Hmmm...

Via reader Jim M:

Welcome...

Via reader Jim M., who lives in New Mexico:

Women of the NRA...

Surprise, Surprise, Surprise!

Progressive pundits are chagrined to discover that the Boston Marathon bombers didn't have valid gun permits.  It was illegal for them to carry weapons.  It was also illegal for them to possess the explosives they used.  Oh, and we're not sure yet whether the guns they used were legally or illegally purchased, but given their status, they were likely illegally purchased as well.

Why are they chagrined? 

Because this rather pointedly displays the utter futility of the stated purpose of gun control laws.  The fact that their weapons and explosives were illegally obtained and used didn't slow down these two terrorists.

Also, there are widespread reports that the weeks events have caused many a Boston-area resident to reconsider their opposition to personally owned weapons.  Reality appears to have slapped them upside the head...

Progressive Narrative Oopsie!

The current progressive-driven efforts for gun control are predicated on the assumption that restricting high-capacity magazines would reduce violent crime.  Gun owners in general find that notion risible.  Progressives find that notion compelling.  Who would really know?

Well, how about the police who are on the ground fighting violent crime?  Seems like they'd know more than your average progressive or gun nut.  What do they think?  Oops:

I'm sure the progressives will have their 47 reasons why police are unreliable information sources for this issue.  The percentage is telling, though.  Damned few police think this is a good idea.

Much more, and the internals, here...

Rustic, Do-It-Yourself Vibe...

An excellent satire on how the left thinks about guns...

Whose Side Are You On?

Evan Todd is a survivor of the Columbine massacre, and he objects to Obama's gun control initiatives.  In an open letter to Obama, he asks: “Whose side are you on?” Here's the letter in its entirety:

Mr. President,

As a student who was shot and wounded during the Columbine massacre, I have a few thoughts on the current gun debate. In regards to your gun control initiatives:

Universal Background Checks

First, a universal background check will have many devastating effects. It will arguably have the opposite impact of what you propose. If adopted, criminals will know that they can not pass a background check legally, so they will resort to other avenues. With the conditions being set by this initiative, it will create a large black market for weapons and will support more criminal activity and funnel additional money into the hands of thugs, criminals, and people who will do harm to American citizens.

Second, universal background checks will create a huge bureaucracy that will cost an enormous amount of tax payers dollars and will straddle us with more debt. We cannot afford it now, let alone create another function of government that will have a huge monthly bill attached to it.

Third, is a universal background check system possible without universal gun registration? If so, please define it for us. Universal registration can easily be used for universal confiscation. I am not at all implying that you, sir, would try such a measure, but we do need to think about our actions through the lens of time.

It is not impossible to think that a tyrant, to the likes of Mao, Castro, Che, Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, and others, could possibly rise to power in America. It could be five, ten, twenty, or one hundred years from now — but future generations have the natural right to protect themselves from tyrannical government just as much as we currently do. It is safe to assume that this liberty that our forefathers secured has been a thorn in the side of would-be tyrants ever since the Second Amendment was adopted.

Ban on Military-Style Assault Weapons

The evidence is very clear pertaining to the inadequacies of the assault weapons ban. It had little to no effect when it was in place from 1994 until 2004. It was during this time that I personally witnessed two fellow students murder twelve of my classmates and one teacher. The assault weapons ban did not deter these two murderers, nor did the other thirty-something laws that they broke.

Gun ownership is at an all time high. And although tragedies like Columbine and Newtown are exploited by ideologues and special-interest lobbying groups, crime is at an all time low. The people have spoken. Gun store shelves have been emptied. Gun shows are breaking attendance records. Gun manufacturers are sold out and back ordered. Shortages on ammo and firearms are countrywide. The American people have spoken and are telling you that our Second Amendment shall not be infringed.

10-Round Limit for Magazines

Virginia Tech was the site of the deadliest school shooting in U.S. history. Seung-Hui Cho used two of the smallest caliber hand guns manufactured and a handful of ten round magazines. There are no substantial facts that prove that limited magazines would make any difference at all.
Second, this is just another law that endangers law-abiding citizens. I’ve heard you ask, “why does someone need 30 bullets to kill a deer?”

