Gun regs weekend
It was a big weekend for the gun grabbers in the news. First Nanny Bloomberg wrote an opinion piece in his own Bloomberg news service entitled “How to Break NRA’s Grip on Politics” in which he thinks that the NRA is a threat to the gun control agenda;
The NRA is a $200 million-plus-a-year lobbying juggernaut, with much of its funding coming from gun manufacturers and merchandising. More than anything, the NRA is a marketing organization, and its flagship product is fear. Gun sales jumped after Obama was elected president, based on the absurd — and now demonstrably false — fear that he would seek to ban guns.
Yeah, politicians are not scared of the NRA, they’re scared of voters who will vote them out if they adopt a gun-grabbing tilt. The NRA is nothing without voters. Of course, Bloomberg has nothing to fear from the NRA since there are very few gun owners in his city. But, then Nanny Bloomberg also took up the fight against women feeding their babies from a bottle this weekend, too.
In round two, everyone seems worried that USSC Justice Antonin Scalia came out for gun control by claiming that the issue of large capacity magazines will have to be decided in the court. He also said that whether Americans can own rocket launchers will have to be decided by the court. He didn’t say there was no room for gun legislation because that would give the appearance that he’s already made up his mind about the issue, and what would be judicious about that? But the chattering nabobs on both sides are using Scalia’s very few words on the issue in this interview as an indication that more gun legislation could make it through the courts. But that’s not what Scalia said. Watch the whole interview like I did instead of reading the few bullet lines in the press.
Meanwhile Democrat Senators are trying to stick an amendment into the cybersecurity bill that will regulate guns, according to The Hill;
The amendment was sponsored by Democratic Sens. Frank Lautenberg (N.J.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Jack Reed (R.I.), Bob Menendez (N.J.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Schumer and Dianne Feinstein (Calif.). S.A. 2575 would make it illegal to transfer or possess large capacity feeding devices such as gun magazines, belts, feed stripes and drums of more than 10 rounds of ammunition with the exception of .22 caliber rim fire ammunition.
The amendment is identical to a separate bill sponsored by Lautenberg. Feinstein was the sponsor of the assault weapons ban, which expired in 2004.
So, I immediately ordered two more large capacity magazines, just to piss them off. Unless I’m swarmed by zombies, I’ll probably never use them, except to piss off the gun grabbers.
Category: Gun Grabbing Fascists
Hmmmm…seeing a pattern here?
–All from deep blue states.
–All from “may issue” (read: no fucking way) CCW states.
–Most, if not all, of above ri-tards have armed bodyguards.
I still wish I could find that pic of that senile bat Feinstein holding the AK with her booger-hooks inside the trigger guard. And I’ll never forget her crack about if she had 51 votes, she’d “round them all up” bullshit.
Don’t think for one fucking second that they’re doing it to keep you safe. EVER.
Dang… Jonn and zombies?
There is an element of note. I reckon the British would have opted for gun control in the colonies?
Think about it!
Any magazine that holds over 10 rounds? wtf? Have they seen what the 7-round .45 semi-automatic can do to someone?
And, I’ll say it again…
I wonder how they plan to get the criminals to follow these new laws of theirs?
Yeah, well. I might sympathize with them a little bit if there was a move afoot to require every citizen to show a card proving weapons proficiency to be able to vote, or something else equally ridiculous.
Meanwhile, it actually makes more sense to require everyone to own a gun and be proficient with it’s use than to deny that we are free to own whatever firearms we want, if we want them.
The NRA doesn’t lobby, it does training and competitions. The lobbying is done by the NRA-ILA, and they’re funded solely by direct donations.
Get the God father in Chicago to tell you how many people are killed ea week and how many shots are fired–
Notice the old adage works out fine for Chicago’s tough gun laws now
WHEN GUN ARE OUTLAWED ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS
PROVEN FACT IN AUSTRALIA
You said my favorite pejorative….nabobs
Gun stores everywhere owe these seven idiots a debt of gratitude. Every time they sponsor one of these retarded pieces of legislation, gun sales skyrocket. If I was the conspiracy-theorist type, I’d think Lautenberg, Schumer and Boxer were on the NRA payroll, because nobody’s a better gun salesperson than they are.
