Category: Gun Grabbing Fascists

Old Trooper sends a link about the new scary gun ban that has been introduced in the Connecticut legislature yesterday.

The Connecticut deal includes a ban on new high-capacity ammunition magazines like the ones used in the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School that left 20 children and six educators dead. There are also new registration requirements for existing magazines that carry 10 or more bullets, something of a disappointment for some family members of Newtown victims who wanted an outright ban on the possession of all high-capacity magazines and traveled to the state Capitol on Monday to ask lawmakers for it.

The package also creates what lawmakers said is the nation’s first statewide dangerous weapon offender registry, creates a new “ammunition eligibility certificate,” imposes immediate universal background checks for all firearms sales, and extends the state’s assault weapons ban to 100 new types of firearms and requires that a weapon have only one of several features in order to be banned.

The newly banned weapons could no longer be bought or sold in Connecticut, and those legally owned already would have to be registered with the state, just like the high-capacity magazines.

Senate Minority Leader John McKinney, a Fairfield Republican whose district includes Newtown, said Republicans and Democrats have understood they needed to “rise above politics” when they decided to come up with a legislative response to the massacre.

“At the end of the day, I think it’s a package that the majority of the people of Connecticut I know will be proud of,” he said.

So, there’s a registration process for existing magazines over 10 rounds capacity and, apparently, background checks for folks buying ammo. Good going, Connecticut, be proud of yourselves for making folks who’ve owned those things for years into criminals. But the law doesn’t go far enough for some folks in Connecticut, according to NBC News in a link sent to us by Ex-PH2;

Families of the Newtown victims objected, sending a letter to legislative leaders Monday saying more children might have survived had Lanza been carrying smaller magazines.

Lanza “fired 154 shots in approximately 4 minutes, killing 20 children and 6 educators. Miraculously, in the time that it took him to reload in one of the classrooms, 11 children were able to escape and are alive today,” they said in the letter, which is reprinted below.

“We are left to wonder, what if the Sandy Hook shooter had been forced to reload not 6 times but 15 times. Would more children, would our children, be alive today?”

They want all magazines over 10 rounds capacity completely banned, not grandfathered.

The two people who are responsible for the Lanza murders are already dead – so why are they so intent on punishing all of the gun owners in Connecticut who didn’t participate in the Lanza murders? And I don’t think that reloading 15 times would have deterred Lanza’s spree – he was a nut. He had plenty of time to reload as many times as he wanted – there was no one to stop him. It was a gun-free zone.

I wonder how the folks who work at Colt feel about losing their jobs when the Connecticut manufacturer, one of the largest gun manufacturing companies in the world, picks up it’s marbles and goes somewhere else.

Mark Kelly, retired Navy fighter pilot and former astronaut, husband of former Congresswoman, Gabby Giffords, is much in the news right now as he pushes for stricter gun control across the country. He’s popping up on the tube everywhere and Internet stories about his gun-purchasing activities abound. While he’s the ideal spokesman for liberals, a former warrior who espouses stricter gun control legislation, there’s a good deal of criticism building out there in the blogosphere.

Much of the negativism has to do with Kelly’s suspicious recent purchase of a .45 semi-automatic pistol and his truly suspicious attempted purchase of a semi-automatic AR-15 rifle. The former was consummated under the eye of a camera concealed on Kelly’s person; the latter was thwarted when the gun shop proprietor reasoned that Kelly would have to lie on the federal firearms form in order to complete the purchase. That proprietor wisely returned Kelly’s purchase money and announced the gun would be auctioned off and the proceeds, about $1,500, donated to charity.

Once Kelly’s presence in the gun shop got into the news, he responded that he was simply trying to prove the weakness of our existing gun laws and that he never intended to keep the AR-15, as he did so obviously intend to do with the handgun as his own video revealed. However, there are many of us who smell a rat in there somewhere because Kelly did not surreptitiously video the rifle purchase nor did he mention it at all in his video. That issue likely will never be resolved.

