Geeks + Guns Keep up on the newest, geekiest weaponry in the planetary arsenals!
Promote peace through superior firepower!
Have we mentioned that this isn't your fathers' 2nd Amendment Website?
Something Completely Different
|
 The Chicago gun debate finally shows signs of changing. With the Supreme Court’s decision on the city’s gun ban imminent, people might be beginning to understand that gun bans don’t stop criminals from getting guns.
At a press conference two weeks ago, Mick Dumke, a reporter from the liberal Chicago Reader, asked Mayor Richard Daley what should have been an obvious question: “Since guns are readily available in Chicago even with a ban in place, do you really think it’s been effective?” Daley’s response wasn’t very helpful. Picking up a very old rifle with a bayonet that had been turned in during one of Chicago’s numerous gun buybacks, Daley blustered: “Oh, it’s been very effective. If I put this up your butt, you’ll find out how effective it is. . . . This gun saved many lives — it could save your life.”
Reporters greeted Daley’s outburst with a moment of stunned silence. But it wasn’t Daley’s answer that was important. The novelty is that a reporter actually questioned Daley on whether the gun ban had failed.
Even mainstream television news is questioning the gun ban. Take this report last week from Chicago’s CBS-TV:
They are law-abiding citizens in Chicago, but they are so worried about their own safety, they say they might have to break the law. The last straw was the death of Chicago Police officer Thomas Wortham IV last week. That has some African-American families in Chicago considering doing something they never would have done before: carry a pistol. CBS 2′s Jim Williams reports he grew up among those families and he’s never [seen] anything like it. Many Chicagoans have been upset for some time about violence here, but Wortham’s murder has touched a raw nerve in the black community. Now some want to do more than simply call 911 or march for peace in the streets. They want their own gun.-[source]
 The gun control fanatics in Congress are at it again, capitalizing on the public’s media- and government-induced fear of terrorism and contrived anecdotes to promote their watch list and gun control/gun-grabbing measures for all Americans.
In early May there was a hearing in the Senate Committee on Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs that gave perennial gun-grabber Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), Rep. Peter King (R- N.Y.) and a few cronies a platform for the subject “Terrorists and Guns: The Nature of the Threat and Proposed Reforms.” That subject is tied into Lautenberg’s S. 2820 PROTECT Act of 2009 (Preserving Records of Terrorist & Criminal Transactions Act) and S. 1317 Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act, and Rep. Peter King’s matching version in the House, H.R. 2159.
Billed as an “anti-terrorist” measure by the authors, the details of S. 1317 and its companion bill H.R. 2159 would allow the Attorney General of the United States to deny the purchase of a firearm to anyone on the “terrorist watch list.” The AG could accomplish this without due process of law and without the accused knowing any details of possible suspicion. The responsibility of determining a person’s guilt or innocence would be outside the judicial system and in the hands of the Attorney General (currently Eric Holder, not personally in favor of gun rights), and who would not have to produce one shred of evidence for his decision, a huge loss of civil rights for American citizens.
S. 2820 would establish a national gun registry. This bill would require record-keeping of gun transfers for ten years for anyone who is suspected of being a member of a terrorist organization, and 180 days for all other criminal background checks relating to firearms transfers. It also repeals “certain provisions that require the destruction within 24 hours of identifying information for individuals who legally purchase or possess firearms.”
With the growing labeling of “homegrown terrorists” extending to concerned citizens who seek a return to constitutional doctrine, the government would have free rein in determining individual gun ownership for those who indeed are not terrorists, all in direct contradiction to a protected God-given right.-[source]
When Winston Churchill, medications then Prime Minister of Great Britain, addressed a joint gathering of the United States Senate and House of Representatives less than three weeks after the attack on Pearl Harbor, it was a speech delivered at the right time, in the right place, to the right people. It helped strengthen and define Allied resolve for the looming battles against Nazi Germany and the Japanese Empire.
Yet, among the many speeches delivered over the decades by foreign heads of state to the Congress of the United States, Churchill’s December 26, 1941 address was the exception to the rule. Most foreign leaders who are afforded this honor deliver largely forgettable lectures about how wonderful are the ties between their nations and ours; and often in support of receiving financial or military support from Washington.
Few foreign leaders, however, possess the audacity exhibited earlier this month by Mexico’s President Felipe Calderon when he spoke to the House and Senate in joint session. In his speech, Calderon as much as blamed the tide of extreme violence sweeping Mexico in recent months on the United States. Calderon specifically singled out our government’s failure to reinstate the Clinton-era gun ban, which expired in 2004, as a major reason why some 23,000 citizens of his country have died as a result of drug-fueled violence since he became president in 2006.-[source]
 An 80-year-old Chicago man who defended himself and his family from a neighborhood thug this week could be criminally prosecuted, cheap if Barack Obama had prevailed in a 2004 Illinois State Legislature vote on a measure to protect citizens who use handguns in self-defense even when their communities ban handguns.
“As an Illinois State Senator, Barack Obama voted not once, but twice in opposition to Senate Bill 2165,” recalled Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
The so-called “Hale DeMar Act” – named for a Wilmette, IL resident who shot a burglar with a handgun, a violation of Wilmette’s handgun ban – was passed in March 2004 on a 38-20 vote. Obama was one of the senators voting against the measure. After disgraced former Gov. Rod Blagojevich vetoed the bill, the Senate voted to override the veto on Nov. 9 by a vote of 40-18. Again, Obama was one of the opponents.
