The new "shoulder thing that goes up" quote

Ok, so here it is:

Rep Diana DeGette of Colorado was one of the main forces behind the recent push for gun control laws in Colorado.  She must know a bunch about firearms, since she is so passionate to ban them, right?

Absolutely wrong.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/04/03/house-democrat-confuses-her-own-gun-control-proposal/

What's the efficacy of banning these magazine clips?  I will tell you, these are ammunition, they're bullets.  So the people who have those now, they're going to shoot them," DeGette said.  "And 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."

Ok, so that's just ridiculous on the face of it.  She was deservedly laughed at for that piece of brilliance.  Apparently, I need to order a heck of a lot more AR magazines because I was using them all wrong.  I had no idea they were a one-shot deal.

So, her office decided to clarify her obviously ignorant statement.

"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," spokeswoman Juliet Johnson said.

 Ohhhhh.

Wait, I still don't get it.  So, now these people are trying to act like they know the difference between a clip and a magazine?  It's laughable.  It would be funny if they weren't actually accomplishing their goal.

I have clips.  Lots of clips.  They have a specific purpose.  You know what else?  They sure can be reloaded if you so desire.  I've re-used my SKS clips many times.  I've also not seen very many "high-capacity clips."  Most hold, what? Eight to ten rounds for a quicker reload of a magazine?

It's a farce.  Is it over?  Not quite.  She also had this little jewel in response to an older individual that had a question regarding his ability to defend himself against a larger and aggressive attacker:

DPD (Denver PD) would be there in minutes.

You'd probably be dead anyway. 

Seriously.  Now, whether she realizes it or not.  This was the only correct thing she actually said.  Yes, the police will be there in minutes while you're being attacked.  And yes, you probably will be dead anyway.  She made his point for him as she mocked him.  I think the thing is they really don't care about public safety, they care about the control.  She accidentally exposed herself a little more than she intended.  Sadly, I don't see this being carried very far by "journalists."

Letting them prove your point

It's not really an easy thing to do, but when you do it you should seize the moment.

This right here may seem like just proving a point and maybe that's how it started.  However, what it turned into was shining the light on a blatant hypocrite in addition to having an opponent take your exact position without realizing it.

So, basically Rep. Mike Leara of Missouri sponsored a bill that would make it a felony punishable by four years in prison to introduce legislation restricting gun rights.

Now, here is the beautiful part:

Democratic Rep Stacey Newman called Rep Leara's proposed legislation "unconstitutional" and she would go directly to prison if the bill passes.  Do you fully recognize the beautiful, burning irony of what she just said?  Could it be possible that she said this on purpose?  I don't know that a politician would make such a quote-worthy statement on purpose.  So, our crowd are the extremist freaks when we say we may choose to ignore an unconstitutional law.  I think I know why.

Their principles are more well-intentioned than ours.  They care more, so their vague idea of what is unconstitutional trumps our actual amendment IN the Constitution.  If I were Rep. Leara, I'd be waylaying my opponent with the irony of her hypocrisy.

Feinstein's Wish List

So, here is the fun ban list.  First off, I'm thinking it has a snowball's chance in hell of passing.  However, I have perused and discussed this with my group of shooter friends.  There are many, many issues with the way this list is constructed.  I'll make it a bit of a game.  What is wrong with how they have classed many of these firearms?  I have done a little dissection in private of the weaknesses of this piece of paper.  Now, if this is indeed a page from the actual law then it is horribly sloppy.  If that's the case, I'm not going to line out the legal issues for our opponents.  I'm not closing loopholes for them.  If it's just a press release, well we shall see...

I know a lot of gun people that will have an aneurysm because of how they've "typed" some of these firearms.

Ammunition microstamping into economic ruin

New York is on a roll now.

The mind of a politician has always confounded me.  They like to wield their bureaucratic power and then act absolutely and completely puzzled when people and businesses don't just fall in line or do something "unfair" like "resist sensible gun legislation."

