Showing posts with label gun control. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gun control. Show all posts

Friday, July 20, 2012

Colorado Shooting: Follow-up

I don't want to really get into this because mostly I don't want to be someone that exploits a tragedy.  Our opponents do that.

In fact, here's a few examples from twitter. Calling for Gun-Control on Twitter.

The best thing I heard on this horrific tragedy, so far is this “Others may blame Hollywood. In both cases, it’s a mix of opportunism and a desire not to confront the existence of evil.” READ MORE>>>


If you really desire to envelop yourself in the details read to your heart's content:

Cinema Shooting, Theatre was "gun free zone"

I don't have time to write too much more, but apparently Cinemark (the parent company) has a no guns policy.

Cinemark has No Guns Policy

John Lott likewise has confirmed this.
Private business owners who invite the public onto their own premises can set their own policies: “Nothing in this part 2 [establishing the scope and limits of a Colorado concealed carry permit] shall be construed to limit, restrict, or prohibit in any manner the existing rights of a private property owner, private tenant, private employer, or private business entity.” Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 18-12-214(5). Source.

Sunday, July 15, 2012

NYC Cop Steals PD Guns For Illegal Arms Ring

Here's a story you probably won't hear too much about on the mainstream news outlets. The NYPD officer allegedly stole 10 guns from the precinct over a 2 month period.
 An NYPD officer has been arrested in connection with a months-long firearms trafficking investigation after he allegedly stole guns from his precinct to be sold on the street and arranged drug buys while on duty, authorities said.
Nicholas Mina was arrested late Thursday and charged with conspiracy, grand larceny and sale of a firearm, among other crimes.  Information on an attorney wasn't immediately available. He and four co-conspirators who were also arrested were scheduled to be arraigned Friday.
Authorities say the group allegedly trafficked at least 10 guns over a two-month period. The alleged ringleader of the group, Ivan Chavez, is accused of procuring firearms from various sources and removing serial numbers before selling them, prosecutors said. READ MORE>>>>

The mainstream media and the anti-freedom folks would have you believe that if only cops had guns we'd all be safe and criminals would have no way to get firearms.  This story (I'm sure there are many more like it ... ahem... Fast & Furious) illustrate why gun control doesn't work.  Criminals will find a way to get the guns they want, and law-abiding citizens will obey the law and be at a disadvantage at their attacker's mercy.

Thursday, November 19, 2009

Attorney General Holder Reveals Aggressive Gun Control In Response to Ft.

Brought to my attention by Mark Vanderberg of The Gun Rights Advocates Podcast.
Attorney General Holder Reveals Aggressive Gun Control In Response to Ft. [Hood Shooting]

It starts. Who was it that said "Never waste a crisis..."

Does anyone else see the contradictions here?
Attorney General Eric Holder defended his decision to give foreign national terrorists the same protections afforded to American citizens by giving them a civilian jury trial. Yet, he wishes to limit the rights of law-abiding citizens and even prohibit as many as 400,000 people from owning firearms based because they happen to be on a secret government watch list.

His two preliminary suggestions (and I say preliminary because anyone that thinks he will stop at these two is a fool) include:

  • Holder wants a national, permanent gun registration system administered by law enforcement. A registration of honest citizens that have cleared the federal background check for gun purchases with those records permanently retained by and shared among law enforcement.
  • Holder wants new federal authority to prohibit any person on the federal watch list (reported to be 400,000 names) from buying guns and supports confiscating guns from those on the list who possess them.
Now more than ever we need to be praying for our nation.

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

VP's Car Kills Pedestrian

Vice President Joe Biden's Secret Service vehicle struck a pedestrian early this morning. The pedestrian was taken to Prince George's Hospital and died shortly thereafter. The Vice President was not in the vehicle at the time of the accident, and the name of the pedestrian has not been released. READMORE>>

One thing's for sure. If this administration is foolish enough to push for more restrictive laws on firearms, I can guarantee we'll see an old bumper sticker reworked...
"Joe Biden's Car Killed More People Than My Gun."

