Continuing to Be More Deadly Than the Gun

I have written multiple times about how much more deadly it is in going to the doctor or a hospital than it is in owning a gun. Just do a search of my blog and you will find out just how deadly the health care profession can be. More news in today of more damage done by a doctor

"An Ohio hospital says tests point to an anesthesiologist as the likely source of bacterial meningitis that infected two pregnant women, killing one of them." [link]

Once again one more reason why we should start banning physicians

"Smart" Gun Failure

From today's Gun Rights Examiner, Mr. C0drea looks at a possible failure of the so called "smart" gun.

Scary Proposal

"The law would regulate the storage, possession and sale of ammunition and require dealers to record each ammo sale and the caliber, make and model of the firearm for which the ammo purchase was made. Initially, the law had required the serial number of the firearm, but Steck removed that requirement from the legislation...

“I don’t think it’s an issue of gun control advocates versus gun enthusiasts,” the lawmaker added. “I’ve campaigned for public office many times. I’ve met many people who are gun owners in New York, and I’ve never encountered a one who feels oppressed by the existing gun control laws of New York..." [link]

It's not just gun control, it is just control. The more they go after rights the more obvious it becomes. Also would anyone like to make odds that the bold statement is a complete lie?

Taxpayer Money "Well Spent"!

“It’s a pretty good-looking group of citizens,” he said. “We didn’t expect any gangsters.”

Detective Bill Flannery, busy identifying the guns collected in Canoga Park, said he was surprised by “the number of guns that little old ladies are bringing in.” [link]

Did they really expect anything different? "Gangsters" realize they must use the gun as a means of intimidation.

Even one of their own replied they did not expect any "gangsters" to turn in guns. Aren't you glad that in the midst of this recession your tax dollars can be spent on things that help the community you live in? I sure am!

Misplaced Lies of the MSM Regarding Guns in Mexico

Geez...what a title for a post, anyway, had to get the point across, and on to today's Gun Rights Examiner Column!.

They Will Never Get It

"...The City of Chicago had suffered nearly twice as many fatalities as all American soldiers in Iraq over the same period...the City tallied over 500 homicides, 80 percent of which were caused by gunshot wounds. In total, the social costs of gun violence in Chicago are estimated at $2.5 billion. Despite the devastating impact on local communities, federal gun control has essentially been taken off the table as a valid issue due to concerns of its unpopularity in elections. To reinstate such an important and consequential dialogue, Democrats must re-frame gun control as a pro-security measure." [link]

I don't happen to see any mention anywhere in the article that gun ownership in Chicago is for all intents and purposes illegal. So wouldn't logic dictate that making something that is already illegal in an area illegal again have no effect, or would the double emphasis on being illegal make all the difference?

Also notice the strategy that has been put forth, that of "re-framing" the issue. I posted yesterday about the mastery of the left in using language as a means of winning support. They change the focus but everything else remains the same. This is a tactic that has worked for them in many areas and one that liberty and freedom minded people need to be more aware of if we wish to stop the encroachment of our liberties.

Dangerous Legislation: Goodbye Due Process

"A new gun law being considered in Congress, if aligned with Department of Homeland Security memos labeling everyday Americans as potential “threats,” could potentially deny firearms to pro-lifers, gun-rights advocates, tax protesters, animal rights activists, and a host of others – any already on the expansive DHS watch list for potential “extremism.”

Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., has sponsored H.R. 2159...permits the attorney general to deny transfer of a firearm to any “known or suspected dangerous terrorist.” The bill requires only that the potential firearm transferee is “appropriately suspected”...

Gun rights advocates, however, object to the bill’s language, arguing that it enables the federal government to suspend a person’s Second Amendment rights without any trial or legal proof and only upon suspicion of being “dangerous.” [link]

This should scare the pants off anyone. Just imagine the government being allowed to curtail rights based on legislation that is based on loose interpretations. I am all for not letting known terrorist own weapons, the question needs to be asked though, if they are a known terrorist what are they doing running around free?

When you try to pass legislation based on fear you get..."The Patriot Act" (anything but), the massive "porkulus" bill, the bailout (can you say bankruptcy for 2 of the Big 3). These actions make no sense to start with, but start talking doom and gloom and straight to the presidents desk for the signature.

More Spin From the Violence Policy Center

"The Violence Policy Center says each of the states with a high death rate has lax gun laws and higher gun ownership rates. The report defined states with "weak" gun laws as those that add little or nothing to federal restrictions and have permissive laws allowing civilians to carry concealed handguns." [link]

So I am assuming by this logic, that Washington DC should have virtually no gun related deaths? Right... [go here]. I wouldn't trust the VPC as far as I could throw them.

