Archive for the 'Gun Control' Category

David Codrea:

It’s a sign of the age of fake “toxic masculinity” that New Zealand men would so readily give up their guns. We’re talking about a people whose ancestors tamed a wilderness now being evacuated in panic from a music festival after someone misidentified a tattoo as a sign of “right-wing extremism.”

[ … ]

She knows that because in 2008, she was elected president of the International Union of Socialist Youth, an affiliate of Socialist International, which unsurprisingly is “heartened” by the March for Our Lives “movement” and its young useful idiot figureheads.

Among IUSY’s goals: “Building a new world order” (just like George H. W. Bush called for at the UN).

“We strongly point out that the right to migrate freely in the world is fundamental,” IUSY declared in its 2009 resolutions, speaking in that case to the European Union.

Oh really?  Unlimited migration is a “fundamental right?”    If so, then I demand you give me chapter and verse from the Holy Scriptures where God stipulated that countries have no right to control over their borders.  I’m waiting.  And I’ll eat my hard hat if you can do it.

Is there any doubt that unlimited migration is a pretext for disarmament and government control over every aspect of life?

Reuters:

“I don’t think we need military-style weapons in our society. I definitely don’t need them in my job,” he says. “It’s like driving around in a Ferrari, you don’t need it.”

Yea, you’d better check that nice bolt action long gun you’re sporting, boy.  For military snipers the world over, that’s a military gun.  It’s used differently than the AR-15 which is for CQB.  That’s a stand-off weapon.

Sooner or later, the government won’t allow you to have it.  Say, right about the time somebody sits in a tower or tall building or the bush somewhere and shoots enough humans to cause emotional outrage.

When you let the government go after other people because you aren’t affected, not only is that selfish and cowardly, it’s bad strategy.

Via Uncle, this.

Most local and area law enforcement agencies aren’t seeing a flood of bump stocks, attachments that allow shooters to continuously fire semi-automatic weapons, being turned in as a result of a federal ban that went into effect a week ago.

Only one agency reached by The State Journal-Register had reported a bump stock being turned over.

As of March 26, owners had 90 days to surrender the devices to local law enforcement agencies or to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives or to destroy them on their own.

On Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a one-sentence order upholding the ban.

In October 2017, a gunman used a bump stock to rain gunfire down from a Las Vegas hotel room, killing 58 people and injuring hundreds of others at a country music festival.

The novelty of the device — and some say its inaccuracy — have made it a bit of rarity among gun owners.

“I don’t think it’s a popular item,” said Sangamon County Sheriff Jack Campbell, adding that none have been turned into his office.

“It’s a possibility (some could still be turned in). I don’t know how many were purchased in Sangamon County, and we don’t track the sales.

“You’re going to have a few holdouts. There were gun owners who were adamant that this was part of their Second Amendment right to keep it.”

“What I’ve found out about bump stocks is that they’re unique,” Morgan County Sheriff Mike Carmody said.

Carmody’s office also hasn’t handled any since the ban, though he expects the issue to come up in conversation with gun advocates.

Carmody also said he was unsure if owners would strictly adhere to the ban, but “I guarantee that anyone who has a bump stock knows the law.”

Menard County Sheriff Mark Oller said the only bump stock turned into his office was done so weeks before the ban took effect.

“Someone was going through a person’s estate (when it was found),” Oller said. “It had never been used. It was still in the package.

“It’s not surprising that only one was turned in because I don’t think there are many out there.”

Yea, you keep telling yourself that.  Nationally, some 550,000 of them.  But here’s the real question, Sheriff.  If America is going to make felons out of innocent and peaceable men, what’s the purpose in stopping with bump stocks?  Why not SBRs, suppressors and fully automatic weapons?

From a reader, news from Virginia.

Though one of the men in the group was ineligible to buy a gun — and had been previously convicted of making a false statement on a firearm consent form — he made the purchase without a hitch.

Police took the video footage from the gun store in the course of investigating a homicide, according to search warrants filed in Danville Circuit Court.

Days after seeing the video, police found the man riding in a Buick with a Glock 45 tucked under his seat — a round in the chamber — and a magazine on him. Court records show police arrested and charged him with possessing a gun as a non-violent felon, carrying a concealed weapon and felonious possession of ammunition.

Though federal and state laws prohibited him from possessing ammo, there were no background checks required to buy it, as there are when purchasing a gun at a store.

In fact there is no background-check infrastructure in the state to stop a felon from purchasing ammo, Virginia State Police public relations manager Corinne Geller said.

The state police handles background checks for firearms purchases, referring applications to the Virginia Firearms Transaction Center in Richmond. The center combs through four state databases and one national database maintained by the FBI to check a buyer’s criminal history, mental health history, protective orders and other disqualifying factors when they go to buy a gun.

