The Real Gun Guys

Chocolate City

An all together not unexpected editorial on the Heller ruling from a different perspective. An anti is an anti is an anti, or so it would seem, regardless of their background or social station.

Some excerpts:

It’s a ruling that’s bound to bring more bloodiness to Chocolate City.

Last week, by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court struck down the District of Columbia’s three-decades-old ban on handgun ownership. Not surprisingly, National Rifle Association types, people who have long been oblivious to the body counts in urban America, hailed the decision as a victory for the Second Amendment guarantee of the right to bear arms.

…

But just as the justices didn’t imagine that the Founders envisioned gun ownership as a right only for militias, I’m sure the Founders didn’t envision the crack cocaine trade. Or Uzis and Magnums. Or crime-ridden communities in which people wouldn’t have to defend themselves against foreign invaders or the forces of a president-turned-despot, but their fellow citizens

…

Arthur Kellerman, a professor of emergency medicine and public health at Emory University, wrote in the Washington Post about how his studies had revealed that guns kept in homes were 12 times more likely to wind up injuring a member of the household than an intruder or another bad guy.

He also cited Justice Department statistics that show that far more guns are stolen by the bad guys to commit crimes than are used by the good guys to prevent them. In Atlanta, he said, a study of 197 home-invasion crimes revealed only three instances in which the inhabitants got to their guns before the intruders did.

…

Last year, for example, I wrote about a single mother who, after being concerned about the rise in burglaries and homicides in her community, purchased a gun. What she didn’t count on, however, was that her young son was going to be more fixated with the gun than any would-be criminal.

She kept catching him trying to get to the gun. She continued to move it to places where she figured he couldn’t get it. But he finally did get to it — and fatally shot his younger sister while playing with it.

…

Then there are the people who are living in such frightful conditions that they literally believe in shooting first and asking questions later. Many times, that means elderly people who’ll wind up shooting the neighbor who comes up on their front porch at night to hand them a piece of mail that wound up in the wrong box.

…

I hate that the NRA’s narrow pursuit of preserving gun rights is making it nearly impossible for places like the District, which is plagued with urban violence, to take the steps necessary to stop gun violence.

And I worry that District officials and officials throughout the nation are going to have a tough time stemming the tide of illegal guns because of their single-minded focus.

Wow, so many anti-right talking points in such a short editorial. From the founders not envisioning modern weapons, to Arthur Kellerman’s flawed and discredited study, to holding up one irresponsible mother who left her gun out where her son could get to it and implying this is what will happen because of the ruling, to the old shooting the mailman canard, to the public health angle; this editorial is chock full of anti-rights chocolaty goodness.

I wonder if the author would react the same way if the ruling denied him/her the right to vote or the right of free speech.

After all, it’s for the children, and if it saves one life, right?

Share/Save

BS from the LA Times

Yeah, I’m shocked too. Read it here.

Their proposal is akin to blaming auto makers for the deaths caused by bad drivers and makes about as much sense. I suppose it’s no accident the last name of one of the authors is Sugarman.

Here’s a short taste:

We propose a new way to prod gun makers to reduce gun deaths, one that would be unlikely to put them out of business or to prevent law-abiding citizens from obtaining guns. By using a strategy known as “performance-based regulation,” we would deputize private actors — the gun makers — to deal with the negative effects of their products in ways that promote the public good.

In other words, rather than telling gun makers what to do, performance-based regulation would tell them what outcome they must achieve: Reduce deaths by guns. Companies that achieve the target outcomes might receive large financial bonuses; companies that don’t would face severe financial penalties. Put simply, gun makers — whose products kill even when used as directed — would have to take responsibility for curbing the consequent public health toll.

Under our plan, Congress might require gun makers in the aggregate to reduce gun homicides from 12,000 to, say, 7,000 in 10 years, with appropriate interim targets along the way. Individual firms would each have their own targets to meet, based on the extent their guns are currently used in homicides. Or Congress might simply leave it to neutral experts to determine just how much of a numerical reduction should be required — and how quickly. Either way, the required decline would be substantial.

How would gun companies go about reducing gun deaths? The main thing to emphasize is that this approach relies on the nimbleness, innovation and experimentation that come from private competition — rather than on the heavy-handed power of governmental regulation. Gun makers might decide to add trigger locks to their guns, or to work only with dealers who meet certain standards of responsibility. They might withdraw their semiautomatic weapons from the consumer market, or even work hand in hand with local officials to fight gangs and increase youth employment opportunities. Surely they will think up new strategies once they have a legal obligation and financial incentive to take responsibility for the harm their products cause.