You see, politicians don't have to make a profit.  Governments rarely have to actually follow the budget they set forth.  It's a foreign concept to them that A. a company has a duty to their shareholders to make a profit and B. a duty to their customers to provide the product and back the ideals the consumers expect.  We all know that we as consumers expect firearms and ammunition manufacturers to not back gun legislation.  It's not especially good for their bottom line.  You can ask Smith and Wesson how that turned out for them some years back.  The politicians are already trying to cast the blame on the businesses for moving and cutting all of those jobs.  Amazing how the company would much rather not spend the money to move the business, retrain a bunch of people and reinvest in a bunch of new equipment.  We all know that they have weighed the cost of all of that versus implementing the microstamping.  Obviously, the cost of the microstamping in addition to the reputational considerations are worse than moving a whole production site out of state.  But a politician just isn't ever going to get that.

"Our prophet said we should protect ourselves"

I actually learned something from this article.  It turns out the Sikhs generally have the right mindset when it comes to the relationship between peace, protection of the defenseless and self-protection .  I knew of Sikhism before this madman went stupid, but I honestly didn't know the Kirpan was religiously designated for self-protection and protection of others.  Some of them seem to have consumed the gun control koolaid, but the pro-carry guy quoted in this article really has the right ideas.  He truly understands what his religion expects of him.  Defense of self.  The Kirpan is but a tool and he understands there are other tools that are better suited for this need in today's world.  It is unfortunate more didn't consider this previous to the incident.  Also, notice that some still think four minutes to wait for help from the police is acceptable.  In reality, it is an eternity in a situation like that.

Zombies can be the good guys

I think the majority of the country would just love to face-punch the Westboro church crowd.  While that just means they would go to jail, this group makes me smile.

The sign is the best part.

More Gun Friendly News

Antis and politicians are being left in the dust.  Ruger has been skyrocketing in its stock price.  More guns are being sold now than really ever before.  Now states are trying to attract some of that good business.  It has always left me scratching my head when arms and ammunition manufacturers do business in hostile states.  I understand it costs money to move, but it has to cost some pretty serious change to stay as well.  This is a story on Potlatch, Idaho.  Potlatch is actively campaigning to poach some gun manufacturers from less friendly areas.  They also don't seem to be jumping on the bandwagon now.  Potlatch looks like it might be full of my kind of people and Idaho has been a friendly state for a long time.  Good for them, I say.  Lower cost firearms due to less regulation and headaches for the manufacturers mean lower cost for us.  It also means pulling money out of the pockets of politicians that would use your own money to take your rights away.  I think we would call that a Win-Win.

QOTD: "Community"

"Community" is a show on NBC.  If you haven't seen it, it is funny.  However, the humor is of a certain type that isn't for some.  Watching tonight I was laughing as my jaw hit the floor at this line:

"Not a lot of people get a second chance.  Just you...  and probably Obama."

Priceless.

Standing on the shoulders of actual presidents

I'm doing a follow-up post to this post for three reasons.  A. I'm not a fan of dead links, so I didn't want to just change the title and leave that in your reader list,  B. I did some more reading and had more to say, and C.  Because Daddy Gun Blog Black List said so.  :)

So, as was said before our current president can't be more obviously narcissistic.  However, from just reading the original article I had no idea how much so.  I learned two things from the biography section at the White House website.  #1, I'm a bit of a history nut and that section is a time vampire for you history nerds out there and #2 Obama is probably the most self-absorbed person imaginable.  Here is the link and some examples:

I will start your tour with Calvin Coolidge.  At the bottom of this biography is the first of the self-absorption.  It continues for every president going forward to current.  My favorite one has to be here:

President John F. Kennedy famously suggested the American people: "Ask what you can do for your country." In 1961, the Peace Corps was created, facilitating service among citizens working toward peace in developing countries.  In 2011, President Obama celebrated the 50th anniversary of the Peace Corps with a Presidential Proclamation.

Seriously.  Look at me.  I did...   nothing.

As you read through these you should begin to notice a pattern.  Obama didn't actually do anything to warrant any kind of "look at me" credit.  These are all other presidents' accomplishments to which he is hooking his cart.  Way to define your presidency.  Actually, I think that does a darn good job of doing just that.

It's all about ME

If this doesn't scream textbook narcissim and selfishness, I don't know what does anymore.

I would love to see some different takes on this through photoshop.  Fox News has a pretty good one on their home page right now.  My vision is Obama "helping" previous presidents with their greatest achievements.  I'll have to mess with this when I get home.

Ridiculous gun policies and attitudes: a recipe for stupidity

A Wayne County Department of Public Service groundskeeper (Detroit - which should say a lot for this story) is fired with just 2 years left until retirement.  Why, do you ask?  Did he steal something?  Did he commit a horrible atrocity? 

