Category: Gun Grabbing Fascists

The folks at the NRA sent us this video, the latest in their Stand & Fight series about Chuck Schumer who has told us that he won’t push for universal gun registration, has flipped, unsurprisingly;

The Senate Judiciary Committee may have an up-or-down vote on Dianne Feinstein’s Scary Black Guns Ban as early as Thursday according to the Washington Post. Among the things may vote on is a Schumer bill on background checks;

…the committee plans to consider a bill by Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) to expand the nation’s gun buyers background check system. What’s unclear is what version of the Schumer bill will be considered: An older version introduced in previous congressional sessions, or an updated version that includes bipartisan support. Schumer has been in negotiations with Sens. Joe Manchin III (D-W. Va.), Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) and Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) in hopes of earning moderate Democratic and Republican support for a plan that could expand background checks to all private firearms sales with limited exemptions.

Schumer’s bill is S.374. Oddly enough, I can’t find the text of the bill. However, Joe Manchin is going to be welcomed in his office tomorrow morning by yet another fax from a disgruntled voter.

Oregonians are facing the stupidest uphill fight of all states so far. This is from Oregon Firearms Federation on the bill that Oregonians were promised they wouldn’t have to deal with a scant few days ago;

HB 3200 not only bans most modern guns and magazines, it allows warrantless searches of your home, requires background checks and registration for a firearm you already own and as-of-yet undefined storage requirements. We say “a firearm” because even if you comply with the restrictions in this bill you may still only own one [assault weapon].

And if you think they know what they’re talking about, well;

(C) Semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and has one of more of the following:
(i) Any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand;
(ii) A folding, telescoping or thumbhole stock;
(iii) A shroud attached to the barrel, or that partially or completely encircles the barrel, allowing the bearer to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned, but excluding a slide that encloses the barrel; or
(iv) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at any location outside of the pistol grip;

I’ve never seen a thumbhole stock on a pistol, or a folding/telescoping stock, for that matter.

The prospective law also mandates that so-called large capacity magazines have to be registered, too. You can only own three for the ONE scary-looking black rifle that they allow you to own. In order to own a scary-looking black rifle, you must purchase it before the law passes, and then you take it and your three magazines to the police and after you pay them to do a background check and they say you are allowed to own it, you have to allow them to check your home to make sure you store properly, it doesn’t mention a warrant, so you arrive at your own conclusions.

Oh, yeah, and because a state of emergency exists in Oregon because of these scary-looking black rifles being in the hands of law-abiding citizens, it takes effect on the day that it passes.

The New York Times reports that at least five states, California, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York and Pennsylvania, are considering forcing gun owners to buy insurance in order to keep their guns. Their reasoning is fairly specious;

Doing so would give a financial incentive for safe behavior, they hope, as people with less dangerous weapons or safety locks could qualify for lower rates.

“I believe that if we get the private sector and insurance companies involved in gun safety, we can help prevent a number of gun tragedies every year,” said David P. Linsky, a Democratic state representative in Massachusetts who wants to require gun owners to buy insurance. He believes it will encourage more responsible behavior and therefore reduce accidental shootings. “Insurance companies are very good at evaluating risk factors and setting their premiums appropriately,” he added.

Yeah, I guess the financial incentive provided by not going to jail for improperly owning a gun isn’t enough, we need to be influenced by comparatively puny insurance premiums. The article claims that legislators are convinced that forcing automobile operators to have insurance is comparable. Well, except that car ownership isn’t a right enumerated in the Constitution like owning a gun.

The article goes on to point out what most people already know – our homeowner insurance already covers most of our damages which result from firearms. It also says that insurance companies are a little reticent about covering firearms exclusively considering the potential for fraud.

Of course, the first result of such legislation would be to make thousands, if not millions of gun owners criminals. Only people who could afford the premiums would buy the insurance, and they wouldn’t necessarily give up their guns. The number of uninsured drivers should be enough to convince anyone of that.

Insurancequotes.com says 16% of drivers in the country are uninsured and that most of them are lower income families who can’t afford the premiums. The same would be true of gun insurance. People who live in high crime neighborhoods would have the greatest need for a gun to protect themselves and would be least likely to buy insurance. So, the do-gooders would be disarming the poor, or making more of them criminals.

CBS News reports that Joe Bite Me’s delusion is so deep that he thinks that somehow he’s a friend of gun owners. During a political rally near the site of the Newtown murders, he told the assemblage;

“Common sense facts are these assault weapons are unnecessary and dangerous weapons that put our law enforcement personnel at risk,” Biden said. “You guys know a lot of departments around the country. I’ve been working with the police agencies for 35 years. I am going to say something outrageous: You’ve had no better friend over the last 35 years than me.

