The Tally?

Six amendments offered in Reid's bill, S 649 and thus far all have failed.  Some more spectacularly than others.

*Coughfeinsteinbancough*

The last one up is Laughtenburg's perennial magazine capacity ban.  Vote total is 54 against, 46 for.  He can't win for losing with his bill.  You'd think he'd learn, but you and I both know that's just not gonna happen, now is it?

Assault Weapons Ban, v2.0

Debate starting on AWB v.2.0 beginning.  The Sea Hag is speaking now, we've had enough blah blah blah...

Complaining about needing 60 votes to pass..Cry whimper piss and moan.

Chuck Grassley (R-IA) speaking against right now.  Passion, I like it!

And the voting begins at 5:23 PM EDT...

And ends at 5:40 PM EDT, it goes down in flames.  60 voting against, 40 voting for.  That's got to sting.

Does His Brain Hear What His Mouth Is Saying?

Watching the votes on the gun bill, and Schumer just got up to rail against Constitutional Carry, saying that felons would be able to go to states like Florida and get a carry permit and be able to legally carry a gun.

What an abject moron.

There isn't a state that allows concealed carry that allows felons to get permits.  Just. Does.  Not.  Happen.  Period.

Waiting on the San Fran Sea Hag's bill to come up for a vote.  Though of the 8 amendments, hers will probably be last.

Been an interesting afternoon so far.  Watched Dingy Harry Reid vote against the Toomey-Manchin 'compromise', and Leahy's bill damn near made the cut, but lost out by two votes.

What They Really Think Of Us

By now, it's pretty common knowledge that Sen Ted Cruz of Texas got into a little spat with Diane Feinstein of California over the Constitutionality of her exhaustive list of guns us little people are allowed to own or not.

What I haven't seen covered, is the fact that the Sea Hag of San Fran, Ms Feinstein, evidently thinks so highly of us semi-auto weapon owners, she willing to equate us to the most distasteful, reviled group of people on the planet: pedophiles.

At the end of her exchange with Sen Cruz, after repeatedly being asked why her bill is Constitutional, she had this to say:

“Assault weapons” are kind of like child pornography. She argued that although we have a First Amendment right to free speech, that doesn’t mean child pornography is protected by the Constitution. Likewise, she continued, so-called “assault weapons” can be legally banned.

So there you have it.  Owners of semiautos are no different than child pornographers.

The PSH Is Strong In This One

Last week there was a shooting down on Bourbon Street in N'Alens. The smoke has cleared, the blood, while not completely dry, is tacky, and the press is all over the issue.

It's almost a typical hit piece. Quote from an anti-gun organization? Check. Reference MAIG? Check. Drag the ATF into the piece? Got it. Get any quotes or statements from the NRA or similar organization? Not a chance.

Of course, it wouldn't be a hit piece without the usual distortions, half-truths, and outright lies.

So, a scumbag shoots a bunch of people. That he did so doesn't register on their agenda. That he used a handgun that can accept a high capacity magazine, well that just ain't right. I would like to see one of these 50 or 100 rd mags for a handgun. Leaving aside the AK-type pistols that take all the standard mags that come with the platform (yes, that includes the 75 and 100 rd drums), I wonder just what a 100 rd mag for a Glock 17 looks like?

We get into the lies when we mistakenly represent the 1994 AWB as 'outlawing' them is such a blatant lie it bears correcting. The '94 ban did not outlaw anything. It simply placed manufacture and import restrictions on new ones. 33 rd Glock mags were readily available on Sep 15, 1994 (the day after the ban went into effect), and were still prevalent on Sep 13, 2004 (the day before it sunset). What changed was cost.

So, after all that, we get to the crux of the article. It's a puff piece for Mayors Against (All) Illegal Guns. They're pushing their 10 ways to screw private gun ownership.

They are:

1. Allow criminal penalties for buying a gun for someone else.

(Already a federal crime. It's called 'straw buying' and is punishable by up to 10 yrs in Club Fed.)
2. Allow criminal penalties for buying a gun with false information.

(See #1, above.)

3. Allow criminal penalties for selling a gun without a background check.

(There is absolutely no way to enforce this. You can no more make people go through the NICS check for a private sale than you can a felon. Oh wait. I forgot. The 5th amendment protects felons from this little gem because that would incriminate them. Silly me.)

