What a Tuel Posted June 30, 2016 Posted June 30, 2016 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/30/concealed-carrier-takes-down-shooter-at-south-caro/ Of course despite fitting their definition of a "mass shooting" they will claim this wasn't really a mass shooting, and probably blame the concealed carrier for endangering the lives of everyone around him.
KD in CA Posted July 1, 2016 Posted July 1, 2016 Meanwhile in CA...... http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-essential-politics-updates-gov-brown-signs-six-gun-control-bills-1467394282-htmlstory.html
IDBillzFan Posted July 1, 2016 Posted July 1, 2016 Meanwhile in CA...... http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-essential-politics-updates-gov-brown-signs-six-gun-control-bills-1467394282-htmlstory.html He will now be the champion of the gun control world for his aggressive steps to stop another San Bernardino. Except, of course, that none of those laws would have stopped San Bernardino, Orlando, or any other mass shooting. The only thing those laws do is give him superficial headlines, as well as kudos from the nutbag far left take-everyone's-guns crowd. Background check on ammo? Really? We already have background checks and waiting periods before you can get a gun. What precisely will the 'extra' background check accomplish if you're not going to also restrict the amount of ammo you're buying? Banning magazines with more than 10 rounds? Newsflash, dumbasses. You're already limited to 10 rounds in California. Is your plan to now go door to door and confiscate illegal magazines? Has there ever been a more embarrassing time to be a leftist? Ever?
/dev/null Posted July 2, 2016 Posted July 2, 2016 Banning magazines with more than 10 rounds? Newsflash, dumbasses. You're already limited to 10 rounds in California. Is your plan to now go door to door and confiscate illegal magazines? Baby steps
reddogblitz Posted July 2, 2016 Posted July 2, 2016 Meanwhile in CA...... http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-essential-politics-updates-gov-brown-signs-six-gun-control-bills-1467394282-htmlstory.html Sounds like common sense gun legislation.
IDBillzFan Posted July 2, 2016 Posted July 2, 2016 Sounds like common sense gun legislation. To the extent that it accomplishes what exactly?
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted July 2, 2016 Posted July 2, 2016 Sounds like common sense gun legislation. Common sense? Seriously? How about just enforce the damn laws already in the books. All these new proposed pieces of anti gun legislation are poorly thought out, attention seeking, power grabbing constitution destroying maneuvers that have no real world gains to make ANYONE safer. Period. None of this BS will make ANYONE safer. Its all crap.
DC Tom Posted July 2, 2016 Posted July 2, 2016 Common sense? Seriously? How about just enforce the damn laws already in the books. All these new proposed pieces of anti gun legislation are poorly thought out, attention seeking, power grabbing constitution destroying maneuvers that have no real world gains to make ANYONE safer. Period. None of this BS will make ANYONE safer. Its all crap. Funny thing is, one of the bills Brown vetoed, he vetoed because for all intensive purposes it expanded on an existing law that hasn't yet been enforced.
reddogblitz Posted July 2, 2016 Posted July 2, 2016 To the extent that it accomplishes what exactly? I was being sarcastic. I was hoping the smiley face would given it away. I wonder how much tax money the database of bullet buyers will cost to purchase, code the app, and maintain into perpetuity. Silly.
boyst Posted July 2, 2016 Posted July 2, 2016 And what does a Democratic President, Republican House, and divided Senate tell you?I need to get to the last page on a mobile device.And what does a Democratic President, Republican House, and divided Senate tell you?I need to get to the last page on a mobile device.
What a Tuel Posted July 2, 2016 Posted July 2, 2016 I don't quite understand it. 2,935 Deaths related to firearms in California in 2014. I mean clearly it's in response to San Bernandino but what is this going to do? Assuming that there were a similar amount of gun deaths in 2015, what about the other 2,900 gun victims? What do these bills do to help them? I mean great, you stopped another San Bernandino....maybe (probably not), but you left the other 2,900 people to die. It must be because they are racist, and don't care about the lower class because that's exactly how this would be argued if the parties were reversed in this matter. Brown approved bills that would ban the sale of semiautomatic rifles equipped with bullet buttons allowing the ammunition magazines to be easily detached and replaced. Require an ID and background check to purchase ammunition and create a new state database of ammunition owners Ban possession of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 bullets. Restrict the loaning of guns without background checks to close family members.
