That gun control thing

| July 21, 2012

Last night, after boycotting the news all day because of the steady stream of misinformation that was being called “news” in relation to the Aurora murders yesterday, I watched local DC news, specifically WUSA9, when my common sense was assaulted by the news reader who fired off a rant about how we’re so willing to defend our second amendment rights, that we caused the blood bath. The idiot went on to tell us how the murderer in question had amassed an AR15, a shotgun, two .40 caliber Glocks and 6,000 rounds of ammunition, and how could we allow that to happen.

Yeah, it’s good thing the news reader can’t see inside my house or he’d crap his pants, because I have way more guns and ammo. Three rifles that he’d call assault weapons, seven handguns and about 10,000 rounds of ammunition. And about 400 rounds are already loaded in my high-capacity magazines. I own them all legally, I always carry one of them loaded – mostly because I can. My wife thought I was just being paranoid, but recent events have either made her just as paranoid, or brought her around to my way of thinking.

So, news reader guy said we needed more laws to prevent people like the Aurora guy from owning guns. How, exactly. He was never diagnosed as being unbalanced, the media uncovered his single brush with the law – a traffic ticket. The only way he could have been prevented from his murderous attack was to stop all of us from buying guns. And that’s what news reader guy was trying to champion with his pointless rant. He wanted my guns.

There are millions of gun owners who have never shot anyone, yet we’re target of the hand-wringing gun grabbers. James Holmes was a coward. When confronted by the police, despite his body armor, he meekly surrendered. If one person in that theater had returned fire, Holmes would have beat his chicken shit feet on the pavement.

If all of the liberals can agree that the Supreme Court’s cure for the stolen valor outbreak is “more speech”, they have to agree that the solution to the gun violence problem is more guns.

Category: Gun Grabbing Fascists, Guns

Comments (34)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Old Trooper says:

    The amount of people killed by drunk drivers every year makes gun violence look pedestrian; so do we ban alcohol in order to prevent people from driving drunk?

  2. Jeff says:

    If you’ll permit me, I have a great letter drafted by a fellow gun enthusiast, complete with SCOTUS quotes on the subject that I’ll copy and paste here that people can send to their representatives in Congress. It’s long so I don’t want to post it without permission

  3. CI says:

    Gun control advocates and their allies on the Hill and in the media are going to be pushing meme’s and myth’s for the next week solid.

    Now is the time for the best spokespeople for 2A to step up. Hopefully the crackpots and blowhards will stay under wraps.

  4. JP says:

    What the monkeyfuck…

    Knives, sticks, ropes, hands and feet kill people, too. Should we outlaw them??? A motivated killer intent on harming others will find the means to accomplish his task, guns or no guns.

    Furthermore, it is a concrete FACT that places wither tighter gun control (NYC, Chicago for example) have more gun related crimes.

    As far as what types of guns should be owned, the 2nd Amendment was put in there for a reason, and it wasn’t hunting, skeet shooting or looking cool. It was to defend ourselves and our rights, and our nation. It’s also a last resort defense against tyranny. I’ve seen morons going on about how when it was written the founders had muskets, blah blah blah..well at the time, the musket WAS the assault rifle of it’s day and the common infantry weapon of all standing armies. So read up on your history or just STFU, folks!

    Sorry for my rant but this shit is pissing me off. The knee jerk reactions and media mass fear mongering resulting from this tragic event are pure bullshit.

  5. Jonn Lilyea says:

    Yeah, go ahead, Jeff, you don’t need my permission to post stuff here. This place belongs to all of you.

  6. Damnage97 says:

    If everyone had a gun, a lot less people would get shot.

  7. IronValor says:

    and I quote ” Firearms strictly banned on these premises” Who exactly did that prevent from bringing firearms into the theatre? The law abiding citizen.. Who was mamed killed and wounded? The Law abiding citizen. The sooner people realize that the solution is not to hinder the law abiding citizen but to free him or her up so that he or she may make a stand and defend his or herself the better.

    God bless the Police but they cannot protect you. Police response is clearly post incident with the occasional crime that happens right in front of them. And with this active shooter situation their response time was one minute and 30 seconds. That is lightning fast for anybody. But in that minute and a half 12 people were killed and over 50 wounded. There was no suppressing fire laid down because nobody else in that theatre was armed. I keep hearing this about the tear gas factor. Well a theatre is a big venue and it would take a moment for that teargas to become effective.