4. Require background checks for all handgun sales at gun shows.

(Since they don't mention abolishing private sales, I can only surmise that after all the 'stings' they did over the last couple of years, they didn't learn anything. All licensed dealers do background checks, regardless of where they set up, whether it's at a table at the gun show or behind the counter at the store.)

5. Require purchase permit for all handgun sales.

(Three words: Cold Dead Hands.)

6. Grant law enforcement discretion in granting concealed carry permits.

(And this has worked out soooo well in NYFC, LA, SF, and Newark, NJ hasn't it. Are you famous? Are you politically connected? Know somebody who can hook you up? If you answered no, then you're screwed. Just ask the residents of those cities who have verifiable need to CCW and have been denied how that's working out for them.)

7. Prohibit violent misdemeanor criminals form possessing guns.

(What is a violent misdemeanor? Jimmy and Bob get into a dust over Cindy-Lou at closing time? Or is it K-Dog who beat Old Man Smith half to death for his pension check. Misdemeanors are just that. Not as bad as felonies. Now if that misdemeanor carried a sentence of one year or greater in the city/county slammer, I've got a newsflash for you. Disqualified. Funny thing about them federal gun laws. They seem to cover that one just like they did in items 1 and 2.)

8. Require reporting lost or stolen guns to the police.

(Hmmm, this one is interesting. These laws have been on the books in several cities for a few years now, and I can't seem to find any reports where this has actually worked, let alone been used to prosecute anyone. Can you say solution desperately in search of a problem?)

9. Allow local communities to enact gun control.

(Yeah, I don't think that's going to happen. First you've got McDonald, then you have those pesky state preemption laws that don't really allow for that kind of thing.)

10. Allow inspections of gun dealers.

(This one is interesting. The ATF usually inspects them. Probably not as often as these fools would like, but they do get looked at. Just ask Red's Trading Post. Or are they thinking about the morons who work for Furious Mike who know nothing about guns, stores, or both trying to tell these guys how to run their business?)

I guess the bottom line question I've got to ask the MAIG folks is this. Since you've recommended all these little wish lists, just how is this going to help? I mean, if you're trying to stem the flow of illegal guns (and not ban them or nothing), just how does this help? Just looking at the biggest gun running operation in the last, I don't know, 50 yrs, [cough...Operation Fast and Furious...cough] all the dealers involved tried to call off the sales, and yet our own government overruled the better judgement of the proprietors. Funny how all the legislation in the world won't help when the Gun Cops tell you not to enforce them.

The more I think about this, the more it comes down to trying to be a mouthpiece for something that is on the cusp of becoming irrelevant.

Another Idiot Comes Out On Gunwalker

So now that Gunwalker has hit the prime time on networks other than CBS News and Fox, the shills for the administration are all over what they believe is a non-starter of a scandal.

Witness Ruben Navarrette, Jr from CNN. I can't tell if he's ignorant, stupid, or both.

See, in his little world, the whole 'Gunwalker' thing is actually the fault of the Republican Party. Between calling for the border to be secured and stepping up enforcement of immigration violations, the Party of Socialism (Lite) forced the ATF to do this operation. Like the repugs brought the Acting Director of ATF in to a super secret squirrel meeting and said 'We want you to arm the cartels on the border'.

How, exactly this is the fault of the Party of Socialism (Lite) is not quite explored. We have gracious examples of supposedly racist behavior on the part of the State of Arizona. Add in the supposed blood-thirstiness of the NRA, and well, ATF just had to do something, right?

What is apparently lost on this poor excuse for a shill, is that this operation was designed from the outset to aid in one thing: justify further encroachments on that which shall not be infringed. That main Just Us was hounding ATF SACs for numbers and information is just now coming out, but it is there.

Calling F&F a misguided operation is like saying that Custer's expedition into the Little Bighorn took a wrong turn. Both operations were run by supposedly competent individuals, yet both ended very, very badly.

What shills like Navarrette can't seem to wrap their heads around is that Operation Fast & Furious and the new reporting requirements are two heads of the same snake. They are not exclusive of each other. You can't have reporting requirements for multiple long gun sales without F&F, and in order to justify the long gun requirement, you have to have F&F. He sees this new requirement as something independent of what happened that just needed to be done, regardless of the true facts in the case.

What he, and all the others who are late to the party seem to forget is that this operation was approved all the way up the chain. How far is still a mystery. But the pieces of that puzzle are beginning to fall into place.