Monday, April 27, 2009

Italian Cruise Ship: 1 Pirates: 0

I guess Larry Pratt was right.



Italian Cruise Ship Fires on Pirates
ROME — An Italian cruise ship with 1,500 people on board fended off a pirate attack far off the coast of Somalia when its Israeli private security forces exchanged fire with the bandits and drove them away, the commander said Sunday. READ MORE>>

Wednesday, April 22, 2009

Top 40 Reasons to Support Gun Control

Massive props to Derek Clark at Geek Politics & Michael Z. Williamson.

1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, and Chicago cops need guns.

2. Washington DC’s low murder rate of 80.6 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Arlington, VA’s high murder rate of 1.6 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.

3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are “just statistics.”

4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect in 1994, are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates, which have been declining since 1991.

5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.

6. The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.

7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.

8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.

9. When confronted by violent criminals, you should “put up no defense — give them what they want, or run” (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields, Guns Don’t Die - People Do, 1981, p. 125).

10. The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns; just like Guns and Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.

11. One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seatbelts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for spinal paralysis, a computer programmer for Y2K problems, and Sarah Brady [or Sheena Duncan, Adele Kirsten, Peter Storey, etc.] for firearms expertise.

12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1791, refers to the National Guard, which was created by an act of Congress in 1903.

13. The National Guard, funded by the federal government, occupying property leased to the federal government, using weapons owned by the federal government, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a state militia.

14. These phrases,” right of the people peaceably to assemble,” “right of the people to be secure in their homes,” “enumeration’s herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people,” and “The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people,” all refer to individuals, but “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” refers to the state.

15. We don’t need guns against an oppressive government, because the Constitution has internal safeguards, but we should ban and seize all guns, thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th amendments to that Constitution.

16. Rifles and handguns aren’t necessary to national defense, which is why the army has millions of them.

17. Private citizens shouldn’t have handguns, because they serve no military purpose, and private citizens shouldn’t have “assault rifles,” because they are military weapons.

18. The ready availability of guns today, with waiting periods, background checks, fingerprinting, government forms, et cetera, is responsible for recent school shootings,compared to the lack of school shootings in the 40’s, 50’s and 60’s, which resulted from the availability of guns at hardware stores, surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, mail order, et cetera.

19. The NRA’s attempt to run a “don’t touch” campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, and the anti-gun lobby’s attempt to run a “don’t touch” campaign is responsible social activity.

20. Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.

21. A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.

22. Women are just as intelligent and capable as men but a woman with a gun is “an accident waiting to happen” and gun makers’ advertisements aimed at women are “preying on their fears.”

23. Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.

24. Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.

25. A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population supported owning slaves.

26. A self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be a “weapon of mass destruction” or an “assault weapon.”

27. Most people can’t be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.

28. The right of online pornographers to exist cannot be questioned because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the use of handguns for self defense is not really protected by the Bill of Rights.

29. Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self-defense only justifies bare hands.

30. The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other parts of the Constitution.

31. Charlton Heston as president of the NRA is a shill who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.

32. Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger capacity pistol magazines than do “civilians” who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.

33. We should ban “Saturday Night Specials” and other inexpensive guns because it’s not fair that poor people have access to guns too.

34. Police officers, who qualify with their duty weapons once or twice a year, have some special Jedi-like mastery over handguns that private citizens can never hope to obtain.

35. Private citizens don’t need a gun for self-protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.

36. Citizens don’t need to carry a gun for personal protection but police chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a building filled with cops, need a gun.

37. “Assault weapons” have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people, which is why the police need them but “civilians” do not.

38. When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft preferential promotion, that’s bad; but when the Federal government pressures cities to buy guns only from Smith & Wesson, that’s good.

39. Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their duty weapon.