Share/Save

“Law Abiding?” Million Mom Marcher

Perhaps this is one of the “Law Abiding” Million Mom Marchers I keep hearing about. If all the anti-rights bigots have the same level of self control as she, it’s a good thing most of them don’t have guns!

I’ve covered the story of Million Mom Marcher Barbara Graham before, but in light of The Brady Bunch’s smears in trying to portray all gun owners as criminals, I thought I’d remind them once again of the old saying “People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.” or was it “sleep in the nude”…hmmm…anyway…

After organizing, and speaking at the Million Mom March, Barbara Graham was convicted of shooting and paralyzing for life, Kikko Smith. This is a fact. Below is an exerpt from the United States Attorney’s Office concerning the incident:

“According to the government’s evidence, on January 26, 2000, at approximately 6:10 p.m., Barbara Graham approached a 22-year-old man by the name of Kikko Smith and asked him his name. Mr. Smith responded that his name was Kikko, whereupon Ms. Graham reached inside her purse, pulled out a handgun with an extended clip and began to chase Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith ran for his life and was then shot at and hit a number of times by Graham and her daughter’s long term boyfriend, Erskine Moorer. One of the bullets struck Mr. Smith in his back, breaking his rib, collapsing his lung and eventually shattering his spine. Other shots struck Mr. Smith in his foot and head. Due to this incident, Mr. Smith spent over one year in either hospitals or assisted living facilities. He is now confined to a wheel chair and has no movement from the waist down.”

Yep, sounds like a law abiding Million Mom Marcher to me. So, in addition to being a control freak and a complete hypocrite, she’s also murderously unstable as well. Yep, sounds about right to me.

So, what have we learned today? Well, we’ve learned that anti-rights bigots are hypocrites. We’ve also learned that they’re also unstable and suffer from a propensity for violence. Go ahead, open your favorite search engine and type in “violent anti gun activists” and see what pops up. It is reasonable in light of this to at least understand why they think banning guns will make everyone safer. It’s because they think everyone is as hypocritical and violent as they are!

So, Brady Bunch, the next time you want to point out the speck in our eyes, you’d best be taking care of the beam in your own first.

Hypocrites.

Share/Save

Washington Ceasefire Propaganda

This putrid bag of bile propaganda piece, written by Ceasefire Washington Board President Ralph Fascitelli, showed up this morning in the Seattle Post Intelligencer. This editorial contains nothing new. It’s like they aren’t even trying anymore. From the sound of the article, I’m guessing he wrote some anti-rights talking points on slips of paper and then drew them out of a hat when writing this editorial. Come on guys, you can do better!

Here are the basics of the editorial:

• People should have a good reason to have a gun.
• Guns need to be more tightly regulated.
• Gun control laws are reasonable and common sense.
• Individuals who have been involuntarily committed for more that 14 days should lose their 2A rights forever.
• A gun in the home is five times more likely to kill a family member or be used in a suicide.
• Close the “Gun show loophole” which allows criminals to get guns, including handguns, assault weapons and .50 caliber “sniper rifles.”
• Saving lives means giving up rights.

Sound familiar? Yeah, it did to me too, so much so I’m not even going to exerpt it. If you’d like, go read it and comment on it, it’s short. It would appear he’s taking a pounding in the comments already, which he deserves.

Share/Save

New Poll Up

There’s a new poll up with the question:

“Due to Walmart’s recent alliance with anti-rights Mayor Michael Bloomberg, what will you do?”

There are three possible answers:

• I don’t shop at Walmart
• Stop shopping at Walmart
• Continue shopping at Walmart

I know some Walmarts already don’t carry guns, but assume for the purposes of the poll that they all do. The last question means you will continue to buy weapons and/or other goods from Walmart.

Any questions? Let me know in comments.

Share/Save

A Modest Proposal

“For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and power, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places.”

-Ephesians 6:12

I was reading the bill known as Brady II and taking note of some of it’s more draconian measures, when the thought came to me. If this is what the anti-rights crowd considers “common sense” and “reasonable” gun control, then there’s no point in debating them. They keep hammering away at us, accusing us of being unreasonable and not caring for the children, etc. There’s no reasoning with this kind of person. Seriously. We could have “reasonable discourse” until the sun explodes and we’d still get nowhere. Some may flinch at my characterization of these kinds of people as evil, but how else would you describe someone bent on depriving you of a god given, constitutionally protected human right?

