Category: Gun Grabbing Fascists

Before the casings were cold from the rifle in Colorado that the deranged murderer used to kill three people and injure a dozen more, the president was calling for more gun control, according to Politico;

“This is not normal. We can’t let it become normal. If we truly care about this — if we’re going to offer up our thoughts and prayers again, for God knows how many times, with a truly clean conscience — then we have to do something about the easy accessibility of weapons of war on our streets to people who have no business wielding them. Period. Enough is enough.”

The Washington Post sent reporters to Colorado and North Carolina to search for the reason that would make the nutty fellow snap in Colorado Springs. The worst things that they could find was reports to police about him abusing animals and peeping on his neighbor’s wife. His own wife who lived with him in his little shack in the woods in North Carolina, once reported to the police that he had abused her in 1997, but she didn’t file charges against him. People who lived near him described him as “reclusive”, you know like millions of other Americans. Not much of a crime, and there is no question on the ATF Form 4473, the Firearm Transfer Record, that asks if the new owner is “reclusive”. When the FBI does the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) check, they don’t look for “reclusive” Americans.

The Post’s article also quotes his neighbors calling the nameless gunman a complainer about nearly everything. He also told neighbors that he was a Federal agent, that he “knew the secrets” about the government. He was a crank – again, no law related to cranks buying firearms.

What is not in the Post article is that the gunman was registered in Colorado to vote, that he is a female and that his party was listed as “unaffiliated”. So, I guess we should restrict gun ownership to people who declare their membership in a political party.

According to unnamed police sources, NBC News says that the gunman mentioned something about “no more baby parts” when he was arrested. So, should there be an “abortion litmus test” for gun ownership?

Have you heard about the Bunny Friend Park shooting in New Orleans last week? Seventeen people were shot at a block party there by a lone gunman;

Court records show that [gun man’s name], 32, once had criminal ties to [another gun man’s name], the leader of the 7th Ward “Frenchmen and Derbigny” gang. [gun man]’s younger brothers opened fire on a Mother’s Day second-line parade in 2013, injuring 20 — but, just as in this week’s melee, killing no one.

[Gun man] and [another gun man] were co-defendants in a 2002 cocaine and heroin possession case in which both men pleaded guilty, records show.

No one was killed, but the facts of the case are similar to the Colorado, shootings;

Witnesses saw a man with a silver-colored machine gun flee toward Louisa Street. Gunfire continued in the park after he left.

I’m sure it wasn’t a machine gun, but rather scary-looking gun with things like a flash suppressor and a pistol grip. The shooting in New Orleans is thought to be gang-related. The reports from Colorado Springs are that the gunman there used an AK-47 rifle, but who knows, given the habit of the media to call every weapon an AK-47 these days. But the Bunny friend Park shooting barely made a “blip” in the news cycle despite the number of casualties. Probably because the media didn’t think that it was newsworthy that another black man shot a bunch of black people at a block party, whereas, a white guy shooting up an abortion clinic is more newsworthy and it demonstrates how there is some sort of right-wing terrorism in this country that everyone ignores. All the while they ignore the terrorism on the streets of urban communities.

The President didn’t call for disarming American criminals when the Bunny Friend Park shooting happened, but he will step up to call for the disarming of law abiding Americans because of the Colorado Springs shooting.

So, the only thing that we can do, since authorities are unable to make the NICS checks work is to take away the guns of millions of law-abiding, reclusive, pro-Life, politically unaffiliated Americans who didn’t shoot anyone on Friday.

The president complains that there is “easy access” to firearms – from a guy who has never been through the process of legally buying a gun which really isn’t all that easy. No one has told us yet how the gunmen in Colorado and New Orleans got their firearms, but let’s politicize the process (which we’ve known was broken at least since the South Carolina shooting, but we’ve done nothing to fix). You know, the government should really repair the process that has been in place and has failed Americans for 22 years, before they start taking guns from those of us who abide by the law. But it’s much easier to demonize the gun than it is to demonize the criminals who used them – and that’s what the president meant when he said “enough is enough” – he wants to ban your scary-looking semi-automatic rifle, merely because it’s scary-looking, to make sure that you law abiding Americans continue to obey his laws.

