tsk tsk tsk

Since my political beliefs are broad spectrum, I find the current consternation by the anti-gun gun crowd interesting… they are upset that the four gun control measure failed in the senate today. Now, we are talking about a population that is all about rights and civil liberties.

These same liberties include the premise that one is innocent until proven guilty.

 

Enter the crowds pushing for rumors to equate a criminal conviction… ask any vet is they have seen careers destroyed by unfounded rumors or not. So you are going to take away a popular right, based on a rumor?

Tell me that that feels good and why generations of solders put their lives on the line… Between this and the Muslim fear mongering of the Right, it sure reminds me of the McCarthy era.

 

Here they call for shaming of those that chose to stand on American judicial principles if nothing else… I think the shame is being misdirected. Shame should fall to those that want to make take away our founding principles. Closer and closer to the tipping point we go.

Guns and Society – Where are we and why?

One of my friends had a post on Facebook that I found quite interesting. This is a guest author piece by Chris Larsen.

 

Is it really this hard to understand that the reason most law-abiding citizens want a firearm that can hold 30 rounds is because it’s their right…..and why is it their right? Because our founding fathers knew that governments can get too big for their britches and, should something happen that requires the people within its borders to protect themselves….from without or within…they wanted to ensure we would have a way to do so. A rifle or firearm with only a few rounds would never hold up against military owned automatics. Do people not get that defending yourself against your own government could be a very real possibility no matter what year it is?
I don’t offer a plan to “fix” anything, I’m not going to get into a debate about why guns shouldn’t be taken away…hell, I don’t even own a gun, but there are very real reasons that people want them and the number of rounds they can hold, and it’s not to hunt and it’s not for play.
If you think the government can protect us, do no wrong or otherwise has our best interests at heart, explain how a criminal with well over 35 scandals associated with her has had evidence of many wrongdoings and is still running for the highest office in our nation? Or maybe you can explain why the presumptive Republican nominee is worried about being ousted by the leaders of his political party after their people voted for him? No? It means that the government DOES NOT have OUR interests at heart. No I’m not a Trump or Bernie supporter, I’m not left, I’m not right, I’m logical, pragmatic and use common sense.
Yes guns can be dangerous, yes they can be portable devices filled with death and violence in the wrong hands, but there are so many real positive uses to them as well and it’s not like our gun dealers will have clairvoyance and know when someone has violence in their heart. Just take them away then? No…see above.
Hell, guns have made it so everyone can sit here and argue about whether they’re worthwhile or not today….without them, where would we be? Answer: We wouldn’t. Why? Because we wouldn’t have been able to overthrow the tyrannical government that was making it so hard for our forefathers to live and thrive.

One school shooting you WON’T see on the national stage or in the media.

The best way to deal with a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun.

http://bearingarms.com/good-guy-with-a-gun-armed-school-officer-stopped-arapahoe/

 

So why won’t the media give praise to this officer, when they are more than willing to condemn gun owners for one persons actions when it isn’t stopped quickly?

Why must someone be prosecuted?

We see too much gun violence thanks to the media’s drive for these stories…

They make good ratings, what will they do when people stop getting shot? Oh wait, people will always be shot or killed in some fashion since people are unable to respect the rights of others.

Before I start, I am sorry that a young woman lost her life, and the hell her family and friends are suffering…

We have another case where the community wants the white guy prosecuted for the death of a non-white.

 

  • Why was the 19 year old out and about at 3:40am?
  • Was this girl one of the only teens without a cell phone?
  • can a citizen racially profile, or is that just a legal term that deals with law enforcement/security/TSA?
  • Common sense tells us that we do not approach houses in the middle of the night (especially in rougher areas).
  • What was her blood alcohol content?

The shooter says that he did not see her face and if that is true… then it is hard for it to be racially motivated.

There were claims that she was shot while leaving the porch, which is false per the police statement.

 

So where does that leave us, other than having a dead woman?

Was the homeowner within his rights? We don’t know, as it is too soon to tell.

Was she pounding on his door, giving him the belief that she was trying to break the door down? At that time of the night, a sleeping person could think so. Since he lived alone, he wasn’t expecting anyone.

Should he be charged? Again, it is too soon to tell. With what little I have in front of me, I am inclined to say no.

I do not see anything compelling me to believe that a crime has been committed. I also do not know if this is a rough area or not as I have not been there. Perhaps one of our readers can shed some light on this for us.

 

States and Nullification of Enforcement of Federal Laws

Does anyone else see this trend of states getting fed up with the federal government and enacting legislation (or coming close to anyway) that nullifies federal laws?

I find it interesting but a little unnerving.

Does this bring us closer to my concerns of civil unrest or rebellion?

  • More than a dozen state may be nullifying Obama Care
  • Missouri – The governor has a bill to consider nullification of federal gun laws
  • Kansas (and others)- passed a law that guns made and owned in Kansas were exempt from federal firearms laws
  • Washington and Colorado legalized recreational marijuana possession and use.
  • Washington legalizes gay marriage
  • Pennsylvania –  may be nullifying federal bans on some weapons and ammunition
  • or even the opposite, states try to help the feds by trying to enforce voting or immigration law and the feds can’t permit THAT.

I am sure that there are other examples.

