Gun Exchange

They're still doing these things? I thought by now common sense had taken over and people realized that "guns for ..." well, anything was nothing but stupidity. Then again, since liberalism still lives, things like this will certainly continue. After all, these "gun exchanges" are a true example of total style over substance.

In this particular article, a person traded in a missile launcher for a pair of sneakers (which YOU paid for). These stupid, taxpayer money wasting events are supposed to "get guns off the streets." Others claim they make the streets safer because there will be less guns on the street. So, how many people honestly think that we're safer because this fellow turned in his rocket launcher? Seriously.

Do you think he was planning on using the darn thing? Do you think he was getting ready to fire at the police station, but at the last minute thought, "gee, I can turn this thing in for a pair of sneakers. I think I'd rather have those!" Incredibly, those people who support these things (and FORCE you to pay for them with your money) actually do.

Instead, do you think it's more likely that this missile launcher had already been used? There's a lot of people that think there was a US Airliner shot down in NY years ago using a missile launcher. What a perfect way to get rid of any evidence against you, huh?

The vast majority of guns that are turned into these stupid events are either broken or tainted. Even having such a system in place gives criminals a perfect way to get rid of any firearm used in a crime without any chance of punishment. What a great system we have, huh?

Gun trade-ins do less than nothing to reduce crime -- instead they're more likely to give people a way to get away with a crime than have someone not commit a crime. But that is classic liberalism -- it feels good, so they do it -- no matter what the real consequences might be.

NH Gun Laws

Apparently the Supreme Court in New Hampshire has serious problems with freedom. That's really unfortunate, because New Hampshire is the site of The Free State. Then again, that's why freedom-oriented people (over 400 of them) have already moved to New Hampshire -- to advance freedom, somehow.

However, the recent election of Democrats in NH has definitely slowed the advance of freedom. And now the supreme court there is doing it's part to ensure no one shall be free. They have ruled that people just don't really have that whole right to bear arms. The court seems to think that people have that right, but if government wants to take that right away, that's fine too.

The news article points out the case and makes it more complicated than it really is. However, the article does point out that the court basically ruled that the government IS free to restrict and regulate the "right" to bear arms any time it wants to. Sigh. I guess the word "rights" doesn't actually mean RIGHTS any more. If it's subject to restriction and regulation, then it was never a right to begin with. The whole point of a right is that the government CANNOT remove it. But no longer in NH (although there may be an appeal to the US Supreme Court).

If you want more gory details (with graphic, but accurate word usage), see what Bruce has to say about this horrible, horrible blow to freedom. After all, if the supreme court rules that government can, at will, restrict and regulate anything they want, what was the whole purpose of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? According to the NH Supreme Court, those documents literally mean NOTHING because the government can remove or adjust them any time they want.

NJ Toy Guns

Once again, a politician illustrates that he is a stupid moron. Sorry, I don't like to call names, but still, Sen. Nicholas Scutari is a stupid moron. Well, more likely he just hates guns and freedom, so he's working hard to destroy them, but in doing so he looks like a stupid moron.

This is yet another stupid Senator that's trying to do something to demonize guns. This time he's trying to ban the sale of toy guns to minors. Yes, adults should be able to buy toy guns because they will be responsible with the molded plastic -- but children, with their billions of dollars of disposable cash, should not be permitted to have plastic things because they might, well, he's not really clear what the kids would do with a plastic toy gun, but whatever it is, Sen. Nicholas Scutari doesn't want them to be doing that.

The bill is quite incomplete. You see, if Sen. Nicholas Scutari wants to stop kids from using toy guns, he's going to have to do more. He's going to have to ban adults giving toy guns to children. You see what Sen. Nicholas Scutari apparently doesn't know is that the vast majority of toys that children have are obtained as GIFTS from parents and others who work for a living (unlike Mr. Scutari). Perhaps he can license kids who want plastic guns, but only if they pass a test.

