Weer'd World

Bloomberg’s PAC spending MILLIONS:

The National Rifle Association spending on new ads this week was no surprise, considering the powerful and well-funded gun lobby spent roughly $18 million through its political arms in the last election cycle. And the group remains committed to protecting gun makers and the Second Amendment rights of gun owners.

However, the emergence of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his super PAC spending roughly $2 million this year on a special House race in Illinois suggests both sides are looking to bolster their positions in Congress through the 2014 races and perhaps beyond.

Bloomberg, a vocal advocate of strict gun control, through his super PAC Independence USA, paid for TV ads and mailers attacking two Illinois Democrats — former Rep. Debbie Halvorson and state Sen. Toi Hutchinson — who were running for Jessie Jackson Jr.’s open seat and have had high NRA ratings. The primary is Tuesday and considered too close to call.

Interesting that the anti-rights activists demonize the NRA for spending money, but never cast the same aspersions against Bloomberg, or the Joyce Foundation. Note that the NRA represents MILLIONS of Americans, and can be joined by anybody, and once you reach the requirements, can vote on how the group works. Meanwhile Bloomberg and Joyce are closed shops that represent dozens at best who are chosen by undisclosed means.

Joan Peterson of the Brady Campaign and the Joyce foundation asks some questions of pro-gun activists. I’ll bite!

I just can’t understand, nor can most sane people, why gun rights advocates have a need to display their guns openly in the Minnesota State Capitol. Of whom or what are they afraid? Or is to intimidate? And, by the way, it looks terribly uncomfortable to be carrying that piece of lead around on one’s waist. I wonder if anyone thought about how easy it would be for someone sitting close by to reach over and grab the gun? Just a thought.

Why do we open carry at rallies? Easy because A) Its legal and we can, and B) People like Joan have repeatedly claimed that gun ownership and people carrying guns is rare and in decline. Also for all these massive gatherings with armed lawful citizens, there is no bloodshed or even conflict. That’s a HUGE feather in our hat. Joan wants to pedal fear, and her fear is irrational, and we prove it.

Also for people grabbing for guns, that also doesn’t happen. It doesn’t even happen often with cops. When cops do lose control of their guns its generally when they are physically attempting to restrain criminal suspects. Take away the criminals, and the physical conflict, we have yet another anti-rights phobia.

Some of the pro gun rights folks continued their stream of tweets at some of us on the gun violence prevention side. Why? Who knows? Intimidation? Stupidity? Threatening?

I thought you wanted a discussion, Joan? We know the truth. We’re waiting if you ever decide to come around.

One of the pro gun rights activists apparently was standing close enough to me and another gun violence prevention activist to overhear a private conversation with a State Senator at a rally at the Capitol on Monday and then tweeted about it. What’s that all about? Paranoia? Creepy. Why do they care so much about what we are saying? Why do they watch us so closely? Why do they seem nervous when a group of us gather at the Capitol to talk? Why do they want to make group attacks on our Facebook pages and blogs? Why do they want to attend our events? I’m just asking.

Public place, public servant, paid lobbyist. Why do you care, Joan? What do YOU have to hide? We care about our rights and our cause, that’s why I read anti-gun blogs! I’ve also attended anti-gun protests for the same reason. You’re lobbying against our rights and our personal property, we have a vested interest.

A State Senator asked this question of the ATF agent who made a presentation in favor of requiring background checks and other common sense gun measures: ” Another GOP member, Sen. Warren Limmer of Maple grove, said clubs, baseball bats and hammers are “far more dangerous, and used more often, than a gun.””There’s an obvious answer to that ridiculous question. Murder by gun in 2008= 9,840. Murder by blunt object in 2008=614. Other sources provide similar data. Facts matter. Come on. We are talking about people’s lives here. Let’s please deal with the facts at the very least.

The statistic is about so-called “Assault Weapons”, even factoring in non semi-auto long guns, the fact is true.

Former NRA Board member and Hamlin Law School professor, Joe Olsen, long suffering advocate for not passing reasonable gun laws in Minnesota ( according to testimony, he was tired of coming before the legislature to deal with these issues) told legislators that those of us on the side of preventing gun deaths and injuries had questionable motives and that the universal background check bill would surely lead to registration. Never mind that there is nothing in the bill that would lead a reasonable person to believe that. But paranoia reigns. He was challenged by a Senator who pointed out to him that there was no such language in the bill and that she doubted that we had such motivations. By the way, my testimony included the fact that I, too, am tired of coming before the legislature asking for reasonable measures to stop the senseless shootings. I also mentioned that I had no motivation other than to save lives. But perhaps my views don’t matter as much as those of the uber powerful NRA? I’m just wondering.

Nope, you’re just not a rational person, Joan. Hence why you pin such sinister motives to tweets and public activism, when rational reasons are so obvious.

Facts matter. Universal background checks will NOT lead to registration. The background checks now completed by federally licensed dealers do NOT lead to a gun registry. Extending those checks to private sales will NOT lead to a gun registry. They will be the very same NICS checks that presumably Olsen now is willing to undergo when buying guns from a FFL. Why worry about going through the same checks from a private seller? What is this really about?

