Category Archives: 2nd Amendment

Backdoor Gun Control

Having failed in their schemes to take your guns, they’ll next try to make your guns about as useful as paperweights by imposing draconian ammo restrictions. Crap like this is why friends don’t let friends vote Democrat:

A Pincer Movement on Ammunition

As it wanes, the Obama administration grows bold, and even reckless, on matters that send a thrill up the leg of its most leftward supporters. Its new attack on so-called armor-piercing ammunition — which is, in reality, a very broad attack on ammunition across the board — is a dangerous and destructive example of the administration’s late-days slide into rule-by-decree.

[…]

The upshot of all this maneuvering is that the ATF intends to revoke the sporting exemption for certain popular kinds of .223 ammunition, allowing it to be reclassified as armor-piercing and therefore banned, even though it is not designed as armor-piecing ammunition and has no special armor-piercing characteristics. The reason for this is that the feared and hated AR-style rifle has been enjoying a new career as a handgun. This is yet another consumer response to federal regulation: Some people prefer short-barreled rifles, particularly for home-defense situations when they will most likely be used indoors, but federal law makes short-barreled rifles a special category of weapon that requires additional permits and taxes, and some jurisdictions ban them outright. But if you remove the shoulder stock from an AR-style rifle, it’s not a rifle — it’s a handgun, albeit one of the clumsiest and goofiest handguns on the market. But the fact that there is a multi-shot handgun commercially available for those non-lead .223 rounds means that such ammunition can be banned as armor-piercing, even though it is not armor-piercing ammunition, by use or by design.

So, everybody goes back to lead, right?

Wrong. Environmental groups have been pressuring the EPA to begin regulating — or to ban outright — lead ammunition under the Toxic Substances Control Act. They lost their most recent round when the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled that the EPA lacks statutory authority to regulate lead ammunition, but when has statutory authority stopped the Obama administration? The FCC has no statutory authority to enact net-neutrality rules — that’s why it has reached back to a 1930s, New Deal–era law for justification. You can be sure that the campaign to use the EPA or other federal agencies to ban lead ammunition is far from over. The U.S. Humane Society already is petitioning the Interior Department to ban lead ammunition on public lands.

Doomberg channels his inner Kluxer

Not content to let the well-documented racism of the gun-grabbers remain in the past, he’s slapping a fresh coat of paint on it and bringing it into the present:

Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg: Disarm Minorities

“[Former New York City Mayor, founder of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, financial backer of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America and current jefe of Everytown for Gun Safety Michael] Bloomberg claimed that 95 percent of murders fall into a specific category: male, minority and between the ages of 15 and 25,” aspentimes.com reports. “Cities need to get guns out of this group’s hands and keep them alive, he said.” Yup, you heard right: Bloomberg wants to disarm [blacks]. That’s because . . .

“These kids think they’re going to get killed anyway because all their friends are getting killed,” Bloomberg said. “They just don’t have any long-term focus or anything. It’s a joke to have a gun. It’s a joke to pull a trigger.”

Maybe so. But it’s not a joke to deny law-abiding [blacks] their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms because of criminal acts. And once again, the doyenne of civilian disarmament is pulling statistics out of his posterior parts.

If they can’t even properly identify that which they want to ban, perhaps they should treat themselves to a nice cup of STFU.

Democrat Lawmakers Fail To Provide Factual Support For “High Capacity Magazine Clip” Bill

“High capacity magazine clip?”  Never heard of such a thing.  Some guns take a removable box magazine, which may or may not be quickly reloaded with a stripper clip.  In some cases (such as the M1 Garand), the magazine is part of the gun, not a separate element.  (You can load the Garand with individual cartridges, but it’s faster if you use the en bloc clips designed for the purpose.)

Perhaps they’re related to the “30-magazine clip” described by the asshole in this video:

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJmFEv6BHM0]

…because it takes good people with guns to stop bad people with guns

Armed Women and Mothers Drive Back Boko Haram Attack

Several Nigerian media outlets have been reporting on local women in the villages of Attagara and Kawuri in Borno State who recently disarmed nearly a dozen Boko Haram terrorists. The notorious pseudo-Islamic [sic] terror groups tried to attack the Attagara and Kawuri communities over the weekend but the insurgents were instantly repelled by a group of armed women.

My only nitpick: there’s nothing “pseudo” about Boko Haram’s motivation.