    I am ashamed of the media on this and on any incident. After hearing ” High Capacity Clips ” over and over again it is enough to drive anybody insane. I did not know paper “clips” were so dangerous. For the record and for anybody else who reads this they are called Magazines. You are welcome.

    The media and society today have encouraged America to bind their own hands.. The Government will protect you! Well I am not buying it and I feel strongly that We are becoming a nation of Sheep Lovingly being led to slaughter.

    Take a stand America!

    I do apologise for the length of this rant and for any misspellings and bad grammar.

  8. Rusty Brown says:

    I have asked this question several times and not just after this most recent assault: What if there had been one or two patrons carrying a legal sidearm? I think the aftermath would be much different than the outcome of these events. The news media, which is not our friend, never tells us about the guy who stopped a shooter in a church that had plans of a mass killing attack because it was only one nut job down and not innocents(not news)or other brave legally licensed gun owning sane Americans. Education is still the key to a safe and equal environment in our country. That said, it is us that needs to teach our children and families social values and their rights not the gun hating hoards that are muddying the minds of our children and the public in general.

  9. Country Singer says:

    The point I’ve been making on some other sites is this: manufacturing and/or possessing bombs is also illegal, but that damn sure didn’t stop the guy from rigging his apartment up. WTF makes people thing banning guns will solve anything? We banned booze once, how good that do? How long has the “War on Drugs” been going on? Hell, there’s signs as you near the border that say “Guns Illegal In Mexico”…great lot of good that’s doing them, even before ATF got involved.

  10. Jonn Lilyea says:

    #7 IronValor; I heard the stupid ass Aurora police chief call them “high capacity clips” in his press conference, so that’s probably where the media got it.

  11. Old Trooper says:

    “Yeah, it’s good thing the news reader can’t see inside my house or he’d crap his pants, because I have way more guns and ammo.”

    Hey Jonn; I guess it’s good that the news reader didn’t come to the HHC with you, TSO, and Mr. Wolf, or it would have been a heart attack for sure! And that wasn’t even all of them.

  12. Jeff says:

    Here is the letter; feel free to copy and paste and send to your personal representatives…

    The mass shooting in a Colorado theater last night (7/19/12) vividly demonstrates what those in the firearms carry community have been saying for years: allowing businesses to be no-carry zones, either by legislation or by election on the part of the business owner, does nothing to enhance the safety of patrons. The only people who are going to observe those signs and laws are law abiding citizens; lawbreakers have no regard for such things. In fact, as can be seen clearly from this incident, the only thing these no-carry designations do is guarantee a higher victim count.

    No fewer than ten (10) Supreme Court rulings have affirmed that personal protection is the obligation of the individual citizen – not the police. The clearest opinion came in the SCOTUS ruling, City of Castle Rock, Colorado v Gonzales (I hope the irony of this is not lost):

    “You, and only you, are responsible for your security and the security of your family and loved ones. That was the essence of a U.S. Supreme Court decision in the early 1980’s when they ruled that the police do not have a duty to protect you as an individual, but to protect society as a whole. It is well-settled fact of American law that the police have no legal duty to protect any individual citizen from crime, even if the citizen has received death threats and the police have negligently failed to provide protection” (emphasis added).

    In addition to the Supreme Court rulings, the universal drawdown of law enforcement across the country means that there are fewer officers available to respond to such situations, and that the response time needed to marshal the remaining officers will be correspondingly longer. This makes the 2012 federal appeals court ruling in Woollard v Sheridan even more critical:

    “As Judge Niemeyer points out, the Heller Court`s description of its holding as applying to the home, where the need ‘for defense of self, family, and property is most acute,’ suggests that the right also applies in some form ‘where that need is not most acute.’ Id. at 468 (Niemeyer, J., concurring) (quoting Heller, 554 U.S. at 628). This reasoning is consistent with the Supreme Court`s historical understanding of the right to keep and bear arms as ‘an individual right protecting against both public and private violence.’ Heller, 554 U.S. at 594. In addition to self-defense, the right was also understood to allow for militia membership and hunting. See id. at 598. To secure these rights, the Second Amendment`s protections must extend beyond the home: neither hunting nor militia training is a household activity, and ‘self-defense has to take place wherever [a] person happens to be.’ Masciandaro, 638 F.3d at 468 (Niemeyer, J., concurring) (quoting Eugene Volokh, Implementing the Right to Keep and Bear Arms for Self-Defense: An Analytical Framework and a Research Agenda, 56 UCLA L. REV. 1443, 1515-18 (2009))” (emphasis added).