So if states won’t enforce the federal laws, then I guess the feds will have to ramp up their staffing to be able to enforce their own laws.. What a concept.

At some point, the federal government went feral and now the states have decided that they need to take back some of their domain.

Do we see an end to this? What other areas will states start to take back?

How will the feds compensate for their losses in power?
The federal government need to constrict its size and power.

Will they have a flippin’ temper tantrum and over-react?

.

Ultra-Violet emailed me…

Okay, due to my broad political spectrum I am on lists from the uber-liberal to the soulless (and by soulless, I am referring to those FAR more to the right than anyone here) right.

Today I received one from Ultra-Violet that made me laugh and wish that I had more disposable income. I would rather buy one of these targets than sign their whiny-assed petition.

Their text is as follows:

A shooting target mannequin named the “The Ex,” a large-breasted woman who bleeds when shot, is being sold on Amazon.com. It’s manufactured by Zombie Industries, a company that was featured at the NRA convention last weekend.

Let’s review the facts: 57% of mass shootings involve incidents of domestic violence.1 The presence of a gun in a domestic violence situation increases the chance that a woman will be murdered by 500%.2 54% of women killed with guns are killed by intimate partners or family members.3 Gun violence against women is a serious problem.

But “The Ex” shooting target turns violence against women into a joke and promotes the idea that men should want to kill their ex-wives or ex-girlfriends. The sole Amazon.com review says, “This was a very original, cool way to kick off a bachelor party for a firearm enthusiast, such as myself.”4

Amazon.com recently came under fire for selling t-shirts that advocated for rape and domestic violence.5 After all that bad publicity, they won’t want to look like they’s promoting violence against women again. Zombie Industries has already had to pull a mannequin target that resembled President Obama,6 so they are definitely attracting media attention right now–and it’s just the kind of bad press Amazon doesn’t want. If we all speak up about this horrible “Ex” target we can get Amazon to do the right thing and stop carrying this dangerous product.

Add your name to the petition.

Violence against women may be a joke to the guys at Zombie Industries, but it’s life and death for thousands of women every day. Women in the U.S. are 11 times more likely to be killed with a gun than their counterparts in other high-income countries.7

Guns also quickly escalate domestic violence situations. As Kelly Starr of the Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence told NBC’s Brian Williams, “When there is a gun around is when we see domestic violence turn to murder.”8

And it’s not just in domestic violence situations where women are threatened with guns. 1 in 5 stalkers will threaten their victims with a weapon, and 78% of stalking victims are women.9

Zombie Industries crossed a line when they started making “The Ex” shooting target. Making light of violence against women is unacceptable, and Amazon.com shouldn’t be selling products that promote violence against women. If Amazon pulls “The Ex” shooting target, it will send a clear message that this won’t be tolerated in the mainstream.

Sign the petition. [I will certainly not stop their rights to petition whomever they want]

Thanks for speaking out,

Yes, I am speaking out… against Ultra-Violet. Get a grip, there is humor in life and sometimes in death.

If I were to choose to call my target, “The Ex”, it is well within my fucking rights to free speech! If I wanted to call it “Speaker of the House” or “Mr. President” it would STILL be within my rights.

I am still friends with my ex, so I would not use it in THAT context.

As to the claim of mass shootings, how do they define mass shootings? I did not see that cited in the article that they referenced from MayorsAgainstIllegalGuns.org.  I have a problem with illegals guns as well, but I also have a problem with illegals with guns…  I have plenty of problems many of them revolve around stupid laws, or the failure to enforce the laws that aren’t stupid.

I was behind Ultra-Violet on the Stubinville case, but with this one, I am on the opposite side.

How close are we?

As we saw demonstrations in 49 state capitols, do you think that the politicians took note?

Do you think that they will just dig deeper into their party lines and not get any where?

Perhaps they will pass some pusstastic legislation that will not make anyone happy…

 

This brings us to a discussion that we have had before. How close are we to seeing assassination attempts? At what point will we start to took more for revolution? (if anyone has the balls left for THAT kind of action)

Wal-mart; Knuckling under to political pressure, or a convenient excuse for desired policy changes?

By Eyes_Open

I have confirmed with other sources, Wal-mart is suspending ALL orders of ammo and firearms to their stores that carry these items, pending the final wording of the “Federal Gun Control Act” which is now in the hands of President Obama. Is this the beginning of, or escalation of, governmental control of the market? Or the next step in controlling arms to the public? Or both? Or is it just an excuse for Wal-mart to do what it may have wanted to do all along, but couldn’t because of customer pressure?

http://investmentwatchblog.com/breaking-confirmed-wal-mart-is-not-going-to-order-any-more-ammo/

Publication of a Gun/Gun Permit map?

What makes a publication think that they will get away with publishing a map of gun permits or gun transactions?

Oh wait, I know what it is, it is money. It is the fact that they don’t give a flying fuck about the people, they care about ratings.

Think of how much you would like it if your neighbor put up a sign that let the world know that you do not have weapons in your home, but they do.

Would that make you feel nice and secure? Why give the criminals a clue as to what houses to burgle and which to leave alone.

Do you want to see how fast the gun owners will reports their weapons stolen, or sold?

 

Should this FOIA request been denied? Other jurisdictions said that it was not in the public’s best interest to have access to this information.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/25/us/new-york-gun-permit-map/index.html