But even if the bill stops adults from buying those evil pieces of molded plastic, that's not going to be enough. I've often driven home from work and seen children using sticks as toy guns. This bill, if it's really going to stop kids from playing with toy guns, is going to have to ban sticks that are shaped like guns. Perhaps Mr. Scutari can arrange a new government department that can spend their time checking all sticks that fall on the ground for "gun-shapes." Then they can take the "gun-shaped" sticks and put them in a chipper before the children can get their hands on them.

Oh, but that's not quite enough yet. You see the other day I was in a mall and I saw two kids pointing their index fingers at one another and making shooting sounds. If Mr. Scutari wants to really make this bill effective -- if he REALLY wants to stop kids from playing with guns, as is his clear intent -- then we need to start removing children's index fingers and thumbs. I wonder if Mr. Scutari will support a new government program to surgically remove all children's thumbs and index fingers at birth to absolutely ensure that they don't "play with guns."

Sen. Nicholas Scutari is a stupid moron. Only a moron would suggest that "banning" a toy would have any effect on anyone.

Brainwashed Fools

The government-run socialist school system continues to brainwash unsuspecting youth. Note this essay by Danielle England and Kori Nunes. They support complete removal of the Second Amendment. Why? Because they don't trust me. I guess since their god, the US government, claims I'm a terrorist, they believe their god and don't trust me. But they really think the world will be safer without guns. Guess they haven't heard about Japan. Good thing they don't have guns and are only beheading and dismembering people.

But this is a result of the government school system. The government run system is telling your children that all guns are bad all the time. They are being told that you cannot trust anyone with a gun because you will kill people. The government run system is pointing out and teaching this vulnerable kids that anyone with a gun, other than government agents, is a bad person. And the kids believe them.

Arm yourselves now, because when these kids get to voting age, they're going to do all they can to disarm you so that only the government will be armed. Of course, the kids are also not taught that every single time that has happened in all of human history, government then starts killing anyone they don't like.

And once again, government schools illustrate their utter worthlessness to a free country.

Reagan on Guns

This fellow sure was wise beyond his age.

There are those in America today who have come to depend absolutely on government for their security. And when government fails they seek to rectify that failure in the form of granting government more power. So, as government has failed to control crime and violence with the means given it by the Constitution, they seek to give it more power at the expense of the Constitution. But in doing so, in their willingness to give up their arms in the name of safety, they are really giving up their protection from what has always been the chief source of despotismgovernment. Lord Acton said power corrupts. Surely then, if this is true, the more power we give the government the more corrupt it will become. And if we give it the power to confiscate our arms we also give up the ultimate means to combat that corrupt power. In doing so we can only assure that we will eventually be totally subject to it.
VA Tech Shooting

Surely this news cannot be true. Fox News is reporting that somewhere between one and eight people have been shot on the campus of VA Tech this morning. I find this very hard to believe and am convinced this must be some sort of conspiracy.

You see, we're told again and again that guns cause crime. And Section V.W.: Weapons of the VT Student Programs Policy clearly states:

Unauthorized possession, storage, control of firearms and weapons on university property is prohibited, including storing weapons in vehicles on campus as well as in the residence halls.

Since laws eliminate the possibility of gun violence (as the Brady Campaign claims), then there is simply no way that there are guns on campus. They're banned, so they don't exist.

Therefore, this story must be a complete hoax.

Either that, or the Brady Campaign is once again shown to be total idiots who have no idea what they're talking about...

*** Update: Wow. Now they're reporting at least 21 dead. They're reporting that the "shooter" walked from one room to another, shooting at will. They're claiming he had a vest with clips of ammo. Of course, as this develops, details are confusing. For example, they're reporting just one shooter, but that the shooting incidents on opposite ends of the campus are "not related."

Yes, this is an absolutely horrible incident. But I wonder how many more would be alive right now if just one student or teacher had been armed.

Oh, and CNN is already calling it "a lone gunman." I haven't seen anyone directly claiming that it's not terrorist-related, but that statement sure implies it, doesn't it? Nope, nothing to see here folks, move along.

