We the Well-armed People (gun and knife rights stuff ) Second Amendment

[Crafty_Dog]

We've seen these before, but I'm not sure that we have had all of them in one place:

http://www.policymic.com/articles/51135/8-best-left-wing-quotes-on-guns-so-far-this-year

[Crafty_Dog]

Second Amendment Revoked: The Unbelievable Reason Why This Army Vet Can’t Own a Gun
Jul. 10, 2013 9:47pm Jason Howerton

Army Vet Unable to Buy Guns Due to 42 Year Old Pot Conviction


An Army veteran in Texas is fighting for his Second Amendment rights after learning that a misdemeanor pot conviction from 1971 has disqualified him from ever owning a gun.

Ron Kelly, who retired from the Army in 1993 after 20 years of service, was recently turned away when he tried to buy a .22-cal rifle at a Wal-Mart in Tomball, Texas, after a computerized background check flagged the 42-year-old arrest. The story was on the front page of the Houston Chronicle on Wednesday.

Kelly said he had forgotten about his minor pot violation from high school — the federal government, on the other hand, has not.

The Army vet spent one night in jail and was given one year of probation. Though he didn’t realize it at the time, he was also apparently stripped of his Second Amendment rights for a lifetime.

“According to the FBI, which runs the background checks known as the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, the law states that a person can be prevented from owing a gun if they are convicted of  a misdemeanor in which they could spend more than two years behind bars,” the Houston Chronicle’s Dane Schiller writes.

“I am ashamed of the way my government has treated me,” Kelly told the Chronicle. ”The government may have the greatest of intentions with the [law], but they messed it up.”

The outraged veteran, who spent two decades of his life using firearms to defend his country, has since reached out to U.S. Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas) and Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) for help in resolving the issue. He says he’d be happy with a waiver so he can regain his right to own a firearm.

As an infantryman in the Army, Kelly has fired “perhaps 100,000 rounds of government ammo over his 20 years of service,” Schiller notes.

Meanwhile, officials in North Carolina, where he was born and raised, were unable to even find records of the conviction because it is so old.

The story is reminiscent of two others on TheBlaze in recent years. In 2011, we brought you a story from Ohio where a man faced felony weapons charges because he obtained a gun after having a misdemeanor marijuana charge in 2006:

    Back in 2006, Paul Stone was convicted of simple marijuana possession, a “minor misdemeanor” under Ohio law. There is no jail time possible for the offense. The maximum penalty is a $150 fine, plus some community service. It is not treated as a criminal record for the purposes of employment or licensing questions about an individual’s past. But in Ohio, the legislature has placed a specific limit on the 2nd amendment related to substance possession. Specifically, Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.13 prohibits gun possession by any person who “has been convicted of any offense involving the illegal possession … in any drug of abuse.”

In February, we reported on Navy vet Jeff Schrader, whose story closely resembles that of Kelly’s. Schrader, too, was convicted of misdemeanor as a young man (for a fight). He paid a $109 fine and went on with his life. But when he tried to buy a gun 45 years later, the law had changed: the misdemeanor penalty for his crime back then, now caries with it a possible penalty of up to two or more years in jail. Because of that, he has been disqualified from owning a gun.

This story has been updated.

[Crafty_Dog]

http://tpo.net/anti_gun_senator/#.Ues_Tg5BqAA.facebook

Anti-gun senator shoots intruder 

[G M]

http://tpo.net/anti_gun_senator/#.Ues_Tg5BqAA.facebook

Anti-gun senator shoots intruder 

The left isn't anti-gun, it's anti us having guns. Gun control is for the little people.