40. When Handgun Control, Inc., says they want to “keep guns out of the wrong hands,” they don’t mean you. Really.

This list was composed from an article by Michael Z. Williamson.

Monday, April 20, 2009

PA Gov Double-Speak

Our wonderfully naive governor is apparently an expert at Orwellian double-speak. He's been in the news as of late showing his 'support' of the Law Enforcement community by pushing to make their civilian firearms illegal.

In a clever bit of double-speak.
CNBC: Assault Weapons 'Nuts' for Ordinary Citizens: Governor
"Assault weapons are difficult to operate, they jam easily. If you want a gun to protect your home it’s the last thing you should have." . . .
"These weapons have one purpose," added Rendell. "...They’re to kill and to maim, and they shouldn’t be in the hands of anyone else but the police and the military."
Now I'm a bit confused, maybe our governor can explain how this makes sense. 'Assault weapons' are poor choices for home defense weapons, but they should be used by the police and military?

Gov. Rendell, I thought you said you supported the police!

Now you want them to use weapons that are difficult to operate and jam easily?

And you say that these weapon's only purpose is to kill and maim but the police and military should have them, so are you saying that our police aim to kill and maim people?

This guy makes me ashamed to be called Pennsylvanian... when's his term up?

Saturday, April 11, 2009

Commentary on 20/20's "Guns in America"

First, I'd like to apologize in advance because I forgot to set the VCR to tape 20/20 so I could see it later.

You see, like many Americans I have a life outside of network television schedules. I was just at a very sobering Good Friday church service, stayed later to help set up our church meeting hall for our annual Easter Pancake breakfast (to benefit The Voice of the Martyrs), and subsequently hung out with some of my friends afterwards.

However, I've been getting caught up on the episode. I've watched all of the clips on their website, but I haven't yet found a complete version of the episode.

  • The first segment: Can You Defend Yourself with a Gun?
Providing that I've seen the entire segment, this bit doesn't bring anything new to the table it just confirms what gun owners and concealed carry practitioners already know. The stress of a real encounter changes everything, and the best way to prepare is to TRAIN, TRAIN, TRAIN!

However,
I'm not sure if the average non-gun owner would get the same out of the segment. Perhaps they would feel that since even 'experienced' gun 0wners didn't meet the standard and stop the attack, then why take the risk of allowing people to carry guns?

All in all, the segment wasn't very anti-gun. It was more pro-training. I'll give it a rating of 0. (-1 negative, +1 positive, +0 neutral).
  • The next segment: When Older Kids Find Guns
This segment was perhaps one of the most shocking. It starts with a child going with a father to shoot automatic weapons. (Which they fail to mention are severely restricted.)

They segue into a story about a child that was similarly shooting an UZI (under the 'supervision'-I say 'supervision' because if the child was truly supervised he wouldn't have lost control of the weapon and shot himself-of a Law Enforcement Officer IIRC) and ends up shooting himself. Accidents due to neglect are very common. I suspect that if 20/20 exercised their investigative prowess and did an exposé on power tools and child accidents, they'd find many more stories about children being injured and killed due to a lack of supervision and proper instruction than they would for guns. -1 for that.

They also show a lot of old footage they shot 10 years ago when they placed 'deactivated' handguns into a toy box at a day care or something and showed kids picking up the weapons and playing with them, like well like kids often do. Moral of the story, don't store your guns in your child's toy box and teach them proper gun safety (i.e. the four rules).

