This ain't Hell, but you can see it from here

Category: Gun Grabbing Fascists

  • How do you regulate that which you don’t understand?

    This is a video of California legislator Kevin deLeon, he’s the representative of the 45th district – much of Los Angeles. Folks say that he is rabidly anti-gun. That doesn’t surprise me, since he doesn’t understand a thing about them.

    Now, he writes laws, laws which are written in English. But, Mr deLeon, apparently doesn’t understand the language. I’ve never heard of a “ghost gun”, but apparently they are weapons that slip through metal detectors, says CBS News;

    De Leon said he is trying to address a twin threat from what he called “ghost guns” — plastic guns that can evade metal detectors and unregistered weapons that can fall into the hands of people who are legally prohibited from owning firearms under state law.

    “Currently, no one knows they exist until after a crime has been committed,” said de Leon, a leading candidate to take over as Senate leader next year.

    I guess it’s possible, because I didn’t know deLeon existed until he committed a crime against the English language.

    I can’t wait until he actually writes the new law, it should be a scream.

  • Weinstein/Streep to take on NRA

    Old Trooper sends us a link from the Washington Times in regards to a Howard Stern interview with Harvey Weinstein who says that he’s going to make a movie that would make National Rifle Association’s 5 million members “wish they weren’t alive”.

    Mr. Weinstein then revealed his secret project about the gun rights group. “I shouldn’t say this, but I’ll tell it to you, Howard,” he said. “I’m going to make a movie with Meryl Streep, and we’re going to take this head-on. And they’re going to wish they weren’t alive after I’m done with them.”

    The shock jock asked whether the film was going to be a documentary. Mr. Weinstein said no, that it would be a “big movie like a ‘Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.’”

    The movie mogul said his vision was to scare people away from firearms. He foresees moviegoers to leave thinking, “Gun stocks — I don’t want to be involved in that stuff. It’s going to be like crash and burn.”

    Yeah, I’m worried. Weinstein obviously thinks that Hollywood has much more influence over the American culture than it actually does. I’m pretty sure that movie goers will stay away in droves if they think that they’re going to be preached to on their own dime. The only people who will go are the minority of Americans who don’t own guns anyway. So, basically, they’ll be preaching to the choir. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a Streep movie, and this probably won’t tempt me to break that streak. I just looked at Weinstein’s Filmography and I’ve only seen three of his movies – Halloween, Sin City and Clerks II, so….

  • Unarmed gun owner harrassed in Maryland

    Jon the Mechanic sends us a link to the Tampa Tribune which reports a legal and licensed gun owner from Florida made a trip to a wedding in New Jersey and decided to leave his gun at home since he was driving through some states that were less receptive to transporting guns through their streets, but apparently, being a good gun owner didn’t help him when he encountered a Maryland cop;

    The officer — from the Transportation Authority Police, as it turns out, Maryland’s version of the New York-New Jersey Port Authority — strolls up, does the license and registration bit, and returns to his car.

    According to Kally and John (but not MTAP, which, pending investigation, could not comment), what happened next went like this:

    Ten minutes later he’s back, and he wants John out of the Expedition. Retreating to the space between the SUV and the unmarked car, the officer orders John to hook his thumbs behind his back and spread his feet. “You own a gun,” the officer says. “Where is it?”

    “At home in my safe,” John answers.

    “Don’t move,” says the officer.

    Now he’s at the passenger’s window. “Your husband owns a gun,” he says. “Where is it?”

    The story goes on from there with the Maryland cop calling for backup while they search for the gun in the car and unable to find it, issue a warning to the Floridian. I’m wondering how the police knew that he owned a gun, or maybe he just baited the tourist with the statement of gun ownership. Anyway, I live ten miles from Maryland and I never go there, except for the local VA clinic and Walter Reed. they’re downright paranoid about guns there.

  • 1400 armed robberies in gun-free DC last year

    Chief Tango sends us an article from the Washington Post which sheepishly reports that there were nearly 1400 armed robberies reported in the liberal utopia which is our nation’s capitol.

    The number of gun robberies in 2013 was 97 fewer than in the previous year, a drop of more than 6 percent. It was, however, about 11 percent more than the 1,261 gun robberies reported to police in 2011.