But of course.  Instead of reversing the unconstitutional gun sales background checks, since they don’t stop crime, just expand it to ammunition as well.  When a process fails, double-down on it, the progressive way.

They are eventually going to implement a new AWB, and they will eventually come after ammunition too.  Without ammunition, a gun is a paperweight.  Get it now while you can.  Otherwise, red flag laws may sweep you into their net.

By the way, I fear that the good folks of Virginia are going to fall victim to the progressives in Northern Virginia, just as North Carolina has to Mecklenburg and Wake Counties.

News on Pete Buttiegieg:

Buttigieg, an Afghanistan war veteran and lieutenant in the United States Navy Reserve, could become America’s first openly gay president. If it wasn’t apparent from how much money he’s raised so far, he’s gained an incredible amount of momentum since launching his presidential exploratory committee on January 23, 2019. When it comes to key issues like gun control, Buttigieg has made it clear over the years where he stands: He supports universal background checks, and knows that mental health contributes to America’s gun violence epidemic.

[ … ]

“Joined bipartisan Mayors Against Illegal Guns to do something about need for common sense gun safety. #NowIsTheTime.”

“I’m with the majority of Americans (& gun owners) who agree with @POTUS that we need universal background checks to help #StopGunViolence.”

[ … ]

Buttigieg is a member of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a bipartisan group within the Everytown network that’s comprised over 1,000 mayors advocating for gun safety. Think: Advancing policies and practices that reduce firearm suicides; and minimizing shootings by the police. After Parkland, he supported the young people within his community demanding that our country ends gun violence.

[ … ]

We had an assault weapons ban in this country in the 90s. I would like to see more research on the effect it had. I do think we need to draw a line. Look, compatible with the Second Amendment, there are some restrictions. Somewhere between a slingshot and a nuclear weapon, we’ve decided that the American people would draw a line. Whether, for example, an AR-15 is on this side or that side of the line, I’m skeptical that it belongs in our neighborhoods in peacetime, but let’s at least have a healthy national debate about what’s best for keeping our families, our homes, and our schools safe.

Yea, as if there isn’t a healthy national debate already on this very subject.  Any time a progressive wants to have a “healthy national debate,” she is lying.  One already exists, and they know it.  What they want is draconian gun controls.  They want to occupy the throne of God, who alone grants rights and issues duties.

This candidate is the progressive’s wet dream.  Don’t count him out by a long stretch.  It’s messy-hair Bernie, creepy-Joe, or confused Beto, versus a guy who is gay, a veteran who can trot out pictures of himself in uniform, and believes in gun control.  He hasn’t been in politics long enough to have heavy baggage, so money is pouring into his campaign.

I say again.  Don’t count him out.

Remember our little scuffle with Lucian K. Truscott IV?

Apparently he got his pink panties in a wad over others [I presume he isn’t referring to me in his followup] fisking his piece.  So he now comes with Youuuuu might be a gun nut if …. (I know, some editor at Salon should have told him to stop doing drugs and rewrite the title).

I don’t care what they say. That’s not a civilian weapon. That’s a weapon designed for use by the military to kill human beings. The thing costs $1,249.95. It is, of course, sold on the open market to any civilian who walks in with the scratch to buy one. The people who buy weapons like this are, strictly speaking, gun nuts.

[ … ]

But less than one percent of our population is in the military. The rest of us are civilians, and these things are being marketed and sold to civilians. They use of the term “tactical” to yank at the heartstrings of arm-chair warriors, to make them feel like they’re buying something big and powerful. “Tactical” is a purely macho word. It’s used to appeal to gun nuts. Sadly, it seems to be working.

I am a gun owner. My guns are locked away in a storage locker right now. I own a 12 gauge Remington pump-action shotgun, a .32 revolver, a .38 revolver, a .22 bolt action rifle I inherited from my grandmother, and a .177 bolt action rifle my brother gave me. I’ve never owned a semiautomatic weapon. Not even one. The last one I shot was an M-14 in the Army in 1965.

I come from a military family. You would think a family of Army officers would have owned a lot of guns. You’d be wrong. My father owned the 12 gauge pump-action shotgun I inherited from him and the .45 caliber Army-issue Colt pistol he inherited from his father. My grandfather, a four-star general, owned two guns: the .45 pistol he gave to my father in 1951 when he left for the war in Korea, and the German Luger taken from Field Marshal Albert Kesslering, commander of Nazi forces against whom grandpa had campaigned the Fifth Army in Italy.

That’s it.

The whole commentary is so emotional, disjointed and hysterical that it’s really difficult to boil it down to a few quotes, but I’ve tried.  Here you get the gist of this.

A man who has never seen combat is trying to tell you that if you want semi-automatic weapons, you’re nothing but an “arm-chair warrior,” a tacticool LARPer who wants to hurt people.