In the next segment, they set up a garage filled with junk and post an ad looking for older teens/college age people to pack up the garage for extra cash. They've hidden two guns (both 'deactivated') in a drawer and video tape the results. The first two people come across the guns and after first being shocked decide to just dump the contents of the drawer (guns and all) in a moving box. Honestly, it was kinda funny. The narrator says, "Afterwards, they were embarrased that that gun could've gone off." -1 for perpetuating the myth that guns routinely 'go off' without pulling the trigger. The truth is that yes, guns can go off if dropped or mishandled (even without pulling the trigger), but this is such a rare occurance that the firearm must either be malfunctioning; extremely old; or very unlucky. Modern firearms (certainly the Glock and S&W revolver) that they show wouldn't go off if dropped or mishandled without something being mechanically wrong with them. (Revolver Drop Test-Dept. of Justice)

Next, they show another two people who find the guns. They even comment "you just put your prints all over it...", and proceed to wipe off their fingerprints. This only proves the point that too many of today's youth 'know' more about firearms from television and movies (after all, why would your 'prints' matter if the gun was never used in a crime?) than from truthful instruction and proper safety training. The very fact that these two are concerned about their prints implies that they expect that the gun was or will be used in a crime, another common myth. -1 but +1 since 20/20 isn't fully responsible for this myth being perpetrated.

All in all,
20/20 reveals that of the 20 or so groups that had come to 'clean' the garage only 3 had contacted the owners and not handled the firearms. This is a sad revelation about today's youth and specifically their opinions and understaning of firearms. However, I feel this is more due to the constant vilification of firearms and lack of actual understanding of them. Ask yourself this: When did you receive proper instruction on firearm safety?

If you're one of the few that did then you can guess it probably wasn't in the public school; you probably have a friend or family member that's a gun owner that taught you about proper gun safety; and you didn't learn it from television, the movies, and certainly not the news.

  • The next segment: Damon Weaver's Plea to Obama

In the next segment, 20/20 talks with a Florida child (Damon Weaver) who lives in Pahokee and has first hand witnessed and experienced gang related violence. This is indeed a sad tale and a tale that is far too common in America. However, this story actually acts to further demonstrate that gun control is not the answer to stopping crime. Violent gangs, like the ones shown, often get guns via any number of illegal means, and are not stopped by the laws prohibiting them from aquiring; possessing; and using those guns to commit crimes. What manner of insanity makes one believe that further laws will stop crimes? +1 for showing the futility of gun control in preventing crime.

  • The next segment: 10 Guns in One Hour

This is perhaps meant to be the most damning attack on gun-related freedoms and deals heavily with the so called 'gun show loophole'. The 'gun show loophole' that is often referred to are regulations (or in some cases a lack of them) that allow individuals to sell guns privately (most often long guns such as rifles and shotguns) without requiring either party to undergo a federal NICS (National Instant Criminal Background Check System) like one is required to undergo if one purchases a firearm from a Federally Licensed Firearm Dealer (FFL). I've never had a problem with the 'gun show loophole' after all, that's how I got my first shotgun. My dad transfered it to me. I still have it today, and it's never been used in the commission of a crime.

On a side note, I will say that the NRA recieves a -1 for their lack of action in setting the record straight regarding the 'gun show loophole.' After all, they consider themselves America's strongest gun rights organization, but when given the chance to defend why it's wrong for our government to put an end to the private sale of firearms between law-abiding individuals they didn't even take the chance to state the facts.

One very revealing thing from this segment is this little quote:
ATF Agent, "...There's nothing illegal about their transactions..."

While I've only ever sold one firearm privately, and transfered the firearm at a local gunshop (to be in compliance with Pennsylvania law since it was a pistol), I'd still recommend that anyone conducting a private sale without the aid of a FFL at least require both parties to fill out and sign a basic firearms bill of sale. You can create one on a word processor and print it at home for use on private sales, it might be good to add a line for a witness name/signature/birthdate though.

Just live by the rule that if the party you're selling to or buying from doesn't want to fill out and sign the form then you probably shouldn't be buying from or selling to the individual.

  • The next segment: Shooting Under Fire

This last segment is nothing less than an attack on concealed carry. 20/20 shows more footage of their 'experiment' they did giving 'students' a minimal amount of training (basically showing them how to fire and possibly even unholster); a holster; a Glock equipped to fire simunition training ammunition; and some protective gear and then putting them in a realistic 'school shooting' situation to see how they'd react.

