Blaming Guns, ignoring radical Islam

I wanted to wait a bit, to see how the government and this administration was going to handle the obvious terror attack by Omar Mateen in Orlando at the Pulse. The answer is not very well. The administration had made two things very clear; one, they are going to blame the guns, once again, and use a national tragedy to attempt to limit the second amendment rights of law-abiding people because someone does something horrible with a gun, and two; they have adopted a See no (radical) Islam, Hear no (defamation of) Islam, Speak no (words condemning radical) Islam mindset.

This second thing shouldn’t come as a surprise. After all, it took congress passing as part of the 2015 NDAA to declare the fact that Nidal Hasan was engaging in terror when he killed 13 and wounded 32 at Fort Hood in 2009. Up until that time the Obama administration had classified it as workplace violence…despite the fact that radical islsmist Hasan was screaming allahu akbar while going on his spree of violence.

Then again, after the San Bernadino shooting by Farook and Malik the president declined to call the shooting a terrorist act propagated by islamic radicals, despite all the clues pointing towards radical islam. In fact, only two days after the shooting he marched out Attorney General Loretta Lynch to give a statement that anti-muslim or anti-islam speech “…when it edges towards violence, when we see the potential for someone lifting that mantle of anti-Muslim rhetoric—or, as we saw after 9/11, violence directed at individuals who may not even be Muslims but perceived to be Muslims, and they will suffer just as much—when we see that we will take action.” Her blatantly partisan message, part of the Hear no Islam trifecta, drew staunch criticism about what she would have the DOJ do to regular Americans engaging their First Amendment rights and what speech exactly “edges toward violence” had Lynch walking back her comments just a few days later clarifying that “of course we prosecute deeds and not words.”

Now of course, moving on to Mateen and his acts of evil in Florida. When Obama made his speech, there was no mention of Islam, Radical Islam, or terrorists. All part of the Speak no Islam bit, and by refusing to call it terrorism he hopes the American people will See no Islam. He did say an act of terror, a term so ambiguous that it could be applied to any shooting anywhere at any time. Yes, someone going on a shooting spree is engaging in a terror campaign. But when that same person calls 911 three times to declare their allegiance to Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, the leader of ISIS, you have a terror attack on your hands. It can’t be too much clearer than that.

Go ahead a few days to Lynch telling the press that when they release the 911 calls to the public they are going to censor out all the references to islam, isis, and the like. Why? Because they want to avoid re-victimizing the families of the deceased. Excuse me? Their loved ones are dead!  Shot and killed by a terrorist that you want to scrub the record and put down as just another lone wolf type, mad at the world, taking out his frustrations, skipping over the fact that he had long been radicalized, had been investigated at least twice and then let go on his merry way, despite the fact that he didn’t change his tune the entire time. And you’re worried that the mere mention of islam, the proof of his radicalism on audio will hurt people more than they are already hurting?

The investigative arm of the FBI is at least as complicit for not heeding the warnings of dozens of people who saw something and said something, just like the big brother campaign wants us to. But that See Something, Say Something mentality DOES NOT APPLY to muslims or islam…because that would be profiling or something.

Instead, we attack the guns, call for a ban on the AR-15 once again, despite the fact that the gun in question wasn’t even part of the AR family of weapons. But that makes no difference. Enter the left and the vitriolic rhetoric machine. Guns are bad, guns are bad, guns make people do bad things. There is nothing worse than a gun…not even a not terrorist engaging in terror.

Good ‘ol Joe Biden made bad gun noises for the media and told them you can kill more people with a rifle than a handgun (I guess he ignored Seung-Hui Cho and the Virginia Tech massacre in 2007). Other politicians and news pundits have been lambasting guns and gun laws no matter how stupid they sound. Some of the worst, most idiotic speech came out of Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) when she inexplicably said, “You know, the fact is, the AR-15, the gun that Mateen used, that’s a weapon of war. It’s advertised as being able to do technologically advances in killing people that previous weapons have been unable to do, and somebody who’s buying that kind of a weapon isn’t buying it for target shooting. They’re not buying it to go out and hunt deer. You don’t need an AK-47 or an AR-15 to hunt deer. They’re buying it to do bad things, and we need to recognize that, and address it.”