Let me ask you this: Why would you prefer criminals to have the ability to out-gun law-abiding citizens? Under this policy, criminals will still have their 30-round magazines, but the average American will not. Whose side are you on?

Lastly, when did they government get into the business of regulating “needs?” This is yet another example of government overreaching and straying from its intended purpose.

Selling to Criminals

Mr. President, these are your words: “And finally, Congress needs to help, rather than hinder, law enforcement as it does its job. We should get tougher on people who buy guns with the express purpose of turning around and selling them to criminals. And we should severely punish anybody who helps them do this.”

Why don’t we start with Eric Holder and thoroughly investigate the Fast and Furious program?

Furthermore, the vast majority of these mass murderers bought their weapons legally and jumped through all the hoops — because they were determined to murder. Adding more hoops and red tape will not stop these types of people. It doesn’t now — so what makes you think it will in the future? Criminals who cannot buy guns legally just resort to the black market.

Criminals and murderers will always find a way.

Critical Examination

Mr. President, in theory, your initiatives and proposals sound warm and fuzzy — but in reality they are far from what we need. Your initiatives seem to punish law-abiding American citizens and enable the murderers, thugs, and other lowlifes who wish to do harm to others.

Let me be clear: These ideas are the worst possible initiatives if you seriously care about saving lives and also upholding your oath of office. There is no dictate, law, or regulation that will stop bad things from happening — and you know that. Yet you continue to push the rhetoric. Why?

You said, “If we can save just one person it is worth it.” Well here are a few ideas that will save more that one individual:

First, forget all of your current initiatives and 23 purposed executive orders. They will do nothing more than impede law-abiding citizens and breach the intent of the Constitution. Each initiative steals freedom, grants more power to an already-overreaching government, and empowers and enables criminals to run amok.

Second, press Congress to repeal the “Gun Free Zone Act.” Don’t allow America’s teachers and students to be endangered one-day more. These parents and teachers have the natural right to defend themselves and not be looked at as criminals. There is no reason teachers must disarm themselves to perform their jobs. There is also no reason a parent or volunteer should be disarmed when they cross the school line.

This is your chance to correct history and restore liberty. This simple act of restoring freedom will deter would-be murderers and for those who try, they will be met with resistance.

Mr. President, do the right thing, restore freedom, and save lives. Show the American people that you stand with them and not with thugs and criminals.

Respectfully,

Severely Concerned Citizen, Evan M. Todd

Crime Watch...

Passed along by friend, former colleague, and reader Doug S.  I think we can guess where he stands on gun control:

Fools of Chelm...

Playwright David Mamet is an eloquent convert to conservatism from progressivism.  His writings are often interesting and provocative, as is this article on gun control.  An excerpt:

Healthy government, as that based upon our Constitution, is strife. It awakens anxiety, passion, fervor, and, indeed, hatred and chicanery, both in pursuit of private gain and of public good. Those who promise to relieve us of the burden through their personal or ideological excellence, those who claim to hold the Magic Beans, are simply confidence men. Their emergence is inevitable, and our individual opposition to and rejection of them, as they emerge, must be blunt and sure; if they are arrogant, willful, duplicitous, or simply wrong, they must be replaced, else they will consolidate power, and use the treasury to buy votes, and deprive us of our liberties. It was to guard us against this inevitable decay of government that the Constitution was written. Its purpose was and is not to enthrone a Government superior to an imperfect and confused electorate, but to protect us from such a government.

Go read the whole thing...

Kira Davis on Gun Control...

I have no idea who Kira Davis is, but she does a fine job articulating the basis for the Second Amendment:

A Fine Gun Control Rant...

From Rachel Lucas, of course:

There are countless other examples of things no gun-grabber ever says a word about banning even though doing so would save thousands of lives a year, because with those things, the gun-grabber seems to at least tenuously grasp the concept of the balance between personal liberty and “what keeps children from dying”. Nobody “needs” swimming pools or cars either, and unlike firearms, the right to possess them is certainly not protected by the Bill of Rights, and they’re involved in the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans every year, many of them children.

The president never talks about that, or goes to the homes of drowned kids to hug their parents for the cameras, or pretends to tear up on TV every time another 20 babies are killed in car accidents. Because drownings and traffic fatalities aren’t politically sexy or easy to demagogue.