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.guns.com/2013/07/22/farmer-loses-gun-permit-after-being-accused-of-attempted-murder-for-shooting-at-thief-video/

[Crafty_Dog]

http://youngcons.com/epic-houston-man-arms-neighborhoods-ravaged-with-crime-with-free-shotguns/

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/07/foghorn/chicago-firearms-confiscation-begins/?fb_source=pubv1

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/07/28/sheriffs-team-working-to-seize-guns-from-thousands-in-illinois/

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.guns.com/2013/07/27/gun-ownership-in-hawaii-continues-to-climb-while-gun-violence-continues-to-drop/

[Crafty_Dog]

http://gunssavelives.net/blog/video-buckeye-firearms-foundation-lawyer-crushes-piers-morgan-in-interview-on-donation-to-zimmerman-for-guns/

[bigdog]

http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/07/new-plea-for-gun-rights/

From the article:

The National Rifle Association and two individuals under the age of twenty-one have asked the Supreme Court to strike down a federal law that bans licensed gun dealers from selling handguns to minors.  A federal appeals court upheld that law, ruling that Congress was justified in believing that easy commercial access to pistols for teenagers leads to violent crime.

The new case, NRA v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (docket 13-137), raises one of the broadest challenges to a gun control law to reach the Court in the five years since the Second Amendment was interpreted to protect a personal right to have a gun, at least for self-defense.

[Crafty_Dog]

21 and over seems a reasonable restriction to me.  Of course I get the cognitive dissonance of being able to buy from family members etc but I suppose this can be explained as an adult  who actually knows the young person is making the judgment that he/she is up to it.

[Crafty_Dog]

I admit to being a little more than a bit uneasy at the notion of open carry in political meetings, but OTOH the unilateral disarmament folks need to understand that gun grabbing will lead to open civil war.

http://www.examiner.com/article/armed-citizens-force-officials-to-back-down

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=N30TagPCNE4

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=rZMmPWTwTHc

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/08/robert-farago/nyc-dept-of-ed-bans-the-word-gun-in-tests/#comments

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/08/04/Violent-Crime-Drops-As-Gun-Sales-Rise-In-Virginia

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/06/business/wooed-by-gun-friendly-states-some-manufacturers-pull-up-stakes.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130806

[Crafty_Dog]

Keeping track of how the disarmers think:

The Iron Pipeline Thrives
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
Published: August 6, 2013

When somebody pulls a gun and commits a crime in New York City, that weapon almost certainly comes from somewhere else. Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced last week that 90 percent of the guns used to commit crimes were purchased in other states, according to the latest data from 2011, compared with 85 percent in 2009. This “iron pipeline,” as this illegal trade is called, is a booming and deadly business.

With Washington’s failure to impose needed background checks on gun sales — even after the slaughter of children in Newtown, Conn. — the states will have to lead the change. But, so far, only a few states — including Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland and New York — have acted this year to stanch the flood of illegal guns.

Other states, like Virginia, are making the gun trafficking even worse. More than 320 of the guns recovered in New York City in 2011 came from that state, which requires no background checks for private gun sales. Virginia’s lawmakers compounded the problem last year when they revoked their “one-gun-a-month” limit. With no background check and no limits, it is easy for anybody to buy guns in a parking lot, fill up the trunk and sell their wares to criminal clients in New York City — no questions asked. Illegal weapons from the Carolinas, Florida, Georgia, Ohio and Pennsylvania also end up on New York streets.

Mr. Bloomberg has worked hard over the years to organize Mayors Against Illegal Guns, and nearly 1,000 mayors and their police departments are on board to help rid their streets of these firearms.

The big problem for many mayors is their own state governments. In most states, laws pre-empt cities from enacting local gun control measures, which makes it easier for groups like the National Rifle Association to defeat sensible controls since state legislators tend to be terrified of the gun lobby.

Unless Congress cracks down on gun trafficking, guns will continue to be exported from states with weak laws to places with tough laws, like New York City. John Feinblatt, the city’s criminal justice coordinator, has been working to get more states to tighten their laws on background checks. Until they do, he said, New Yorkers are “at the mercy of laws beyond our borders.”