Wow. Several things here…being able to do technologically advances in killing…I don’t even know what to do with that phrase. She was so caught up in her own rabidity she choked on her foam..I assume she meant the weapon is more technologically advanced than…a bolt action rifle? The weapon has been around since the 50’s for crap’s sake. There is nothing technologically advanced about it, it doesn’t go full auto, it doesn’t track people automatically, it doesn’t fire a laser. It’s just another gun. Oh, and good job vilifying the people who do buy them as someone who is going to do bad things with it. I’m sure the 5-10 million AR owners are just itching to shoot people willy-nilly in the streets. They’ve just been biding their time…or something. Lastly, she used the word NEED. No shit! IT’S NOT CALLED THE BILL OF NEEDS! It’s the BILL OF RIGHTS!! and brandishing a firearm, for protection, for hunting, for target shooting, to discourage despotism, is a right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America.

Once again, blame the guns, ignore the terrorists in the room and maybe the people will consent to give up their guns and open themselves up for massive terror attacks like we haven’t seen or are willing to talk about.

The narrative should be, we will do a better job investigating those who have indicated they are radical islamists or who have been reported as radical islamists. Yes, See something, say something applies to muslims as well and we will investigate those claims as assuredly as the IRS will be used to target conservative organizations. And finally, maybe we need to have a conversation about who should be allowed into this country, maybe letting in a pro-taliban afghani with ties to radical islam was a bad idea seeing as how he raised a son who went full terrorist in Orlando.

But we won’t, or I should say Obama won’t. Because the offical government narrative is ISIS is the JV team, they can’t harm us. Those terror attacks, aren’t. And if you would just let us get those pesky semi-automatic rifles from all of you, the government will be able to keep you safe.

Uh huh, right.

 

 

Nine Newtown victims’ families lose their minds

The killings in Newtown, CT two years ago this December are still a bit shocking and extremely sad. The lives of too many children and adults snuffed out by crazy Adam Lanza, for what else could he be to kill so many innocents? But now, at least nine of the victims’ families have gone and lost their ever-loving minds. They are suing the company that made the AR-15 sporting rifle, Bushmaster, and the company that sold same gun. Their main argument in the lawsuit, the gun should not have been available for sale. “This is a weapon that is designed for military use, for killing as many people as efficiently as possible,” Michael Koskoff, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said in a phone interview. “It’s negligent for any seller to sell a weapon like that to the general public.”  Well, I’ve got a couple of things for that.

The AR-15 is not designed for military use. It is a civilian weapon platform based on a military design. AR does not stand for assault rifle it is short for Armalite, the company who first developed the platform. The term assault rifle did not exist in the American lexicon until after 1989 as a way to expand a firearms ban to more rifles.

The M1A1 carbine is the military’s assault rifle. It is fully automatic and can cycle 950 rounds per minute. A thirty round magazine can disappear in one trigger pull and a couple blinks of an eye. Fully automatic weapons are also known as machine guns and have been illegal for citizens to own, trade, or buy since 1986. An AR-15 fires one shot per trigger pull, just like an automatic shotgun, semi-automatic pistol, revolver, etc.  Just because it looks like a military rifle does not make it a military gun. A king snake looks an awful lot like a coral snake, but one doesn’t have the bite of the other.

Now maybe they can find some retard judge to agree with them up there in libtard land Connecticut. After all this is the same state that passed a registry law that has made criminals out of an estimated 250,000-300,000 law-abiding citizens because of an “assault rifle” registry law they passed. But again, who knows, critical thinking could still win the day. On to my next point.

Sandy Hook suit makes a broader case, attempting to get around protections for gun makers included in the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which blocked liability suits against gun makers when their products were used criminally. “This immunity does not apply to a claim based on negligent entrustment,” Koskoff said.