A Crisis Averted

Or in this case, manufactured to justify further encroachments on gun owners.

So, the Just Us Dept has, in effect, created a crisis involving multiple sales to illegal straw buyers, who in turn ran these guns all the way to Mexico. Against the judgement of the stores affected, against street agent advice, and in contravention of any moral or legal code known to man.

See here, here, here, and here.

And don't forget David Codrea and Mike V's coverage of this still unfolding scandal here and here.

Because of this manufactured crisis, Just Us has deemed that multiple sales of long guns will require the same reporting requirements used in multiple hand gun sales.

Great. How long do you think it'll be before weapons from other, unknown, 'Fast and Furious' -type operations running at various locations around the country justify this requirement across the board? I think the answer will be sooner than you would think or expect.

What Part of No Don't They Understand?

Via a link from WoG, comes this little gem from Mercury news.

Setting aside the other obvious BS spouted by the author of this piece, I would like to focus on one part, the quote David used in his post:

"Gun Rights Activists did not immediately respond to phone calls seeking comment."

They didn't call David, or anyone else for that matter, and I'm pretty sure I'm so low on their list of names to call for a comment that I don't really matter much to them, but I'll give it a try anyway.

No. Nyet. Nada. Nein. Non. Mei. Nai. Uh-Uh.

For too many years, gun owners have been portrayed as knuckle dragging neanderthal hick hayseeds. For over 70 years we have given ground to a group whose sole idea of compromise is to give them everything they want in order to save, well something.

We hear things like compromise and common sense, all the while being portrayed as blood thirsty, willing to kill old people and babies to satiate our blood lust.

We gave in 1934, in order to pass the first real federal gun control act, to make sure that possession of certain types of vilified guns and accessories like a Thompson, or short-barrelled rifle/shotguns, and suppressors were made taboo and only available to the wealthy.

We gave in 1968, while more of our freedom and liberty were sacrificed in order to keep the Sirhan Sirhans and protesters of the day from getting their hands on weaponry. We stood by while easily affordable firearms were deemed too cheap to possess, while a petty tyrant sitting in a cushy office in a far away building decided for us what was 'sporting' and what wasn't with the stroke of a pen.

Even in our victories we've seen defeat. A bill to protect gun owners from an out of control bureaucracy (seems something never change, do they?) we got the shaft again, this time by a still controversial amendment that banned future manufacture of fully automatic weapons thus ensuring that only the truly wealthy can afford them.

We stood by in 1993 and 1994 while tragedy after tragedy was laid at our feet and more restrictions were placed upon us. Magazine capacity bans. Bans on cosmetic features. Bans on names. None of this did anything to stem the tragedies, but it made the hanky-wringers happy. We could debate the effectiveness of this particular law all day long, but the long and the short of it is it didn't work. It didn't ban anything. Weapons specifically named under the ban were still available, only they had different names and offending features such as bayonet lugs and threaded barrels were removed. Standard capacity mags that were readily available before 14 Sep 1994 were still available after 14 Sep 1994, they just cost a little more.

The only bone thrown to us in this mess was a sunset clause. 10 years, if left alone, this law would disappear. It was a contentious issue, a president who touted his NRA creds baffled gun owners by saying that if the extension came to his desk, he would sign it. When that law failed to garner the support it needed, I cheered. And I waited. I got my first no-ban gun a month after the sunset.

In those 7 years and change since that law sunsetted, crimes committed with sport utility rifles, and other weapons with standard capacity magazines have not gone through the roof. The only thing that has gone up is the media hysteria over such crimes when the do occur.

The Virginia Tech shooter didn't need extended mags. He needed the standard capacity mags that came with his gun, because he had time to reload. The Tuscon shooter stupidly used a 33 rd magazine used by competition shooters and hobbyists that is known to jam, thinking he could do a lot of damage. He did some, but because his weapon jammed, because he was using a magazine known to do so, he was able to be subdued by bystanders.

So, mister editorialist, I leave you with these questions. What exactly is a 'high capacity magazine'? I mean, I have rifles whose standard capacity is between 4 rds and 100. There are belt fed guns, perfectly legal for us mere peons to own, that take belts of 5 rds up to 250 or more. I have had pistols whose standard capacity is anywhere from 6 to 19 rds.

If, as you all like to claim, no one needs these magazines, and that possession of same is evidence of a desire to kill as many people as possible, then why on earth do the police need them? Are they somehow protected from the urge to kill large swathes of people by the magical talisman on their shirt? Are they imparted with some power during training at the Police Academy that wards off this urge, this desire?

