Hey. As long as we’re calling names here, I thought I ought to get my shots in. Ex-PH2 sends us a link to CBS News which reports that Connecticut Governor, Dan Malloy called Wayne LaPierre a clown today on CNN;
[Malloy] slammed the National Rifle Association Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union,” saying NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre “reminds me of the clowns at the circus – they get the most attention.”
“This guy is so out of whack, it’s unbelievable,” Malloy said, saying the NRA simply will not compromise “on anything to do with guns.”
[…]
“I can’t get on a plane, as the governor of the state of Connecticut, without somebody running a background check on me,” he noted, asking why someone who hasn’t passed a background check should be “able to buy a gun? Or buy armor-piercing munitions? It doesn’t make any sense. He doesn’t make any sense.”
First of all, it’s Democrats who won’t compromise on the background checks issue. Republicans are willing to give in on universal background checks as long as those background checks are destroyed after the purchaser has been approved and Democrats just won’t give on that – because their ultimate goal is a national registration of firearms.
Secondly, I’ve never been “background checked” when I got on a plane – I may have had my name checked against a no-fly list, but never did anyone call the NICS system.
And, thirdly, no one is buying armor-piercing ammo, douche-nozzle.
By the way, current laws in Connecticut prevented Adam Lanza from buying a gun which is why he stole his mother’s guns. The NRA and this blog have always opposed arming the mentally-ill and criminals, and background checks will certainly help in that regard, but not if you’re going to keep the records of those checks in some database somewhere.
The only way that background checks would have prevented the Sandy Hook shooting is if Connecticut required background checks of everyone living in the Lanza household when Nancy Lanza had bought her guns. And even then it wouldn’t have worked because Adam Lanza wasn’t identified as someone who couldn’t buy guns because Leftists are more worried about his rights to keep his mental condition confidential than they were about those 20 little children who they’re wringing their hands over now.
So you know that ate-up POS gun control law that rammed down the throats of New Yorkers called the SAFE Act? Well, the legacy governor, Andrew Cuomo wants you to know that it wasn’t his fault – it was the Bloomberg people and the Brady campaign who wrote it. I mean, disregard for a moment that Cuomo signed it and rode herd on the bill while it when through the legislature, but you didn’t really think he’d read it or try to understand the problems with the bill that Republicans tried to tell him about do you?
A Cuomo administration source is flatly denying the governor’s claim that his new anti-gun SAFE Act was carefully drafted, saying the governor himself wasn’t even aware of some provisions when it was hastily enacted into law.
“The governor thought the limit on the size of [gun] magazines would only apply to assault-style rifles, not to handguns,’’ said the source.
“That’s why there’s the big problem now with handguns, among other things in the statute.’’
The legal sale of virtually all semiautomatic handguns will soon be impossible because Cuomo’s law limits the size of bullet-holding magazines to seven shots, virtually none of which are manufactured for sale.
“Much of what’s in the law was drafted by people connected to Mayor Bloomberg and the Brady Center, not by the governor’s staff,” the source said. “That’s why there are so many problems with it.’’
Well, this only reinforces my contention all along that the only people who are against guns and gun ownership are ignorant about their function and uses. They’re totally ignorant about the entire issue – because they’re not interested in the fine points, they only know that “guns are bad” and that’s enough for them to have knee-jerk reactions and to try to legislate from that reaction.
The Washington Post runs an article today that blames the NRA for people losing interest in the gun control debate in the country, but that’s false. People have lost interest in the “national discussion” because one side is trying to restrict the rights of the other side, but they’re totally ignorant about the things they’re trying to legislate. Americans are not inclined to be seen as listening to total morons.
Politico ran an article about a supposedly “non-partisan” organization of hunters called the Bull Moose Sportsmen which commissioned a poll about universal background checks which found that 72% of hunters that were polled supported that measure.
”While we take a conservative view of the Second Amendment, we’re also mothers and fathers. We share the outrage of the atrocities like those in Aurora and Newtown,” [Bull Moose Sportsmen co-director Gaspar] Perricone said. “[Protecting] our children while our Second Amendment [rights] are protected — both can be accomplished.”