A man who received an other than honorable discharge from the U.S. military is trying to trot out his creds having shot an M-14.

A man who was caught making $600 worth of long distance telephone calls on a stolen credit card is posturing the military history of his honorable family to tell you you’re some kind of nut.

A man who never intended to deploy to Vietnam nonetheless parasitically sucked off of the good will of the American taxpayer for his education, and then got out because they threatened to send him to war.

Here at this web site we debate and discuss the theological and philosophical roots of the American system, the God-given duty of self defense, and the necessity of the amelioration of tyranny to preserve human life, among many other things.  We try to dive into the deeper issues of mankind, ethics, epistemology, truth, and justice.

So in summary, thanks Salon.  If this is the best you can do, we’ll continue our scholarship unabated.  You can keep your shrieking cowards.  But do please try to do a better job of editing poor Lucian next time.  He rambles so much it sounds sophomoric.

Philly.com:

If you Google the name Jabir Kennedy, you will read about a fugitive wanted for gunning down four men, one fatally, during Christmas week 2017 in the Elmwood section of Southwest Philadelphia. You will read that the “armed and dangerous” fugitive turned himself in a week later and was charged with first-degree murder and three counts of attempted murder.

Well, that’s partly because Google sucks, and partly because this is all the information the DA’s office and cops  wanted you to know.

So when the case reached its conclusion this month, there were no headlines for what turned out to be a rarity in the criminal justice system: an admitted gunman in a quadruple shooting acquitted by a jury of all charges.

Let that wash over you again.  “Assistant District Attorney Sheida Ghadiri argued during the trial that the gun Kennedy fired belonged to him, that he knew how to use it given that he shot four of the five men he fought with, and the number of bullets he fired — eight to 10 — was too many to be self-defense.”

Yes, she wanted you to die.  Self defense isn’t a right recognized by the state, at least not any more.  And God help you if you ever put yourself on the line and defend someone you don’t know who is in distress.  You see, the only agents recognized by the state for dispensing violence are those commissioned by the state to do so.  To the communist, the state is the beginning, middle and end of all things.

I have absolutely no confidence in the so-called justice system, neither judges no juries.  Fortunately, they go this one right.  They tried to convince the jury it was more complicated than that (read the rest of the article if you wish), but in the end it’s simple.  Man is made in God’s image and thus has a solemn duty before the Almighty to defend his life.

News from New Mexico:

ALBUQUERQUE – A nonprofit that pushes for gun-control laws nationwide sent letters Wednesday to numerous New Mexico sheriffs, asking them to provide records related to their coordinated stance against gun-control laws that they do not plan to enforce.

The Brady Center, a Washington, D.C.-based organization, said it requested emails from the sheriffs under the state’s Inspection of Public Records Act, with demands for emailed communication among sheriffs and gun-lobby representatives.

Attorney Jonathan Lowy of the Brady Center said his group is seeking the emails to learn “what possible basis” the sheriffs have for declaring they won’t enforce the laws. Brady also wants to obtain any communication the law enforcement officials had with the National Rifle Association and other gun-rights groups.

I’d be nice to tell them to blow it out of their collective asses, but since it comes with a requirement by law, the Sheriffs are answering.

But I can answer for them.  Concerning “what possible basis,” it violates the constitution.  There, I’m glad I could be of assistance.  Now, go back to your worship of Baal, you pagans.

Dear Cecile,

I notice that the link you provide to notify the New Zealand Police that I intend to turn in my firearms doesn’t allow me to enter any information.  That sucks.  I’m absolutely livid about this.

I’ve decided to turn in some firearms.  Actually, I need to be more precise.  I have 8616 firearms, and by my calculations this is somewhere on the order of a $10 million collection.

I’ve had a talk with God about this, and after that talk I’ve decided to turn in one, leaving me with 8615 firearms.  I know what you’re thinking?  Why would he turn in just one?

Well, the specific firearm I intend to relinquish is an XM556 Microgun.  I’m sick and fed up listening to my wife complain about all of the ammunition sitting around.  Also, the floors of my house are beginning to sag from all of the weight.  Every … single … room.  Finding a place to put it all has been a bitch.

This has turned into a $10,000 per week habit.  I know you think I need an intervention, Cecile, but you’re too late.  I’ve conducted my own intervention, and I’ve decided to break the habit.  It’ll be hard, and I need your prayers.

So please, please inform the New Zealand Police that I intend to turn in my 5.56mm Gatling gun.  In fact, please also forward this post to your contacts in the New Zealand Police.  I thought I’d drop it in UPS, and within a week or so it should show up on their doorstep.  Or if you’d like, I can send it to you for safe keeping.  Be careful, though.  It’s addictive.