The North Carolina city of Greensboro put their collective foot down in regards to gun violence by holding a gun-turn-in program to get guns off the street. Time Warner Cable News reports on the big numbers;

Almost 1000 people took “A Pledge of Non-Violence” Saturday at Destiny Christian Center in Greensboro.

This was to show their commitment to safety across the Gate City.

Gun owners also turned in unwanted firearms and ammunition at the event.

Signing the pledge and turning in weapons was spurred, in part, by an increase in gun violence across the city.

This year gun violence has increased 68 percent from last year.

Almost a thousand, eh? Well, that number is a little bit misleading. Almost 1000 people may have taken the pledge of “non-violence, but how many “unwanted firearms and ammunition” were turned it? NRA-ILA and Brietbart report that “almost 1000” were turned in. Well, not quite. Actually, they took a BB gun and a knife off the streets of Greensboro. That’s it. That’s closer to a thousand, than zero is, right?

In fairness, the police said that they weren’t going to buy-back guns beforehand and that the event focused on the pledge part. But still the line in the Time Warner article was disingenuous about the “firearms and ammunition” that were unwanted. If your BB gun has anything to do with fire, it’s not right. You can clearly see the BB “ammunition” in the screenshot of the gun I took from the TWC News video at the link.

Good job, though, Greensboro. I feel safer already.

Chief Tango sends us a link to the Washington Post‘s editorial board as they war game two separate incidents that happened this weekend. One, in Colorado involved a gun man who was carrying his long gun openly and subsequently gunned down three innocent citizens before police returned the favor in kind. The other, was the knife-boy terrorist who stabbed four people in University of California at Merced – he was also shot and killed by law enforcement.

The editorial board complains that there were 9-1-1 calls in regards to the Colorado gunman because he was carrying his rifle openly while riding his bicycle, but that the 9-1-1 operator didn’t take the calls as seriously as he/she should have because open carry is legal in Colorado. And “what if” the California stabber had a gun instead of a knife?

Imagine if Colorado weren’t so permissive in allowing people to openly display guns. Would that 911 operator have recognized the danger more quickly and would lives have been saved? Similarly, imagine what would have occurred if the attacker at the University of California at Merced had wielded a gun instead of a hunting knife. Would there have been fatalities instead of injuries, and would there have been additional victims before the attacker could be stopped? Indeed, would the construction worker who bravely broke up the attack have been able to do so if a gun were involved and not a knife?

The Colorado gunman was a nut who shouldn’t have owned a gun. He made blog postings about how we all deserved to die. In fact, most people who engage in these types of random shootings have displayed behavior that should have precluded their ownership of firearms. “What if” prosecutors, legislators, law enforcement, medical professionals and journalists took that seriously?

And the little jihadist terrorist boy with a knife? California laws prevented him from having a gun – he was only 18 years old. So I guess it’s too much for the Washington Post’s editorial board to admit that there were sufficient laws in place to prevent that incident from including a firearm. In fact, as we read yesterday, the construction worker has changed his mind about concealed carry laws. He wished that he had a gun that day – but that little fact shot right over the head of the Washington Post’s editorial board.

I am not a big advocate of open-carry, but not so much that I’m going to condemn the Second Amendment rights of those who prefer that method of personal protection. Police easily spotted Colorado guy with his openly carried firearm, so open carry advocates should consider that factor as compared to concealed carry.

It is simple nonsense to liken the damage that can be caused by a knife — or baseball bat or whatever other weapon the gun lobby feebly offers up as an alternative — to the lethal capacities of guns.

Yeah, um, dead is dead whether the death is caused by a knife or a gun or a hammer. It’s simple nonsense to think that we should put our trust in the police to bring their firearms to the scene of a crime to protect us from criminals with “a knife, or a baseball bat, or whatever”.

The New York Times editorial board wades clumsily into the concealed carry discussion yesterday with a piece that leans heavily on supposition;

The tally by the Violence Policy Center, a gun safety group, is necessarily incomplete because the gun lobby has been so successful in persuading gullible state and national legislators that concealed carry is essential to public safety, thus blocking the extensive data collection that should be mandatory for an obvious and severe public health problem. For that reason, the center has been forced to rely largely on news accounts and limited data in 38 states and the District of Columbia.