Perricone met with President Barack Obama later Wednesday in Denver as part of Obama’s trip to drum up support for gun reform.
I guess the name “Bull Moose” is supposed to conjure images of Republican President Teddy Roosevelt with his elephant gun stalking the African plains. But, Bull Moose Sportsmen is no more non-partisan than VoteVets, discovers Emily Miller at the Washington Times;
In fact, Bull Moose Sportsmen is a fringe organization run by Democratic activists that has been rejected from membership into the major gun and hunting groups’ umbrella organization because it refuses to reveal its funding sources.
The American Wildlife Conservation Partners (AWCP) is a consortium of 42 organizations, including major groups such as Safari Club International, Ducks Unlimited, National Wildlife Turkey Federation, National Rifle Association and the National Shooting Sports Foundation. The groups together represent 6 million individual members.
Members of AWCP tell me that Bull Moose has been denied entry into their organization because it refused to reveal its mysterious funding sources.
The co-founders of the Bull Moose Sportsmen were both staffers of former Colorado Senator Mark Udall, of course, a Democrat. So, how, exactly, are we supposed to have a national discussion about guns, when there is so much deceit as to who is talking. In the Washington Post today, they blame the NRA for derailing gun control with political maneuvers, but if they want someone to blame, they should look at the Democrats and their flood of “information” that the Democrats have inflicted on the “national discussion”.
You can’t have a national discussion about guns if the language of the discussion is not something that everyone understands. According to the National Review yesterday, the President told contributors that Adam Lanza used “fully automatic weapon” when he killed 26 people. Of course, unless the President knows something the rest of the planet doesn’t know, Adam Lanza used a semi-automatic rifle during his nefarious plan. The difference is, of course, that fully automatic weapons have been heavily regulated in this country since the days of Al Capone. Fully automatic weapons are not available to most Americans without proper licensing.
In Chicago, Robin Kelly is running for the Congressional seat recently vacated by Jesse Jackson, Jr. While she was arguing against concealed weapon carry in her district, according to Breitbart, talking about the Aurora, Colorado theater shooting;
She told the audience, “in the movie [theater], they have conceal and carry, but nobody pulled out their guns to kill the gentleman that did all the damage that he did.”
In the movie theater, no one was carrying a concealed weapon because the owners of the theater decided that they wanted to establish it as a “gun-free zone” and everyone who was a law abiding citizen complied with their demands and they were all without arms. That’s why no one drew their gun that evening.
Dianne DeGette, a self-proclaimed expert on banning magazines, doesn’t even know how magazines function when she announced that her plan to reduce the number of magazines in this country is to let us fire them all up until they’re all empty – apparently we’re supposed to forget how to reload them and throw the magazines away.
And there was the VoteVets video in which they proclaim that no one has to do a background check to purchase an AR15 rifle. I suspect that no one at VoteVets has even bought a firearm, or they’d feel a little bit sheepish about their outright lie.
Charles Hurt, in the Washington Times. highlights some of the other misinformation flying around about guns. When you ask Americans if they think we should have universal background checks, a huge majority says that we should. But if you ask them if the government should keep records of those checks, the number falls dramatically.
Hurt points out that nothing that has been passed int he States in recent weeks would have prevented Adam Lanza from carrying out his diabolical plot. He had been denied the opportunity to purchase the weapon he desired by existing laws, so he stole his mother’s weapons.
The sweetheart of gun rights, Emily Miller writes that our Second Amendment rights are being eroded by the States.
Our Founding Fathers were clear that people inherently have the right to use firearms for self defense and to protect themselves from government tyranny. The laws and treaty passed this week are clearly unconstitutional, but it will take a long time for the courts to catch up to the rapid abridgement of these rights.
The worst part is that these rights have been stripped from us on the basis of misinformation told to us by utter morons who cant speak the language or lie to with their bald faces. History will not look kindly at this generation.