What say you, Mister Gun Grabber?

All This Talk Of Bans and Whatnot

In the wake of the shooting a couple of weeks ago, debate has raged from all over as to whether our gun laws are too weak or not.

The typical poo flinging monkeys (Josh squared and Paul) have stated that gun shows, magazine capacity, and an inefficient background check system (on top of all the rhetoric the shooter never listened to or heard) were all the reasons a deranged nutjob hell bent on killing the object of his desire needed.

A couple of other bloggers, Joe Huffman and Say Uncle, pointed out that when arguing about gun control with an anti-gunner, their responses pretty much run into the 'F/U' department. In a discussion on a report out of my home state of WY becoming the 4th state to allow Constitutional Carry, the discussion turned to magazine capacity. Several commentors finally got down to the 4 letter word of the problem, need. They argue that no one 'needs' a magazine larger than 10 rds for anything. I did manage to point out that when the conversation turns to 'need' the person making the argument has lost and is showing their intellectual inferiority by doing so. I believe I said 'Your IQ is at room temperature and falling like a stone'.

In this, they are technically correct. But where they fail is that 'need' has nothing to do with it. Almost all of my rifles were designed from the outset to shoot from magazines that hold 30+ rds so I would argue that it's not need, its a requirement. My pistols, not so much. 1911's generally shoot from magazines that hold between 7 and 9 rds, depending.

It reminds me of a silly rule that NASCAR has. In order to slow things down at the superspeedways like Daytona and Talledega, they install a smaller fuel cell. 13 gallons for the super tracks vs. 22 for the rest of the circuit. The reasoning for this is it's supposed to slow the race down by making the cars have to pit for gas more often. They haven't limited the speeds on the track, they've just managed to make it more dangerous for the pit crews, as they have to deal with pitting these cars more often, placing them in harms way on pit road more often.

See any similarities to the debate on magazine capacity? Makes about as much sense, doesn't it.

My Take On Tuscon

With all the nattering of the media classes so far over the last 3 days, has it struck any one of them the irony of what they are spewing?

I mean, they are decrying 'right wing hate speech', while engaging, and forgetting, hate speech of their own.

Michelle Malkin has a great round up of some of the more egregious examples over at her site, here.

Snowflakes in Hell has a great little reminder of the 'hate speech' that the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Ownership has conveniently forgotten, here.

And let's not forget our favorite bigots, the 3 Amigos of gun control at the Huffington Post (Horowitz, Sugarmann, & Henigan), who can't wait to dance in the still warm blood of the victims by trying to paint the firearms community as a bunch of blood-thirsty neanderthals and push for even more restrictions on That Which Shall Not Be Infringed. (As if any of the laws they push for would have stopped this. But I digress. That's a topic for another post.)

As the saying goes, I told you all that to tell you this. There was supposed to be a narrative of what happened last weekend. It has been reported that the One was in need of something, anything to save his reign, much like Clinton had Oklahoma City. You can tell there was supposed to be a narrative by checking out what the New York Times, the Washington Post, MSLSD, the liberal talk show hosts such as Ed Schultz, Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, et al have been saying.

Never mind that within 24 hrs of the shooting we knew the nutcase in question read Mein Kampfe and the Communist Manifesto. And that former classmates in both high school and college described him as a leftist pothead. None of that matters. Every single talking head from ABC to MSLSD has been trying to paint this loon as some kind of right wing whack job. Unfortunately, with the rise of the new media and sources such as Drudge, Politico, Michelle Malkin; and talk radio hosts such as Andrew Wilkow, Mike Church, Mark Levin, and Cam & Company, they are having a really hard time trying to push their narrative like they did 16 yrs ago. Too much information is out there and Pandora ain't getting that back in her little box.

Mike Vanderboegh has publicly stated there will be no more free Wacos. After Oklahoma City, there will be no more free narratives such as that perpetrated in 1995. There are too many eyes, ears, and witnesses with an avenue to bring what they saw and heard to light. There is no way they can get away with it. Just witness what is happening in the media since Saturday.

And Now A Word From The Opposition

Having gone from trying to beat Starbucks into submission, and failing, Paul Helmke of the Brady Bunch For The Prevention of Gun Ownership is getting his bleat on about the NRA.

What does he have to say? Well, you can read for yourself, here.