As we all know Adam Lanza did not come by this gun legally, nor did he purchase it, nor did he borrow it, i.e. there was no chance of negligent entrustment. Do you forget how he got it, that’s right, he murdered his own mother then took her gun. Let me say that again, Adam Lanza committed matricide in order to secure a weapon he could use to kill others, that gun was not for sale.  Criminals rarely buy things legally. Oh, sometimes they do because it is convenient, but most of the time they are going to steal a weapon just like they would a car or a television.  The fact remains that most guns used in crimes are stolen, not purchased.  They can’t argue that he owned the guns, since she did. They can’t argue that he borrowed the guns, because she can’t give testimony. What they will do is argue the guns were household items and therefore he had the ability to use them, except for the whole fact that he killed his mother to cover up having the guns, implying sinister intent at the least. It would be like pushing your wife down the stairs to cover up using her blow dryer…it doesn’t jive unless you were planning something naughty that your wife wouldn’t have approved of in the first place and would have rejected your attempt to borrow her hair dryer, resulting in you stealing her hair dryer…to commit your crime anyway.

Remember, guns don’t kill people, people use guns, knives, hammers, arrows, cars, baseball bats, screwdrivers, etc to kill people. A gun is just a tool, and just like any other tool it can be used in a manner that is dangerous to others if someone has the malicious intent to do so.

And for all you anti-gun, anti-second amendment, libtards out there I have only one thing to say to you.

 

Newtown victims’ families sue maker of gun used in 2012 attack – Yahoo News.

Shooting for Gun Control

Ammunition (Photo credit: simonov)

The President has been an ardent supporter of gun control.  This is not something he adopted when he became the president, it is instead a lifelong obsession with him, much like it is for most of the libtards and progressives out there.  See gun control is less about guns than it is about control; Nazi Germany proved that when they went from an armed society in the 20’s to a fully registered society in the mid-30’s to a disarmed society by the late 30’s.  Hitler would go on to say in 1942, “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or native police.” And the president has promised his supporters and sycophants time and time again that he is working on gun control behind the scenes.

But the president and the administration aren’t going for the guns the uninformed will say and the libtard will argue.  Correct, the administration isn’t currently going for the guns what they are doing is far more insidious.  They will manage to do an end around on the Constitution to keep guns from being useful to the populace without ever going after the guns, and they are already more than halfway there.

In 2008 the EPA, I’ve written about their jack-booted thuggery before, made not so nice contact with a lead smelter, Doe Run, in Herculaneum, MO. By 2010, the EPA had changed regulations and tightened air control procedures to the point that the plant would need to spend $100 million to meet the changes.  The plant, which has been open since 1892, will officially close its doors this month for good.  Did I mention that it was the last primary lead smelting plant in the United States?  Oh, I didn’t…well, oops.  I wonder where all the lead needed for ammunition will come from.

After 2013, all the lead for ammo, or the ammo itself will have to be imported into the U.S. The lead ore will be shipped overseas or out of country, smelted, then imported back in. Do you think the price of ammo is going to skyrocket? Oh as an added bonus ammunition coming back into the U.S. will probably be subject to government control.  They already do it with sporting firearms and it wouldn’t take a big push to do it with ammunition, after all they are the government and they do as they wish. Isn’t that exciting…for the libtards.  I’ll leave you with another Hitler quote on gun control to think about.

In 1935 after the Weapons Act of Nazi Germany was passed he said, “This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future.”

We all know how that turned out.

Related articles

• Back Door Gun Control Moves Forward (trevorloudon.com)
• Allen West: EPA Engaging in Backdoor Gun Control (breitbart.com)
• Backdoor Gun Control (antzinpantz.wordpress.com)
• Backdoor gun control is here: no lead means no bullets (patriotnetdaily.com)
• Without ammo a gun is just a club. The liberal answer to patriotic resistance to gun confiscation? Shut down ammunition supply…. (powderedwigsociety.com)

Using a potato gun to Abridge your Rights

Potato Guns and Ammo (Photo credit: aconaway1)

I keep telling you that journalism is dead and your civil rights are next on the chopping block but so few people seem to be listening. Yet I can point to instance after instance in this administration where journalists have been silenced and rights violated. Where is it going to end?

So Audrey Hudson a journalist for the Washington Times…a real no fooling journalist, not a lapdog hack like most of them nowadays. A while ago she did an investigative piece or series that was critical of the Federal Air Marshal Program.  Okay, no big deal right.  Some critical article, blah, blah. Writes, etc. okay.