Their 'experiment' is very much like magically dropping a 16 year old child (that just received his driver's license) behind the wheel of an Indy car moving at 200+ mph during the Indy 500 and then acting shocked when the child crashes his 900 horse power behemoth injuring himself and others in the process.

The results of this segment aren't shocking at all. It should be no surprise that novices without training won't react well in live fire realistic high stress situations. Shooting at a hanging target is not the same as dealing with a simulated life or death defense situation.

Putting bullets in an X ring is not the same as moving, drawing, making judgement calls, and putting shots center mass on a bad guy that's also moving and shooting.

What angered me was the fact that they never even attempted to allow someone that held a license to carry concealed firearms attempt the test (let alone a police officer or tactical officer to compare/contrast the outcomes).

There are a few interesting things that you learn about this 'experiment:
  • The (bad guy) shooter is a formally trained law enforcement firearms instructor (very well experienced).
  • All of the 'experimenters' are untrained (in defensive shooting tactics).
  • 20/20 also never attempted to show variations e.g. not formally trained bad guy, using a properly trained individual as a concealed carry 'experiment'
  • The good guy had no choice with where to sit, and one wonders if the 'bad guy' actually knew the location of the good guy before entering the room.
In conclusion, take what you see on 20/20 (or any news program) with a large dose of salt. Yes, it's obvious that untrained individuals aren't adequately prepared for realistic defensive situations. However, one thing that wasn't mentioned in the 'experiment' was that even the apparent presence of opposition has the ability to stop the attack.

This is one of the main reasons why the training wasn't realistic. The offender was a firearms instructor that had full knowledge of the training exercise; he knew that he wouldn't be injured or killed and therefore had no issues with 'opposition'. Real people in real situations aren't devoid of the most basic human inclination--Self-preservation.

Would the Va. Tech shooter or the Columbine shooters have committed their atrocious murders if they felt there was real possiblity of meeting opposition? Who knows, but it's safe to say that it definitely would've changed their mindset perhaps even their mind before they decided to commit those crimes.

There's a very good reason why you don't see these shooting sprees at police stations, and it's not because people don't harbor ill feelings toward police officers.

Saturday, April 4, 2009

Guatemala to Further Limit Freedoms

This from InsideCostaRica.com: Guatemala Passes Gun Control Law
... the Guatemalan Congress approved the Weapon and Ammunition Control Law, considered essential to reduce violence.

The regulation reduces to one the four licenses previously granted to each citizen to buy armaments, and they are able now to buy three weapons instead of 12...

It also stipulated several requirements before granting the permit, including a clean criminal record and passing psychological assessment, income certification and proof of employment.

The legislation also set between five and 15 years of imprisonment for crimes like possession, export, import, or illegal sale of weapons and ammunitions...

Guatemalan President Alvaro Colom welcomed the approval of the law and called it an important instrument to fulfill the National Security Program, which will be signed by the three state powers on April 15.
READ MORE>>
Wow. Just wow, and those of you living in occupied America thought it was bad with your restrictions on .50BMG rifles and magazine limitations and Assault Weapons bans...

I will add that the stricter punishment on arms trafficking is good, even essential, but the 'income certification' and 'proof of employment' and even the 'psychological assessment' necessary to purchase and own one of their 3 firearms is a little too far.

Why after all, would there need to be an 'income certification' and 'proof of employment'? It appears at the surface that this rules out certain classes of people, i.e. the poor and unemployed.

I can only gather that part of this crack down on gun rights is a knee jerk reaction to the arms trafficking that constantly flows from Guatemala north into Mexico to provide arms for the cartel murderers.

Let's hope the people rally together and oppose this attack on their freedom to defend themselves.

NPR Report on Mexico Arms Trade

Props goes out to John Lott for this one.
I have previously linked to this Fox News story: "The Myth of 90 Percent: Only a Small Fraction of Guns in Mexico Come From U.S.."