Keeping up with the whole 'NRA's all about letting terrorists have guns' thing, he tries to guilt the membership into supporting his point of view.

Supposedly taking a piece from the NRA's pledge in 1954, we get this little gem:

'I certify that I am a citizen of the United States; that I am not a member of any organization that has any part of its program the attempt to overthrow the government of the United States by force or violence; that I have never been convicted of a crime of violence and that if admitted to membership I will fulfill the obligations of good sportsmanship and good citizenship.'

Now, when I got my life membership last year (I upgraded to Endowment this year on the legacy plan) I got a copy of the Bylaws of the National Rifle Association.

Reading said bylaws, Article 3, section 1, paragraph b states:

'No individual who is a member of, and no organization composed in whole or in part of individuals who are members of, any organization or group having as its purpose or one of its purposes the overthrow by force and violence of the Government of the United States or any of its political subdivisions shall be eligible for membership.'

I don't see where the NRA has ever been about giving guns to terrorists. Either by selling them or giving them away. Nobody wants terrorists, or criminals for that matter, to have access to firearms. That said, what the NRA, and a lot of others don't much care for is putting somebody's name on a secret list and then denying them civil rights with no way or hope of ever getting off the super secret squirrel list. There's something about 'lists' that conjures up all kinds of bad history and memories; from the NKVD to the Gestapo to the Stasi to the KGB and the FSB, nobody wants their name on a list for no other reason than somebody, somewhere didn't like the way they looked or acted. Those kinds of things can get ugly in real hurry.

His other complaint, about the so-called 'gunshow loophole' or as he puts it 'loopholes that allow criminals to buy guns' is a tired old argument he's been at for some time.

His latest, though, is trying to equate NRA membership with militia membership. Now, knowing what the bylaws from 2009 and the pledge from 1954 say, I think he's trying to urinate up the long hemp object hanging from the ceiling. Reason I say that is, everyone I know of who hates the government also can't stand the NRA. Most, if not all, of them think the NRA is too squishy on gun rights for their tastes.

You know, the Prez may have been right. You've got to hitch your wagon to something bigger than yourself. My wagon just happens to be the proverbial 800 lb gorilla in gun rights.

Sorry for the light posting

It's been murder at work the last couple of weeks, plus some minor health issues equal light posting over the last few weeks.


Although I do believe a little update is in order.


I am now an Endowment member of the NRA. Did the whole Legacy upgrade thing. Along with the Legacy upgrade, I also got my wife an annual membership, just to see how she'd like it. If I get another Legacy upgrade, I may upgrade her to Life member status.


I've also been busy with a special project for my wife. Can't give too many details away right now, but I'll guarantee she'll be blown away by it.


On the news front, mass murder and mayhem erupted Monday as gunslingers were allowed to carry concealed weapons in National Parks. At least that's what the Brady Bunch et al are saying. Sebastian at Snowflakes in Hell has all the details.



Also on the legislative front, the editorial board of the Casper Star-Tribune gets it's paranoia on, by, well, I'll let them explain it themselves (hat tip to David Codrea for the link and the update). As a reminder (or a history lesson) this paper has consistently been against loosening gun laws in the state for the better part of 20 yrs. They were against may issue CC, then against shall issue CC, they fought tooth and nail to take the teeth out of the 'castle doctrine' bill that, while eventually passed, was a shadow of the original bill that was filed. Oh, and that National Parks thing? They were against that, too. And you wouldn't believe there postition on the two Firearms Freedom Acts introduced in the state legislature. But hey, at least they support the right to keep and bear arms, right?

Fun With Idiots

Over at the Observer-Reporter of Washington, PA, their crack editorial staff is all worked up over the "availability" of 'assault weapons'. Putting aside the horrendous murder of the cops int he piece, tragedies all in their own right, I want to focus on the crux of the argument.

The piece bemoans the lapse of the Violent Crime Act of 1994 in 2004. What this piece doesn't tell you is that this law did nothing to stem the flow of alleged 'assault weapons'. They were, and are, still available for sale in most areas of the country. What changed in 2004 was that what was banned in '94 was now allowed; namely bayonet lugs, threaded muzzles, and folding/telescoping stocks.

When the Department of Justice and National Institutes of Justice studied the effects of the ban, they found that while these weapons uses in crime were a virtual statistical anomaly before the ban, the resultant decrease in crimes committed with them during the ban wasn't even calculable.