Sparky, ask and ye shall receive. http://nn99.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/DiFi-gun.jpg
You had me on the breast feeding thing, I had to go read the story and then the comments. There are some retards that live in NYC. I am so glad I am a backwards hillbilly from the middle of the country. I think my wife would have punched the first person who tried to lecture her before giving her formula.
Nice shot of Feinstein.
The more these stories get into the news media, the more ridiculous the people who generate them look. Who dropped dead and made Mayor Boomboom a pediatrician? What’s he going to do, watch while the moms nurse their babies?
The word ‘liberal’ does NOT mean sticking your long pointy nose into everyone else’s business. I don’t remember when I’ve seen so many paranoid people loose on the streets without an escort or off their meds. I’m really beginning to wish they’d hustle their frightened little butts into a very large cave so that we could shut and lock the doors behind them and get on with our lives.
On a side note, Kim Rhode has now medaled in five Olympics (count ’em), taking a gold today with a score of 99 (record!) in her last target shoot. That made my day. Good on you, Kim!
No, no, no. If you’re going to quote Spirow Agnew, do it right. It’s “nattering nabobs of negativism.”
I often get citizens from other countries who come to us to get firearms training. A guy I had the other day said where he’s from it’s impossible for him to purchase a gun. So I said: “So only the cops and criminals have guns…how safe to you feel?”
He said: “not very safe.”
For a whole week after the Aurora shooting you clutched your pearls and fell to the feinting couch any time a politician would so much as mention gun control. The thought was that Liberals are being manipulative and using scare tactics in order to get their way on gun control. Of course the insistence that it NOT be talked about after a tragedy is also political manipulation. But it’s only bad when liberals do it. Now you’re the one using scare tactics to get your way on gun legislation. There is no “gun grabbing” involved. There’s no legislation proposed to take any guns away from people that already own them. Nor will there ever be such legislation. Even if I wanted it I realize that would never happen and I believe, deep down, John Lilyea knows it too. He uses that term to invoke fear and to prevent ANY sensible talk on gun control. In fact to John and many of you “sensible talk on gun control” is an oxymoronic phrase. Scalia is already of the opinion that some gun control legislation is permissible. He didn’t just spit-ball on TV, he wrote it down in his majority opinion in District of Columbia vs. Heller. The only reason his statement today is “news” is because he finally said it on TV. However, to those of us who read, this is not news. From District of Columbia vs. Heller: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf ============================================================= 2.Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, con¬cealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of fire¬arms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the… Read more »
You kinda lost me at, “for” insipid. Do you know what the word militia means? Do you know what it meant back in 1787?
What’s it going to take for CZ to make something bigger than a 5-round mag for the 527 in 7.62×39? Am I going to have to buy a frickin’ SKS just to burn through the 30K rounds I got on the cheap? FFS, at $44/mag for a 5-rounder, or $15/mag for a 30-rounder, the SKS is the RESPONSIBLE choice!!!
Well, if you read my posts you wouldn’t make a complete ass of yourelf addressing points i didn’t even make. I didn’t mention Militias. I just quoted Scalia in the Heller decision, Jason. I don’t agree with Heller, but even abiding by what I consider an awful decision, legislation on some weapons, particularly unusual weapons, is allowed. With or without your condescending bullshit question.
Scalia stated very clearly that gun legislation is allowed. We can legislate unusual weapons, we can keep them from criminals and convicts and the mentally ill. Though if it’s like the other amendments, i’m not sure why that would be the case- an ex-con or mentally ill person still has free speech rights.
I don’t remember the NRA ever lobbying to legalize private ownership of bazookas. Talk about a condescending bullshit statement. That’s really all I was able to pick up from scanning your long winded, ridiculous post.
I didn’t say they lobbied to legalize bazookas. Bazookas came up in Scalia’s statement and the article above. What i did say and maintain is that the NRA views ALL gun legislation as heinous and that they’re willing to gut the rest of the bill of rights to preserve the second amendment.