Here is the way that NPR covered the issue...
Now mind you this was the April 3rd Edition... a few days after Fox News released their report finding that only 17% of guns used in crimes in Mexico come from the United States.

Wow, talk about a waste of money. Is there any doubt why 'Conservative' talk radio excels in so many ways (including daily listeners and money raised to support the station)? I'd never expect to hear this outright distortion of the truth on a real talk radio station.

I guess you get what you pay for and since the government pays for NPR you get a poor excuse for journalism.

Neighbors to the North Coming to their Senses?

In a recent article from Bismark North Dakota it seems that Canada may very well push legislation through that would repeal their 1995 registration of long-guns.
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.

“We believe the long-gun registry as a device simply does not work … It’s a misdirection of resources,” he said...

The bill has just been introduced in the Canadian Senate, and there’s a lot of opposition to it, but even so. That this is even on the agenda in Canada is surprising.

And the people behind it are right, too. 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. And people who just can’t stand the idea of their neighbors living freely....READ MORE>>
Unfortunately, the CBC has an article which puts an almost opposite spin on the issue citing a research poll that shows that 61-63% of Canadians think there should be higher restrictions on the ownership and sale of firearms.

We of course know that people never change their minds, always know all of the facts about any given issue, and can be always be trusted when they are the majority rule.

Let's hope and pray that freedom will once again reign in Canada.

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Fox News Calls Bull on Mexico Myth

Props to Fox News for doing their journalistic duty and shedding light on this Myth LIE that's been promulgated in the news media.

You've heard this shocking "fact" before -- on TV and radio, in newspapers, on the Internet and from the highest politicians in the land: 90 percent of the weapons used to commit crimes in Mexico come from the United States...

There's just one problem with the 90 percent "statistic" and it's a big one:

It's just not true.

In fact, it's not even close. The fact is, only 17 percent of guns found at Mexican crime scenes have been traced to the U.S.

What's true, an ATF spokeswoman told FOXNews.com, in a clarification of the statistic used by her own agency's assistant director, "is that over 90 percent of the traced firearms originate from the U.S."

This is something I've been saying for quite a while. Why would a monumentally powerful drug cartel try to aquire arms at great cost and risk (purchasing them in the U.S. and smuggling them across the Mexican border) when they could use other cost effective and reliable means?

The Fox News exclusive report breaks it down for those of us that can't fathom weapons coming from anywhere other than the U.S.
So, if not from the U.S., where do they come from? There are a variety of sources:

-- The Black Market. Mexico is a virtual arms bazaar, with fragmentation grenades from South Korea, AK-47s from China, and shoulder-fired rocket launchers from Spain, Israel and former Soviet bloc manufacturers.

-- Russian crime organizations. Interpol says Russian Mafia groups such as Poldolskaya and Moscow-based Solntsevskaya are actively trafficking drugs and arms in Mexico.

- South America. During the late 1990s, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) established a clandestine arms smuggling and drug trafficking partnership with the Tijuana cartel, according to the Federal Research Division report from the Library of Congress.

-- Asia. According to a 2006 Amnesty International Report, China has provided arms to countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Chinese assault weapons and Korean explosives have been recovered in Mexico.

-- The Mexican Army. More than 150,000 soldiers deserted in the last six years, according to Mexican Congressman Robert Badillo. Many took their weapons with them, including the standard issue M-16 assault rifle made in Belgium.

-- Guatemala. U.S. intelligence agencies say traffickers move immigrants, stolen cars, guns and drugs, including most of America's cocaine, along the porous Mexican-Guatemalan border. On March 27, La Hora, a Guatemalan newspaper, reported that police seized 500 grenades and a load of AK-47s on the border. Police say the cache was transported by a Mexican drug cartel operating out of Ixcan, a border town.

I think the old adage is of pertinence here, Believe half of what you see and none of what you hear.