    Robberies, particularly those involving weapons, are often considered a key measure of crime and safety. More numerous and widespread than slayings, they have a strong effect on residents’ perceptions.

    The only thing that surprises me is the fact that the Post actually reported this crime rate. The Post and the Metro PD are proud of the fact that the murders were down to 104 last year, but if gun control was working, it should be “0”, shouldn’t it?

    The District banned guns from it’s streets in 1974, but their police still recover about 2,000 guns every year mostly from criminals, but also from gun buy back programs.

    And, oh, this week, the District’s legal gun owners are lining up at their local precincts to be fingerprinted like common criminals for reregistration of their firearms. From the Washington Times;

    In the District, firearm registration renewal will cost gun owners $48 regardless of the number of guns they own, according to police. The reregistration is completed when the gun owner is fingerprinted, pays the renewal fee, passes a criminal-background check and submits a renewal form that confirms the owner’s home address, the serial number and type of gun owned, and answers a series of questions about their fitness to own a gun.

    Meanwhile common criminals will likely avoid the process.

  • White House proposes rules for gun owners

    This Friday afternoon, Vice president Bite Me’s office announced that the president will propose two new rules in regards to mental health and gun ownership, according to Fox News;

    One proposal would formally give permission to states to submit “the limited information necessary to help keep guns out of potentially dangerous hands,” without having to worry about the privacy provisions in a law known as HIPAA.

    “The proposed rule will not change the fact that seeking help for mental health problems or getting treatment does not make someone legally prohibited from having a firearm,” the statement said. “Furthermore, nothing in the proposed rule would require reporting on general mental health visits or other routine mental health care, or would exempt providers solely performing these treatment services from existing privacy rules.”

    The other proposal would clarify that those who are involuntarily committed to a mental institution — both inpatient and outpatient — count under the law as “committed to a mental institution.” According to the administration, this change will help clarify for states what information to provide to the background check system, as well as who is barred from having guns.

    On it’s face, I see no problem with these proposals, in light of the fact that all of the headline-producing multiple-victim shootings in the last couple of years were perpetrated by folks who should not have guns because of their history of mental health issues. That seems to be the biggest problem – normal gun owners aren’t killing people, it’s the not-so-normals. Holmes, Loughner and Lanza were all being treated but they weren’t entered into the national background checks system. Maybe this will help, but it worries me that government will do like it always does and abuse the new authority. I’ll wait to read the new Proposed Rule when it publishes in the Federal Register before passing judgement.

    Meanwhile, the White House/Obama Administration is passing the buck on gun control to Congress according to the Washington Post;

    “The administration’s two new executive actions will help ensure that better and more reliable information makes its way into the background check system,” the White House said in a statement. “The administration also continues to call on Congress to pass common-sense gun safety legislation and to expand funding to increase access to mental health services.

    Yeah, well, if the White House can close the “lunatic loophole”, that ought to be all of the gun control we need. And why isn’t the Washington Post asking why, if the President can do this now, didn’t he do it before? Was he hoping for another mass shooting he could blame on Congress?

    The Washington Times quotes the White House;

    “While the vast majority of Americans who experience a mental illness are not violent, in some cases when persons with a mental illness do not receive the treatment they need, the result can be tragedies such as homicide or suicide,” the White House said in a memo outlining the actions.

    Yeah, well an even more vast majority of gun owners are not violent either, they don’t commit suicide or homicides – but they’re the ones who are punished by the government every time there’s a shooting. Colorado, New York, Maryland, Connecticut.

  • Manchin; gun control is tough

    My Senator, Joe Manchin was on CNN yesterday telling the echo chamber that gun control legislation in 2014 is going to be tough, but he’s going to take another shot at it anyway according to a Politico link sent to us by UpNorth;

    Manchin, a gun owner who had a top rating from the National Rifle Association, negotiated a background check bill with Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) in the wake of the Sandy Hook school shooting in Connecticut. But the measure stalled in the Senate in April when it failed to get the needed 60 votes to advance.

    Manchin said gun owners didn’t oppose background checks in theory but were concerned that government wouldn’t stop with checks.

    “What we found out is that people couldn’t trust government that they would stop there,” he said.