They’ve proposed laws to restrict what pediatricians say to kids:
http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2011/08/pediatricians-punished-guns-home.html
And they’ve fought and defunded the CDC for having the temerity to report that guns are dangerous:
http://www.salon.com/2012/07/25/the_nras_war_on_gun_science/
So the line that we can’t speak badly about guns after a tragedy is bullshit. The NRA would clearly like to muzzle ANYONE from speaking out against guns.
Do people talk badly about silverware for making them fat?
#19 Out of morbid curiosity, what makes you think that a pediatrician has the right to ask about something entirely unrelated to his profession? Doing electrical work, I never ask a family if his kids are sick. While working security I don’t ask customers the status of their terminal cancer, what’s the point of a doctor asking about guns?
On the second part? I know more people that died from shaping a paintbrush after using oil paints than I do that have died to an in home gun accident. Turns out a lot of oil paints can be fairly toxic. Think of the children, ban all oil paints!
Though seeing Bloomers in action, I’m almost afraid to post this.
Insipid, if you look at the countries where ‘sensible registration has been enacted, the inevitable progression has been registration-partial ban-total ban – confiscation. And in thise countries (notably the UK and Australia) gun-related crimes have skyrocketed. The reason the NRA-ILA pushes back against new gun laws is because we have over 20,000 on the books already, most of which are ignored by criminals and prosecutors alike. The only people inconvenienced, the only people whose compliance is guaranteed, are the law abiding citizens. Here’s a better thought – how about if you try, say an added jail penalty for using a magazine of greater than original design parameters? Not saying I would like it, but that’s a case where you are penalizing criminal behavior, not law abiding non-criminals.
Actually, if you look at the Giffords and Aurora shootings, you should be glad these dipshits tried to USE the high-cap mags. If they actually knew what they were doing, they would have used something that actually WORKED well.
The basic argument is that every paragraph you wrote refes to being “allowed” to buy …. we part company there. We have the RIGHT to arms, not something given to us and liable to be revoked by politician’s fiat. If you choose not to, that is your right. Stay away from my rights.
Sure, insipid. We know how you nanny statists work, because we’ve seen it happen first hand over the past 20 years with smokers. First, they can smoke in their designated smoking section. Then maybe outside. Or no, wait, let them go to the park. Nah, fuck that, ban smoking in the park too. And the beach. And at bars. And in their own personal vehicle. And raise taxes per pack to three times what a pack costs. That will teach those assholes for doing something that’s completely legal.
The NRA is just telling you just take your “reasonable controls”, your smoking section for firearms owners, and shove them right up your ass. They know finger-wagging douchebags (like Bloomberg) will not end it at magazine capacity or bayonet lugs. It will end only when it’s unaffordable or too inconvenient for anyone to own, or apply for a permit to own, a firearm. A right guaranteed by law to this nation’s citizens.
for insipid, please define “Sensible gun legislation”. Background checks? already done. And you keep saying “assault weapons” I don’t think that word means what you think it means. Also, if I wanted to own a bazooka, I could. It would fall under the AOW classification. There’d be a few more hoops to jump through, but I could own one. And if we had the same uncompromising attitude towards the 1st Amendment as liberals have towards the 2nd Amendment, there would be no internet, TV or radio because those weren’t mentioned in the Constitution. As for registration of firearms, the government has NO legitimate reason to know if or how many firearms I have.
And while you’re at it, insipid, please be so kind as to define the following for us as I’ve yet to hear a clear and conistent definition from liberals:
–Assault weapon
–High-capacity magazine
–Clip versus magazine
–Arsenal
–Reasonable legislation
I’m sure other posters can add as they see fit.
Hawaii invented the “assault pistol”, but then again their firearms laws are disgusting.
I wanted to write a reasoned response to Insipid, but there’s nothing reasonable to work with to respond to.
First, as NHSparky mentions above, what the fuck is an “assault weapon” that makes it unusual? An assault weapon is not much different than a hunting rifle, it’s just one often has a wood stock and doesn’t look scary to people who have handled guns before. So no, all legislation on weapons isn’t evil and heinous, but all legislation written by people who don’t own guns and don’t know what the fuck they’re talking about sure is.