    The following statement appeared on the web site of Union Local 2544 of The National Border patrol Council, Tucson, AZ, relating to recent DHS training regarding active shooter incidents:

    “Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that any three of the above shootings (referring to Columbine, Virginia Tech, and the Giffords shooting – added) would have been stopped cold by an off-duty law enforcement officer or a law abiding citizen with a gun. The Fort Hood shooting would have been stopped cold by someone with a gun as well. The shooters in these situations depend on unarmed and scared victims. It gives them the power they seek. We could go on and on with examples of shootings that could have been stopped by someone with a firearm…. Calling 911 in these instances is obvious, but we all know that waiting on the arrival of uniformed law enforcement will ensure more people are killed, injured, or taken hostage” (emphasis added).

    Brendan Keefe, a reporter with WCPO in Ohio (formerly of WZZM in Kalamazoo), made the following observation in a 2008 report advocating for a “single officer response” approach to active shooter incidents entitled, “When Seconds Count: Stopping Active Killers”:

    “Based on the Virginia Tech data, experts determined the first officer on scene should make entry immediately with an aggressive attack on the shooter. Every minute the officer waits for back-up, another three or more people could die.”

    Since the average response time to 911 calls around the country is somewhere between 18-20 minutes, this means that significant numbers of people have already been killed or injured before an officer calling and waiting for backup has even arrived on the scene.

    Gentlemen, the objective data demonstrate conclusively that so-called carry-free zones do nothing to promote our safety. Additionally, they are a violation of our Second Amendment right to protect ourselves by carrying firearms, as has been established in at least ten SCOTUS and additional federal appeals court rulings. Further, there are no objective data available to demonstrate that law-abiding licensed carriers of firearms pose any sort of danger to the general public or that permitting them to carry in public spaces has led to the increase in shootings feared by opponents of concealed carry.

    Sincerely,

  13. Jeff says:

    Get out there fast with your representatives. I’ve already received 2 petitions via email calling for more strict gun control so the antis are capitalizing on this. The Brady Campaign is already in full swing and are, predictably, deleting all comments on their Facebook page that go against their point of view, except for one gun nutter that dropped a cluster of f-bombs but that was probably left up to show how bat-shit crazy we all are.

    My response…I bought another Glock yesterday

  14. Joseph Brown says:

    NYC mayor, Nannie Bloomers, is asking President Useless and Mitt Romney what they’re going to do about gun ownership.
    The first thing a despot does is disarm the citizens. That’ll work.

  15. Jeff says:

    Piers Morgan essentially says “I don’t want to hear opposing viewpoints to my position on gun control, I want to hear people that think like me.” Not word for word, per se, but that was the gist of this video clip.

    http://piersmorgan.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/20/piers-morgan-on-gun-control-ill-tell-you-the-day-to-debate-it-it-would-have-been-yesterday-to-prevent-this-from-happening/

  16. AW1 Tim says:

    Here’s where I put on my tinfoil hat and ask a couple questions that have been bothering me about this incident:

    1.) Where did this guy get the cash to buy this stuff? He’s a Phd candidate who dropped out of medical school, in debt deeply, and collecting unemployment. An AR-15, a shotgun and a 40mm Glock aren’t inexpensive. That’s probably $1500 dollars right there. Then there are the high-capacity magazines and all that ammo. 556 ain’t cheap these days, as many here can attest. Add to that the body armor. This guy had a vest, plus neck, groin and thigh protection, according to the cops. Plus at least one smoke grenade.

    All of that costs money and here he was broke and on unemployment. To my mind, it means that someone was funding him for this, someone was also involved.

    Now consider how all of this plays into the administration’s game plan. They’ve already shown they were willing to accept mass murder in Mexico, and even of a US Border Patrol agent with their “Fast & Furious” program in order to gain leverage to enact strict gun control laws.