Wednesday, March 4, 2009

South Africans Warn the U.S. Against Victim Disarmament



Props to Zaakir for bringing this to my attention.

Interesting quote from a spokesperson at Gun Free South Africa (the equivalent of the Brady Campaign here in the states)--I'm actually ashamed to even link them: "Our ultimate goal... is no guns in private hands at all... that's our long-term aim."

Gun-Control is less about the control of guns (and who owns them) and more about the control of people. After all, what idiot criminal would turn in his bread and butter?

If the Government doesn't trust us with our guns, why should we trust them with theirs? - Unknown

What are the illegal guns being obtained by Mexican drug gangs?

John Lott always has good material, but this post is extremely insightful especially in light of AG Eric Holder's statement.
"...there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons. I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum."
You should've known that the media wasn't telling you the WHOLE truth when you read stuff like "the Mexican army also seized 23 assault rifles, 20 handguns, 23 grenades, two grenade launchers, a rocket launcher..." (LA Herald Tribune).

Somebody please show me a gun store in the U.S. that sells grenades and grenade and rocket launchers.

It just doesn't make sense.

This isn't some piddly NYC gang, this is the Mexican Cartels--they're the Mexican Mafia.

Their power and influence is only dwarfed (slightly) by their government. Why bring a few guns (that would have to be illegally converted and cleaned of any identifying marks) across the U.S. border at great risk and cost when you could bring shipping containers of them into the ports from overseas at a much lesser risk and cost?

Don't believe the media when they say that the availability of American guns are fueling the Mexican arms trade and the cartel wars.

For the real story read John Lott's post.

Monday, January 19, 2009

Day Before "Change" DC Releases This

Props to The Countertop Chronicles for this.

After scanning through the District of Columbia's 13 page guide to regulations on how to legally own a firearm in the district, I have only one thing to say.

Lord, be merciful on us. Stay your hand, please.

Thursday, December 4, 2008

Mumbia Terrorism: Another Blow to "Gun Control"

I found this article on Media with a Conscience.

Mumbai and the Horror of Gun Control

Contrary to what some advocates of 'gun control' tell you, removing a right to defend oneself never makes one safer as we've witnessed in the recent terrorist attacks in Mumbai.

In the wake of the terrorist attack in Mumbai, I can already hear the U.S. gun-control crowd calling for new gun-control measures here in the United States. There will be several big problems with their pleas.

One, as an article in the International Herald Tribune points out, India has strict gun-control laws. Those laws did not prevent the terrorist attack at the Oberoi and Taj Mahal Palace and Tower hotel. As libertarians have long been pointing out, terrorists and murderers have no reservations about disobeying gun-control laws. The long-held assumption among the gun-control crowd that murderers and terrorists will respect and obey gun-control laws, even while having no reservations about violating laws against murder and terrorism, is ridiculous, as the Mumbai killings once again demonstrate. READ MORE>>>

The International Herald Tribune (referenced above) points out this simple fact, "Obtaining a license for even a single [security] officer to carry a gun is extremely difficult in India, which has tight gun control laws."

The author also points to the words of a photographer, Sebastian D'Souza, who recounts his experience during the attack.

But what angered Mr D'Souza almost as much were the masses of armed police hiding in the area who simply refused to shoot back. "There were armed policemen hiding all around the station but none of them did anything," he said. "At one point, I ran up to them and told them to use their weapons. I said, 'Shoot them, they're sitting ducks!' but they just didn't shoot back."
...
The militants returned inside the station and headed towards a rear exit towards Chowpatty Beach. Mr D'Souza added: "I told some policemen the gunmen had moved towards the rear of the station but they refused to follow them. What is the point if having policemen with guns if they refuse to use them? I only wish I had a gun rather than a camera."
Frankly, I think D'Souza isn't alone in his frustration.

Freedom loving individuals throughout the globe share similar sentiments.

When the police can't protect me, why am I forbidden from having the means to protect myself?

ShareThis