No.

He found a loaded snub-nosed revolver in the bushes while he was mowing.  He secured the handgun and called the police and waited.  And waited.  And waited.  Now, if you haven't heard the Detroit PD isn't exactly snappy on response times.  If you're getting assaulted with a deadly weapon and you're lucky they'll show up the next day to take a report.  If you're actually shot, they might show up later that day.  Not wanting to leave something like a loaded handgun laying around in a public park, he took the firearm to the police station near where he lived and turned it in. 

The gun ended up being reported as stolen.  The police said he did the right thing.  Of course they did.  It means they will not have to make a trip out there the next day to look around.

But here is where it gets stupid.  This guy did the right thing.  I wouldn't want to touch a found gun and if I had to I would take it straight to a local station, but what do you do when the police never show up?  You have to understand the mindset of people that have probably not even seen a gun and really do not understand anything about them or how to handle them.  So, of course, happy ending, gun of the street with no one injured and the county fired him.

Wait, what?  You got it.  The county fired him.  Policy violation for not reporting it, you say?  Nope.  Sleeping on the job while waiting for the police?  Nope.

Get this:  the county says employees aren't allowed to possess weapons on work property.  The very act of taking a dangerous firearm and securing it so that some random child playing in the park will not shoot themselves just isn't ok with Wayne County.  Touching guns = bad.  Period.  Stupid attitudes breed stupid decisions.  I wonder if the supervisor that made this decision is the product of a "zero tolerance policy" public school?  I hope the employee has any kind of attorney (doesn't even need a good one) because he's going to mop up the Wayne County Department of Public Service.

Go to court, get a judge that has kids and say one thing:  "So, your child is playing in the park..."

Ruling: Plaintiff - for whatever he wants.

Atlas is shrugging in France

The mob decides they want more money from their government.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/278412e6-9538-11e1-8faf-00144feab49a.html?ftcamp=published_links%2Frss%2Fworld_uk%2Ffeed%2F%2Fproduct#axzz1uCuQekXS

They elect the Socialist candidate and expect that all of the money he wants to tax will actually stick around to be taxed.

Meanwhile, the "rich" don't want to play anymore.  They are taking their ball and leaving.  This is what the "tax the rich" attitude leads to.  Less entrepeneurs.  Less jobs.  Smaller tax base.  Socialism really only works along with a militaristic dictatorship to hold the producers hostage.  I wonder when that will happen now that the "rich" are looking to run.

CNN, taking a different attack on your rights

I think that most in politics and the media know very well that they will not be passing laws anytime soon that will restrict your rights to own a firearm.  It seems that the media, however, has found a new horse to beat. If they can't get the gun out of your hand, they will attack your ability to use it.

Stand Your Ground has turned the language of law enforcement on its head.  Who are the victims?  Who are the aggressors?

 Really?  Yeah, CNN found four cases that they are hanging their case on.  They use inflammatory language and pull on emotions instead of discussing true facts.  The interesting thing is that of the four cases, the case in Florida is unfortunate but a perfect case of why Stand Your Ground or Castle Laws can be so important.  It is not a matter of being able to psychoanalyze the person breaking into your house.

The shooters did not necessarily do everything they should have in these cases, but 3 of 4 of them would have been avoided if the people killed would not have been doing something to break the law to begin with.

So, basically CNN seems to be trying to push a "blood in the streets" story here citing just a few examples.  It's obviously not a balanced story since they have neglected to mention the scores of cases where law-abiding citizens did not have to see the inside of a jail cell for defending themselves against violent aggressors.  Don't mind me, I'll just be back here looking for my surprised face.

Normally, I'm not all political here but...

...this is absolutely ridiculous.  The President has basically flouted the Supreme Court of the United States at least twice (three times if you count twice in the last two days) that I have seen in a very public fashion.  The first was during his State of the Union speech last year, I believe, where he called out SCOTUS right in front of them.  That was borderline on some laws and, at the very least, extremely tacky.

After claiming that overturning the health care law would be "judicial activism" and calling the justices "unelected" (which is kind of the check and balance set in place by the Constitution) he's doubling down on the intimidation today.

...the court has traditionally exercised significant restraint and deference to our duly elected legislature, our Congress.

