Monday, August 4, 2014

Neale's Weekly Gun Rant, This Week by Peter Cyprian!

This week, Neale's weekly gun rant is actually by Peter Cyprian, and, pleasantly, he starts off with Mama Liberty link! Then something on the DC court decision, and a quote from John Lott that should be passed around. And then Peter gives us a series of his own thoughts, all dead on. And, as usual, we finish up with some good quotes. The illustration illustrating the nonstandard reloading technique seems to come from an anime called Grenadier.

Neale's Weekly Gun Rant Volume 8-03-2014
by Peter Cyprian, standing in for Neale Osborn
peter.cyprian@esmo.com




Attribute to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise

Neale is unavailable this week, so I am stepping up to the plate at his request.

As a parent, I can truly appreciate what Mama Liberty has for us this week! [Link]

This past week saw a major victory for gun rights! It is simply unbelievable that the District of Columbia has been able to thumb their nose at the law of the land for so long and get away with it. Well, the tide has begun turning. D.C. is infamous for their egregious violations of the 2nd Amendment—and also infamous for the incredibly high crime rate. Judge Frederick Scullin Jr. got it right! [Link]
"Judge Scullin extensively referenced the Supreme Court decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010) to concluding "there is no longer any basis on which this court can conclude that the District of Columbia's total ban on the public carrying of ready-to-use handguns outside the home is constitutional under any level of scrutiny."
John R. Lott Jr.—"If we finally want to deal seriously with multiple-victim public shootings, it's time that we acknowledge a common feature of these attacks: With just a single exception, the attack in Tucson last year, every public shooting in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed since at least 1950 has occurred in a place where citizens are not allowed to carry their own firearms. Had some citizens been armed, they might have been able to stop the killings before the police got to the scene. In the Newtown attack, it took police 20 minutes to arrive at the school after the first calls for help." [Link] additional[Link] to support this

I have looked high and low and have yet to find a single mass shooting that took place at a gun shop, gun show, or shooting range. So I decided to check Yahoo Answers to see if anyone had anything on this. I love the first few answers! [Link]

The problem with "gun control" is that it doesn't do anything that the gun grabbers state that it is supposed to do. Oh, to be sure, the "control" part of it is the primary objective....but it is not the guns that they want to control, it is the people. There can be no other "justification" for banning firearms. Their "logic" does not add up. Their numbers do not add up. The part that kills me is that their "shining examples" of gun control are OUT OF CONTROL with crime! Gee, wonder why that is? Chicago, a city where if you ever needed to carry for personal protection, Chicago is that place! New York is another wonderful place where you indeed should carry...but can't. Why Chicago? Why New York? Why not another large city? True, there are comparably sized cities in the United States...but those cities do not have bans on the ownership and carry of firearms. Chicago and New York do. In fact, don't take my word for it, check it out for yourself—those "wonderful" bans CREATE crime. That's the truth of the matter, gun control promotes crime. [Link] The criminals want to be free from the fear that their victim might be armed and the gun grabbers want to make sure that they can control the population. [Link] Our Founding Fathers knew all too well the dangers of a populace that was forbidden to possess arms. Thankfully, Judge Scullin had the stones to see the truth of the matter and ruled accordingly.

Unfortunately, as often happens in our legal system, he had to put a stay on that order. Now get this...after YEARS of fighting the gun rights group in this court, the city asked for 180 days so they could make the appropriate changes to the law. Gee, the thought never crossed your (obviously small) mind that you could LOSE?? Really? [Link] What they will do is try to thumb their noses at the ruling by writing the law in such a way that it still tramples the rights of gun owners while staying in a "narrow" lane of legality. Of course, they will find themselves back in court and will find their "new" laws unconstitutional (again). And if the judge doesn't drop the hammer on them, they will again ask for 180 days to rewrite their law again. If you or I were to do something like this, the court would find us in contempt and throw our butts in jail. Hey, D.C., I have a suggestion for you.....there are many states that have very good laws that you can copy! (let's set aside the conflict the existence of those laws with the 2nd Amendment for just a moment) I could be done with their "rewrite" in about 15 minutes!