[DougMacG]

Appeal to emotion, not logic.  This is a great get-to-know-the-left piece that happens to focus on gun control politics and messaging.  Same techniques also apply to all other issues and causes of the left.  Your rights and the constitution itself are subordinate to their agenda - always.  For a perfect example of this please see the previous post in this thread, the latest NY Times editorial supporting the Bloomberg-disarm agenda.

Shot to the Heart
A how-to book about inciting a moral panic.

    By JAMES TARANTO, WSJ
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323477604579000731721030424.html

Paul Bedard of the Washington Examiner has uncovered a fascinating document: an 80-page "talking points" monograph titled "Preventing Gun Violence Through Effective Messaging," written by a trio of Democratic political operatives.
http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/748675/gun-violencemessaging-guide-pdf-1.pdf

The document, as Bedard writes, instructs politicians and advocates "to hype high-profile gun incidents like the Florida slaying of Trayvon Martin to win support for new gun control laws." Essentially it's a how-to book on inciting a moral panic.

"The most powerful time to communicate is when concern and emotions are running at their peak," it advises. Antigun advocates are urged to seize opportunistically on horrific crimes: "The debate over gun violence in America is periodically punctuated by high-profile gun violence incidents including Columbine, Virginia Tech, Tucson, the Trayvon Martin killing, Aurora, and Oak Creek. When an incident such as these attracts sustained media attention, it creates a unique climate for our communications efforts."

The booklet explicitly urges foes of the Second Amendment to abjure rationality in favor of the argumentum ad passiones, or appeal to emotion. "When talking to broader audiences, we want to meet them where they are," the authors advise. "That means emphasizing emotion over policy prescriptions, keeping our facts and our case simple and direct, and avoiding arguments that leave people thinking they don't know enough about the topic to weigh in."

The do's and don'ts are consistent with this advice. "Examples of power language" include: "It breaks my heart that every day in our country (state or city) children wake up worried and frightened about getting shot." "Just imagine the pain that a mother or father feels when their young child is gunned down." "The real outrage--the thing that makes this violence so unforgivable--is that we know how to stop it and we're not getting it done."

And here are examples of "some ineffective language to avoid": "There's a clear body of research demonstrating the high social cost of gun violence." "The policy outcomes we're after are the ones that can have the most beneficial impact on the rates of violence among the most affected populations." "Of course, gun violence affects people's lives. But, it also has a devastating economic impact to the tune of over $100 billion a year. That's a number that should get every American taxpayer's attention."

The monograph was published before the December massacre at Newtown, Conn., and its advice, as Bedard puts it, was "likely followed by top Democratic leaders including President Obama." Whether the post-Newtown campaign was propter hoc or merely post, there's no question that the book describes with great accuracy the approach Obama and his fellow antigun zealots took. The paradigmatic example, as we noted in April, was a New York Times op-ed carrying the name of Gabrielle Giffords, which was a model of unreasoning vehemence.

The campaign proved remarkably ineffective. A few states--Colorado, Connecticut, Maryland, New York--enacted new antigun laws amid the post-Newtown panic. But it was hardly a national trend: Democratic Party dominance of state government was a necessary condition. On Capitol Hill, the big gun-control effort ended with a whimper in April, as even the mildest measures failed to win approval in the Democratic Senate. In fact, that Giffords op-ed was a reaction to that outcome, not an attempt to prevent it.

Why didn't these cynically manipulative tactics work? Maybe because the antigun zealots aren't as cynical as they imagine themselves to be--which is to say that they themselves are the most susceptible to these sorts of emotional appeals.

After all, Obama was genuinely furious when he appeared at the Rose Garden in April and raged impotently against the Senate for thwarting his efforts. No doubt the president was, as the monograph advises, trying to manipulate others by playing on their emotional weakness. He ended up playing on his own weakness instead.

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113292/nras-end-real-gun-control-movement-has-arrived/?zem=105#

BTW, that datum about the decreasing number of homes owning guns (from 1/2 to 1/3) is worth noting.

