Weer'd World

So in this post we exposed Justice Breyer’s bigotry about the right to own guns which was clarified by the Heller and McDonald decisions that he dissented on. You see the big red warning light on his statements is what he is actually saying.

“Are you a sportsman? Do you like to shoot pistols at targets? Well, get on the subway and go to Maryland. There is no problem, I don’t think, for anyone who really wants to have a gun.”

Let’s overlook the fact that the 2nd Amendment was NOT written with poking holes in paper in mind, he’s saying its OK for one place to allow guns (Maryland) and other places (Chicago and DC mentioned) to ban them.

Is he saying the people just over the state line in Maryland, or outside the City Limits of Chicago are different? Is there any reason why guns should be restricted in some places and not others? Better yet, what exactly are these laws preventing? Is Chicago or DC any different than other large American cities that have only the basic restriction on gun ownership and carrying? Well yeah their crime rates and murder rates are lower….is Breyer in favor of crime and murder?

I’ll be charitable and say “No”, he just hates people exercising their 2nd Amendment rights and wants them squashed.

Then there’s this gem.

The piece does do a good job and shows the “Magic” of the personal firearm. No magic at all, just its a VERY good tool for the job of self defense, and doesn’t demand a lot of physical prowess from the operator. The reporter, having never shot a handgun before, and getting a short lesson was able to quickly put a few .38 special rounds into the vital zone of a silhouette target at a range GREATER than what was seen at the Florida School Board encounter.

But of course enters the “Schrödinger’s Law” talk. They talk of “mixing guns and alcohol”, tho the law still prohibits armed people from drinking. So again, carrying in bars is illegal everybody will follow the law, but if carrying in bars is legal, everybody will violate the law and get shitfaced and start shooting.

Expand it further, that there are several states that not only allow people to carry guns in bars, but even to have a drink while they’re there, given that they are never legally drunk.

Are there crazy shootings in bars by people with legal carry permits? Or do we just have innocent people caught in the middle of crap like this.

FYI carrying in Bars is illegal in Ohio, of course I’d put my lunch money down that everybody packing that night also didn’t have a carry permit, not that they could get one because double-or-nothing says they’re all felons. This was a gang turf war, not a 2nd Amendment social.

My state has a lovely restrictive permitting system where your permit is to own a gun, not just to carry, and if you get a permit or not, what kind of permit, and how the permit is restricted (like my “Target and Hunting Only” permit that I had for my first 5 years living in this state) is all at the discretion of the Police Chief. (Hence why I have a carry permit now, because my town’s cheif isn’t an authoritarian asshole). We also have a “Handgun Safety Roster” as well as an “Assault Weapons” ban also all our guns are registered with the state (at least the legally held ones). Most of these laws aren’t in effect in the vast majority of the country. And to what end? Is Massachusetts safer than other states in the country? Do our criminals have a harder time getting guns than in less restrictive states? Are our police safer from “Assault Weapons”? Do we have less accidents because “Unsafe handguns” aren’t sold?

Of course not, all these laws accomplish nothing but one thing. We have less legal gun owners in this state than others.

Given the first video where the reporter made a nice defensive grouping without ever having shot a gun before, is that what we really want?

Also how about that lovely little statement about the wider group from a “Fast Draw”? What are they trying to say? The real point is show somebody in a defensive scenario drawing from concealment on a hostile target, vs. somebody disarmed resorting to cowering and begging. Which would you rather be?

In the end hatred of people exercising their rights is the only common denominator. They may talk about various social benefits, but they’re just as away that such statements are lies.

In the end they are offering the exact same argument as people who say Women shouldn’t vote, or hold powerful corporate or government positions, or minorities for that matter, or people who think that somehow the world will end if homosexuals are allowed to be wed.

They have nothing to back their position but hatred and intolerance. Remember that!

Joan Peterson of the Brady Campain, and the Joyce Foundation, can really fit a foot in her mouth.

Other laws that apply to everyone in this country affect everyone in the same way. If you speed, you get a ticket. If you go through a red light, you get a ticket. You know it applies to everyone and not just some. it is understood that it is for public safety. If you don’t wear your seat belt, you get a ticket. If you light up a cigarette in public places where no smoking signs are posted, you violate a law in places where the law exists. These laws work. Gun laws can work.

Odd, I’ve run red lights before (sometimes simply for the fact that yellow light times aren’t standardized other times because I could clearly see I was the only vehicle anywhere near the intersection so I didn’t feel I was accomplishing much by waiting) I’ve only been ticketed once for running a red light, and actually that instance I believe I was in the right, but I was due to head offshore, and I could afford to miss a research trip for a simple court date, so I paid the fine anyway.

I certainly don’t obey the posted speed limits, and its been over 5 years since my last ticket, and my total has been a whopping 3 in my driving career.

I prefer to wear a safety belt, and have been known to buckle up even while parked, but I have driven without my belt fastened before on roads where such behavior is a ticket-able offense. I’ve never been ticketed. I also don’t know anybody else who’s been ticketed for it. As far as I know the only people who DO get this ticket are caught speeding, or with an out light, or some such violation.

Scarier still I think we’re all aware of people who have driven drunk and weren’t caught. And I’m not just talking “had a few”, but “Visibly impaired” people.

And the last one. Well, I saw this scene at work today.

That’s my buddy The Rizz (A great trance and house DJ BTW) having a smoke break.

“These laws work. Gun laws can work.” indeed.

There was some vague discussion about enforcement rather than the simple laws, I won’t attempt to read Joan’s mind, as I suspect she has none to read. But if she’s simply calling for better enforcement how can you explain the examples in this post? First she mentions the Omaha Mall shooting. Well that case a kid took a Kalashnikov clone rifle from a relative without asking, and took it to a mall that forbids the carrying of weapons, and started shooting people. All of those things are illegal. Now does Joan call for more enforcement, or new laws? Better yet, she gives this bizarre case as a call for more gun control. First up reading a few stories I’m not exactly clear what actually happened. There is a “Shots fired” call, and in the end two cars are found with bullet holes. In between that an Army veteran was shot in his car by police. Frankly with vague details like this I have questions for obvious reasons. Still taking every detail in this story at face value, isn’t this a victory? I mean shooting in a mall parking lot is illegal, and the man was stopped by police. Mission Accomplished?

Nope.

She openly admits she will only stop when the impossible becomes possible. She’ll stop when gun deaths in America are “O”. (I assume that means Zero..and not a slight on Obama or Oprah) Given that there isn’t a nation in the world that is free from gun death or gun violence, despite some really horrendous slights on gun rights, I think we see where she’s going with this.