Another part of the ban that went away was the ban on standard capacity magazines, capping them at 10 rds for pistols and rifles, and 5 rounds for shotguns. Now, depending on where you're at, magazine capacities are limited to 5 rds in rifles, like here in South Dakota for instance. While across the state line in Wyoming, there is no such restriction. One can hunt with a 30 rd mag or a 75 rd drum if they're so inclined. (I must add that I have hunted in WY with a 30 rd mag, unfortunately, I wasn't able to bag anything, much to the delight of the anti-gun/hunting forces out there.) In those states that have magazine restrictions, they do make 5 rd hunting mags specifically for that purpose, so you can go out and hunt with your SKS, Saiga, AK, FAL, or heavy caliber AR without getting into trouble.

Sometimes, you can't make this stuff up.

Sometimes Their Pet Laws Bite Them In The A...

The Atlanta Journal Constitution has its knickers all in a knot over access to Brady/NICS information. They postulate that had there been something in place, the terrorist at Ft Hood wouldn't have been able to do what it was he did.

So what do they do? They reprint an op-ed from the Washington Post that was published almost a week ago (28 Nov, WP, vs 3 Dec, AJC). Oh, they were cute about it and changed the title and all, but hey, why write your own when you can dust off somebody else stuff and pass it off as brand-spanking new.

Sebastian over at SIH did a pretty thorough job of destroying that argument here when it first appeared on the Wa-Po.

The one thing I would add is that none of what they want (or currently have) would have stopped this, short of locking the nut case up when he first hit radar screens. (Any guesses as to how that would have gone over with the ACLU crowd?) Having a purchase flagged and denied because of somebodies suspicion smacks of jealously. I think the AJC wants a quasi-intelligentsia apparatus reminiscent of the Stasi or the KGB and are pissed because they can't have it...yet.

A New Yorkers View On Us Little People

There are soooooo many things wrong with this article I don't even know where to begin. I guess I'll start out at the beginning and go from there.
.
Our New Yawker starts off with what seems like a tribute to veterans and then devolves into the War on Terror (clue to Mrs Rubin, there's no more War on Terror, it's an overseas contingency operation, didn't you get the memo?) and telling everyone the NRA is in the midst of it's own 'War of Terror'. I'm sorry, did you just assert that a specifically enumerated Constitutional right is the source of 'terror' in the United States? Did I read that right?
.

"This Veterans Day, above all, has demonstrated that the US War on Terror and the NRA's War of Terror have consequences."

.

Yup, I guess I did. She then goes on to equate being a veteran with being a mass murderer. So I guess, myself and the MILLIONS of men and women who have served this country for periods from 2 yrs to 40 yrs are now murderers in the making. I mean Timothy McVeigh was a vet right? So was the DC Sniper. I guess that seals it, doesn't it.

.

Then we find out that on any given night, 130,000 veterans are homeless. After going from the Iraq/Afghanistan war to all veterans is a bit of a stretch. I'm pretty sure that most of the personnel who have deployed in support of OIF/OEF are not homeless by any stretch of the imagination. But hey, if it helps get your point across, who am I to get in the way, right?

.

"At least 121 Iraq and Afghanistan veterans have been charged with a killing after returning from the war.

On any given night says New Jersey Senator Menendez, 131,000 veterans are homeless, of which 10,000 are in New York City and northern New Jersey. Indeed, one-fourth of all homeless in America are veterans "home" from the war."

.

But now we get to the meat of this hit piece. See, we can't blame the Muslim terrorist who shot the hell out of Ft Hood, no we have to blame everything and everyone else except the turd who did the shooting. See, it can't be his fault because he had 'secondary post traumatic stress disorder' From Charles Krauthammer:

.

"After all, secondary PTSD, for those who believe in it (you won't find it in the DSMR-IV-TR, psychiatry's Diagnostic and Statistics manual), is known as 'compassion fatigue'."

.

It seems Mrs Rubin thinks this shooting was the result of a failure of policies, namely 'gun control'.

.

So the shooter walked into a gun store, after the investigation of him by the federal powers-that-be decided not to investigate him further, and bought a Fabrique-Nationale Herstal 5.7x28mm pistol. Which is still a perfectly legal action in every state in the union (although it's becoming a major PITA in some, namely New Joisey). A pistol, our intrepid editorialist assures us is a 'cop killer'. Never mind that not one single cop has been killed with it, that the ammuntion that made it a 'cop killer' is not legal for any civilian to own, and the 5.7x28 is ballistically comparable to a .22 mag, but the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Ownership says so, so it must be true. Don't believe me? Just ask them, they'll tell you.