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5deUAF3af4Q&feature=youtube_gdata

[Crafty_Dog]

Gun Crimes Plummet Even As Gun Sales Rise


INFOGRAPHIC . . . NSSF has released a new infographic designed to counter the false impression many Americans have that gun-related crime has increased over the past 20 years, even though it has actually fallen dramatically. Fifty-six percent of Americans think crime with firearms has increased, according to a recent Pew Research Center survey. However, data show that homicides with firearms have declined by 39 percent from 1993 to 2011 and other crimes committed with firearms have fallen by 69 percent during the same period. Meanwhile, firearm sales in recent years have reached record-high levels, demonstrating that more guns do not equal more crime. Also declining while gun sales have been rising are firearm-related fatal accidents, which have plummeted 58 percent in practically the same period (1991 to 2011).

[G M]

Use gunbot.net to search by price/in stock.

Ammoman.com is also a good resource.

I've confirmed from several retailers that the prices will be going up soon, so buy in bulk now.

[G M]

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113292/nras-end-real-gun-control-movement-has-arrived/?zem=105#

BTW, that datum about the decreasing number of homes owning guns (from 1/2 to 1/3) is worth noting.

And lie as usual. Who bought all these guns and ammo the last few years? Sure, some who already were owners, but lots of new gun owners emerged from the gun grabbing attempts, including those icky black rifles. The NRA has record numbers and a fire has been lit under many who might have sitting politics out for a while.

[G M]

White House responds to “Gun Free Zone” petition – politicians need armed security
 
2:56 PM 08/13/2013

 
By Dan Cannon, GunsSaveLives.net
 
A petition on the formal White House petitions website called for “gun free” zones to be extended to politicians, saying if it’s good enough for children in schools and other places where otherwise legal firearm carry by private citizens is prohibited, then it should be good enough for our country’s leaders, right?
 
Wrong.



Here is the original petition language:
 
Eliminate armed guards for the President, Vice-President, and their families, and establish Gun Free Zones around them
 
Gun Free Zones are supposed to protect our children, and some politicians wish to strip us of our right to keep and bear arms. Those same politicians and their families are currently under the protection of armed Secret Service agents. If Gun Free Zones are sufficient protection for our children, then Gun Free Zones should be good enough for politicians.
 
Here is the response of the White House:
 
Working to Keep Everyone Safe


Thanks for your petition.
 
We live in a world where our elected leaders and representatives are subject to serious, persistent, and credible threats on a daily basis. Even those who are mere candidates in a national election become symbols of our country, which makes them potential targets for those seeking to do harm to the United States and its interests. In 1901, after the third assassination of a sitting President, Congress mandated that the President receive full-time protection, and that law is still in effect today. Because of it, those who are the subject of ongoing threats must receive the necessary and appropriate protection.
 
At the same time, all of us deserve to live in safer communities, which is why we need to take responsible, commonsense steps to reduce gun violence, even while respecting individual freedom. And let’s be clear: President Obama believes that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. You can see him talk about that in a previous petition response.
 
But the common-sense steps the President has proposed don’t infringe in any way on our Second Amendment rights. We ought to be able to keep weapons of war off the streets. We ought to close the loopholes in the background check system that make it too easy for criminals and other dangerous people to buy guns — an idea that has the support of 90 percent of people in the United States.
 
That’s why the President and an overwhelming majority of Americans are calling on Congress to pass gun safety legislation that closes loopholes in the background check system and makes gun trafficking a federal crime.
 
A minority in the Senate is blocking this common-sense legislation to reduce gun violence, but President Obama is already taking action to protect our kids with executive actions. He is taking the steps available to him as President to strengthen the existing background check system, give law enforcement officials more tools to prevent gun violence, end the freeze on gun violence research, make schools safer, and improve access to mental health care.
 
You can learn more about the President’s positions on this issue at WhiteHouse.gov/NowIsTheTime.
 
So, there you go, the White House turned the petition into a chance to lobby for more gun control. Surprise, surprise.
 