    This coming week, there’s a vote on the UN’s Small Arms Treaty which Obama and Hillary have both been in support of, as it would allow them to bypass Congress and use Executive Orders to put in place the draconian laws they really want. Gut the 2nd Amendment.

    Yeah, I know. A lot to consider. Tinfoil hat stuff. But don’t forget that the Assault Gun ban and the VAWA restrictions all came as a result of Waco & Ruby Ridge.

    So, I’ll go get some more coffee and fresh air and let my mind relax for awhile. I really don’t like considering this stuff, but in this case, there’s an awful lot of questions that, to my mind, need answers and no one else seems to be talking about them.

    I’ll get off the soapbox now. 🙂

  17. Jeff says:

    AW1 Tim it was a .40 Glock, not a 40mm Glock. Could you imagine the recoil on a 40mm Glock? I’m just busting your balls…I like your tinfoil hat thinking

  18. LC says:

    @16 I can’t speak for CU Denver, but most PhD programs offer tuition wavers and a stipend for accepted students – the stipend is generally poverty-line type levels, which many students augment via teaching assistant positions. In other words, he’s likely to have had money coming in. How could have save >$1500 from this? Plenty of options, ranging from long prep time to simply using credit cards.

    Sure, it’s possible others were involved, but given that the Aurora police have ruled that out for now and there seem to be no indications of it, I’d loosen the tin-foiled hat for now unless additional information comes to light.

    As a fairly liberal person, I’m all for CCW and the 2A in general terms. Am I willing to discuss limits on certain things? Absolutely. Because I think an informed debate is better than knee-jerk black-and-white views. I’d stand firmly against anyone trying to take away an average citizen’s right to own a gun, though.

  19. cacti35 says:

    “Sheriff, I see that you are wearing your pistol, are you expecting trouble”? “No ma’am, if I was expecting trouble, I would have brought my shotgun”!

    @Jeff, I watched a few minute of Piers Morgan, about all I could take was the last 5 minutes of the show.

  20. MG says:

    I ignore the signs that say “Gun Free” except in gov’t buildings. I carry……period.

  21. Jeff says:

    @MG…so do I; they don’t carry the weight of law here. Most of the time I’d rather not spend my money in those places but I can’t watch the new Dark Knight movie in IMAX anywhere else

  22. UpNorth says:

    Tim, @#16. It could be as simple as mom and dad giving him a Visa Platinum or Master Card for “school”. He could buy it all, knowing that, one way or the other, he wasn’t going to have to repay what he owed.

  23. John says:

    i don’t know the statistics but i would like to know the number of people killed by illegal firearms every year. i am certain, given that this is hte 5th mass shooting in america in the last 13 years, that people are killed by illegal firearms in much greater numbers.

    “when you outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have guns.”

    the fact is, as was stated earlier, cities with strict gun laws like nyc and chicago have much more gun related crime, and it is all done with illegal guns. this gun control nonsense will likely never stop because liberal america will never be able to implement the social ideals they desire when they do not have total control of the citizens rights. we have to fight these people, not for ourselves necessarily, but for future generations because it is an impossible task to disarm america overnight. it will take years and numerous debilitating laws, just like in england, to cripple our rights and take away our one truely necesssary freedom.

  24. Jeff says:

    So Brandy, Trinity, and I are watching the new Batman movie when 20-30 minutes into it some fucking moron opens the side emergency exit door.  My pistol was half-way out of its holster before the door closed and I missed almost 10 minutes of the movie because I was focused solely on scanning the theater for threats >:(

  25. OWB says:

    @ #16 Tim: With you on those questions. Yeah – he could have charged it all, and that might even be how his mom knew ahead of time that it was he in the theater.

    And most likely someone somewhere did put the idea into his head. Or maybe he’s just spent too much time playing stupid games. (Although I kinda like the potential of his having a connection to black bloc. It would explain a lot.)

    We may never know. If he was someone’s dupe they will not claim it any time soon.

  26. jonp says:

    I thought the same thing after reading about the shooters “massive arsenal”. I have several times both weapons and ammo in my safes. I also carry a firearm and when asked why I usually answer “because I can” or ” I’m a sheepdog”. The second gets a lot of blank stares but a few smiles also.