The stupid…it burns!

France has strict gun laws. Why didn’t that save Charlie Hebdo victims?

When American audiences read of a dramatic event in a foreign country, they often frame it in terms of the political debates occurring at home. As such, it was no surprise that after shootings at the satirical French newspaper Charlie Hebdo in Paris this week, some Americans began to wonder about gun control laws.

“Isn’t it interesting that the tragedy in Paris took place in one of the toughest gun control countries in the world?” American reality television star Donald Trump wrote on Twitter shortly after the news broke. The tweet prompted both praise (over a thousand retweets) and scorn (Trump was labelled a “moron” and an “idiot” by other tweeters).

Trump, a perennial attention seeker, was likely attempting to score political points and insult liberals with his tweet. But behind the disingenuity, there is is a genuinely troubling question: Why didn’t France’s gun laws save the Charlie Hebdo victims?

Umm…perhaps it’s that, by definition, criminals don’t obey laws? Mohammed bin Hajji doesn’t give a damn about gun laws when he’s got his psychopathic rage on.  What’s one more broken law when he’s already getting his splodeydope on?

It’s not gun control.  It’s victim disarmament.

(h/t: JWF)

Justice served

If New York has a law pertaining to the particular abuse of power that Nevada calls “oppression under color of office,” criminal charges need to be filed against the cops and prosecutors involved in this incident pour encourager les autres. Given that this is New York, though, which sees fit to elect such defenders of freedom as Andrew Cuomo and Bill DeBlasio, though, what are the odds of that happening?

‘You are a ‘Teabagger!” Long Island Woman Receives $1.12 Million For False Prosecution

A Long Island federal jury rewarded Nancy Genovese, 58, a mother of three, $1.12 million in compensatory damages after being arrested in 2009 for attempting to photograph a helicopter at a Air National Guard base in the Hamptons. Genovese intended to use the photo on a “Support the Troops” website; she was arrested for trespass and insulted as a “Teabagger.”

From The New York Post:

Southhampton cops searched her and found a legally owned rifle that she was transporting from a nearby rifle range. She contends a deputy sheriff arrived on the scene later and said to her, “I bet you are one of those Tea Party people.” When Genovese said she’s gone to Tea Party rallies, he allegedly said, “You’re a real right-winger, aren’t you?” and “You are a ‘Teabagger’” and then added that she’d be arrested for terrorism to make an example of other “right wingers.”

“What they took from this woman cannot be measured in money,” said her lawyer Frederick Brewington.“There is no reason to treat another human the way they treated her.”

Ihre Papiere, bitte!

Notice how quickly the usual suspects squawk when it’s their freedoms on the line:

Is it time to treat the First Amendment just like the Second?

Two stories in today’s Seattle Times best illustrate the hypocrisy of the political left when it comes to the exercise of civil rights – in this case the First Amendment – and might provide an object lesson to anyone favoring restrictions on the Second Amendment.

One article explains that the Downtown Seattle Association and other Seattle business groups complained to Mayor Ed Murray and the city council about the downtown protests after the Ferguson grand jury decision. These protests were launched without permits and “caused significant disruption and impacts to transportation, commerce, jobs, retailers, residents, employees and tax revenues,” the Times reported.

Their lament drew a quick reaction from the Seattle chapter of the National Lawyers Guild, described as “an organization of activist-minded law students, legal workers and attorneys.” In their letter, the Guild wrote, “We are saddened that the Downtown Seattle Association and its partners in the business community do not understand the First Amendment and the right to protest in the most public of places in Seattle — downtown.”

[…]

Why should peaceful protesters be treated any differently in their exercise of the First Amendment than law-abiding, peaceful gun owners be treated in their exercise of the Second Amendment? Background checks for all firearms transfers, including loans or gifts and private sales might just as easily be considered “prior restraint.”

Note to protesters: If you don’t care to be photographed in a public place on the suspicion that you just might be preparing to commit a crime, don’t squawk because gun owners don’t care to have the government recording every time they loan or borrow a firearm, especially to a friend or neighbor they have known for years, perhaps decades, on the mere suspicion that some crime might occur. That’s how Second Amendment advocates could explain why blindly voting for a “universal background check” initiative is insidious. Passing a law that ratchets down on someone else’s civil right is not nearly as noticeable as your own civil rights ox being gored.