So, just remember your children face no threat, which is why they’re protected by signs, but politicians face constant threats, which is why they’re protected by a heavily armed, technologically advanced police force.
 
—–
 
Thanks to Dan Cannon at GunsSaveLives.net for his ever vigilant watch for Second Amendment rights. Visit http://gunssavelives.net.


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/13/white-house-responds-to-gun-free-zone-petition-politicians-need-armed-security/

[Crafty_Dog]

More Fast and Furious guns surface at crimes in Mexico

By Sharyl Attkisson / CBS News/ August 14, 2013, 12:54 PM


Three more weapons from Fast and Furious have turned up at crime scenes in Mexico, CBS News has learned, as the toll from the controversial federal operation grows.

According to Justice Department tracing documents obtained by CBS News, all three guns are WASR-10 762-caliber Romanian rifles. Two were purchased by Fast and Furious suspect Uriel Patino in May and July of 2010. Sean Steward, who was convicted on gun charges in July 2012, purchased a third. The rifles were traced yesterday to the Lone Wolf gun shop in Glendale, Ariz.

During Fast and Furious and similar operations, federal agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) encouraged the Lone Wolf and other gun stores to sell massive amounts of weapons to questionable purchasers who allegedly trafficked them Mexican drug cartels.

Patino is said to have purchased 700 guns while under ATF's watch. Ever since, a steady stream of the guns have been recovered at crime scenes in Mexico and the U.S. But the Justice Department has refused repeated requests from Congress and CBS News to provide a full accounting. An estimated 1,400 guns are still on the street or unaccounted for.

Last November, a Fast and Furious weapon was found at a shootout between a Mexican drug cartel and soldiers where a beauty queen was killed. Two weapons used in the murder of Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agent Jaime Zapata in Mexico on Feb. 15, 2011 also came from suspects who were under ATF watch but not arrested at the time. And two Fast and Furious AK-47 type rifles were recovered from the murder scene of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry in December 2010; he'd been shot by illegal immigrants who were smuggling drugs.

ATF special agent John Dodson blew the whistle on his agency's gunwalking in an interview with CBS News in 2011.

The government first denied any guns had been allowed to "walk" into criminal hands. Later, the Justice Department acknowledged using the strategy, claiming it was intended to see where the weapons ended up in hopes of capturing a major cartel leader. But the agency ordered an immediate halt to the practice calling it highly improper.

The Justice Department's refusal to turn over certain Fast and Furious documents led to a bipartisan vote in the House of Representatives in June 2012 to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress. Then, the Obama administration used executive privilege for the first time, to withhold requested documents from Congress. The Republican-led House Oversight Committee is suing for release of the material.

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.smallgovtimes.com/article/harvard-study-reveals-gun-control-counterproductive/

[Crafty_Dog]

Second Amendment: Gun Use Doesn't Fit Narrative

In January, Barack Obama was leading the charge for federal gun control measures, standing on the caskets of the children killed at Sandy Hook Elementary in December. He asked the Centers for Disease Control to "research the causes and prevention of gun violence." His objective, of course, was to reinforce the leftist narrative that guns were to blame for acts of evil. Instead of blaming the perpetrator, the Left focuses on the implement.

The CDC passed the job to the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, which completed the study in June. But because it didn't follow BO's preferred BS storyline, it's only now seeing the light of day. One inconvenient truth for the Left is that guns save lives. According to the report, "Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals." Indeed, while there were "about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008," most by gang bangers on the Democrats' inner city poverty plantations, defensive gun use incidents ranged "from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year."

The study elaborated on the benefits of defensive gun use: "Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies." On the other hand, gun buy-backs, a favorite of leftists to reduce "gun violence," were found to be "ineffective." Obviously, in a culture as debased as ours has become, guns will be used for evil purposes. But that makes it all the more important for the good guys to have them.