Imagine her surprise one morning when she found her home surrounded by armed members of the Coast Guard, Maryland State Police, and Homeland Security. (Note: her husband is an employee of the Coast Guard which explains their otherwise odd presence).  They had with them search warrant for an “unregistered potato gun.” A spokesman said the warrant authorized police to search the family’s home for guns, ammo, records of gun purchases, cleaning kits, and other gun related docs.

Instead, they seized documents about the Federal Air Marshal Program obtained under the Freedom of Information Act and the hand written notes she had with them.  Again read that, they seized confidential, legally obtained documents without a federal subpoena using the premise of a gun search, and the documents were not included in the scope of the warrant.  That was a clear attack on journalism, and a violation of the first, second, and fourth Amendments if I am counting it right. A violation so heinous that even the Daily Kos, one of the biggest hate laden, commie sites I’ve ever visited, condemned it.

There doesn’t seem to be any level to which agents of this current administration won’t stoop to cover up the truth, intimidate the truth teller, or trample the rights of citizens in their own country. Watch out, if they are trumping up charges over a potato gun, a potato gun, which isn’t even a firearm, to get into a house and take what they want, what will they be willing to do to someone who really crosses them.

• TODD STARNESFeds’ raid on reporter’s home raises questions (foxnews.com)
• Federal Agents Raid Reporter’s Home In Search of Illegal Weapons and Allegedly Question Her About Prior Negative Stores And Seize Documents and Notes (jonathanturley.org)
• dangerous potato gun menace (niqnaq.wordpress.com)
• Journalism Witch Hunt Continues: Armed Guards Raid Reporter’s Home (activistpost.com)

The Police Can’t Protect You All The Time: Why You NEED a Gun

A tool for self protection.

You don’t typically hear about something like this until a news agency goes against it’s own better judgement and reports it, then it gets about four seconds of air play before wiser more liberal heads have it killed in favor of some fluff piece.  But every now and then, once the actual event is a year or older it gets out.

A woman in Oregon, Josephine County to be exact, called 911 only to be told that police couldn’t respond to her call for help because of budget cuts.  A man was breaking into her home, her ex, and because of layoffs the County Sheriff’s Office was only open on weekdays.  I guess crime sleeps in on Saturday and then goes to church and maybe a buffet afterwards on Sundays before settling it to watch the game.

Anyway, she called and told the dispatcher that he had already attacked and hospitalized her once, the dispatcher told her it was a shame she didn’t have law enforcement out where she was…then he stayed on the phone with her for a number of minutes before the ex broke into the house and RAPED her.  Apparently the sexual assault was recorded for evidentiary puposes.  So glad about that.

Here is the interesting thing.  The dispatcher told her it was a shame she didn’t have any law enforcement out where she was.  Well, had she owned a gun the only law she would have needed would have come out  of the barrel and gone into her ex.  Instead because of, I don’t know, the culture of fear and loathing surrounding an inanimate object that has been responsible for no crimes against anyone in the entirety of it’s existence, she had to endure nearly the worst thing that could have happened to her.

If you think the police exist to protect you maybe you should take a look at Warren v. District of Columbia which said the police have no duty to protect you.  With that in mind maybe everyone should take personal protection as their own responsibility.  If you think in a time of crisis the police will come rushing to your aid you are wrong.  Police exist to clean up messes, and more and more often, to generate income for a city or municipality by issuing citations.

The police are a reactive force, not a proactive force.  They do not seek out crime and arrest it where it lives.  They show up and take an inventory of what you lost in the theft, or a description of your rapist, or to stick a tag on your toe for the morgue.  Get a clue, get a gun and protect yourself.  You’re the only one with your interests at heart and you’re the only one who can take care of yourself.

Source Here.

Gun Control Pretty Dead for Now

Well what do you know and look at that.  I didn’t think I’d ever see the day  that a Democrat party controlled house of Congress would pass or fail to pass legislation that was in tune with how I believed.  I just didn’t think it was possible.  Then yesterday while I was coming home from work the Manchin-Toomey Gun Control Bill changes failed in the Senate by a vote of 54-46. And it was defeated with bi-partisan support; awesome.