More complete research, unimpeded by the gun lobby, would undoubtedly uncover a higher death toll. But this truly vital information is kept largely from the public. A Gallup poll this month found 56 percent of Americans said the nation would be safer if more people carried concealed weapons.

Clearly, concealed carry does not transform ordinary citizens into superheroes. Rather, it compounds the risks to innocent lives, particularly as state legislatures, bowing to the gun lobby, invite more citizens to venture out naïvely with firearms in more and more public places, including restaurants, churches and schools.

No one wants to be a superhero, well, except the New York Times editorial board maybe, but many Americans do want to be safe when they leave their homes, you know, to live their lives. I suspect that some of the members of the New York Times editorial board take advantage of concealed carry laws in some shape or form.

No statistical evidence exists, so the New York Times just assumes that their suppositions are correct.

But, we here at This Ain’t Hell have been keeping a daily tally of citizens who protect themselves, their property and their families with their legally-owned guns with our “Feel Good” stories. We’ve been writing about these stories first thing every morning for the past three years. Usually there is more than one, but, just to keep my own poll away from being guess work, I’ll say that at least once a day, there’s a legal gun owner using his legal gun for protection. That’s more than one thousand and ninety five times. One thousand and ninety five Americans who are alive, who might not be so if the anti-gun lobby and the New York Times editorial board had their way.

How about that poor lady a few weeks ago who waited for more than an hour for the police (because of a 9-1-1 dispatcher, apparently) until she shot her assailant at the very last minute. Would the New York Times like to throw her on their gun control pyre? Then there was the couple that was walking back to their car from a restaurant when an armed gunman tried to rob them, and the gentleman used his concealed firearm to end the threat against his wife. The father and son who were threatened at a Craig’s List solicitation gone wrong and had to ventilate the pair of armed thugs. A woman in Tulsa took a career criminal off of the street when she shot Bruce (not-so) Jolly as he tried to force his way into her home. The fellow with a legally concealed weapon who took down a bank robber a few weeks ago. The list is endless, so I wont belabor the point.

Are all gun owners acting responsibly all of the time? Nope. But, that comes with education and training – and by not shaming gun owners into the shadows with phony statistics and creepy little opinion pieces about whiny “modern men” in skinny jeans who don’t own guns.

Thanks to Chief Tango for the link.

Remember back during the 2008 presidential campaign, the soon-to-be president Barack Obama told Americans how the people who oppose him “get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them”? Well, welcome to the 2015 version. Adam Winkler, some pointy-headed leftist professor, writes in the Washington Post The NRA will fall. It’s inevitable. To prove it, he leans heavily on demographics;

The core of the NRA’s support comes from white, rural and relatively less educated voters. This demographic is currently influential in politics but clearly on the wane. While the decline of white, rural, less educated Americans is generally well known, less often recognized is what this means for gun legislation.

[…]

Polls show that whites tend to favor gun rights over gun control by a significant margin (57 percent to 40 percent). Yet whites, who comprise 63 percent of the population today, won’t be in the majority for long. Racial minorities are soon to be a majority, and they are the nation’s strongest supporters of strict gun laws.

Um, Adam, you arrogant, pompous blowhard, you forgot to mention about how we cling to our God, and eat dirt. Most of the people I know who support the Second Amendment are pretty educated…in fact, I even know some people of color who are fairly well-educated and understand the Second Amendment and expect the government to protect our rights. In fact the people I know who happen to be other-than-white are educated enough to know when they’re being pigeon-holed by pointy-headed know-it-alls.

I’d suggest that people who don’t understand the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are less educated than those who do understand that the Bill of Rights was written to protect the minority from an ignorant majority and an overbearing government.

The people who I know that support the Second Amendment of the US Constitution only want to defend their families. Look at our “feel good stories” today. There were nine instances of private citizens who couldn’t wait for the police to arrive to rescue them from harm this morning. Nine people who were confronted by criminals with weapons, criminals who won’t bother with background checks when they buy their own weapon in a back alley or a dark parking lot.

You have to wonder why, Mr. Academic would want to deny these people the means with which to defend their own right to be free of fear. The NRA and the other gun owner organizations protect the Second Amendment for those victims. Academia, on the other hand are doing their best to undermine personal security.