Gun Bans PROMOTE Violent Crime

From Brietbart:

"A new study published in the latest issue of Applied Economic Letters lays low nearly every claim made by gun control proponents and shines a light on the successes of concealed carry on a state-by-state basis.

Specifically, the study shows that less restrictive concealed carry laws save lives, while gun control can endanger them. It also shows that gun control measures like "assault weapons" bans do not reduce state-level murder rates."

In fact...

"Gius shows that the study actually suggests that "restrictive concealed weapons laws may cause an increase in gun-related murders at the state level."

This is a study of THREE DECADES of data, and it wasn't done by the NRA. Remember this for the next time the Lefties start trying to ban guns again (and they will...)

That Didn't Take Long... Part 2

From CBS:

In the wake of the shooting at the Navy Yard, Obama spokesman Jay Carney said the president is implementing executive actions and reiterated his commitment to strengthening gun laws, including expanding background checks to sales online and at gun shows.

Wow. Since none of the reports I've read indicate that the Navy Yard shooter bought his gun at a gun show or online (he purchased his shotgun legally at a Virginia gun store), the president must have some sort of intelligence that we don't have access to, right?

And as for strengthening background checks... how about taking a look at the government first, Mr. Obama. How about strengthening background checks on who can get on to military bases and secret clearance first?

Classic Obama strawman bait and switch.

That Didn't Take Long

From the Washington Times:

Just hours after the deadly shooting rampage at the Washington Navy Yard, gun control advocates tried to reignite the national debate over gun laws that had only just subsided. 

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat and a longtime gun control advocate, denounced “the litany of massacres” over the past few years and asked rhetorically, “When will enough be enough?”

Wait.. wasn't the NSA spying on us all supposed to stop things like this?

Obama Goes After Guns Again

From the AP:

Striving to take action where Congress would not, the Obama administration announced new steps Thursday on gun control, curbing the import of military surplus weapons and proposing to close a little-known loophole that lets felons and others circumvent background checks by registering guns to corporations.

Would not, could not... big difference there. 

Four months after a gun control drive collapsed spectacularly in the Senate, President Barack Obama added two more executive actions to a list of 23 steps the White House determined Obama could take on his own to reduce gun violence. With the political world focused on Mideast tensions and looming fiscal battles, the move signaled Obama's intent to show he hasn't lost sight of a cause he took up after 20 first graders and six adults were gunned down last year in an elementary school in Newtown, Conn.

In the words of President Obama - "we won. Move on." But no. Here we go again. But thins while the nation is waiting to see of President Obama is going to decide to strike Syria. Shouldn't he be doing that, instead? I get the feeling he's been waiting months for this moment - a moment when everyone's attention was turned elsewhere. Laying in wait... like a snake.

And what kind of weapons were used to kill the people at Newtown? Handguns - not "assault rifles. There was a rifle found in the trunk of the shooter's car - in the parking lot. But it wasn't used in the shooting. Here we go again with the "assault rifle" nonsense. "Assault rifles" are responsible for only two percent of gun crimes.

One new policy will end a government practice that lets military weapons, sold or donated by the U.S. to allies, be reimported into the U.S. by private entities, where some may end up on the streets. The White House said the U.S. has approved 250,000 of those guns to be reimported since 2005; under the new policy, only museums and a few other entities like the government will be eligible to reimport military-grade firearms.

That's rich. The administration that brought us Fast and Furious is worried about weapons that we sent to other countries ending up on American streets.

And hold on just a minute - why would "surplus" arms be sold (or donated) to other countries and then bought back from them by the military? Wouldn't that mean that they weren't surplus, after all? Sounds a bit like the way money laundering works to me.

The Obama administration is also proposing a federal rule to stop those who would be ineligible to pass a background check from skirting the law by registering a gun to a corporation or trust. The new rule would require people associated with those entities, like beneficiaries and trustees, to undergo the same type of fingerprint-based background checks as individuals if they want to register guns.