Now, a lot of news agencies are crying shame over this failure to amend the bill because of what they call either broad public backing or that over 90% of Americans agree with the proposed changes, etc.  There are numerous polls out there that go from anywhere between 45% support to 90% support.  You’d think with as many polls have been out there with the same questions over and over with as large a sampling as all these pollsters have been able to reach that there would be a smaller gap in the percentages.  Well, I guess either the questions are ambiguous or the statistics are being skewed.  For in the words of Mark Twain, “There are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics.”

So you may or may not have a majority of people who support the gun control bill.  You really can’t trust the polls.  But I bet the Senators voting yes or no can trust the amount of calls, emails, and other correspondence coming from their constituents.  I wonder if that had any bearing in how they voted.  I rather bet it did.  I mean was this effort doomed from the start.  Was this gun control machination dead before it really got rolling. Well, with a house fully behind not passing any of the bill you would have to say yes. That means this whole run up was no more than a political stunt.

That’s right, this wasn’t about gun control, this was about political campaigning for 2014.  A lot of red state democrats would be in trouble if this passed, so it had to fail.  But it also had to be attempted so they could go on and make the Republican party out to be soulless monsters who want to kill your children and shoot grandma.

The powers that be trotted out the victims of gun violence and of course they never called the bill anti-gun or gun control it was always about ending the violence.  The whored out the victims of recent tragedies, throwing them in front of media camera after media camera to cry and cajole all for one goal.  To make those who voted against the amendment to appear out of touch with America, evil, anti-American, pro-death, and etc. Hell, both sides agree that expanded background checks would have done little, if nothing, to prevent the horrors at Newtown; yet there some of them were, pushing for the sake of Newtown.

None of this makes much sense until you understand why they were going through all the motions.  They want to carry this rhetoric all they way into the mid-term 2014 elections and use the momentum or the artificial anger they can generate to cement a better foothold in Congress.  I understand the battle that is coming in the mid-terms, I’ve seen its like before.  I am just glad that for now, gun control is pretty much a dead issue.

They will not thwart the Second Amendment today.

Source Here.

Bloomberg, the Professional Nanny

King Bloomberg in all his glory!

I could call Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York, several choice words, I can guarantee they would be naughty, but the harshest thing I will utter here is that this french word for a shower of a man is a professional nanny. What do I mean?  Well, he is a person employed by his state who is under the belief, mistaken belief, that it is his job to take care of everyone and make sure they eat right, and don’t drink too much soda, and do what is best for them base on his criterion for those qualifying things.  One of those things is that guns are bad, not just for New Yorkers, but for the country. He is a big gun control fan, big surprise there.

With this little picture in your mind, it is not hard to figure that Le Mayor Douche has announced a plan to spend twelve million dollars in thirteen states running ads to encourage “the people” (i.e. libtards) in those states, “to call their senators if they believe that we should have gun checks that stop criminals and people with mental illnesses from getting guns.”  Let me tell you Mayor Douche, people don’t need an ad campaign to contact their elected representation about something in which they believe.  They do however need an ad blitz if you intend to brainwash them or inundate them with your Orwellian equivalent of two legs bad for gun ownership.  No one wants criminals, the mentally unstable, or the possibly homicidal to have access to guns.  That being said, you can’t just start cutting off people’s 2nd Amendment rights because you get all emotionally touchy feely and predictive about their state of mind.  It’s not working with the veterans the government is trying to strip of their rights, and it won’t work with the American public; not with gun ownership at 89 guns per 100 people in the U.S.

I don’t buy your “magnanimous” attitude towards the gun debate.  You have shown yourself to be a tin pot dictator in your own city.  First throwing a fit when, then mayor, Giuliani suggested his term may need to be extended past two full terms to deal with the lasting effects of 9/11 as an unadulterated power grab.  Then two terms later you change the law so you can have a third term, then when in office work to change it back to a two term limit.  Then you attacked sodium content in prepared meals, dictated all restaurants post calorie counts, banned smoking pretty much everywhere, and went after soda cups, now you’re after the guns, not just in your city, but everywhere!  Where will it stop?

You say you get a lot of one finger waves, yet I am surprised no one has slapped the S#$% out of you.  I guess that person would be gunned down in a hail of semi-automatic gunfire from your overly armed bodyguards.  But you’re entitled to them, you need that kind of protection.  It is the ordinary man who does not need access to a gun, just like pistol packing Pelosi seems to think.