Maury Ballstein Posted July 4, 2016 Posted July 4, 2016 Kudos to the gun in the hands of the cop who shot a driver who was gonna run everyone over at the wing festival. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.buzzfeed.com/amphtml/claudiakoerner/driver-heading-toward-crowd-at-wing-festival?client=safari#
B-Man Posted July 5, 2016 Posted July 5, 2016 Long read.......................but worth it. The Democrats’ ‘Emergency’ Assault on the Second Amendment by Andrew C McCarthy FTA: As posited by Senator Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) at a Judiciary Committee hearing last week, Democrats claim that many constitutional liberties are routinely restricted in emergency circumstances — in particular, Fourth Amendment rights against warrantless search and arrest. Hence, the argument goes, Second Amendment rights, too, may be stripped away if Democrats can concoct an emergency — such as the ongoing crisis in which guns, apparently with minds of their own, mow down infidels. At the hearing, Republicans, led by Senator John Cornyn (R., Tex.), made the point that the right to keep and bear arms is rooted in both self-defense and insurance against government’s propensity toward tyranny. The right pre-existed the Constitution. Thus, the Second Amendment is not its source. The right to keep and bear arms is natural and inalienable; the Second Amendment protects it, and Congress has no legitimate power to restrict it. That does not mean the right is without limitations. As we shall see, like “the freedom of speech” safeguarded by the First Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms had well-known limitations at the time it was adopted. Unquestionably, Congress and state governments have the power to enforce those limitations. But those limitations are part and parcel of the right as originally enshrined in the Constitution. They do not imply a government power to enact additional restrictions in response to “emergencies” or other modern conditions. It is black-letter law that a statute cannot limit a constitutional safeguard. Not only is the Constitution the higher-ranking source of law; the safeguard in the Second Amendment is a safeguard against government action. If government action could undo such a safeguard, the purpose of having the safeguard in the first place would be defeated. The Second Amendment, and indeed all constitutional guarantees against governmental abuses of power, would be null and void anytime government came up with an “emergency” pretext. {snip} Schumer could not be more wrong. At its core, his argument misreads the Fourth Amendment safeguard, which protects citizens against unreasonable searches, not warrantless searches. The latter are permitted in many contexts because, in those contexts, it is not unreasonable to search without a warrant. There is no “emergency powers” doctrine that authorizes the government to restrict Second Amendment rights. Such a doctrine would advance the Democrats’ statist objective: an omnipotent government . . . run by Democrats. In the short term, however, it would undermine our natural right to defend ourselves when government cannot. In the long term, it would fatally wound the Constitution, our defense against omnipotent government. Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/437458/second-amendment-emergency-powers-doctrine-democrats-phony
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted July 5, 2016 Posted July 5, 2016 Long read.......................but worth it. The Democrats Emergency Assault on the Second Amendment by Andrew C McCarthy FTA: As posited by Senator Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) at a Judiciary Committee hearing last week, Democrats claim that many constitutional liberties are routinely restricted in emergency circumstances in particular, Fourth Amendment rights against warrantless search and arrest. Hence, the argument goes, Second Amendment rights, too, may be stripped away if Democrats can concoct an emergency such as the ongoing crisis in which guns, apparently with minds of their own, mow down infidels. At the hearing, Republicans, led by Senator John Cornyn (R., Tex.), made the point that the right to keep and bear arms is rooted in both self-defense and insurance against governments propensity toward tyranny. The right pre-existed the Constitution. Thus, the Second Amendment is not its source. The right to keep and bear arms is natural and inalienable; the Second Amendment protects it, and Congress has no legitimate power to restrict it. That does not mean the right is without limitations. As we shall see, like the freedom of speech safeguarded by the First Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms had well-known limitations at the time it was adopted. Unquestionably, Congress and state governments have the power to enforce those limitations. But those limitations are part and parcel of the right as originally enshrined in the Constitution. They do not imply a government power to enact additional restrictions in response to emergencies or other modern conditions. It is black-letter law that a statute cannot limit a constitutional safeguard. Not only is the Constitution the higher-ranking source of law; the safeguard in the Second Amendment is a safeguard against government action. If government action could undo such a safeguard, the purpose of having the safeguard in the first place would be defeated. The Second Amendment, and indeed all constitutional guarantees against governmental abuses of power, would be null and void anytime government came up with an emergency pretext. {snip} Schumer could not be more wrong. At its core, his argument misreads the Fourth Amendment safeguard, which protects citizens against unreasonable searches, not warrantless searches. The latter are permitted in many contexts because, in those contexts, it is not unreasonable to search without a warrant. There is no emergency powers doctrine that authorizes the government to restrict Second Amendment rights. Such a doctrine would advance the Democrats statist objective: an omnipotent government . . . run by Democrats. In the short term, however, it would undermine our natural right to defend ourselves when government cannot. In the long term, it would fatally wound the Constitution, our defense against omnipotent government. Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/437458/second-amendment-emergency-powers-doctrine-democrats-phony The increasingly oppressive big government progressive mentality that is becoming so rampant in our country is becoming a significant threat to start his country is. It is destroying our identity, exceptionalism and inherent liberty. It needs to be called out for what it is. These tools are nothing more than wannabe communists in sheep's clothing masquerading as the democrats of your grandfather's time when a Democrat wasn't a socialist but just had different stances than republicans. The republicans of today are what democrats were 40 years ago and the democrats of today are nothing more than poser socialists.