Dominick sends us a link to The Blaze which tells the unbelievable story about John Mayer, of Commack, N.Y., whose son was overheard discussing getting even with another boy who had pushed a friend on the playgroud. They talked about going to the villain’s house with a water gun, “paint gun” and a BB gun.
Mayer told TheBlaze that a teacher overheard the students talking and immediately called police and filed a report. He said the teacher told police something to the effect of, there’s a “kid with a gun, ready to go.” Mayer maintains that no serious death threats were made by the students. The Hauppauge Public School District has not returned several messages left by TheBlaze, therefore, it is not clear what they are claiming was said.
School officials then “interrogated” the boys, Mayer explained. It was later determined that the 10-year-old boys did not have access to a BB gun, paintball gun or any actual firearms.
So the school suspended the younger Mayers for two days and police came to Mayer’s household who explained to the father that they may need to confiscate his legally owned and safely stored weapons. So Mayer transferred his guns to friends and a gun shop to prevent their confiscation. He then got a call from the county Pistol Licensing Bureau who informed him that his license was suspended and that the police would come the next day to round up the firearms. he was then informed that his license might be suspended until his 10-year-old son moves out of the house.
I guess the word “rights” has no meaning in New York State anymore. Aside from his second amendment rights, it seems to me the the fourth amendment says something about “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…”. The Fifth Amendment mentions that “no person shall…be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law….”
Has anyone in New York State ever read the Constitution?
So while the Maryland and Connecticut legislatures send their respective gun control measures to the step in their processes, the ACLU has finally made a statement in respect to the gun control coming to a vote in the US Senate, which we’re calling the Reid Gun Control Bill here. The ACLU raised constitutional concerns to The Daily Caller interestingly enough on privacy issues rather than Second Amendment guarantees;
Calabrese — a privacy lobbyist — was first careful to note that the ACLU doesn’t strictly oppose universal background checks for gun purchases. “If you’re going to require a background check, we think it should be effective,” Calabrese explained.
“However, we also believe those checks have to be conducted in a way that protects privacy and civil liberties.
Calabrese wouldn’t characterize the current legislation’s record-keeping provision as a “national gun registry” — which the White House has denied pursuing — but he did say that such a registry could be “a second step.”
I’d have rather had them weigh in on 2d Amendment, but I’ll take this one, too. While I don’t necessarily disagree with background checks, universal or otherwise, it’s a massive expenditure for something that won’t affect criminals, but rather only those who choose to comply with the law – the folks who probably aren’t going to commit crimes anyway. And storage of sales records doesn’t help the situation, anyway. So you have a list of a couple of million who own a certain type of gun that was used to commit a crime, it won’t help you find the perpetrator. It won’t keep the perp from committing the crime, so all you have is a list. And the only thing you can do with a list is start rounding up guns. So, if the ultimate goal isn’t national registration or confiscation, what use is keeping records of gun sales after the purchaser is approved by his background check?
The most disturbing part of this whole gun debate is the fact that the people who making these laws aren’t even familiar with what it is that they’re scared, for example take Colorado Congresswoman Diana DeGette, who according to her staff and the Denver Post has been very active on writing some of the new gun control legislation. Talking about magazines, she explained why it’s important to ban magazines that have more than ten rounds capacity;
“I will tell you these are ammunition, they’re bullets, so the people who have those now they’re going to shoot them, so if you ban them in the future, the number of these high capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot and there won’t be any more available.”
I’m not even sure that is English, but I think she means that she thinks magazines come pre-loaded and after they’re emptied, you toss them. But, see, the explanation from her office is even more disturbing;
“The Congresswoman has been working on a high-capacity assault magazine ban for years, and has been deeply involved in the issue; she simply misspoke in referring to ‘magazines’ when she should have referred to ‘clips,’ which cannot be reused because they don’t have a feeding mechanism,” Johnson said. “Quite frankly, this is just another example of opponents of common-sense gun violence prevention trying to manipulate the facts to distract from the critical issue of keeping our children safe and keeping killing machines out of the hands of disturbed individuals. It’s more political gamesmanship that stands in the way of responsible solutions.”