So, if this is what they consider “reasonable” “common sense” infringement on the second amendment, I thought it’d be interesting to apply their tactics to the first amendment and see what happened. Below is what I came up with. I don’t consider it to be a comprehensive list, but it’s a start. Feel free to add to it in comments if you want.

Make it illegal to sell or give writing implements or supplies without a license and a federally mandated background check. This includes typewriters, word processors, word processing software, paper, pens and pencils. In addition, each writing device or implement shall be registered with the state. The chief law enforcement officer of the state may be authorized to charge a fee for issuance of a license.

Require members of the media, including television and radio, to be licensed. Each license shall remain valid for a period of two years. Licensing involves a background check, fingerprinting and a photograph. In addition, the potential licensee must be able to demonstrate proficiency in spelling, punctuation and be unbiased. The penalty for lapses in any of these shall be revocation of the license and one year in prison for each “willful” violation. The chief law enforcement officer of the state may be authorized to charge a fee for these services and the license.

The exercise of “free speech” shall be limited to once per month. Every instance of “free speech” shall require a permit from the states chief law enforcement officer, who has 60 days to approve or deny the permit. This permit must be applied for at least 30 days in advance. The chief law enforcement officer of the state may be authorized to charge a fee for issuance of a permit.

The licensee must report the theft of writing supplies within 24 hours after the theft, or loss is discovered. Failure to report the theft is punishable by a civil penalty of $1,000 or such greater amount as State law may provide.

No person shall have access to writing implements or devices who is under the age of 16. No exceptions. In addition, all such implements and devices shall be stored in a manner where juveniles cannot access them. Failure to do so will result in a $1,000 fine, 1 year imprisonment, or both. “Zero Tolerance” for these offenses will be allowed.

This license or permit shall be revoked upon the occurrence of one or more of the following: any “willful violation” involving spelling, punctuation, bias or attempting to use writing implements in a manner not authorized by the state.

It shall be unlawful for a person to possess more than 20 writing implements or more than 100 reams of paper unless the person is a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer; or has been issued an store/manufacturer license. Such license lasts for three years and costs $300.

I reccomend everyone click on the link above and read for themselves what the anti-rights people think is “reasonable” and “common sense.”

Here’s a sampling of some of what would be banned if they had their way, at least a couple of which are safety and ergonomic features:

“(i) any of the firearms, or types, replicas, or duplicates in any caliber of the firearms known as–“

(I) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat
Kalashnikovs (all models);

“(II) Israeli Military Industries Uzi and Galil;

“(III) Beretta AR-70;

“(IV) Colt AR-15 and Sporter;

“(V) Fabrique Nationale FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;

“(VI) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12;

“(VII) Steyr AUG;

“(VIII) Intratec TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and

“(IX) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (but not limited to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;

“(ii) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of the following:

“(I) a folding or telescoping stock;

“(II) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

“(III) a bayonet mount;

“(IV) a flash suppressor or barrel having a threaded muzzle; and

“(V) a grenade launcher;

“(iii) a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of the following:

“(I) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;

“(II) a barrel having a threaded muzzle;

“(III) a shroud that is attached to or partially or completely
encircles the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm
with the nontrigger hand without being burned;

“(IV) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol
is unloaded; and

“(V) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and

“(iv) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of the following:

“(I) a folding or telescoping stock;

“(II) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

“(III) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and

“(IV) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.”

More reading here.

Share/Save

Corruption In The Anti-Gun Crowd

The NSSF did some research into some of the leading anti-gun rights crowd. In addition to the “Why are the anti’s so violent?” question, we could ask “Why are they so corrupt?”

“In recent years, big city politicians and trial lawyers have filed lawsuits seeking to blame law-abiding members of the firearms industry for the criminal misuse of guns. In the wake of the recent resignation of New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer, who as that state’s attorney general sued the industry, and the recent conviction of two of the leading trial attorneys whose firm represented many of those cities in their failed lawsuits, NSSF decided to take a closer look at what became of some of the politicians that sought to scapegoat the industry.

Take a look at what was discovered. It just might surprise you—or maybe it won’t.”

Click here for the dirt.

(h/t) The Gun Shots

Share/Save

With anti’s like these…

What is it with the anti-rights crowd? There are a few common things they do when confronted with an argument they can’t refute. The most common tactic I’ve run across on the internet is the “stick my fingers in my ears and keep repeating the same thing over and over” gag, the next one is the old “change the subject and refuse to answer a direct question” tactic. They keep repeating the same discredited “studies” over and over again, as if repeating them one more time will make them true…And then, when they truly are out of options they resort to personal attacks.