You seriously want the FBI knocking on someone’s door for buying ammunition and guns quickly? Well, then they’d be knocking on a lot of doors in the state of Colorado, because people stockpile when something like this happens, for fear there’ll be a grab. Which is pretty rational, given that there often is.
We can’t register guns because people place limits on how many guns and which guns you can register. And they reserve the right to come search your home randomly if you have guns just to check on them. Completely BS. And look, anyone with guns who notices they have a gun stolen is going to report it, because they want their damn gun back. We don’t have to pass legislation requiring people report it or they get jail time for being unobservant.
Also, many liberals DO have the same attitude towards the first amendment. Many people were chortling with glee at OWS clogging up streets, disrupting businesses, and pissing in the street.
Your article about how doctors should be able to ask kids about guns also includes the same crackpot talking about how affordable housing is also his concern as a medical professional. Which essentially means: he’s not one.
Good points, all.
It boils down to simply this: Each and every ammendment is important and of equal value. However, it is significant that they are ordered the way that they are. The 1st is an obvious expression of our most basic freedom. The 2nd is there to guarantee our individual ability to protect the 1st. Without the first two, all the others are moot.
Everyone who attacks any one of the ammendments, or manufactures restrictions upon them – what, are you nuts??
????? ????
@27: Well said, AS.
Using the disarming (no pun intended) phrase “common sense” gun laws is anything but to the anti-gunners. Most anti-gunners don’t have a fricken clue about guns, just what they read or hear about from other anti-gunners. I went head to head with Chucky Schumer back in ’94, through my own congressman who set up my talk with Chucky, and I found he was absolutely clueless about guns. I asked what difference a bayonet lug made on a rifle. What difference appearance made on a semi-automatic rifle? I askeed him if he knew the difference between an assault rifle and a regular rifle? I asked him if he knew the difference between an Uzi and an AK-47, since he lumped both of them together in the same category. I asked him if having a flash suppressor on a rifle makes it somehow different in performance over a rifle that doesn’t have one.
He knew nothing (and still doesn’t) about guns, yet the media and the democrats made him out to be an “expert” on guns. So, when an anti-gunner uses the phrase “common sense gun laws”, they aren’t even in the ballpark of common sense.
As anyone knows, criminals don’t follow the law, that’s why they’re criminals, and any thought from the anti-gunners that criminals will suddenly be overwhelmed with guilt at having that banned gun is a fantasy.
the ’94 “Assault weapon” ban did nothing to stop crime (FBI stats from ’93 weren’t introduced into the debate on purpose, because it showed that only .3 of 1% of crimes committed with guns were with “assault rifles”). All it did was give the anti-gunners a false sense of security, just like the signs that say “guns and all weapons are banned on these premises”. I guess Holmes didn’t read that before going on his shooting spree? If he did; I’m sure he wouldn’t have gone into that theater.
Also, I’m doing a new piece on trying to get legal guns in NYC, so we’ll see what this “reasonable” gun control gets me, for those who actually think there is such a thing.
I don’t have the brainpower to spare reading insipids long stupid posts. I can just feel the intelligence being sucked away. I think I’ll keep asking questions that are at the root of whatever issue we are talking about and see if he has any clue…which he usually doesn’t.
Also, Insipid; the Bill of Rights supercedes state law and, in my opinion, there should be standardized national rules for carrying and training to get a carry permit, so that my permit would be legal in all states and US territories.