Yours very truly.

ps: I decry and herewith denounce the troll who said he had nuclear weapons he wanted to turn in.  I would never do something like that.

The Washington Post:

New Zealand’s gun lobby shares many of its goals with the United States’ National Rifle Association, the world’s biggest gun lobby organization, which supports aligned politicians financially and uses social media to attack its opponents. Some of the NRA’s frequent arguments may also apply in New Zealand, with an estimated quarter of a million gun owners in a country of only 5 million people.

[ … ]

But unlike the NRA, New Zealand’s interest groups have predominantly lobbied the government quietly, rather than threatening politicians with the scorn of their powerful voter base. The perceived silence of those lobbying organizations led to some calls from gun enthusiasts for a bolder and more vocal stance. New Zealand’s gun lobbies were probably well aware, however, that they are not the NRA and never will be, despite the aspirations of some of their members.

The country’s lobby mainly represents a core of rural supporters, whereas more than 86 percent of New Zealanders now live in urban areas and form a largely liberal majority. In the United States, the ratio of citizens living in urban areas is slightly lower. More important, however, the U.S. system of representation and the way congressional districts are drawn increase the significance of rural Republican voters disproportionately. That helps explain why the NRA can pressure politicians into following its demands, even though NRA supporters account for only a fraction of all U.S. voters.

[ … ]

“Our form of government, with a Senate that gives extraordinary power to rural states over urban states and is deferential to states’ rights, makes it difficult to advance relatively modest gun-control measures, much less more sweeping measures,” said Webster, the gun policy expert.

In contrast, New Zealand’s election system is designed in a way that the number of lawmakers a party has in Parliament is aligned with its share among all votes cast. The mixed member proportional voting system — which is also in place in countries such as Germany — is supposed to prevent small interest groups from being able to gain disproportionate influence over lawmakers. To pass legislation, only a simple majority is needed.

This is what happens when writers who have no knowledge of American culture consult with “gun experts” (i.e., progressive gun controllers) for analysis and perspective (take a quick look at their creds, they’ve likely never set foot in middle America among the “great unwashed masses”).  The entire article turns out to be a joke.  So let’s spend a few minutes fisking this, shall we?

First, we learn this from WiscoDave at Kenny’s place about what is going on in New Zealand.

My brother is a plumber in NZ he said a lot of work sites have come to a grinding halt because they can’t buy PVC pipe. ….he said NZ is basically burying their guns and gun City is running low on stock of semi autos.

It isn’t obvious whether there will be turn-ins, confiscations, or massive non-compliance.  We’ll wait and see.

Next, it’s the bad ole’ electoral system that’s at fault.  It can’t be the millions upon millions of AR-15 owners out there whom the FedGov knows will not comply with such a thing, nor the hundreds of millions of pistol owners who will do the same.  No, it’s the electoral system which is at fault.  Without it, according to the authors, we would have gun control on par with the rest of the world because that’s what people really want.

Third, notice the ubiquitous meme of the evils of the NRA, awful bullies they are, and how they can allegedly turn on their members like a light switch.  What’s not mentioned by these authors is that the NRA is losing membership, but gun owners are hardening their positions while the NRA tries to catch up.

Among educated readers here at TCJ, the NRA is known not as the largest gun rights organization on earth, but as the largest, most well-funded, most well-connected gun control organization on earth, having given cover or impetus for the National Firearms Act, The Gun Control Act of 1968, the bump stock ban and red flag laws popping up all over the nation.  It’s a game they play, you see, where they support gun control, tell their members they need money to fight it, and enrich themselves in the process.  But American gun owners, many of them, are no longer falling for it.  Thus, everyone whose address is known by the NRA is receiving ever more frantic calls for money from Chris and Wayne.  It’s sad, really.

What the authors don’t understand is that gun owners are not a top-down kind of people.  They don’t wait for “leaders” to tell them what to think like the statists do.

And that’s why New Zealand gun control won’t work in America (and may not work in New Zealand either).  It has nothing whatsoever to do with the electoral system, nor the NRA, nor any of the other bits of “wisdom” imparted to these authors by the “gun experts.”

American gun owners won’t comply.  And that’s the end of the story right there.  It’s really rather simple, and I could have boiled this all down to that single sentence.  The authors were probably paid by the word for that story.  In the future, journalism classes should force their students to go live somewhere other than Georgetown, Johns Hopkins, Columbia, Duke or NYU.  They need some perspective from someone other than their Marxist professors.

American gun owners won’t comply because they know the history of people who turn in their guns.  It always means loss of rights, and sometimes it means loss of life (It’s funny how someone who knows a lot more than these two authors, like Dave Kopel, can write such a clear-headed commentary for the very same news organization, The Washington Post, yes?).  Gun control always precedes utter totalitarianism.