Yeah, it is outrageous, Joe. You voted for the first scary-looking black gun ban, got spanked in the mid-term elections, and you’re back for another round. And then you have the gall to tell women that they should be randomly firing off double-barreled shotguns in their yards to scare away criminals like they’re a flock of crows in the corn. If that’s not irresponsible gun ownership, I don’t know what is. You’re a real buddy, Joe.

By the way, I remember being told by the Left that I shouldn’t politicize the Newtown shootings in the hours after the murders. But, I’ve noticed that gun grabbers have done nothing but politicize the tragedy. Is that all part of this “national discussion” we’re supposed to be having wherein one side gets to say whatever it wants while the other side should just shut up? That’s not a discussion – it’s being dictated to.

But, yeah, keep sending Bite Me out as the face of gun control, it makes you look so smart and concerned.

In an interview with Parents Magazine on Google hangout, Joe Bite Me, who, for some stupid reason has remained the Vice President, urges folks to buy a double-barreled shotgun to protect themselves;

Yeah, all you have to do is fire your shotgun out the door of your house and all of the criminals will leave you alone. Like a crackpot. I’m sure Biden’s wife, Jill, is concerned about her safety what with all of those Secret Service people hanging around the house. How stupid does he think we are?

Luckily, I don’t see people flocking to the gun stores to follow Biden’s advice. He claims to own two shotguns, but I’m pretty sure that he shouldn’t have any – if we’re serious about getting the guns away from the mentally-incapable.

“I think the vast majority of the American people are serious and responsible, and I think the vast, overwhelming majority of gun owners are responsible and, in fact, keeping a gun out of the reach of children or strangers is just common sense,” he said.

No, Joe, you don’t think the majority of us are serious or respnsible or we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. You think we’re all morons like you.

Thanks, Colorado Democrats, for telling us that women don’t need guns because they can’t tell when they’re being raped. Joe Salazar told women from the floor of the Colorado House yesterday;

“It’s why we have call boxes, it’s why we have safe zones, it’s why we have the whistles,” he explained. “Because you just don’t know who you’re gonna be shooting at.”

He continued: “And you don’t know if you feel like you’re gonna be raped, or if you feel like someone’s been following you around or if you feel like you’re in trouble when you may actually not be, that you pop out that gun and you pop, pop a round at somebody.”

Of course, being raped isn’t as bad you might think, anyway. The thought of you being raped doesn’t bother Salazar – well, until he finds out that people are offended by his pointless blather;

I am a husband and father of two beautiful girls, and I’ve spent the last decade defending women’s rights as a civil rights attorney. Again, I’m deeply sorry if I offended anyone with my comments.

See, he’s a father of two girls so he has some measure of moral authority in the discussion. He’s not sorry for what he said, he’s sorry if you’re offended. He has two daughters, you shouldn’t be offended that he trivialized your rape. You’re a moron for being offended – aren’t you ashamed of yourself now?

Thanks to ROS for the link.

Washington State legislators are now saying it was a mistake, but ya know, one has to wonder what they were thinking when slipped in wording to their gun control bill that included an annual search of Washingtonians’ homes by local Law Enforcement Officers. From the Seattle Times;

Responding to the Newtown school massacre, the bill would ban the sale of semi-automatic weapons that use detachable ammunition magazines. Clips that contain more than 10 rounds would be illegal.

But then, with respect to the thousands of weapons like that already owned by Washington residents, the bill says this:

“In order to continue to possess an assault weapon that was legally possessed on the effective date of this section, the person possessing shall … safely and securely store the assault weapon. The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection.”

In other words, come into homes without a warrant to poke around. Failure to comply could get you up to a year in jail.

“I’m a liberal Democrat — I’ve voted for only one Republican in my life,” [Lance Palmer, a Seattle trial lawyer] told me. “But now I understand why my right-wing opponents worry about having to fight a government takeover.”

It’s really not surprising since New York legislation made it illegal for a homeowner to be “found’ to have more than seven rounds in a magazine inside their house. How else would a homeowner be “found” to have more than seven rounds in a magazine if someone is not searching their homes?

But think about it for a minute – how would law enforcement know that a homeowner in legal possession of a grandfathered scary black rifle has said scary black rifle? Well, by registration, of course. And suppose the homeowner doesn’t have their scary black rifle stored the way a LEO approves of, can they confiscate the scary black rifle? In direct contradiction of the 4th Amendment which protects us from the government’s unreasonable search and seizure of property. They’re searching for a legal item, and if they seize it, they’re seizing a perfectly legal item.

So the reporter interviews two of the bill’s sponsors;

“I made a mistake,” [Sen. Adam Kline, D-Seattle] said. “I frankly should have vetted this more closely.”

[…]

“I have to admit that shouldn’t be in there,” [Sen. Ed Murray, D-Seattle] said.

Yet, there it is. But, we’re unreasonably paranoid.