*** Update #2, 1:33PM EST: ABC News has now upped the count of the dead to 29 and rising. So far only one news agency has released anything about the shooter (while most of them actually have the gall to call him the "alleged" shooter) -- and that report says that a student claims it was an "Asian-looking" person. I wonder where that one is going to lead.

In addition, most news sites are already claiming this is the "worst" shooting on a school campus ever and are listing "timelines" with other school shootings. No news report has reported that guns are prohibited by law at VT, nor whether the
"alleged" shooter would have been charged with a crime is he were not dead.

CBS News is, however, complaining that the weapon was a "high-capacity weapon" -- but they don't know what it is. At the same time, NBC is reporting the shooter used "Two 9mm handguns."

*** Update 3, 2:02PM EST. There it is. No one knows any details. They don't know the shooter. They don't know if he's a student. They don't know if he shot himself or if the police shot him. But know what the FBI spokesman Richard Kolko already knows? It wasn't terrorist-related. Nice to know they can figure that out before they even know the identity of the "alleged" shooter, isn't it?

Fox News has updated the number dead now to "at least 32."

*** Update 4, 2:41PM EST. CBS News is now reporting "a young Asian male, used two handguns in the shootings before taking his own life." I guess that will give the Brady folks some ammo to ban guns. MSNBC says the shooter had a 9mm and a .22 cal "gun." And yes, dozens of commenters on the news sites are calling for "banning those evil high-capacity assault rifles" -- which had nothing to do with this event at all -- except that if someone had one in a dorm room, there might be a few less dead today.

*** Update 5, 2:58PM EST. Some comments from random news message boards about the shooting today: "Only in America." Yeah, no one has ever been shot at a school before in any other country. Like Beslan, Russia.

"How many more innocent people have to die before we have sensable gun control." Gee, maybe we should ban guns on campus. Or maybe require a waiting period before this shooter could buy a handgun. Maybe that would help. Or better yet, maybe we should make it against the law to shoot people.

"This is too high a price to pay for the so-called freedom to carry firearms." Yeah, instead we should take all guns away from anyone who might defend themselves. Then this would never happen because this shooter would absolutely be sure to obey the law and would never have done this if it were illegal.

"If this guy did not have guns he could not have killed 22 people and wounded 28." Because I'm sure that if his mind was so warped that he's never use chemicals, a baseball bat, or a knife.

"We're fighting an unnecessary war in Iraq, when there's issues here that has been ignored for too long. Something as tragic as this was almost likely to happen. " There it is! Yes, folks, this mass murder is Bush's fault! You just knew someone was going to blame him, didn't you?

And another: "George Bush has taught our kids that killing is a legal and effective way of getting your way, and gaining power." Bush derangement syndrome just doesn't have a cure, does it?

"I think the Second Amendment is way past its prime. We need to void it, like we did with the Eighteenth Amendment." Yup, no reason that anyone should be capable of resisting the government under any circumstances. Only the government should be armed to keep people in line.

"First thought: Let me guess, RED STATE..."

"just another day in Baghdad and not a particularly bad one either...... if it is only 22 dead." I don't even know what to say to that one.

Strangely enough, there are many comments about people sending their "thoughts and prayers" to those affected by this horrible tragedy. I, indeed, have already been praying about this event. However, I'm not sure that this particular government university is allowed to accept prayers, what with that "wall of separation between church and state."

*** Update 6, 3:23PM EST. A few unconfirmed reports are claiming that the gunman had a fight with his girlfriend the night before; headed to her dorm room and didn't find her there, but shot her roommate; then headed to the building where her first class was, but didn't know which room it was in, so he just started shooting everyone. When cornered, he shot himself.