@21- It is completely related to his profession. The most cost effective form of medicine is preventive medicine. It costs a lot less to inform a parent of the dangers of keeping chemicals out of the reach of children then it does to treat a child for ingesting poisons. Likewise it is much better to prevent a gun-related fatality or injury by informing the parents to 1. keep the gun out of reach of children 2. make sure the gun has trigger locks and 3. make sure the gun is unloaded. Thousands of children are killed or injured every year due to parents poor care of firearms. A pediatrician has the right to at least warn the parents as to the best ways of keeping their guns and their kids safe
#22- The truth is that the UK police has changed its system for recording crime since implementing new gun control laws. This change in recording crime made it appear that the crime rate went up. The British Crime Survey, which was unaffected by this change, shows a decrease in crime. Go to chapter 6 here:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110218135832/http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb702.pdf
Snopes.com does a pretty good job debunking the urban legend that gun crimes “skyrocketed” after the 1996 buyback program in Australia. “Given this context, any claims based on statistics (even accurate ones) which posit a cause-and-effect relationship between the gun buyback program and increased crime rates because ‘criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed’ are automatically suspect, since the average Australian citizen didn’t own firearms even before the buyback.”. Australia’s homicide rate is lower than the homicide rate in the US and there has been little variation in Australia’s homicide rate since their gun buyback.
http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp
The brookings institute also did a fairly decent job debunking the made-up 20,000 gun laws talking point:
http://www.brookings.edu/es/urban/publications/gunbook4.pdf
Even if you generously count local ordinances banning any form of local gun-control as a “gun law” the number is nowhere near 20,000.
While I disagree with Scalia’s opinion in Heller, I do think what he said is worth repeating concerning Rights:
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
I agree with that, and i also kind of agree with Old Trooper here:
@33- “Also, Insipid; the Bill of Rights supercedes state law and, in my opinion, there should be standardized national rules for carrying and training to get a carry permit, so that my permit would be legal in all states and US territories.”
I think standardized training in all 50 states is a good idea. Since i don’t have the time to argue with everyone, i guess i’ll leave you all on a rare point of agreement.
@26- Hawaii invented the “assault pistol”, but then again their firearms laws are disgusting.
You actually got me curious. Take a look at the crime statistics by state:
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000/
While it’s true that the “State” with the most gun-deaths per 100K is the district of Columbia (an area surrounded by states with very lax gun laws) you’ll note that pretty much ALL the rest of the highest death rates are Red States. In fact you have to go all the way down to 21- Colorado- before you can find a purple state.
Conversely the states with the lowest death rates are all reliably blue states many with the most strict gun laws. The state with the lowest? “Disgusting” Hawaii.
“Conversely the states with the lowest death rates are all reliably blue states many with the most strict gun laws. The state with the lowest? “Disgusting” Hawaii.”
Not true. Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws on the books and is a free fire zone (more people are killed in Chicago on a weekend than in Colorado shooting). DC is as well. Kalifornia hasn’t done much better.
Illinois is listed at #31 with 9.7 per 100k and California at 30 with 9.8. Obviously D.C. is the worst, i said that in the above post. But , Alaska, Louisiana, Wyoming and Arizona all have nearly double the rate of gun-related deaths as those states.
Anyone who says DC is “surrounded” by states with lax gun laws, doesn’t know what they’re talking about. DC is mostly “surrounded” by Maryland. In order to get a CCW in Maryland, the perspective permittee must prove to the local sheriff that their life is in danger. One man is suing the local sheriff and the State Police because the fellow who threatened him was incarcerated and the sheriff denied the subsequent renewal of his license.
Insipid, I swore to myself I wouldn’t respond to any more of your inane posts but this time I must. Here in Az we have some of the most lax gun laws in the country. A while back a “nut” was ramming people with a shopping cart, injury an elderly lady, at a Target in Peoria, he suddenly became ‘sane’ when a citizen pointed a 9mm at him. He ran away faster than Olympic gold medalist. Two guys were stopped in the middle of a “car jacking” at Metro Center in north Phx when a citizen pulled his .45. The two turds ran like scared rabbits! Did these make the national news? Nope, hell they barely made the local news! Citizens carrying legal fire arms in a responsible matter are portrayed as “bad guys” according the liberal screaming meme’s. I’m gonna throw the BS flag on them.
Likewise it is much better to prevent a gun-related fatality or injury by informing the parents to 1. keep the gun out of reach of children 2. make sure the gun has trigger locks and 3. make sure the gun is unloaded. Thousands of children are killed or injured every year due to parents poor care of firearms.