    Manchin needs to listen to his constituency – no one in West Virginia trusts government to do anything,especially when it comes to gun control. As I’ve said repeatedly, there are enough gun laws in place to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, but prosecutors are not using those laws. My own experience with prosecutors lately is that they don’t want to do anything that takes them away from their Facebook pages for more than a couple of minutes so they can keep up with the latest cat videos. Well, as near as I can figure.

    We look at how screwed up the healthcare regs have been for people, especially, the people who have been acting responsibly and paying for their health insurance all of their adult lives, do we really think that new gun control laws won’t do the same to legal gun owners? The Congress didn’t think about the impact their new heathcare laws would have on folks out here minding their own business, they aren’t considering their impact on gun owners, either.

  • I agree with the President

    Shocking? Well, not really. He was at Newtown, Connecticut yesterday, lighting candles and paying lip service to the tragedy there on it’s first anniversary. Anyway, Fox News reports his remarks;

    “We have to do more to keep dangerous people from getting their hands on a gun so easily. We have to do more to heal troubled minds,” the president said in his weekly radio address, before he and first lady Michelle Obama remembered the shooting victims and their families in a moment of silence. They also lit a candle for each victim during a White House event.

    “We have to do everything we can to protect our children from harm and make them feel loved, and valued and cared for,” the president said.

    I agree completely, those are things we should try to accomplish. But, you know, that’s not what he wants to do, really. The anti-gun fascists want to keep guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. That’s what will make them feel safer.

    Adam Lanza tried to purchase a firearm, but existing gun laws prevented that from occurring, so he murdered his mother and stole her guns, the guns that she owned legally, so the only way that the Sandy Hook tragedy could have been prevented was if the government had confiscated all of the guns in Connecticut. Or they could have institutionalized Lanza. Jared Loughner bought his handgun legally, despite the fact that local law enforcement had several encounters with him and should have arrested him, giving him a record of anti-social behavior which might have prevented him from buying a gun. James Holmes bought his guns legally, despite the fact that he had sent to his doctor a notebook which contained his plans to carry out an attack like the one he did in Aurora, Colorado. The doctor just never reported it to police.

    Like in so many other instances, the president’s words don’t match his intentions. Legislation in Congress only focused on making it harder for people who obey laws to buy guns, not the people who buy their guns in dark parking lots.

    Only 2% of convicted criminals admit that they got their firearms arms at gun shows or other private sales, yet that’s the target of gun-grabbers. None of the perpetrators of the so-called “mass shootings” ever acquired their guns that way – they all showed signs of being unable to responsibly own guns – but they still got their hands on them. Not because existing laws failed, but rather because feeling good about ourselves trumps public safety. No one wants to take responsibility for getting potential criminals off of the streets.

  • Gawker & the Truth; never shall the twain meet

    Gawker bullshit

    I wrote earlier about Shannon Richardson, the lunatic who sent ricin to the president and the mayor of New York and tried to frame her husband for it. I was playing around on Facebook and saw the above banner to a Gawker article, written by Adam Weinstein, who has since “unfriended” me on Facebook when I confronted him on the headline to his article.

    Adam took the things that she wrote at face value and called her “pro-gun”. In her letters that contained the ricin, she wrote;

    You will have to kill me and my family before you get my guns.Anyone wants to come to my house will get shot in the face.I served in the united states army and because your muslim ass will probly [sic] never be able to retire.I will have to work until my last breath.I deserve better and so do my wife and kiddos.I will take care of this myself and make sure you wont be runnin [sic] this country in the ground any further.The right to bear arms is my constitutional right and I will excersice [sic] that right til the day I die. What’s in the letter is nothing compared to what ive got in store for you mr president.

    Now, she was divorcing her husband, and according to Weaponsman, she didn’t like her husband’s guns. But somehow, Weinstein thinks that it’s more credible to believe that the words written by a lunatic trying to frame someone when a rational person would believe that anything she said was a complete fabrication meant to get her husband arrested. Weinstein would have us believe the words she wrote were what she meant, not what she wanted law enforcement to believe about her husband. And, oh, yeah, if you go to the comments at Gawker, the left-tards are eating it up.