Totally unconfirmed, but hey, rumors can explain a lot. And I'm not sure anyone is reading this today, anyway... :)

*** Update 7, 3:49PM EST. ABC News is now running with the headline, "2 Semi-Automatic Pistols." For those who don't understand, that means about 99% of all pistols ever made in history. "Semi-automatic" means that when you pull the trigger, a bullet shoots and another loads. Revolvers from the old west were semi-automatic. I'm not sure I have ever actually SEEN a pistol that wasn't semi-automatic.

*** Update 8 (Last Update today), 5:07PM EST. I really cannot believe all the blaming going on. People (including reporters and students) are blaming the police, the University, the campus police, the NRA, President Bush, guns, America -- and NO ONE is blaming the miserable, EVIL bastard who actually DID THE DAMN SHOOTING. It's not Bush's fault. It's not the police's fault. It's not the university's fault -- IT'S THE ASIAN MALE WHO PULLED THE TRIGGER WHO IS TO BLAME!!!

Children Shooting

Yes, as you read this, Ogre will be away for the day, out teaching young children how to shoot guns. This time it's 7-9 year olds, and I'll be showing them how to shoot targets with BB guns. I'm sure it will be cold (damn algore's man-made global warming), but I'm even more sure it will be lots of fun. And it does remind me of the joke (I know it's not a true story, but it should be):

This is an extract of an National Public Radio (NPR) interview between a female broadcaster and US Army Lieutenant General Reinwald about sponsoring a Boy Scout Troop on his military installation.

Interviewer: "So, LTG Reinwald, what are you going to do with these young boys on their camping trip?"

LTG Reinwald: "We're going to teach them climbing, canoeing, archery, and shooting."

Interviewer: "Shooting! That's a bit irresponsible, isn't it?"

LTG Reinwald: "I don't see why, they'll be properly supervised on the range."

Interviewer: "Don't you admit that this is a terribly dangerous activity to be teaching children?"

LTG Reinwald: "I don't see how, we will be teaching them proper range discipline before they even touch a firearm."

Interviewer: "But you're equipping them to become violent killers."

LTG Reinwald: "Well, you're equipped to be a prostitute, but you're not one, are you?"

End of the interview

HR 1096

When I started reading HR 1096, my jaw dropped. I was honestly shocked that such a bill would even be introduced in the United States House. The title of this bill is "Second Amendment Protection Act of 2007." And it only gets better from there.

Public Law 103-159 is repealed, and any provisions of law amended or repealed by such Act are restored or revived as if such Act had not been enacted.

Now that's just excellent. Public Law 103-159 is the federal law requiring a "waiting period" for handguns. First, the federal government has no business requiring such a thing. Go ahead, find something in the Constitution that even pretends to give Congress that power. They don't have it. Second, it has, as various studies show, had ZERO effect on crime. Keeping handguns from people who obey the law has done NOTHING -- well, except create government jobs and expand the bureaucracy.

Wow. Now I'm just drooling. In the federal code, there's about a dozen places where guns are limited based on the government's variable definition of "sporting purpose." Of course, there's nothing in the second amendment about "sporting purpose" at all. Free people are allowed to own guns NOT for sporting purposes (unless you consider resisting tyranny a sport).

Awesome. That's a moronic, stupid, utterly and totally useless law. There's no way, ever, to enforce that law unless police are allowed to randomly search people's houses. And again, it has no effect on anything.

Then I re-read the beginning:

Mr. PAUL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

Damn. Guess there's no chance of this common sense and excellent bill ever seeing the light of day as long as Queen Terrorist-loving Pelosi is the speaker. But I'm emailing Congressmen to tell them to sign on as co-sponsors anyway.

Defense of Property?

So, are you allowed to defend your own property in America?


Of course, to even consider this question, you have to actually believe you can OWN property in America -- and you simply cannot. If you think you own property, I challenge you to not pay your yearly rent to your Lord and Master and watch how quickly you find yourself arrested and in your own personal 6x8 space.

This time it's Sacramento (what a shock) that has determined that it is a felony to attempt to defend your own property. This case is about a man who was approached by 3 teenagers at 3am at his home.