How then would they rank Vermont where any law abiding citizen may carry concealed without a permit, training, etc...they actually rated Vermont in their 1996 study 38th with only 5 homicides which correlates to a rate of .89 per 100,000 for that state in 1996.

They also fail to mention that the national average has dropped even thought more states have adopted concealed carry laws and relaxed federal firearm laws. In fact according to the article national gun related deaths are 10.3 per 100,000, while in 1996 according to a VPC report they were 12.94 per 100,000. How do they account for this? [source]

Powered by ScribeFire.

Gun Control Loopholes: From the Left's Point of View

"Modern government is not only a lawmaker. Indeed, the most effective executive powers may not derive from statutes at all. The government that President Obama oversees is also a gigantic, well-funded procurement agent. And it can—and should—use that power to change American gun policies."

You're right on one point at least. The most effective executive powers do not derive from statutes at all, they derive from the people. Remember that pesky "We the People" part of the Constitution?

"What is striking is that the government buys guns from manufacturers who also sell them to criminals—either knowingly or by willfully overlooking the behavior of the retail outlets that the gun companies use as their distribution system."

Really, where is your proof that gun manufacturers sell to criminals? Show me a bill of sale directly from a gun manufacturer to a known criminal. And I don't mean some private business owner that did not fill out or file a 4473 improperly, or one who was wrangled on a minor technicality by the BATFE.

"If President Obama wants to devise a creative way to limit gun violence, he will use his power as the world's largest consumer to require the cooperation of gun manufacturers. If government cannot legislate the conduct it wants, then it can use market power to buy it." [link]

Uh-Oh! You just let the cat out of the bag didn't you? Couldn't you have just said: If we can't get our way via legislation and with the consent of the people. We will just become tyrants and do as we please.

Now a few questions for you ex-Gov Spitzer and whoever you are Peter Pope. I guess that the soaring profits by both Smith & Wesson and Sturm, Ruger & Co. are not due to government buying up their supplies yet, is that correct? Hmmm, you mean private citizens are causing those increased profits? I am sure the government could waste more tax payer dollars to prove whatever it wants to prove though, right?

Also does this mean that the government shouldn't buy from itself? Here is a list of FBI agents who committed violent or criminal acts. So can the government still buy from these companies but not arm the FBI with those weapons?

Don't get me wrong I know that there is just a small percentage of law enforcement officers that are criminals. But just as that is the case the same is true of society in general. The vast majority of people are not criminals, it just takes a few bad apples to give them a bad name. So you are for punishing the many because of the actions of a few?

Some Thoughts on the 2nd Amendment

In studying the 2^nd Amendment and the history behind it, I as a pro-gun advocate have noticed several things, most of these have already been expounded upon in detail by other’s that support gun rights. I will merely mention them here as a background for this piece. The first one being that the people of the 2^nd Amendment are the same people as are referred to under the 1^st, 4^th, 5^th, 9^th, and 10^th Amendments. Each of these other amendments have been upheld by courts to apply to individual citizens. That means the 2^nd Amendment is not solely for the arming of an army and/or National Guard force(s).

Secondly the Constitution was written in plain English (for the day) and would have been meant to have been easily understood by the vast majority of colonists to whom it would have applied. In fact the Constitution was not only circulated to large cities, but also to smaller hamlets/towns/settlements so that the colonists could read (or have it read) and discuss whether to approve it or not. Let us also not forget that at this point and time a sizeable portion of the population had at least one firearm in their homes to supply food, and aid in the town/settlements defense (remember, Indian attacks were very common at this time). Hunting at this time was not a “sport”, but rather a way of survival for a large part of the population.

From here you should have gotten the general idea, but I have one other point that is very rarely mentioned, or even brought up. We have all heard by now about the militia of the day and how each and every able bodied man was expected to take parts in the routine drills/exercises enough to be familiar with how a group of men fought as a group (at least in the military philosophies of the day). Each man was expected to provide his own weapon, but if he could not then one would be supplied for him.

Here is where things start to get interesting. What type of weapon do you think those that could supply their own brought along, a smooth-bore musket or a rifle? The vast majority showed up to these exercises with rifles, because the smooth-bore musket was not practical for everyday colonial life. The smooth-bore was the choice of the military because with large amounts of troops it was easier to reload and fire volleys than was the rifle. However, it was severely inaccurate as compared to the rifle. Hence a case could be made that the rifle in a way was far superior to the smooth-bore that was in common military usage. Therefore the founders by their wording of the 2^nd Amendment intended for the people to be able to arm themselves with firearms superior to those of the modern military, at least as far as accuracy is concerned.

