Category: Gun Grabbing Fascists

Democrats and Republicans proposed four dueling gun control bills in the Senate yesterday, a week after the worst terrorist attack in this country since 9-11-2001, you know, because they have to act like they’re doing something – anything. Politico says that the Democrats didn’t want to pass anything anyway – they need issues for November;

Democrats made it clear they want to make it as painful for Republicans to oppose their gun amendments, whether through a flood of advocacy calls to their Senate offices or at the ballot box in November.

“Some of this is going to turn into an electoral operation,” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), who led the Senate Democrats’ nearly 15-hour gun filibuster last week, said an interview Monday. “I’m going to be turning my attention to the November election. I’m going to take some of my energy and help make sure that people who cast the wrong vote don’t come” back to the Senate.

That’s what Democrats do best – create issues without any real solutions.

One of the bills was just a rehash of the Feinstein bill that failed in 2013 after the last tragedy, according to Gabe Malor at The Federalist;

The Democratic proposals included Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s bill linking a terrorism watch list to a gun sales ban. On the Republican side, Sen. John Cornyn also offered legislation that would link a terrorism watch list to a gun sales ban, but his version added due process protections for Americans who are put on the list. The other two proposals expanded the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, although the Republican version did not go as far as the Democratic version.

Yeah, who needs due process? Just add the plebs to the list willy-nilly and let the chips fall where they may. Gabriel echoes Politico;

Rather than agree to the incremental gun control measures Republicans proposed, the Democrats chose to pass no gun control legislation at all. At some point after loudly demanding legislation for more than a week, Senate Democrats decided it would be better for their reelection prospects that no gun control bills pass the Senate during the election season. Their decision was hypocritical, unprincipled, and pure politics.

When it was all said and done, Chris Murphy, a Connecticut Democrat who has been crying crocodile tears since Sandy Hook, told the Washington Post that “We’ve got to make this clear, constant case that Republicans have decided to sell weapons to ISIS.” You know, as opposed to Democrats who give free weapons to ISIS and Mexican drug cartels. It seems to me that someone who calls themselves “liberals” would be in favor of due process restraints on the government. Maybe that’s just me, though. I expect words to mean things. Stupid, I know.

Chuck Grassley proposed a bill to expand resources to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System – the most broken part of the background checks, the reason that most of the mass shooters of the last few years were able to legally buy guns – but according to Politico; “It also was blocked in the Senate, 53-47, rejected by nearly all Democrats”.

AW1Ed sends us a link to Gersh Kuntzman’s latest piece in which he complains To gun lovers, you can’t even have an opinion on assault rifles — unless it’s theirs. Here’s the proof. Apparently, he got beat up pretty bad by his readers and, by golly, he’s not going to take it;

I certainly received many many emails from gun owners who legitimately quibbled with some of my conclusions. But the majority of email senders trained their laser sights on my masculinity — often in graphic terms that would sound more appropriate in a magazine about erectile dysfunction or an ad for Depends.

[…]

[I]f masculinity is defined by the power to commit violence on a wide scale, I proudly choose femininity. At one time, “being a man” meant standing up for what you believe in — and against injustice. By that definition, we need more real men in power taking on bullies like the NRA, which seeks to bolster the Second Amendment by shutting down opponents’ right to the First. We can’t even debate guns in this country, thanks to the gun lobby.

He claims that he supports the 2d Amendment, but with “strict regulations” I’m thinking that he wouldn’t be as supportive for “strict regulations” for the First Amendment, though. He goes off on some needless diatribe about an “atomic version of the AR-15” and how we shouldn’t allow folks to buy one of those. This AR-style of rifle doesn’t have an atomic version, so I’m not going to worry about it.

Yes, I’m a wimp. I simpered because my experience with the AR-15 bruised me, body and spirit. But there’s nothing unmanly about reminding my readers that mass murder is much easier to commit with a semi-automatic killing machine than it is with a hammer.

If that makes me a girl, well, maybe we should have a girl running the country.

Yes, you are a wimp. The AR-style rifle isn’t the bruising beast that you claim it is. It’s the person that fires it that makes it terrifying, not the alloy and plastic inert object. How about we focus it on keeping it out of the hands of potential criminals instead of ripping it from everyone’s hands.

By the way, that last line says more about you than anything else you wrote.