Horse. Fucking. SHIT.
Show me the study, show what qualifies as a “child”. For the record, most of the “studies” that call it thousands of casualties include ANY person under the age of 18, sometimes 21, who is injured by a firearm, including certain “yutes” who are gang-banging, etc.
If you used the criteria of IN THE HOME firearm deaths or injuries, you’ll find that more kids under 5 drown in a 5-gallon bucket of water than are killed by firearms.
http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus10.html/
Massage the data all you like, but you’re still just jerking off.
So gun-related deaths in states where it’s virtually illegal to own them is lower than states where guns are nearly ubiquitous.
Tell me, how many hunters are accidentally shot in Illinois each year? Or California? Or New York City?
And prithee, how is Maryland a state with “very lax gun laws” in your book?
I’ve ranted about this before, so I’ll just say this here. An unloaded, locked up gun is absolutely worthless for self defense. (I’d say they’re worthless, period, but that’s just me.) You might as well buy a baseball bat; it’ll be of more use.
It must be a bitch to constantly have your arguments demolished, ‘sip. There’s this, from you, ” Not only does
Occupy Wall StreetOccutards have the right to assemble, but they also have the right to clog up streets, and disrupt businesses and there is nothing the authorities can do about it.” Sure, there’s plenty the “authorities” can do, it’s against the law to block traffic, regardless of your intentions. It’s against the law to disrupt businesses, regardless of your intentions. It’s even against the law in some jurisdictions to create a disturbance.The NRA defunded the CDC? Wow, they’re even more powerful than ignoramuses like ‘sip think they are. I thought that was the job of Congress.
But, what can anyone expect from someone who believes the pap that Snopes and Salon put out.
And, I’m sure that you have no problem with the BATFE knocking on someone’s door, to ask why they bought a gun, or two boxes of ammo, when one is all they’re allowed to have.
Like AS said, a reasoned response to you is impossible, “there’s nothing reasonable to work with to respond to.”
And, what good does a gun do someone if they need it, when they have their trigger locked, and the weapon is unloaded? Might as well own a paperweight, but that’s what you want, isn’t it?
You didn’t “demolish” my argument at all, Upnorth. But i do enjoy your inevitable self-fellating “We so totally kicked the liberals ass!” post. I’m happy it gives you pleasure.
Unfortunately it is not tethered to reality. Here’s what I wrote immediately before your above quotation: “But imagine if liberals had the same uncompromising attitude towards the first amendment that you had towards the second?”
And then in the following paragraph i wrote:”I do not believe that the paragraph above is a tenable position. There are and should be some sensible limitations on the first amendment.” In other words, i AGREE that there are limitations on the first amendment. Many here seem to be arguing that there are NO limitations on the 2nd.
The NRA lobies Congress and Congress put in an amendment to defund the CDC. The NRA is certainly not an innocent bystander in gun legislation.
As far as my sources go, the definition of “liberal media” seems to be anything that fails to comport with the Fox News world-view. So far i’ve only seen you make declerations that my sources are bad, you’ve never proven it.
Um, insipid? Care to address any of the points I made upthread?
Of course you don’t/can’t.
Yes insipid, disgusting, sorry if I’m using too big of a word for you to understand. The fact is, and there is no denying it no matter how hard you try, no matter how often you lie to yourself about it or look up crackpot websites to support your bullshit opinions, insipid, the idea you can protect innocent people by disarming them is absolutely absurd.
Insipid really has nothing constructive to add to the argument, why is anyone wasting time arguing with him?
Maybe one of us will waste the time to stop by his house with our evil ‘black’ guns and cover him and his family should they ever have to escape the clutches of an overbearing Gov’t that decides to kick our established way of life to the curb and rely on the military power of the Fed in order to establish a dictatorship. Then again I suspect we might find him already collaborating with such a government. Never mind.
Then again I suspect we might find him already collaborating with such a government.
Until to his horror he finds himself one of the first against the wall. Usually how it works.
Hey insipid: it must be really great to think that all the anti-liberals are conspiring against you, but I’m a lefty, so what’s your excuse for not answering my questions?