More Hoplophobia

Hoplophobia: A term coined by Jeff Cooper to describe someone who has an irrational fear of firearms.

"An apparent organized flexing of Second Amendment rights last weekend was a bit too Wild West for some local citizens and business owners.

Police and deputies responded to a number of complaints about citizens packing sidearms at restaurants, stores and other public areas.

None of the gun carriers was cited." [link]

Notice once again the gun-grabber use of the "Wild West" fallacy. It is interesting to note that several people were approached by the police in several different areas, and guess what? Not one of them was a criminal or doing anything against the law. Even more surprising was not one of these law abiding gun owners later that day turned criminal and hurt anyone with their firearm. A bit later in the article we get this wonderful bit of "wisdom":

"Stellingworth and Undersheriff Thomas Finco said that citizens who exercise the right to carry guns openly should realize it alarms the public and police."

You know what, it doesn't matter! It alarms gun owners when others try to infringe on our rights. It alarms Americans when we hear report after report of police officers acting like criminals (see all these reports by David Codrea). It alarms the public when we, as American citizens are labeled as potential terrorists (MIAC, DHS Report, Virginia Police Report).

Certain people need to understand those that support personal responsibility, the United States Constitution, freedom, and liberty, are rarely those that you need to be afraid of, or alarmed about. If you want to know who to be alarmed about try turning on the T.V. and see what Congress is up to, pick up a newspaper and see what your elected officials are doing. Leave those of us that mind our own business and live our lives as we see fit alone.

When Seconds Count

"I may get killed with my own gun, but he's gonna have to beat me to death with it, 'cause it's going to be empty." --Clint Smith

Excellent Gun Rights Examiner column today. Go here to read it yourself.

Maybe If We Tell The Same Lie Often Enough...

"Mexican President Felipe Calderon on Wednesday made an assertion -- cited in the past by Mexico's U.S. ambassador and even by U.S. leaders, but debunked as a myth -- that 90 percent of the weapons intercepted in Mexico come from the U.S." [link]

How often will this evident lie continue to be promulgated as fact! Evidently they are working on the assertion that if you quote the exact same lie often enough over time, people will start to believe it. So what needs to be done, is to counteract this lie every time we see it with the truth to set the record straight. When those that continue to attempt to spread this lie start looking like the complete fools that we know they are then part of our job will be complete.

Lying Piece of Excrement

"Auturo Sarukhan, the Mexican ambassador to the United States, repeated and defended his claim that 90 percent of the weapons intercepted in Mexico come from the U.S.

During an appearance on CBS' "Face the Nation" Sunday, Sarukhan said on the Arizona and Texas borders with Mexico alone, roughly 7,000 licenses for federal firearms had been granted.

"And a lot of the weapons that are being bought by the drug syndicates, either directly or through proxy purchases, are coming from those gun shops," he said." [link]

What do you reckon this lying piece of dog excrement has to gain from this? Prove your claim, or keep your mouth shut. The evidence is against you. Mexican drug cartels are not arming themselves with semi-auto configurations. They are going full auto, explosive, rocket launcher, etc... You just can't buy these items at your friendly neighborhood gun store.

Skip That Doctors Appointment, Buy a Gun Instead

"We have 32 people being murdered by guns every day in this country," said Michael Wolkowitz, a board member of the Brady Center, which lobbies for tighter gun restrictions. "If peanut butter or pistachio nuts or spinach killed that number of people once in one day, they'd be pulled by the [Food and Drug Administration]." [link]

Ok, Mr. Wolkowitz, let's look at your "logic" in two parts. Part I: If there are 32 murders a day that comes to the unfortunate total of 11,680 people a year murdered by guns in the United States. Unfortunately murderers are criminals and by definition criminals will not follow the laws. They will find a way around any and all gun control regulations, as they do already. So that statistic is irrelevant.

Let's look at the the second part of your statement. Part II: I am assuming that by using the word "pulled" you mean banned, regulated, restricted, etc...such as you would like to see with firearms. Well we can look at other things that cause more than 11680 deaths per year in the United States and see how hard they are to come by.