  27. Common Sense says:

    The anti-gun zealots would pass out if they saw my brother’s collection. He doesn’t have a gun cabinet, he has a ROOM. The last time I had a count it was 101 weapons but that was a few years ago so it’s probably higher.

    He was never in the military but he’s an avid outdoorsman and really likes his toys and can afford them. He makes his own ammunition too. His concealed carry is a .357. Let’s just say that he wouldn’t have been ducking and hiding if he had been there.

    Unfortunately, this being Colorado, we’ve had that discussion many times. We have a family cabin in the mountains where he’s set up our own shooting range. We have another spot where we shoot clay. My youngest son is following in his footsteps. He inherited a rifle and a shotgun from his grandfather when he passed away a couple of years ago. The year he turned 18, my husband and I got him another rifle for Christmas. When he was shopping for pieces/parts, there was a great sale on an M4, so he has one of those too. As soon as he turns 21 he’s getting his CCW and a pistol.

    He’s currently at Sheppard for Air Force tech school. His only disappointment in BMT is that they didn’t get much shooting time and his weapon was a piece of crap that jammed every other shot.

    He takes his oath seriously.

  28. Yat Yas 1833 says:

    Ok guys, I’m gonna stir the pot a bit! Where the “anti-gun zealots” get their ‘ammo’ is from the people who own 100+ weapons. If you’re a serious collector with classic, experimental, rare or some other exotic weapon, great! MY collection consists of a Remington .308 deer rifle, a Mossberg 12 gauge, a S&W .38 and a Colt model 911A1 .45 side arm. My older brother’s is the same as mine but he also has an AR-15! My son’s is the same but he has an AK 47. Sure, both are fun to fire, the AR-15 because I qualled with the M-16A1 and the AK because the ‘commies’ carried it. As I said, unless you’re a true “collector”, what does one person need with 100 weapons?

  29. rik says:

    Who cares? When was the last time someone with 100 weapons killed anyone? Your off point on this one. The gun control advocates want ZERO weapons in the hands of citizens. Your argument reminds me of the Preidents “how much money is enough?” bit from a couple of years back. To Mayor Bloomberg et al, a BB gun and a slingshot is a “massive arsenal.”

  30. Tom says:

    It’s the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs.

    The best answer to “who needs xxx guns” (or pairs of shoes, or cars, or airplanes, or Pokemon cards) is “Because fuck you, none of your business”

    If I own guns, how many, what they might be, none of your damned business. I’m a law-abiding citizen and you and anyone else who has their panties in a knot over what’s in my house can piss off, this is the United States not Soviet Russia.

  31. Spade says:

    Ah, journalists.

    I guess it’s a good thing that more of them couldn’t hack science majors or they’d realize just how many people you could kill (lots) with stuff from a good grocery store/pharmacy and some science knowledge and they’d freak the fuck out.

    Journalism! When you just couldn’t hack that English degree.

  32. fm2176 says:

    I’m on my way to the 100-weapon mark–just stalled at the moment until my mid-career mark (mortgage, rent, five kids, etc on E-6 pay) is a thing of the past. I have 40-something firearms right now and will eventually expand my collection more with a C&R license (unless the gun grabbers have their way).

    I’ve had cool-guy guns–FAL, HK91, MAK-90, AR-15–but those are mostly gone now; when I go back to Louisiana I’ll be grabbing the AR lower to sell to a subordinate and the others were gone years ago. Still, I can see where such firearms have a niche market for collectors. One forum I used to frequent has a younger guy who owns a few ARs and is always talking about his next build. As for me, I liked having representatives of the major Cold War era battle rifles (FAL, G3, AK, and M-16). Now I mostly have older battle rifles such as Mosin-Nagants and Mausers, but my carry weapons stay in the safe even when my tastes change. The Para-Ordnance and Kel-Tec P11 haven’t been carried in ages as my tastes evolved to a .357 and the ever present P-32.

    So, in short, I can see Yat Yas’ point but I do not agree with it. We all have our reasons, and some guys and gals just want to but firearms. No one needs to agree with or understand those reasons. If I had it my way I’d have a collection that would make Burt Gummer jealous along with my old bolt-actions. Alas, though, surplus weapons are much cheaper and more interesting to me.

  33. Peggy says:

    Hello, its good paragraph about media print, we
    all be aware of media is a great source of information.