I guess that according to Bloomberg, all people are equal, but some people are more equal than others.

Source Here.

Feinstein Weapons Ban Out With a Whimper

Not this time.

Had you followed the polls since the Sandy Hook shooting in New Town, you would have been under the belief that more than half the country was ready to start banning guns.  All the polls, at least all the polls from major organizations, were in agreement with over 50% of respondents saying it was time to increase gun control.  Interesting then that the Feinstein weapons ban portion of the bill will not make it into the Senate gun control legislation.  I wonder why?  I bet it has something to do with the real public support for gun control.  I also bet it has something to do with the raving liberal Feinstein’s rabid gun hating ways.

Instead, Feinstein’s bill will be allowed to come to the Senate as an Amendment rider which means it is quite literally dead on arrival.  The bill has less than 35 Senators on its side.  I think it has something to do with the elections in two years.  See the Senate Democrats have 21 of the 35 elections up for grabs in 2014.  Of those 21, 14 are in states that are either traditionally republican or are big on gun rights, states like: Alaska, Arkansas, Iowa, Michigan, Montana, Virginia, and West Virginia.  You pass a super restrictive law by say the middle of this year and your opponent is going to bludgeon you with it for the next twelve months before the election. I would predict that with a harsh gun grabbing bill the Senate would easily be lost to the Republicans in 2014, who only need a pickup of six come 2014.

Instead, there will be a watered down bill with a couple of measures in it that no one objects to and one that will eventually kill it.  The straw purchasing measure;  a grant program for school security; and enhanced background checks for gun buyers  will all make it into the final version.  Straw purchasing is already a crime, and few are against it, this bill would just escalate that crime to felony status, no one cares.  No one is also going to oppose a program that provides cash for school security, even if we can’t afford it.  The final thing is the enhanced background checks, it depends on how in-depth they want.  I haven’t had the chance to read the language of the bill yet, but should they have anything about a national registry, add provisions for private gun sales or include or exempt family members will dictate how popular this bill is and the likelihood it will pass.

Feinstein said she tried and it wasn’t good enough.  Good, your best should never be enough.  She also said the enemies on this are very powerful in reference to the National Rifle Association.  However I think that statement best applies to her and her ilk who have been trying to steal our Second Amendment rights for years.  We know you are powerful and you want our guns, you’ve made no bones about it over the years.  We are happy to thwart you yet again and hope and pray you never, ever, get the chance to steal our weapons.

Source Here.

Freshman Senator Destroys Feinstein During Gun Control Debate

More asinine than most ,Feinstein stands as a testament for all the America hating idiot libtards who get elected to tell us how we should live our lives.

The Freshman Senator Ted Cruz of Texas had a very pointed and consitutional question regarding gun control for Senator Diane Feinstein of California two days ago during a hearing. Getting right to the point he said, “The question that I would pose to the senior senator from California is: Would she deem it consistent with the Bill of Rights for Congress to engage in the same endeavor that we are contemplating doing with the Second Amendment in the context of the First or Fourth Amendment, namely, would she consider it constitutional for Congress to specify that the First Amendment shall apply only to the following books and shall not apply to the books that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the Bill of Rights? Likewise, would she think that the Fourth Amendment’s protection against searches and seizures could properly apply only to the following specified individuals and not to the individuals that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the Bill of Rights?”  

That is one hell of an insightful question.  Well Senator, what is your answer on this whole thing how are you going to answer this. Can you just legislate away the rights of the people as you are willing to do?  And in true liberal fashion, when encountering the truth or losing an argument through logic she went to avoid, deflect, attack, and spread fallacy.  She went on to tell him how much government experience she had, and she is not in grade school.  Well no crap.  Then she went on to bloviate about the dangers of firearm violence and how she had been to Sandy Hook.  Wheee, you’re still not answering the question Senator.