Wait a minute, how about if I can show you something that is responsible for roughly 225,000 deaths per year, but when I pick up my phone book is far more prevalent than gun stores, firearms, or sporting goods in the yellow pages. How about physicians! Yes believe it or not physicians and the health care establishment as a whole are the third leading leading cause of death in the United States behind cancer and heart disease. [source]

Yet I can go see a doctor anytime I want to. How come they are still allowed to practice? Why aren't they being "pulled" by a government agency? Go spread your lies and your untruths elsewhere.

As for me, I have a cough and a sniffle, but for some reason I think I will head to the range now instead of the doctor...

The Police Will Protect You.

"...DeLucia called police after being shot along with another receptionist who was killed...DeLucia, 61, stayed on the phone for 38 minutes, guiding police and trying to provide them with information to prevent more people from being shot." [link]

So with multiple shots fired there is still a response time of 38 minutes give or take? Isn't one of the arguments of gun-grabbers the police will protect you?

More on Canadian Gun Control

The other day I wrote a post about Canada looking at ending their long gun registry. We now have some more news from our neighbors to the north...

"It should be a no-brainer.

The registry of long guns in Canada, that has cost the country over $2 billion with little or no effect on shootings, accidental or otherwise, should never have been implemented.

Why no federal government (until now) has moved to disband the whole thing stands as testimony to the hesitancy if not cowardice of politicians... Of all homicides, 2.3% have been committed with registered guns. Hand guns are the weapon of choice for criminals. And they've been registered in Canada since 1934, with legal ownership further restricted since 1968. Yet the percentage of their use in crimes hasn't varied much over the years." [link]

Looks like gun control hasn't worked up there. Seems the only thing it might do is prevent law abiding people from protecting themselves, and their loved ones.

Canada Looks at Ending Gun Control

"The federal government introduced a bill in the Senate on Wednesday to abolish the long-gun registry.

"It's totally inefficient and ineffective against crime," Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan, told reporters on Parliament Hill." [link]

"For years now researchers at places like the American CDC, for instance, have found absolutely no evidence to suggest that gun control is at all tied to reductions in crime rates. Gun control isn’t about safety or crime. It’s about, well, control." [link]

Well it seems that our northern neighbors (at least a few of them) are starting to get it. Wonder how long it will take for the rest of America to understand as well.

Technorati Tags: Firearms, Freedom, 2nd Amendment, RKBA, Gun Control, Liberty, News

Powered by ScribeFire.

Gun Free Zones (Not Applicable to Criminals)

If Gun Free Zones are supposedly so "safe" how can you explain how these things happened within 1000 yards of a campus, or a so called "Gun Free Zone"?

"On 3/16/09 at about 12:00 AM, an armed robbery occurred on Third Street near Spring Street....On 03/16/2009 at approximately 12:30 AM, a Georgia Tech student was robbed at gunpoint on...On 03/14/2009 at 4:30 AM, a Georgia Tech student was robbed at gunpoint...On 03/16/2009 at 11:50 PM, a Georgia Tech student and his wife were robbed at gunpoint...

Experience demonstrates that the law does not deter criminals from using firearms. The only known result of the "school safety zone" law is to make it known to predators in Atlanta that there are "easy pickings" in and around college campuses, since students, faculty, and law-abiding visitors scrupulously obey the "school safety zone" law and disarm." [link]

You would think by now everyone would begin to understand criminals don't care about what the law says. All you do is force a law abiding person to either give up their right to defend themselves, or force them to break the law by deciding it is in their best interest to be armed regardless of the law for their own protection.

More About Democrats and Their Fear of Guns

"ORANGE PARK – Got Guns?

That’s what a Clay County Republican Party flier promoting a "2nd Amendment Day" in April asks all who pick it up.

County GOP Chairman Leslie Dougher says the party is reacting to growing concerns among its members that President Barack Obama may try to limit gun ownership, particularly handguns.

Not everyone thinks the idea of increasing gun ownership is a good idea. Any effort to put more guns on the street is wrong headed, says the head of the Clay County Democratic Party.

"There are too many guns," said Thomas Nazworth, Democratic Party chairman. "You’ve already got every right to defend yourself in your home. What is this going to be the wild, wild west where everybody has got sidearms? That is not answer." [link]

Haven't they tried the "wild west" argument in the past? Didn't really pan out for them though did it, considering there is usually a drop in violent crime in states that pass concealed carry laws. I do agree that is not a good idea to put "more guns on the street", they may get run over, you could mar the finish, scratch the wood, put them in contact with corrosive road flotsam and jetsam, etc...

Also, isn't it funny that a lot of gun owners are labeled as "bitter clingers". Yet Democrats have been "bitterly clinging" to this "wild west" argument for years.