What does one expect of a city run by illogical, irrational, fearful gun grabbers?

The gun grabbers do no use any form of logical thinking—it is all emotion. Here's some proof—why is it that a Ruger 10/22 in its original stock (referred to as furniture by those familiar with firearms) is perfectly legal in most places, but if I change out the furniture and accessories for a more "evil" looking rifle, it becomes banned. Why? A folding stock and a pistol grip make it "evil". Mind you, the function of the weapon has not been altered in any way—it is STILL a Ruger 10/22. The "logic" is that there is no logic to it. It is purely emotion driven. It is like saying that if I paint flames on my Dodge Grand Caravan, it is now a racecar! (you shall RESPECT my 3.3L V6 now!) Bayonet lugs.... I have scoured the internet looking for the huge numbers of people murdered with bayonet mounted rifles and could only find one....and the police (depending on who's story you believe) murdered him! [Link] Yet, emotional gun grabbers insist that a weapon with a bayonet lug needs to be banned. Yes, I certainly see their "logic" there....it causes them to wet their panties. I personally like my military style weapons with a bayonet lug just for the authentic look, and it gives me a great reason to buy the bayonet..."But honey, it has a lug for the bayonet, so I need the bayonet to make it complete!" :-)

When does YOUR fear cause me to lose MY rights? Apparently if you are a gun grabber, this is perfectly sound logic. Since I am afraid of guns, you no longer should have the right to own them or carry them. You may (or may not) be surprised at how many "so called" gun supporters will buy into this logic—if the gun scares people, then the person exercising their rights is in the wrong. Average "on the fence" citizens buy into this crap so much that they will overlook unlawful actions by the police—felony assault committed by the police; civil rights violations committed by the police; MURDER committed by the police. [Link]They will give them a "pass" on these crimes because the gun owner was exercising their rights, but they (anti-gun clowns) were afraid. [Link] Read some of the comments on here—holy cow, have we (as a society) forgotten what the definition of a RIGHT is? Especially when it comes to firearms!

Which brings me to my last point of discussion: Open Carry. I don't care if you believe in open carry. I don't care if you exercise that right (in places that allow open carry) or not. If you claim to support gun rights, then by God you need to be 100% behind open carry!! Again, whether or not YOU personally practice OC doesn't matter. How on earth can one say "I support gun rights" and then come up with some of the stupid comments I have seen, such as "those open carry guys are morons—they just want attention". There are those that say "Open carry is stupid, you give up your tactical advantage". Ok, I will stipulate IF they are willing to stipulate that you GAIN a deterrence factor that you do not have when concealed. In fact, you may actually be preventing more crime by the fact that they KNOW you are armed than you would if you are concealed. I do both open and concealed carry—depends on my mood, the weather, and the clothes I am wearing. The only time you should be critical of those that OC is when they cross the line—such as not leaving an establishment IMMEDIATELY when asked to leave; or when they carry in a manner that is inconsistent with safe, non-threatening practices. If you support gun rights, support open carry!! To do otherwise is like saying "I support free speech as long as I agree with what is being said". Really? I may piss a lot of people off with this view, but I offer no apologies.

The Founding Fathers have given us the single greatest document ever conceived for a successful, free nation. That document has guided us to be the greatest power this world has ever seen—but the power created by that document is the power granted to "We the People of the United States ", not "We the Government of the United States ". At the foundation of our country is the Bill of Rights. It is the rock to which our nation is anchored—without it, we are not who we are: Americans. As any engineer will tell you, the foundation of a great building cannot be allowed to be compromised, lest the building collapse and fall. We cannot allow our rights to become fractured and broken, because if we do, this great nation will fall. Thank you all, God Bless, and hold dear your rights!
"This battle for 'common-sense' gun control laws pits emotion and passion against logic and reason. All too often in such a contest, logic loses. So, expect more meaningless, if not harmful, 'gun control' legislation. Good news—if you're a crook."
Larry Elder


"Gun control means control. It means control for the government and the government starts controlling the people."
Luke Scott


The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and 'is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power.
Texas Court Decision
Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)]

No comments:

Post a Comment