However, another incident involving Kelly this past week, has many bloggers pointing out it makes Kelly a poor spokesman for the gun grabber crowd. While walking with his family on a California beach, a family dog, a pit bull, attacked and killed a baby seal. The video of the event is gruesome and tragic; when the dog is finally pulled away from its victim the sight of its bloody jaws is a bright, scarlet reminder of just what an out-of-control canine is capable of doing.

While reports vary as to who actually owns the dog, the Kelly-Giffords or one of their children, the dog is a member of their family and was on the beach with them with Kelly present as the presumed alpha male. It is also disputed as to whether the dog was allowed to roam freely or broke away from someone’s grasp. The breed of the dog is also disputed with the Kelly’s reportedly calling him an English bulldog, which he obviously isn’t and the media referring to him as a pit bull which is my own observation.

Whatever, bloggers are pointing out that the dog clearly demonstrated that in incapable hands it was assuredly capable of lethal violence. And therein lies the criticism of Kelly: A man whose family brings a potentially lethal canine to a public beach and then fails to maintain control with the result being the death of a helpless baby seal is hardly the man to be lecturing the rest of us on how to better control our own lethal weapons. And just as liberals always blame the weapon, meaning guns most usually, many of them are blaming the dog in this case.

Wiser folks are pointing to the truth that many things in life can bring tragic consequences but usually not when they are in the hands of those who know how to handle them responsibly. Just as dogs with a propensity to attack other animals or even humans, need to be managed by owners who realize and respect the harm they can do if not handled properly, gun grabbers should focus less on inanimate guns and more on the propensity for vicious and lethal use of guns by those like the mentally ill young man who shot Kelly’s wife.

Jared Loughner was a suspected threat, yet because of too-liberal watchdog laws restricting law enforcement, educational institutions and society as a whole from reporting suspected mental illness, as well as the failure of his parents to seek help for the obviously ill young man, he was allowed to roam free and lawfully obtain weapons until he carried out a brutal and deadly attack like an out-of-control pit bull.

What a tragic, vicious irony…

Crossposted at American Thinker

Recently, former astronaut Mark Kelly, husband of former congresswoman and shooting victim, Gabby Giffords, was seen making firearms purchases in an Arizona gun shop. That would not be a newsworthy event except for the fact that Giffords and Kelly have been much in the public eye lately, even setting up their own organization and a slickly done website for promoting stricter regulation of firearms.

On that site is a link to a Kelly video which shows Kelly driving from their home to a Tucson gun shop to purchase a handgun and to surreptitiously film the event to demonstrate the ease with which one can purchase a handgun. With his concealed camera recording Kelly goes through the procedure, reciting for his hidden camera the various statements to which he must swear under penalty of law to be eligible for the completion of the purchase. With the transaction successfully completed, Kelly returns to his home and shows his wife their new handgun, emphasizing for her and the videographer the ease of purchase.

Now I have no problem with any of that. Kelly thinks he’s showing that the process is too simple and the rules need to be tightened. I happen to think he reinforces the position of the NRA and most lawful gun owners that sufficient safeguards already exist if they are enforced. Here’s the pdf version of the form, Firearms Transaction Record Part I, Over-the-Counter, that Kelly and all the rest of us must fill out when making a firearms purchase. Note the repeated warnings in bold-face that the purchaser is certifying the truth, correctness and completeness of his document under penalty of law.

And what about Kelly’s second purchase that day, the details of which he apparently has not been so forthcoming to the public. According to the gun shop proprietor and operator, Kelly also bought a semi-automatic, AR-15 style rifle, the very weapon the gun-grabbers are wetting their pants over. It was only when Kelly’s presence in the gun shop was noticed by other customers and subsequently revealed to the media that Kelly reported he was purchasing the “assault rifle” purely for the purpose of demonstrating the ease with which it could be done. He claimed to have no intention of keeping the weapon but planned to turn it over to the Tucson police.

The gun shop proprietor ultimately decided to void the sale and refund Kelly’s $1,295 payment. He noted that Kelly would have had to fill out the federal form before taking possession. I have information from a reliable source that Kelly filled out the paperwork at the time of purchase. The question in my mind is, did or would have, Kelly knowingly mislead the seller on that form? While he may in fact have been the actual buyer, and could truthfully so attest, if he was not planning to retain ownership, he was actually making a straw purchase for another owner, the Tucson police. So he was willing to put misleading information on the federal form in order to complete the transaction, a necessity to prove his point about the ease of buying an assault rifle.