This wrinkled old bat believes she has great respect for the Constitution, but thinks that weapons of war, which are clearly delineated as something that can be banned under District of Columbia v. Heller apply to the AR-15.  Apparently so.  What she doesn’t realize is that military grade weapons, automatic weapons, bazookas, rocket launchers, grenades, tanks, howitzers, etc. are illegal for people to own already.  Machines guns and the like fall under the National Firearms Act of 1934, you don’t require a new law to ban those things.  The AR-15 and other semi-automatic rifles are not military grade assault weapons.  The military does not go into combat with those; you are just reaching in order to inject your ideology onto the people.  One other very important point… [most] of the weapons you’ve listed in this legislation, the 2271 exemptions from the second amendment, have been proven NOT to have been used at Sandy Hook. You are using the horrible deaths at Sandy Hook to promote a political ideology and playing on the heartstrings of Americans in the process.

Feinstein has clearly been an elected official long enough and has dictated her will to the people as one of their elite rulers that she no longer reads the opening of the Constitution as We the People, instead she sees a document entitled The Wee People.  I wish this wrinkled old b%^& would just shut her mouth, but libtards never do. When a legislator is forced to use emotion and insults to spread half-truths and lies rather than the using  the reason and logic with a well thought out argument within the confines of the law; it is a tacit admission that her argument is a sham.

I’ve included the video below so you can see the entire exchange below.

By the way, Heller had been argued earlier in the hearing and Cruz was expounding on the argument within the confines of DC v Heller, so don’t write to me and try and tell me I’ve missed the whole point of her argument.  Heller clearly does not apply to his question because he was not talking about gun bans on dangerous and unusual weapons that are not in common use, which is what was decided in Heller. read it here : http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

Courts Rule No Right to Concealed Carry…Really

Most states don’t mind if you have a gun on your person.

Last week the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled there is no Constitutional right for the state to provide a concealed carry permit to an individual.  The Court serves as the Appeals court for the district courts in Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, and most of Oklahoma.  This might seem a set back to 2nd Amendment arguments but it is really a non factor and I’ll explain why.

The main argument was presented in the Peterson v. LaCabe lawsuit, it became the Peterson v. Martinez lawsuit, which is a federal lawsuit challenging the non-resident licensing practices of Colorado and the City of Denver.  Gray Peterson, the plaintiff, is a resident of Washington state and holds a Washington state concealed carry permit as well as a Florida non-resident permit.  Mr. Peterson applied for and was denied a Concealed Handgun License (CHL).

Colorado does not issue CHLs to non-residents, but does extend license reciprocity to residents of states who recognize their CHL laws.  Colorado does not honor resident permits issued by Washington or Florida permits issued to non-residents because neither state has reciprocity with them.  Additionally, the city of Denver bans open carry, so there was no way for Mr. Peterson to legally carry.   By failing to issue Mr. Peterson a permit or to extend reciprocity to either of his other permits, the state has denied equal protection, due process, and other protections granted by the constitution.

Not so said the Court, in their finding the court ruled that “With respect to Peterson’s claims against the Denver sheriff, we conclude that the carrying of concealed firearms is not protected by the Second Amendment or the Privileges and Immunities Clause. In Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275 (1897), the Supreme Court stated in dicta that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons.” More recently, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court noted that “the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues,” and explained that “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions.” Id. at 626. In light of our nation’s extensive practice of restricting citizens’ freedom to carry firearms in a concealed manner, we hold that this activity does not fall within the scope of the Second Amendment’s protections.”

In other words, the Second Amendment does have some limits.  Limits aren’t always a bad thing, like some loon claiming the 2nd would give him access to say a Surface to Air Missile…the courts would likely frown on something that could not be easily carried.

Contrary to the opinions of legions of libtards the Second Amendment’s coverage of the right to keep and bear arms is very extensive and inclusive but at the same time many conservaholes don’t understand that these protections have limits to them, and those limits don’t include concealed carry.

The real question here is why didn’t Peterson challenge the open carry law of Denver, the court in this case did not  rule that bans on open carry are constitutional and, in fact, noted with some bewilderment that Peterson had not challenged the open carry statute in the decision.  I guess we’ll just have to keep reading the cases and see what comes of them in the future.

Don’t fret lovers of guns, this isn’t an end all be all ruling, for it only applied to the areas under the tenth district, and it may come to a larger forum soon seeing as how their decision is in direct conflict with the decision of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals who held up two weeks ago the right to concealed carry (they actually overturned the outright ban on concealed weapons permits in the state of Illinois).  This will likely end up in front of the SCOTUS either this year or the next.