Now stop right there and imagine that situation. It's 3:00 in the morning. 3 teenagers who you don't know are coming towards you outside your own home. I'm betting they weren't wearing suits and ties. So what are you thinking?

Apparently, these three thugs were trying to steal the man's car. He shot one of the slimeballs in the chest. So, as usual in a land dominated by lefist thought, the car thief goes free and the crime victim goes to jail on a felony charge with a $30,000 bail.

The argument, according to the thugs in Sacramento with blue uniforms is:

What we try to stress to people is that deadly force, the use of a firearm, is never justified under any circumstances to protect property.

Know what? That's just plain wrong. I'm sure I'll get heat for this, and I'm not saying that you can shoot someone who steals a paper clip from you; but you should absolutely be able to defend yourself and your property by whatever means are necessary and reasonable. Being approached at 3:00am by three unknown teenagers is certainly reasonable grounds to assume the worst. This man did absolutely nothing wrong -- the teenagers who attacked him did.

Of course, the big mistake made by the man was that he was honest. In today's current legal system in America, being honest will only get you in trouble. You see, if the man had uttered the magical seven words, this would be a completely different situation -- even if they weren't true: "I was in fear for my life."

But that is the reality of today's horrible, degenerate, backwards "civilization" in America: the guilty are free, crime victims are punished, and being honest with the "authorities" only makes things worse. Oh, how I yearn for freedom.

Good Gun News!

If you were watching the national news last weekend, you probably missed some of the biggest news regarding gun rights, well, in a VERY long time. You see, the typical anti-gun press (CBS, ABC) completely ignored this gigantic ruling. Only NBC actually covered the decision (even if it was followed up with strong criticism of the decision).

The decision was that the second amendment was found Constitutional. This is the first time that has been the case in a very, very long time.

Most gun cases you see or read about hinge on other factors -- usually technicalities, wordings, economics, etc. But this case was argued on just the one factor -- the defense basically was just one line: I have the right to own a firearm based on the second amendment to the Constitution.

Most legal experts refused this case. The NRA didn't want to touch this one. NO ONE wanted a ruling on the second amendment because once it was ruled on those grounds, this would affect guns laws around the country. Almost no government ban of firearms would be able to stand under this decision.

So, of course, the liberals in DC are appealing the case. First it goes to the entire appeals court, and then it will likely be appealed to the Supreme Court (no matter which way the entire court rules). The only way this can really get sidetracked now is if the majority of the appeals court can get with the lunatic opinion of one judge who actually claimed that the Constitution doesn't apply to DC because they're not a state. Any other option will either firmly prove in judicial opinion one way or another: either individuals have a right to bear arms or they don't.

Good Gun Stories

Apparently blogless Chris mentioned Gun Watch (a blog site) in response to my post about good gun news. It's a nice site:

Monitoring people's right to effective self-defence..

There's a whole list of news stories that show guns being used by lawful citizens to defend themselves against criminals who, in many cases, try to kill or injure the citizens. It's a nice site. Good news is fun!

Guns: For Self-Defense

It's nice to hear some good news now and again. And it's good news when guns are used for their purpose: to defend one's self. In New Mexico, three criminals were shot dead by homeowners defending themselves. The article also lists various other uses of guns across the country by law-abiding citizens who simply wanted to live.

In each case, a criminal was trying to either kill or deprive a citizen of their inalienable rights. Now if the citizens did as the anti-gun people suggest, run away and call the police, they would have lost their property and may have lost their lives. In no case would the police have actually been able to stop the criminal in the act because the police were not there! And that's not the purpose of police (to stop crimes) -- their job is to come in AFTER the crime.

In addition, if the citizens had fled, the criminals would not only have taken from those citizens, but would also still have been free to continue on and deprive others of their life, liberty, or property. These citizens should be heralded as heros and hailed as good for the community because they have done what the police and criminal justice system in this country cannot do any more: they have stopped criminals from repeating their crimes.