And the question begs, if that was the true purpose, why didn’t Kelly video record the actual purchase itself, so he’d have video proof of the transaction from start to finish, as he did with the handgun? Which handgun, by the way, he and Giffords apparently planned to keep as the posted video clearly shows. That seems strange as the video’s first moments reveal that Kelly has other handguns but no semi-automatic rifle. Why then keep the handgun but not the rifle? Kelly’s a retired navy captain so he surely knows the essential difference between an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle and a true, fully automatic assault weapon. He knows the former is a civilian weapon of self-defense while the latter is a weapon of war.

Sorry, but I’m just not buying it. I think Kelly meant to keep that rifle but got caught in a hypocritical embarrassment contradictory to his professed public pronouncements, assuredly not unusual in Democrat politics. Once exposed, he concocted the police ploy for cover. No one I know among gun owners begrudges the Kelly’s having an AR-15. Frankly we believe they should be well-armed. Who knows what kook out there might decide his path to glory lies in the finishing of Jared Loughner’s dirty work. It’s the hypocrisy that is troublesome. Rather than making questionable purchases to prove how easy it is, Kelly and Giffords might better serve the cause of improved public protection from the likes of Loughner by working with police and mental health agencies to assure Jared’s kind are in the federal no-purchase database.

I admired Mark Kelly prior to this episode. He’s a former combat naval aviator. I’ve known several and they’re a stalwart breed. I particularly respect anyone who will strap a dangerously volatile, shuttle launching, rocket booster to his butt and blast off into space. I admire the way he has been so strongly supportive of his wife and her recovery. To see the two of them together and interacting would be heartwarming were it not for their nefarious political mission of aiding the gun-grabbing Democrats. And I most assuredly do not like Kelly’s self-serving, hypocritical, political duplicity. For me, the question begging is this:

Captain, did you sell all that good currency of your national service for the cheap rewards of shoddy Democrat politics?

Crossposted at American Thinker

In the Washington Times, there a couple of links in regards to the debate on background checks. The first is about Senator Jeff Flake, and his appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press”, this morning;

“We do need to strengthen the background check system, but universal background checks, I think, is a bridge too far for most of us,” Mr. Flake said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “The paperwork requirements alone would be significant.”

Not to mention the time requirements for a private seller to locate someone to do his background check, pay the man and wait for the results on an already overloaded system. Phony Vietnam veteran, That Dick Blumenthal tells CNN it doesn’t matter, that any gun control is good;

“Any step that saves lives is a step in the right direction,” he said.

Polls released in the past week indicate that public support for stricter gun laws has dropped almost 10 percent since the December school massacre, when up to 57 percent of Americans supported a crackdown on guns.

So, how is anything that the government does now will save lives, especially since the feds don’t enforce the laws that are already hovering over our heads? And, of course, Mark Kelley, the husband of Gabrielle Giffords and the guy who was denied approval to purchase a scary black gun in his home state, had to weigh in on Fox News Sunday and says that any legislation that doesn’t have universal background checks is worthless;

“They absolutely have a point — I mean, they are right on that issue,” he said of the NRA. “We need to encourage states to include the mental health records … I would love to work with the leadership of the NRA, and work with the United States Senate and the House, to make sure we get those records in the system and then close the gun-show and private-seller loophole.”

But Mr. Kelly said he didn’t think the notion of universal checks paving the way for a national gun registry — a common fear of many gun-rights advocates — isn’t “logical.”

Kelly is absolutely the last guy to talk about universal background checks. First of all, his wife was shot by a fellow who passed a background check because the local law enforcement which had several run ins with Loughner never sent up a red flags about his background. He’d been threatening Giffords for more than a year, and he’d been apprehended for several run-ins at school, but never arrested.