We talked about Christopher Ingraham last year when he furiously scribbled in his coloring book (the Washington Post) last summer about the metrics of mass shooting statistics. He thought some subReddit group had a better measure for tracking mass shootings than the FBI. The FBI counted three dead victims as a mass shooting, but the Reddit group counted four victims (dead or otherwise) including the gun man.

Checking on the stories that they were counting as “mass shootings” we found some of our “feel good stories” where citizens defended themselves from criminals were classified as mass shootings.

Well, today we find Ingraham in the Post complaining that only one in six shootings result from people defending themselves from criminals – so self-defense isn’t a good enough reason to own a gun.

Looking at what happened after people took action to prevent a crime, Hemenway and Solnik found that people were far better off either running away, or calling the cops if possible, rather than attempting to stop a crime with a gun. “Running away and calling the police were associated with a reduced likelihood of injury after taking action; self-defense gun use was not,” they write.

Yeah, well, Ingraham should read our feel good stories every morning instead of simply looking at statistics. Those are real stories about real people whose lives were saved because they were able to defend themselves in situations that were not of their choosing. Just because it doesn’t happen enough times to satisfy the gun grabbers like Ingraham, that doesn’t mean that folks shouldn’t be able to defend themselves in the world that people like Ingraham have created for us.

I guess he’d be happier if 100% of guns were used to commit crimes. Another breathless alarmist afraid of guns.

In the New York Daily News, the appropriately named Gersh Kuntzman writes about how frightening it was for him to fire an AR-style rifle;

The recoil bruised my shoulder. The brass shell casings disoriented me as they flew past my face. The smell of sulfur and destruction made me sick. The explosions — loud like a bomb — gave me a temporary case of PTSD. For at least an hour after firing the gun just a few times, I was anxious and irritable.

Yeah, bullshit. Everyone who has ever been to basic training can tell you about the drill sergeant who put the butt of an M16 on his unprotected chin and fired off a few rounds, then he did the same with his crotch. If Kuntzman was bruised from firing an AR-style rifle, he has bigger problems than being scared of a black rifle. He should try firing my .338 Lapua Mag. The noise and recoil would send him running and whimpering back to New York City.

And there’s no such thing as “temporary PTSD”, you pussy. That anxious feeling and irritability that you describe is excitement – testosterone. I thought I’d explain it to you because you’ve never experienced the effects of that particular hormone.

Even in semi-automatic mode, it is very simple to squeeze off two dozen rounds before you even know what has happened. In fully automatic mode, it doesn’t take any imagination to see dozens of bodies falling in front of your barrel.

All it takes is the will to do it.

And, there it is; it takes will to kill people – the rifle itself doesn’t run down the street killing people randomly. It needs a person behind it and that’s the part that needs to be regulated. Not the inert piece of metal and plastic.

Yesterday morning, we all awoke to the news that scores of people were killed or wounded in an Orlando night club by a man of the Islamic persuasion – making this the worst terrorist attack inside our borders since 9-11-2001. His reasons at this point, seem to be because of a public display of affection between two men in front of his children. Of course, that’s not a rational reason at all. Regardless of how a person feels about that lifestyle, it’s not worth the death penalty in this day and age.

I’ve been scolded in social media because I’m a member of the NRA. But no members of the NRA were shooters in this case, or in any other case of terrorism. So why is this discussion veering off the real subject into an emotional knee-jerk reaction to a tragedy? Someone told me that Austria banned guns and they don’t have anymore terrorist attacks. I think he meant Australia, but, you know, that’s not true either – five terrorist attacks happened or were thwarted in Australia recently. Norway, Belgium and France effectively banned firearm ownership and that hasn’t ended terrorism in those countries.

The President told us yesterday that it was “easy access” to guns that caused the horrific shooting this weekend. Obviously, he hasn’t bought a gun recently. It may have been that Mr Mateen, the Orlando shooter, bought two guns legally in the days before the shooting, but he was being investigated for terrorist connections by the FBI in 2013 and 2014 and his name didn’t pop hot on a NICS check at the point of sale. Despite suspicions the investigations came to naught. So, the NICS system fails us again like it did in Little Rock, Tucson, Aurora, San Bernadino and Charleston.