If any of these gun-control jackoffs actually in point of fact cared about preventing the deaths of children, they would be agitating for the elimination of all inanimate objects that “cause” enormous numbers of kids to die, but they don’t agitate, because they don’t care. Hell, by the logic of Obama and Biden and their entire insane clown posse, we should be working on “parent control”. Bunches of kids are beaten to death by their own mothers and fathers every year. Maybe we need background checks and licensing before people can procreate.

What? Why not, you selfish bastard? You’re talk about your personal “rights” and “liberty” – how dare you. Don’t you care about the dead children? How many innocent little kids have to die before we take reasonable steps?

Gah. It’s all so fucking ridiculous. Grotesque kabuki theater.

Go read the whole thing...

The Wrong Diner...

Gun Control...

Via Jim M.:

A reporter did a human-interest piece on the Texas Rangers. The reporter recognized the Colt Model 1911 the Ranger was carrying and asked him "Why do you carry a 45?" The Ranger responded, "Because they don't make a 46."
---------
The old sheriff was attending an awards dinner when a lady commented on his wearing his sidearm. "Sheriff, I see you have your pistol. Are you expecting trouble?" He promptly replied, "No Ma'am. If I were expecting trouble, I would have brought my shotgun."
---------
I was once asked by a lady visiting if I had a gun in the house? I said I did. She said, "Well I certainly hope it isn't loaded!" To which I said, "Of course it is loaded; it can't work without bullets!" She then asked, "Are you that afraid of someone evil coming into your house?" My reply was, "No, not at all. I am not afraid of the house catching fire either, but I have fire extinguishers around, and they are all loaded too."

Incandescent Stupidity...

Via the irreplaceable Rachel Lucas, who says it better than I possibly could:

...is one of the best distillations of the lunacy of opposition to legal private ownership of guns, and also of the incandescent stupidity of advertising a place as a “Gun-Free Zone”.

It’s also an interesting study of people who I hope are at least dimly aware of the cognitive dissonance that would give vertigo to a rational person.

I love Project Veritas!

Best White House Petition Evah!

Sign it here!  As I write this, it's three quarters of the way there.  The entire petition:

Eliminate armed guards for the President, Vice-President, and their families, and establish Gun Free Zones around them
Gun Free Zones are supposed to protect our children, and some politicians wish to strip us of our right to keep and bear arms. Those same politicians and their families are currently under the protection of armed Secret Service agents. If Gun Free Zones are sufficient protection for our children, then Gun Free Zones should be good enough for politicians.

Legislative Frenzy...

Now there's a phrase finely crafted to strike fear into my heart.  The Democratic party has complete control of both the legislative and executive branches of state government (Governor Moonbeam is of course a Democrat, and both the Senate and the Assembly have Democratic super-majorities that render the few Republicans there completely toothless).  Even worse, California's politicians include a more than generous selection of loons and creeps – think Nancy Pelosi, minus the IQ, charm, restraint, and physical attractiveness.

Now they're talking about even stricter gun controls than we already have here.  One of the least objectionable proposals is to require a license (at $50 a year!) to buy ammunition.  It goes downhill from there.

I weep for my state (and I'm leaving).  I weep for my country.  Then I think about revolution...

Some Timely Posters...

Via my mom (the first one) and reader Jim M.:

Another Very Fine Rachel Rant...

This time on gun control and the 2nd Amendment...

Graphic of the Day...

An Open Letter to Senator Diane Feinstein...

Awesome, Marine:

Senator Dianne Feinstein,

I will not register my weapons should this bill be passed, as I do not believe it is the government's right to know what I own. Nor do I think it prudent to tell you what I own so that it may be taken from me by a group of people who enjoy armed protection yet decry me having the same a crime. You ma'am have overstepped a line that is not your domain. I am a Marine Corps Veteran of 8 years, and I will not have some woman who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one.

I am not your subject. I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant. I am the flesh and blood of America.  I am the man who fought for my country. I am the man who learned. I am an American. You will not tell me that I must register my semi-automatic AR-15 because of the actions of some evil man.

I will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and your misinformation campaign against the American public.

We, the people, deserve better than you.

Respectfully Submitted,
Joshua Boston
Cpl, United States Marine Corps
2004-2012

And yes, we most certainly do deserve better...