Wouldn't this require some sort of a database of people within the organization (potentially hundreds of thousands of people, depending on the size of the corporation)? And then wouldn't that database then have a record of the guns owned by those within the corporation? This sounds like a sneaky first step to gun registry to me.

Although Obama and Biden have said the fight is not over, there is scant evidence that there is more support for gun control legislation than there was in April, when efforts died in the Senate amid staunch opposition from the National Rifle Association and most Republican senators.

And the overwhelming majority of American people. And the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution. Let's not forget about those very important things that are against gun control.

"Sooner or later, we are going to get this right," Obama said that day in the White House Rose Garden, with the families of Newtown victims and former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords — herself a victim of a gunman — at his side. "The memories of these children demand it, and so do the American people," the president said at the time.

Let's breathe for a moment and also remember that Representative Giffords was shot with a handgun - not a rifle. And the gun used wasn't surplus or reimported into the United States. It was purchased legally.

These days, Obama mentions gun control with far less regularity than when it appeared the Senate was poised to take action, although Obama did meet Tuesday with 18 city mayors to discuss ways to contain youth violence. And with immigration and pressing fiscal issues dominating Congress' agenda, the prospects for reviving gun legislation appear negligible.

I wonder if Rahm Emanual, the mayor of Chicago, was among those whom the president met with. You know - the gun control Mecca where gun crime and homicides are out of control.

School "Security" Gone Too Far... Again

From CBSDFW:

For some it’s the end of a tradition that has taken place for generations. Security enhancements at many North Texas schools this year may keep parents at the curb. 

All of the extra security is in response to what happened nearly nine months ago at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. It was December of last year when a gunman opened fire at the school, killing 20 students and six adults. 

But there’s a new rule waiting for parents like Tamara Moore and Angela Shamblin.  It deals with access to their youngsters and both mothers have a certain view about the rule. 

“I really want to take my son to class. Since it’s his first time in school,” Moore said protectively. “They may have security, but I want to know where my kid is going at all times.” 

Shamblin had a different viewpoint as she dropped off her little one. “As long as I can see him walk in that building, that will be fine. Because once he’s in that building they’ll take care of him.”

That's right - they'll take care of him.  They'll lead him to class and he'll be perfectly safe there in the hall and in the classroom with no parents around that might cause harm.

Nevermind that it wasn't a parent that shot up the school at Sandy Hook.

Nevermind that the gunman killed teachers and students that were already in their classrooms.

Nevermind that at Sandy Hook they already had a video security system and locking doors that the gunman managed to get through or around... somehow.

Once again, this is solving a "problem" with a solution that doesn't even fit the issue at hand. How does  prohibiting parents from walking kids to class eliminate the threat that happened in Sandy Hook? If some parent had snapped after taking little Timmy to class, I could understand, maybe. But that's not even remotely what happened.

"Well, it takes additional people out of the school who might wish to do harm. That way there are only those in the school who are supposed to be there," you might say.  That makes no sense at all.

What they're doing is taking other adults, other parents - people who have a vested interest in there being a safe environment at their child's school - out of the hallways. Those parents are a deterrent. Gunmen are cowards. Every time they are met with resistance, they fold or kill themselves. Every time. Those additional parents in the hallways walking their kids to class are almost insurance that some sicko isn't going to come into a school and start shooting.

What we need is a security officer in the school. An armed, trained security officer. We don't need to b further elevating the government (the school district and the school is still the government) as the protector of our children by further stripping rights from parents.

This is the school looking at parents as potential victims should a gunman invade the school. I saw that's the wrong way to look at the world. That's the doom and gloom way. That's the pessimistic way. People are not sheep, especially when their children are concerned. If I were walking my son or daughter to class and someone came in shooting, you can bet your life that I would do everything I could to stop that gunman. I bet almost any parent would.