The President recently made a big deal out of “fixing” the gun laws in this country with some Executive Orders – twice. Neither of which had much to do with fixing the NICS system. None of these guns used in the instances mentioned above are being bought at private sales or in gun shows, yet the President and Hillary Clinton think that they can convince you that they can quell gun violence by plugging these non-existent loop holes. Bernie Sanders said yesterday the we need to ban the sale of “automatic weapons” – those sales have been banned for the general public since the 1930s. “Automatic weapons” haven’t been used in crimes since then – so Bernie is flailing just like the rest of them.

The truth is that criminals always find a way around laws – like in Norway, Paris and Belgium. The only people who won’t have guns are the potential victims. Like the ones in that nightclub the other night. Florida doesn’t allow guns to be carried in places that serve alcohol. So it was like a big gun free zone. That’s how 100 people end up victims.

But, if the government was serious about gun violence, they’d enforce the laws that they already have on the books in an effective manner. The truth is that people feel safer when the government writes more laws, legislators are better at writing news laws than they are at enforcing those same laws against criminals. The most recent example of that is the case of Lance Whipple who was a felon in possession of a concealed weapon – he was sentenced to two days in jail from his seven days of time served waiting for his wife to pay his bail for his arrest. That doesn’t do anything for gun safety.

We were laughed at when we said that we were fighting terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan so we wouldn’t have to fight them here. Ha-ha – big joke. The government is fighting terrorists as if it’s a law enforcement problem, but the terrorists are fighting it like it’s a war. The government is good at setting up half-wits to arrest with inoperative weapons and inert explosives, but we’ve been warning for years that some fully-witted people are going to be successful at this terrorism thing – and behold!

San Bernadino and Orlando were successful because the government let suspicious people buy firearms because they wanted to be seen like they’re not biased against a terrorist ideology. Meanwhile, they want to further restrict the ability of legal, law-abiding gun owners to arm themselves.

The discussion should be about fighting terror instead of about fighting each other. Terror is the threat – not peaceful, law abiding citizens. However the people that are having the discussion in public can’t even say the word “terror” so how can they fight it? It’s easier to control law abiding people and to appear to care about safety – that illusion works well in an election year.

General David Petraeus lost me when he started thinking with his little head. Now, according to The Hill, he’s teamed up with Mr. Gabby Giffords, Mark Kelly, to establish a gun control group, the Veterans Coalition for Common Sense;

“As service members, each of us swore an oath to protect our Constitution and the homeland,” said Kelly…“Now we’re asking our leaders to do more to protect our rights and save lives,” Kelly added in the statement. “Gabby and I are grateful to all of these incredible veterans and leaders who are using their voice to call for commonsense change that makes our communities safer.”

In addition to Petraeus, the former CIA director, and Kelly, a number of other generals and admirals will join the group, including another former CIA director, Michael Hayden, and retired Adm. Thad Allen.

There is a list of the flag officers who have joined them at their website, which resides on the Americans for Responsible Solutions web presence. The list includes Stan McChrystal, who admitted that he voted for Obama before the President fired him, and Wesley Clark, the Hillary supporter.

I don’t suppose that any of their solutions would be to enforce the current law. Maybe they’d like to explain to me how a felon in possession of a concealed weapon in Michigan only rates two days of “time served” imprisonment. How does that relate to gun safety?

I know this list of gun-grabbers isn’t really considering anything that is actually “common sense”. They’re hiding their real intentions behind veterans’ suicides. Standing on the bodies of the dead, just like they always do.

Thanks to David for the link.

Washington Times editorial piece reveals that the Democrat-controlled California state senate voted 28-8 Wednesday to exempt itself from the very restrictive gun control laws that apply to the rest of the populace. This provides just one more example of how the political class and the entertainment industry consider themselves literally above the law. When your legislature wants to be armed itself but to disarm the citizenry, it tells you very clearly who they fear. The question begging to be asked is why do they think they should fear us if they are governing properly?

Actually, this could be a very good move for California Republicans in the November elections. A candidate vowing to have the same laws for the governing as the governed might gain a considerable following and you can be sure the NRA will be making it an issue. It might even help Trump in that state but not likely enough to make a difference in the total vote. The state is simply just too-far-gone Democrat. However, even Democrat gun owners have to bristle at this Marie Antoinette move by their senate.

Looks like Leland Yee might have had his colleagues in mind as customers…