So even her staff doesn’t know what they’re talking about. The congresswoman was clearly misinformed about magazines, and the staff doesn’t know what “clips” are, either, because Congress isn’t trying to ban “clips”. Clips are dunnage which hold bullets in little clumps so they’re easier to load into a magazine, or directly into a rifle that accommodates that method of loading. But clips haven’t been used in modern rifles since World War Two. I haven’t seen any legislation to control clip capacity. Yet.
Speaking of morons, Jim Carrey is butt hurt because you’ve been telling him to go back to Canada and telling him to disarm his body guards. So he whines in the most common place to complain to conservatives, the Huffington Post;
For those who say I’m a hypocrite because I have an armed bodyguard, lets make one thing clear: No one in my employ is allowed to carry a large magazine and NO ONE IS ASKING ANYONE TO GIVE UP THEIR RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS, though it is in the vested interests of those who profit by gun sales to make it seem so.
And a guy who has released his first movie in a decade doesn’t have a vested interest in making a big noise about something which he knows nothing. But, yeah, blame the gun companies for your sudden need to be a moron.
I would trade my money, my fame, my reputation and legacy if there were the slightest chance of preventing the anguish of another Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, or Sandy Hook Elementary School. I ask you, truly, what manner of human being would not?
Such a humanitarian. I used to enjoy Jim Carrey back when he was funny – when did “In Living Color” go off the air?
I have been aghast at the level of hatred heaped upon me, my family and the people I work with over a mere difference of opinion on this issue. Perhaps my words were a bit harsh at the onset, but calling someone a “Motherf*cker” is far different than wishing them to die. It is shocking to see this concerted effort to brutally intimidate anyone who speaks of a compassionate compromise.
Um, I don’t know how it is in Canada, but here in the US, calling someone a “motherf*cker” usually escalates the argument, but, I’ve only spent a few days in Canada, for all I know, there it’s a job description or a skill set folks brag about. Or aboot.
No one is allowed to own a bazooka. In a movie theater an assault rifle with a 100-round drum magazine can cause just as much damage.
Detn8r told me in the office the other day that we should issue all potential spree shooters a 100-round drum because every time one has been used in a spree shooting, the infernal thing jams after a few rounds and becomes useless. And no one is talking about banning 100-round drums, or 99-round drums – they want to ban everything with more than 8 or 10 or 15 rounds. So bringing bazookas into the conversation is mighty stupid.
Every American has the right to bear arms. But it is up to every American to draw the line when it comes to the type of guns that are considered a reasonable means of self-defense.
And we’re supposed to leave it up to someone who calls us “motherf*ckers” to decide how we can defend ourselves?
UPDATE on DeGette; In this video, from Jeff, DeGette tells a constituent that he doesn’t need large capacity magazines because he’s probably going to die anyway;
Ex-PH2 sends a link to NBC News about the buying frenzy at gun shops there as the legislature gets ready to vote on more restrictive guns laws. Gun manufacturers are feeling the pressure to move to other states;
“I feel like we have one foot being pushed out the door,” Mark Malkowski, the owner of AR-15 manufacturer Stag Arms, told NBC Connecticut. He said his company has received nearly two dozen incentive-laden offers to move out of the state.
“They’re really good offers,” Malkowski said. “They are offering tax abatements, they’re offering to build you a factory.”
A Connecticut gun store employee who asked not to be identified told NBC News that his store is selling five times the usual amount. “When your governor is threatening to take away your guns, what do you think is going to happen?” he said.
But that’s Connecticut. What they do won’t effect you, right? Nope. Their pretend Vietnam veteran Senator That Dick Blumenthal introduced legislation in the Senate for background checks on ammunition, it also requires that ammunition sellers maintain records and reports of their sales (path to registration) and requires that dealers report sales of more than 1000 rounds to the feds. And, oh yeah, to show how smart he is, he wants to prohibit those bullets that cook the deer after you shoot it, and armor piercing bullets.
So, he wants to expand the NICS system – the system that’s already overburdened and that they complain doesn’t work well enough.