.

She also goes on to draw the line that this bloodbath would have been averted if that stupid George Bush and that dastardly Republican congress hadn't allowed the 1994 assault weapons ban to expire. Because as we all know, the pistol used by the shooter would have been illegal, right? Well, maybe the 20 round magazine would have, but not the pistol itself. According to her, all these mass shootings since 2005 can be laid directly at the feet of the expiration of said ban.

.

The rest is typical screed from tired old talking points. At this point, I've given more attention than I probably should have to begin with. If you want, go on over and check out the rest. But I'm warning you, don't have anything light and easily throwable or had anything to eat. You're liable to throw something or lose your lunch after you read it.

Some Things Just Won't Go Away

Seems Miss Stephanie Kraft can't get over the fact that people can lawfully purchase firearms even if their names appear on a super-secret-squirrel list kept by the DHS.

What gets her knickers in a twist is the fact that someone who hasn't been accused of a crime, let alone been convicted of the same, can walk into a gun store and lawfully purchase a firearm.

Never mind that DHS admits there are flaws with their super-secret-squirrel list. What with over a million names on it, there's bound to be innocent people on it somewhere.

Now, this has been old news for about 4 months. Apparently Miss Kraft needs to keep up with the times. Not only has Frank the Fixer's bill been reintroduced, but so has Carolyn "Barrel Shroud" McCarthy, and Rep King from NY.

By the way Stephanie, all of these bills are DOA in Congress. You're a little late.

A Difference Of Opinion

Seems the lady who wrote the column here doesn't quite see eye-to-eye with me on H.R. 45 or the root causes of some of the crime facing the big cities in this country. I tried to set her straight:

Mrs. Beam-

I just read your piece, “Common Ground on Gun Control” on wiscnews.com. While I find it refreshing that you and your brother-in-law can sit down and discuss a politically charged topic like gun control in a rational and sane manner, I must point out some flaws in your argument for H.R. 45.

First, and most importantly, imposing the same restrictions and licensing requirements on firearms would be in direct contradiction to the Constitution. By supporting this bill, what you advocate is placing a prior restraint on a civil right. The same sort of prior restraint codified in Jim Crow laws by requiring literacy tests to vote, a version of which is required under this bill. “A certificate attesting to the completion at the time of application of a written firearms examination [sec 102 (7)]”.

What is misunderstood, glossed over, or simply ignored is that the crime to which this bill is attributed was committed in the city of Chicago. A city which, since the ban on private ownership in Washington D.C. was found to be unconstitutional, has the most restrictive gun laws in the country. There has been, since the early 1980’s, a complete ban on handgun ownership in the city, with few exceptions. So how was it, that this heroic young man died protecting another, in a city that bans hand guns, with a hand gun?

Your brother-in-law touched on something in your conversation that scratches the surface of the problem. Socio-economic problems play a small part of this, but the larger question that must be asked is this. What has happened during the last 40 yrs to turn our larger urban population centers into killing fields? Is it poverty? Doubtful. Poverty is prevalent all over the country. Rural America, from border to border and sea to sea, has more than it’s share of poverty, yet you don’t see young people shooting each other over the most mundane things. The problem here is cultural. A culture that says it’s ok to sleep with as many women as you can, steal as much as you can, sell as many drugs as you can, and shoot whoever you can is not one conducive to producing productive members of society. This kind of behavior is celebrated, and even rewarded by the rest of the country.

Social policy has taken the fathers out of these homes, telling them it’s ok they don’t have to take responsibility for their actions. Leaving a single mother, sometimes as young as 12 or 13, to fend for themselves or live off the government dole for the rest of their lives. So without a male influence in the home, is it any wonder these children turn to gangs? They offer the stability, respect, and emotional attachment these children crave.

No ma’am, Blair Holts Firearm Licensing and Record Act will not stop what happened to this bill’s namesake. This is proven every time a gun goes off in Chicago. What this bill will accomplish is the disarming of people like your brother, those who will never commit a crime, who shoot for fun or sport, and are generally ambivalent about the whole thing. Until someone shows up to take their guns away because the criminal element in this country cannot be controlled by a social experiment.

If I get a response back, I'll post it.