They're relying on teachers and administrators to keep the halls safe. Ask yourself this - in the event of a gunman, what is a teacher going to be most concerned with (and let's use Sandy Hook as an example)? They'll be concerned with getting their class and any other kids to safety. That's engrained in them. But while they're doing that, who's trying to stop the gunman?

No one is.

Just as in Sandy Hook, a gunman is probably going to take out the front office staff first. They're the most likely to call the police. Most classrooms don't have phones with an outside line. So that means that teachers and kids are helpless targets for a gunman who has freedom to roam a school. And hopefully someone survived to call the police. It'll take them a few minutes to get there. Meanwhile, it's a target shoot for the gunman.

No - I'd rather go down like the passengers on United flight 93 on September 11 - by taking my life into my own hands and actively trying to stop whomever is trying to kill me and others. Especially if those others are my kids.

I have more to say, but I won't. You get the idea.

Don't be sheeple. Oppose any government entity that strips your rights in the name of "security," even if it's the local school board or the principal at your kids' school.

Don't Let Down Your Guard

Yes, the gun control debate has subsided over the past couple of months (with the exception of the Pot-stirrer-in-Chief calling for gun control in the wake of the George Zimmerman verdict). But this is a reminder that giving up our rights - even a little bit - will have disastrous consequences.

Obama: Honor Trayvon With Gun Control

From MSNBC: 

President Obama called on the nation to honor Trayvon Martin a day after George Zimmerman was acquitted of his murder by asking "ourselves if we're doing all we can to stem the tide of gun violence." 

His comments came as family members of Zimmerman and Martin, as well as pundits, celebrities, and court observers had strong reactions to Saturday’s not guilty verdict, with those reactions taking various forms — from joy and outrage to Shakespearean references and calls for peace. 

"I now ask every American to respect the call for calm reflection from two parents who lost their young son. And as we do, we should ask ourselves if we're doing all we can to widen the circle of compassion and understanding in our own communities," Obama said in a statement on Sunday. 

"We should ask ourselves if we're doing all we can to stem the tide of gun violence that claims too many lives across this country on a daily basis. We should ask ourselves, as individuals and as a society, how we can prevent future tragedies like this. As citizens, that's a job for all of us. That's the way to honor Trayvon Martin."

President Obama, you're an opportunistic race-baiting pot-stirring controversy-ginning piece of crap.

The Zimmerman case had nothing to do with gun violence or race.

Who Am I Introducing?

Not much comment needed on this.

Virtual State of the Union

The Death of the Constitution by Laziness and Local Bureaucrats

From the Seattle Times:

“They always say, we’ll never go house to house to take your guns away. But then you see this, and you have to wonder.” 

That’s no gun-rights absolutist talking, but Lance Palmer, a Seattle trial lawyer and self-described liberal who brought the troubling Senate Bill 5737to my attention. It’s the long-awaited assault-weapons ban, introduced last week by three Seattle Democrats. 

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.

Then:

I spoke to two of the sponsors. One, Sen. Adam Kline, D-Seattle, a lawyer who typically is hyper-attuned to civil-liberties issues, said he did not know the bill authorized police searches because he had not read it closely before signing on. 

“I made a mistake,” Kline said. “I frankly should have vetted this more closely.” 

That lawmakers sponsor bills they haven’t read is common. Still, it’s disappointing on one of this political magnitude. Not counting a long table, it’s only an eight-page bill.

Mistake my arse.  This is exactly what the gun control crowd wants in their deepest, darkest wet dreams  - gun confiscation of scary "assault weapons," then registration and inspections  - first on "assault weapons," then on all other types of firearms.

The only mistake here is that someone actually read the bill before it was made law and saw what was in it. They would have pushed this through easily, riding on the backs of dead children in Connecticut every step of the way.

I don't know which is worse - the fact that we live in a country where our elected representatives feel emboldened to introduce such clearly unconstitutional legislation or that our elected officials often pass such legislation without even reading what's in it. And what's worse - we rareley hold them accountable.