I'm sorry, what?  SCOTUS is not there to rubber-stamp your laws.  They are there to decide the Constitutionality of the laws that are passed.  While I don't necessarily agree on a lot of their decisions, their role in the review of laws is very explicit in the balance of powers.

And now, just what I thought might happen.

The federal courts kind of want to know why the President thinks that they can't strike down a federal law.  I'd kind of like to know the answer to that one myself.  Constitutional scholar.  Uh huh.

My vote was decided at the local brewery

This is something I can be activist about.

And so it begins...

If you think the hysteria surrounding the shooting in Florida will not affect you, consider this:

In Wisconsin, a homeowner defends himself and his family from some inebriated person on his enclosed front porch at 1 a.m.  The only reason I emphasize that it was enclosed is that it means that this person entered an enclosed structure that is part of this home.  The homeowner confronts the person and instead of complying, the person approaches the homeowner.  The homeowner fires a single shot from a handgun, killing the intruder. 

Two things you will notice about this case:

1. Apparently, what constitutes a "child" or "kid" has now increased to 20 years-old.

2. Skin color means you are completely innocent regardless of the circumstances.

The protesters are already out in force and I'm sure this homeowner will face threats against him for protecting his family.  Comparisons are being made to the Trayvon Martin shooting only because of the color of the individual's skin.

You will also notice the agenda of the media, here.  Yet again, they are questioning self-defense laws when they are not even the issue.  The laws governing self defense would still apply here regardless of Wisconsin's castle law.  This man was the only thing standing between an intruder who had entered a structure in his home and his wife and children.  What decision do you make in that situation?  You only have one chance to get it right as the person approaches you in the dark. 

Where the ATF and I agree

An issue of trust.

"A key area in which ATF fell short was leadership."

Among other things.

Common sense prevails

I'm not much of baseball fan.  However, I've been seeing rumbling regarding the Astros retro jerseys being neutered and removing the gun from the original "Colt .45s" jersey.  Well, someone finally got over their brain-fart and did the right thing.  It never should have been an issue in the first place.

Some judge in Maryland gets it

http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2012/03/05/md-gun-law-found-unconstitutional/

but right now, I know of just this one.

Here we go again...

So, some of you may have noticed a serious uptick in sales of firearms and ammunition.  I know Tam has been noting a seriously packed house at gun shows and that observation has been reiterated by many in the community.  I know that trying to help a couple of people get their first gun has meant seeing a lot of "out of stock" all over the intarwebs. 

I just read an article.  I know what you're going to say, yeah another article - "sigh."  That's what I was thinking but really this is a pretty darn good article.

The usual suspects are there.  The Fudd that apparently is a "former member" (I wonder why "former?" There may be a whole other story there) of a whole group of Fudds (Gun Owners for Obama) and I believe their oath to join starts with "I am a gun owner, BUT..."  Those would be the gun owners that think that their hunting rifle or handgun they keep for personal protection are in some way different than any other firearm when someone comes looking to take them.  This is the Fudd line: "I don't see the reason anyone would own an 'assault rifle' so it's ok to ban them, but they'll never come after my Benelli that I use for dove hunting."  Good luck with that.  You know the ATF almost pushed language that would have possibly put your precious Benelli in the same category as a Saiga.  Watch out when you let someone pull the "sporting purposes" wool over your eyes.  It's ok, we have your back and you probably don't even know it.

Then there is the lost anti-gun person that seems to be in denial and either; A.)  flat-out confused or B.)  purposefully ambiguous. 

"The gun lobby has long known that fear is a remarkable marketing and fundraising tool," said Woods. 

Oh really?  So, what is it that you do again?  Oh yes, there will be "blood in the streets" if this legislation is passed.  Hmmm, sounds pretty scary.  Fear isn't just coming from the gun lobby.  It's the bread and butter of the antis.

And another good one from Woods, the anti:

"But the Supreme Court ruled recently that the Second Amendment is an individual right, so that fear is completely misplaced."

Strange.  That is really the first time that I've seen an anti-gun proponent say that out loud.  Therefore, I'm highly suspicious.  It gives me a very "there's nothing to see here," "pay no attention to that man behind the curtain" vibe.

All in all, sales are through the roof and background checks are off the charts.  Applications for NEW concealed carry licenses are skyrocketing.  I say regardless of the reason why, that can't be all bad.  I see this as more and more people that have a reason to vote for freedom.