I ran into one of these the other day while reading Michael Hawkins blog. He is debating a guy on another blog which focuses on “no-violence” as the panacea to all of societies ills. After reading some of this guys drivel I made a comment on Michael’s blog that I’d wanted to slap the idiot.

Of course, the anti-rights bigot proceeded to criticize Michael for not deleting this “threat of physical harm” I’d made against him. Something tells me that this guy seeks out things to be offended by. Anyway… So I apologized to Michael for this because I had not intended to open him up to this guys attacks. Ever since then, the anti has brought up my name numerous times in an attempt to win his argument.

And then in an act of desperation the guy proceeded in on a personal attack on me. He brought up some physical issues I have.

“By militia you mean people like Yuri? The people who have likely never served a day in the military…never seen combat and are VASTLY out of shape (I am being kind here…I could get really ugly) The people who can’t run two blocks….you mean this militia?”

This guy doesn’t know me or my situation. He is apparently so desperate he’s now resorting to personal attacks on people he sees as lesser than him just because he disagrees with them. Apparently pro-rights people are the only minority it’s okay to attack and discriminate against.

I had resisted the urge to respond to him until he said this, and so I responded with:

I see awalk has seen fit to draw me into the debate again even though I have never posted a single comment on this site. This will be my only post on this site about this matter.

I addressed your assertion that I threatened you in depth on Michael’s blog so I don’t feel the need to respond to that here. Go read it if you want, or not. I don’t care.

Yes I’m out of shape. It’s not news to me, I’m well aware of the fact. What you don’t know, and if you did you wouldn’t have been so caviler about making an ad hominem attack on my character and physical condition, is that for twenty two years now I have battled an inherited genetic condition called Phlebitis.

I have little circulation left in my legs. They swell up and have become grossly disfigured and heavy. An infection in my right leg almost resulted in it’s amputation six and a half years ago. I still have reoccurring bouts of infection which put me flat on my back for days. I can barely walk, let alone run, so any form of exercise is out of the question. I’d love nothing more than to be able to walk normally and run, but it isn’t going to happen. I’m just thankful at this point that I’m not confined to a wheel chair.

I own guns for three reasons. First, it is my right as an American citizen to do so. Second, I enjoy the hobby and in addition own a few WWII rifles. I enjoy the history associated with them and unlike something you read about in a book, this is history I can actually hold in my hands. Lastly, as a disabled person I carry a gun for the defense of myself and my family. Running away is out of the question for me. Criminals target the old and ill to commit their crimes against, and I will not become a statistic. I went through a home invasion when I was a teenager and I’ll be damned if I’ll be unprepared again.

So awalk, I hope you feel happy and satisfied that you can libel someone you’ve never met and know nothing about.

Now, who’s the bigot?

A little wordy I know, but I was upset over his mis-characterization of myself and what I’d said. Of course his reply is everything I’ve come to expect from an anti-gun bigot. They’d have you believe they’re all about peace, love and understanding, but if you disagree with them, they treat you like you’re subhuman. His response, in part, is below.

Then goodbye…good riddance.

You are more than out of shape. You are vastly obese and your obesity fits into the topic on hand (I will discuss the topic of the militia later).

First, your friend, Mr. Hawkins, wrongly labeled me as a bigot. Then you added your little sadistic remark. And now, you seemingly want compassion when you were unwilling to give t.

Kindly stop accusing others of your shortcomings. I am writing fact. On the other hand, you write about emotions of frustration and desires to slap people…right after your friend called whole a group of people bigots.

I really do not care. I don’t know you. I don’t want to know you. This absolutely changes nothing. You can’t make hateful sadistic remarks and then run behind some type of problem. Kids do this…little boys and little girls. Not grown men.

Grow up

He seems to have mistaken my explanation for a plea for compassion. It wasn’t, but the fact he isn’t willing to show any is telling. Grow up indeed. Since when is expressing frustration, i.e. the desire to slap someone a hateful or sadistic remark?

Make no mistake, these kinds of people don’t care about anyone but themselves. If you dare disagree with them you’re instantly worth less than dirt in their eyes. This is what we’re up against folks, this is the true face of the other side. The kind of people who will look you in the face and lie. People like Paul Helmke, Adrian Fenty and Josh Sugarman. There’s no hope for an individual like this, but there is for the other people reading who haven’t yet made up their minds.

Share/Save