed.

NEWTOWN, Conn. – The gunman who slaughtered 20 children and six adults at a Connecticut elementary school may have snapped because his mother was planning to commit him to a psychiatric facility, according to a lifelong resident of the area who was familiar with the killer’s family and several of the victims’ families.

So, let me get this straight. Mom decides the kid is bonkers and needs to be locked up, and he snaps and kills her, then kills a bunch of other people. No law or firearm ban in the world would have fucking stopped someone this insane from committing harm out of anger once they snapped. Anyone pretending otherwise is desperately stupid. All the laws to deal with this were in place and they didn’t matter. There is a lesson here: crazy and evil people are always going to have the law applied to them retroactively, because nothing short of the ability to predict the future will prevent these people from doing their crazy.

But all you gun grabbers can keep pretending the problem is guns and that disarming good people after someone evil and crazy commits a horrible act will prevent other evil and insane people from doing more of the same.

Tracking Nothing

Gun control is kind of a dead issue these days, at least in the US. If the Obama-Pelosi-Reid government wouldn’t dare bring forth a gun control measure, that tells you how discredited the anti-self-defense crowd is. And with Heller in place, we are set up for any legal challenges.

The gun grabbers are not beaten, however. They still want an unarmed America. The price of freedom … is making sure we keep up to date on stories like this:

Despite spending a whopping $2.7 billion on creating and running a long-gun registry, Canadians never reaped any benefits from the project. The legislation to end the program finally passed the Parliament on Wednesday. Even though the country started registering long guns in 1998, the registry never solved a single murder. Instead it has been an enormous waste of police officers’ time, diverting their efforts from patrolling Canadian streets and doing traditional policing activities.

The statistics speak for themselves. From 2003 to 2009, there were 4,257 homicides in Canada, 1,314 of which were committed with firearms. Data provided last fall by the Library of Parliament reveals that the weapon was identified in fewer than a third of the homicides with firearms, and that about three-quarters of the identified weapons were not registered. Of the weapons that were registered, about half were registered to someone other than the person accused of the homicide. In just 62 cases — that is, only 4.7 percent of all firearm homicides — was the gun registered to the accused. As most homicides in Canada are not committed with a gun, the 62 cases correspond to only about 1 percent of all homicides.

Even in those 62 cases, Canadian authorities concluded the registry made no difference. Traditional police work and straight-forward confessions solved most of those. To put it simply, if you find a guy standing over the body of his wife’s boyfriend with a smoking baretta, the registration on the gun is unlikely to have been the case-cracker.

And Lott emphasizes something that needs to be tattooed on the ass of every big-government liberal: this registry came with a cost — $160 million a year, enough to hire 2000 cops or 2000 teachers. And I would be willing to bet that a couple of thousand of either would have done more good than his waste.