And then there’s the whole thing about a gun dealer denying Kelly permission to buy a scary rifle and Kelley’s comments about how frightening it is that he could buy one with just a few mintues’ background check. He still picked up his 1911 although the dealer wouldn’t sell him the scary black rifle.

As far as the lie about universal background checks not turning into a “national gun registry” – if that’s true, why are Manchin and Schumer arguing over whether or not the government should destroy the records of a background check after approval is given for a transfer? Schumer won’t budge and thinks the government should keep records, while Manchin says that he opposes it.

After the transaction is approved, why would the government need to keep a record of it? Unless it’s, like Schumer said, a “backdoor” to national registration of guns?

Kelly traded away any goodwill he might have had before he went into that gun store. Who the Hell would trust Blumenthal after it was discovered that he’d been lying for years about his non-service in Vietnam? And then apologizes for it with more phony soldiers on the stage with him. Maybe the voters of Connecticut trust him, but the rest of us aren’t that gullible.

In today’s Washington Post, Charlotte Childress and Harriet Childress, who are supposedly some sort of researchers, write a piece that is supposed to be about gun control, entitled “White men have much to discuss about mass shootings” because apparently, we all commit mass shootings.

When white men try to divert attention from gun control by talking about mental health issues, many people buy into the idea that the United States has a national mental health problem, or flawed systems with which to address those problems, and they think that is what produces mass shootings.

But women and girls with mental health issues are not picking up semiautomatic weapons and shooting schoolchildren. Immigrants with mental health issues are not committing mass shootings in malls and movie theaters. Latinos with mental health issues are not continually killing groups of strangers.

Each of us is programmed from childhood to believe that the top group of our hierarchies — and in the U.S. culture, that’s white men — represents everyone, so it can feel awkward, even ridiculous, when we try to call attention to those people as a distinct group and hold them accountable.

Apparently, these ditzes think all white men are prone to mass shootings, even though there have only been a handful of mass shooters. Of course, it’s supposed to be more about race than guns. But, what they forget is that white men are more likely to legally own their weapons, and most shootings, mass or otherwise, are perpetrated by criminals with illegal guns. Many of those criminals are not white males. Find that offensive? Well, don’t, it’s just the facts.

Run through the victims of the murders in the nation’s capitol who are killed in their neighborhoods by their neighbors. I’ll remind you that most guns are heavily restricted in DC, so what gun control laws will stop those shootings, mass or otherwise. I mean, those white mass shootings are usually perpetrated against white people, while the shootings which aren’t so mass are usually committed against people of color. More people of color are killed with illegal guns than white people murdered by mass shooters, but the national discussion on gun control (that won’t work) is initiated by and focuses on the killing of white people.

The real problem is the murder every year of thousands of people of color who are killed with illegal guns, while the focus of legislation is disarming legal gun owners who aren’t committing these crimes, who don’t live near or travel to the scenes of those crimes. Why? Well, because legal gun owners are more likely to obey the laws, and criminals never obey the laws. It’s easier to write legislation that people will obey.

These two women are racist morons, and the Post should be ashamed that they published this anti-intellectual drivel.

From the misnamed Think Progress, a report about a rally held on a National Rally Day by the Mayors Against Gun Owners and the state chapter of Moms Demand Action in Indianapolis who were confronted by a counter-rally of gun owners who showed up armed with loaded long guns and hand guns;

Of course, that caused the moms to freak out;

A member of Moms Demand Action said that she felt unsettled by their presence and said that the organizers would have to think twice before holding another event, particularly one where children could be present.

Ya know, I almost felt for them for a minute until that line about “the children”. As if gun owners can’t control themselves long enough to not shoot children. I guess they’re such tempting targets, otherwise legitimate gun owners just can’t help but shoot some kids.

Ladies, grow the hell up. That’s probably the safest that any kids at the rally were in their entire lives. And that’s why your panties are all twisted up over an inanimate object in the hands of a trained and legal gun owner.

By the way, for the gentleman in the video, most of us don’t own those weapons for hunting and you can’t shame us into feeling guilty about owning those guns and not hunting with them. You need to grow up, too, fella. This isn’t about hunting rights, it’s about gun rights.