Because you do want a registry, and you DO want confiscation. There is an illegal registry of all FFL transfers…its worthless when the people can do off-paper transfers freely and legally. You want that to end so you can step forward with confiscation.

Some on the gun rights side claimed that there is no private sale loophole in Minnesota law. They are wrong, of course. There is. There is no requirement for private sellers to ask buyers to go through a background check at gun shows or other venues. There are copious hidden camera videos showing that to be true. One of our own members went to two gun shows and purchased an assault type weapon and .40 Glock ( the gun used by Cho at the Virginia Tech shooting) with no questions asked from a private seller. He said he didn’t want to go through a background check. The seller said “no problem” and he walked out with the guns. He has brought the assault rifle to the legislature before to explain his experience.

Either its a crime or it isn’t. The background check is irrelevant. Further I must note all the factual inaccuracy on the Virginia Tech shooting shows how committed to the truth you are. As well as the basic mistake of saying “.40 Glock”. Sorry Joan, your “Expert Opinion” is nothing but ignorance and agenda.

Really folks. People are dying. We have moved beyond this trite argument haven’t we? After the Sandy Hook school shooting, it’s time to move forward with some reasonable discussions that include how to stop senseless shootings and save lives. What good does it do to say that regulating guns will not cut down on violence? Regulating car safety features has cut down on deaths by car accident. Regulating the blood alcohol level of drives has cut down on some accidental auto deaths. Regulating where people can smoke will reduce illness caused by smoking. Regulating childrens’ toys has and will stop accidental deaths.

No it wont. I will not give up my rights because it makes you feel good. Also note that Joan doesn’t want to talk about the problems with known mentally ill people, and with “Gun Free Zones” that are selected by insane people for shooting galleries.

I don’t want to pass laws that will not make us safer, but put my life, liberty, and property at risk. You don’t want to talk about laws that WOULD make us safer, but don’t ban guns.

Oh, and yes, there was talk about the militia, about Nazis, about folks coming across our borders to attack, about a tyrannical government, about nullification, and more. One of the pro gun guys went after a friend of mine whose daughter was kidnapped, raped and murdered by two young men who got their gun from the father of one of them. He said that the gun didn’t rape her daughter or kidnap her daughter. Really? Come on. What a stupid and offensive thing to say to someone who lost her young daughter in such a violent and senseless way. Do these guys have compassion at all for victims? They don’t like us.

No, Joan, I don’t much like you. You lost your sister because a corrupt and crazy man ignored laws on guns, and murder. Yet you blame guns…and through your blame you blame lawful citizens like myself. You dance in your sister’s blood and cash your Joyce Foundation checks because you have no scruples and no shame. Your agenda is stronger than your morality. That isn’t a very likable thing to do.

This is why you experience such strong opposition against your evil cause.

A Justice Department Memo on the stupidity of Gun Control laws:

The memo, under the name of one of the Justice Department’s leading crime researchers, critiques the effectiveness of gun control proposals, including some of President Barack Obama’s. A Justice Department official called the memo an unfinished review of gun violence research and said it does not represent administration policy.

The memo says requiring background checks for more gun purchases could help, but also could lead to more illicit weapons sales. It says banning assault weapons and high capacity ammunition magazines produced in the future but exempting those already owned by the public, as Obama has proposed, would have limited impact because people now own so many of those items.

It also says that even total elimination of assault weapons would have little overall effect on gun killings because assault weapons account for a limited proportion of those crimes.

The nine-page document says the success of universal background checks would depend in part on “requiring gun registration,” and says gun buybacks would not be effective “unless massive and coupled with a ban.”

Also interesting to note that the “illicit weapons sales” would be criminals who are already selling guns illegally under federal law, but also family and friends selling and trading guns like they have since the invention of firearms, which causes no problems, but COULD land them in jail.

Also the article states that the Obama administration hasn’t proposed outright bans or “Buybacks” or other names for confiscation, but there have been several bills proposed on the local and national level that have, and the White House doesn’t seem very concerned about them. Given the hot-button nature of confiscation, and the anti-rights talking point of “We’re not coming for your guns” that silence is more than just oversight.

Federal Court Rules 2nd Amendment does not protect carry:

A federal appeals court has ruled that permits allowing people to carry concealed weapons are not protected by the Second Amendment….A federal judge in 2011 tossed out Peterson’s lawsuit filed against Denver and the state’s Department of Public Safety. Peterson claims that being denied a concealed weapons permit because he was not a Colorado resident violated his Second Amendment rights to bear firearms.

According to gun rights groups, Colorado is one of about two dozen states that do not honor concealed weapons permits from Washington state.

Colorado recognizes weapons permits issued by other states, but only for states that recognize Colorado permits. Washington state does not recognize Colorado permits….In its ruling, the three-judge panel cited a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons.”

“In light of our nation’s extensive practice of restricting citizen’s 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,” the judges ruled.

So what does that “And Bear Arms” part mean, exactly? Further I must point out in places like Colorado that has four distinct seasons, carry method should not be limited. Its rather difficult to carry many common defensive arms in a concealed fashion in 100 degree heat, as it is also very difficult to carry a gun openly (and in a safe manner) in the middle of a snow storm.

I’m not a lawyer, but this seems like a very bad ruling.