ExiledInIllinois Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 (edited) This is the blowback to having to many people armed: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/fatal-police-shooting-in-minn-brings-calls-for-justice/2016/07/07/20d029e8-4476-11e6-88d0-6adee48be8bc_story.html Is he reaching for his ID or his weapon? "You told him to get his ID, sir, his driver's license." "In an interview at their family's home, Castile's sister Allysza Castile showed a reporter a black 9mm handgun, with a loaded magazine, that she was keeping perched near her front door." Holy phuck! Did I just read that correctly? Please tell me I didn't! Dear Lord, we gotta war out there... Legal too. He told the officer he had a legal firearm and was retrieving the permit. Should he have just said nothing about the weapon. Damn if you do, damn if you don't. What a clusterphuck. Edited July 8, 2016 by ExiledInIllinois
ExiledInIllinois Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/reduce-chances-shot-by-police_us_577d2192e4b09b4c43c1c53a If you ever find yourself in the United States of America, you might end up getting shot by a police officer. "It doesn’t matter if you live in what you consider a safe place: Police shootings aren’t correlated with a city’s violent crime rate, and can happen anywhere from Honolulu to Oklahoma City to Washington, D.C..." "Every officer is taught that every encounter on the street ― whether it’s a burglary or traffic ticket ― that there is always a gun involved because you’re armed. Every situation is a gun situation,” Bill Johnson, executive director of the National Association of Police Organizations, told The Huffington Post. “These men and women are not from Mars, they’re neighbors, they’re young people you grew up with. They’re trying to do the best with a very difficult job.” I am still in the camp of no guns better if for only the fact that it makes the police officer's job easier. "By Sept. 1 of last year, police in the United Kingdom had killed one person. In the U.S., cops had killed 776 by that time. University of California at Berkeley Professor Jerome Karabel noted last year: This is a level of police violence that is simply unimaginable in other wealthy democratic country; in Germany in 2012, a total of seven people were killed by the police, and in England a single person was killed in 2013 and 2014 combined. And Japan, a nation of 126 million people that is as non-violent as the US is violent, had no police killings over the past two years."
What a Tuel Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 (edited) This is a self fulfilling argument. They don't have these killings because they don't have guns. We chose to have guns. Just as we chose to drive everywhere, and our vehicular accident death rate is higher also. United Kingdom - 1,827 Deaths from vehicles (2.9 per capita) - Number of Vehicles per 100,000 (5.1) Germany - 3,540 Deaths from vehicles (4.3 per capita) - Number of Vehicles per 100,000 (6.8) Japan - 5,971 Deaths from vehicles (4.7 per capita) - Number of Vehicles per 100,000 (6.5) United States - 34,064 Deaths from vehicles (10.6 per capita) - Number of Vehicles per 100,000 (12.9) I mean you can make the life is precious argument all you want, but people aren't going to give up their guns just like they won't give up their cars. Edited July 8, 2016 by What a Tuel
B-Man Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 Attorney General Loretta Lynch made a statement today about last night’s attack on police officers in Dallas, and her address included this message to protesters: Lynch to BLM protesters: "Do not be discouraged by those who would use your lawful actions as a cover for their shameful violence." One question..............................................rhetorical of course. Did she issue the same statement to the millions of U.S. gun owners last month ??? .
ExiledInIllinois Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 This is a self fulfilling argument. They don't have these killings because they don't have guns. We chose to have guns. Just as we chose to drive everywhere, and our vehicular accident death rate is higher also. United Kingdom - 1,827 Deaths from vehicles (2.9 per capita) - Number of Vehicles per 100,000 (5.1) Germany - 3,540 Deaths from vehicles (4.3 per capita) - Number of Vehicles per 100,000 (6.8) Japan - 5,971 Deaths from vehicles (4.7 per capita) - Number of Vehicles per 100,000 (6.5) United States - 34,064 Deaths from vehicles (10.6 per capita) - Number of Vehicles per 100,000 (12.9) I mean you can make the life is precious argument all you want, but people aren't going to give up their guns just like they won't give up their cars. Yes. The genie is out of the bottle and we have to deal with it. That was exactly the objective early on. They aren't coming for our guns anytime soon and rightly so. We are, as w/anything, our own worst enemies.
keepthefaith Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 This is a self fulfilling argument. They don't have these killings because they don't have guns. We chose to have guns. Just as we chose to drive everywhere, and our vehicular accident death rate is higher also. United Kingdom - 1,827 Deaths from vehicles (2.9 per capita) - Number of Vehicles per 100,000 (5.1) Germany - 3,540 Deaths from vehicles (4.3 per capita) - Number of Vehicles per 100,000 (6.8) Japan - 5,971 Deaths from vehicles (4.7 per capita) - Number of Vehicles per 100,000 (6.5) United States - 34,064 Deaths from vehicles (10.6 per capita) - Number of Vehicles per 100,000 (12.9) I mean you can make the life is precious argument all you want, but people aren't going to give up their guns just like they won't give up their cars. Well this is mostly due to Americans being a very high majority of really suck a$$ drivers, but I get your point.
Recommended Posts