“That measure is now law,” Gottlieb noted, “and it should protect a courageous Chicago resident from being victimized twice, once by the man who tried to kill him and then by the Daley administration, that wants to keep him and other law-abiding citizens disarmed. If Obama had had his way in 2004, Wednesday morning’s hero would be today’s criminal.-[source]
In the new edition of More Guns, pharm Less Crime, drugs economist John R. Lott, Jr., easily dispels any lingering doubt that allowing citizens to carry concealed handguns is strongly associated with—if not a direct cause for—lowering the rates of violent crime.
“The hypothesis that more guns connects to less crime has stood up against massive efforts to criticize it,” Lott writes in the book’s third edition, now available from the University of Chicago Press in the United States and on June 14 in the United Kingdom. He backs that statement with cold, hard facts.
The new edition, which includes data and analysis from 39 states and now covers 29 years (1977-2005), will make it much more difficult for Lott’s critics and anti-gun groups to continue their attempts to disarm law-abiding Americans. In fact, Lott frequently turns the tables on his critics by demonstrating how their own data actually support the More Guns, Less Crime thesis.-[source]
The undermanned, sildenafil outgunned and demoralized police department can barely protect themselves as they move from one bloody crime scene to another. Proactive policing is impossible in the Windy City as warm weather brings out a flood of predatory armed thugs, more about stalking prey.
The North side parks and beaches have seen a dramatic rise in racially motivated armed robberies, clinic beatings, rapes and killings. The perpetrators are predominately African-American gang members prowling in wolf packs looking for vulnerable victims.
Going to Chicago’s parks especially in nice weather is simply too dangerous. If you must go and have the training bring a suitable large caliber gun and enough ammunition for multiple attackers. Going anywhere at all in Chicago without a meaningful way to protect yourself is crazy.-[source]
 American gun owners might not feel besieged, but they should. This week, the Obama administration announced its support for the United Nations Small Arms Treaty. This international agreement poses real risks for freedom both in the United States and around the world by making it more difficult – if not outright illegal – for law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms.
The U.N. claims that guns used in armed conflicts cause 300,000 deaths worldwide every year, an inordinate number of which are the result of internal civil strife within individual nations. The solution proposed by transnationalists to keep rebels from getting guns is to make the global pool of weapons smaller through government action. According to recent deliberations regarding the treaty, signatory countries would be required to “prevent, combat and eradicate” various classes of guns to undermine “the illicit trade in small arms.” Such a plan would necessarily lead to confiscation of personal firearms.
This may seem like a reasonable solution to governments that don’t trust their citizens, but it represents a dangerous disregard for the safety and freedom of everybody. First of all, not all insurgencies are bad. As U.S. history shows, one way to get rid of a despotic regime is to rise up against it. That threat is why authoritarian regimes such as Syria, Cuba, Rwanda, Vietnam, Zimbabwe and Sierra Leone endorse gun control.-[source]
Call me cynical, this web but whenever I hear anti-gun politicians talk about these issues nowadays, I’ve come to expect a new thinly-veiled assault on our Second Amendment freedoms.
Either they want to ban our guns, track our guns . . .
. . . Or track us.
Well, after years of watching our illegal immigration problem grow steadily worse — and watching our elected officials refuse to lift a finger in response — the politicians’ “fix” is finally in.
It’s a new Federal Biometric ID card.
That’s right. Instead of controlling our borders, the politicians want to control you and me. They want to give amnesty to illegal immigrants and make us prove we’re not criminals!
And President Barack Obama, Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) are all working hand in glove to ram this new scheme into law as part of their new “comprehensive immigration reform” package.-[source]
In 2001, the shooting victims and Ileto’s wife filed a lawsuit against the manufacturers, marketers, importers, distributors, and sellers of the firearms related to Furrow’s shooting spree. They alleged that those defendants intentionally produced, marketed, distributed, and sold more firearms than the legitimate market demanded, in order to take advantage of re-sales to distributors that they know or should know will, in turn, sell to illegal buyers. They also alleged that Defendants’ “deliberate and reckless” marketing and distribution strategies created an undue risk that their firearms would be obtained by illegal purchasers for criminal purposes. In 2002, the district court dismissed the case for failure to state a claim under California law. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal in part, reasoning that there could be a valid nuisance claim against Glock and other companies whose merchandise was directly connected to the shooting. In response to this court case, and similar cases pending across the county, Congress enacted the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (“PLCAA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 7901-7903. This new law was intended to protect federally licensed manufacturers and sellers of firearms from most civil liability for injuries independently and intentionally inflicted by criminals who use their non-defective products. -[source]
Following calls by Mexican President Felipe Calderon that the United States re-institute a ban on modern sporting rifles, or so-called “assault weapons,” the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) – the trade association for America’s firearms industry – issued the following statement:
“While we respect the work of President Calderon to willingly take on his country’s powerful drug cartels, we are disappointed that he, in the name of security, would urge our Congress to reinstitute a failed ban on so-called ‘assault weapons.’
“Let’s be clear, semi-automatic rifles, demonized as so-called ‘assault weapons,’ are not machine guns but modern sporting rifles that are used every day by law-abiding Americans for the shooting sports, hunting and home protection. Since 2004, when the Clinton/Gore ‘assault weapons’ ban expired, modern sporting rifles have fast become one of the most popular types of firearms for law-abiding Americans to purchase.
“Firearms that Congress would label ‘assault weapons’ are functionally no different than any other semi-automatic civilian sporting firearm. They shoot only one shot per trigger pull, no spray firing as some allege, and use the same ammunition as other guns of the same caliber. What differentiates modern sporting rifles from other guns is cosmetic; for example, the type of stock on the firearm.-[source]
|
|
Loading ...
.Com Chatter