[ccp]

Here ya go Bamster read this and LEARN:

****Harvard Study: No Correlation Between Gun Control and Less Violent Crime

by AWR Hawkins  28 Aug 2013 1545  post a comment 
 
A Harvard Study titled "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?" looks at figures for "intentional deaths" throughout continental Europe and juxtaposes them with the U.S. to show that more gun control does not necessarily lead to lower death rates or violent crime.

Because the findings so clearly demonstrate that more gun laws may in fact increase death rates, the study says that "the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths" is wrong.

For example, when the study shows numbers for Eastern European gun ownership and corresponding murder rates, it is readily apparent that less guns to do not mean less death. In Russia, where the rate of gun ownership is 4,000 per 100,000 inhabitants, the murder rate was 20.52 per 100,000 in 2002. That same year in Finland, where the rater of gun ownership is exceedingly higher--39,000 per 100,000--the murder rate was almost nill, at 1.98 per 100,000.

Looking at Western Europe, the study shows that Norway "has far and away Western Europe's highest household gun ownership rate (32%), but also its lowest murder rate."

And when the study focuses on intentional deaths by looking at the U.S. vs Continental Europe, the findings are no less revealing. The U.S., which is so often labeled as the most violent nation in the world by gun control proponents, comes in 7th--behind Russia, Estonia, Lativa, Lithuania, Belarus, and the Ukraine--in murders. America also only ranks 22nd in suicides.

The murder rate in Russia, where handguns are banned, is 30.6; the rate in the U.S. is 7.8.

The authors of the study conclude that the burden of proof rests on those who claim more guns equal more death and violent crime; such proponents should "at the very least [be able] to show a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that impose stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide)." But after intense study the authors conclude "those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared around the world."

In fact, the numbers presented in the Harvard study support the contention that among the nations studied, those with more gun control tend toward higher death rates. 

Follow AWR Hawkins on Twitter @AWRHawkins.****



 





 

[Crafty_Dog]

Obama's two new executive orders on guns, relying on the media's ignorance of guns


The Associated Press has this very poorly done piece on the proposed changes. These executive orders rely on the typical ignorance of the media regarding guns.

Quote:
One new policy will end a government practice that lets military weapons, sold or donated by the U.S. to allies, be reimported into the U.S. by private entities, where some may end up on the streets. The White House said the U.S. has approved 250,000 of those guns to be reimported since 2005; under the new policy, only museums and a few other entities like the government will be eligible to reimport military-grade firearms.

The Obama administration is also proposing a federal rule to stop those who would be ineligible to pass a background check from skirting the law by registering a gun to a corporation or trust. The new rule would require people associated with those entities, like beneficiaries and trustees, to undergo the same type of fingerprint-based background checks as individuals if they want to register guns. . . .
1. The only "military weapons" that are affected by this are old M-1 Garand 30-06 rifles used in the CMP program, available to collectors mainly. No other US-made military rifles are being imported. And more importantly, how is this semi-automatic rifle functionally different than any semi-automatic deer hunting? The only difference that I know is that these old Garands tended to be pretty heavy. I know of no cases when any imported US-made military weapon has been used in a crime.

2. The only "corporate" registration I'm aware of is for Class III (machine guns) weapons. I've never known an individual to use a corporation to register a handgun or other firearm to bypass a background check. Corporations are used (primarily) to obtain fully-automatic machine guns, as they are usually out of the price range of most citizens (minimum of $20,000 each). Yes, when registered to a corporation any officer is allowed to posses the machine gun, but my understanding that at the point that the transfer occurs there has to be a NICS check for the person actually picking up the gun. What happens under current law is that if a gun is registered to a corporation, then anyone who is an officer in the corporation would be allowed to use the gun I don't see how he can make this change without these rules without congressional action. I know of no case where someone who was barred from getting a gun was able to obtain a gun through the mechanism that the president is pointing to. No crime has occurred as a result of this loophole.

[DougMacG]

Colorado recall election is today in Colorado Springs and Pueblo.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-colorado-gun-recall-20130910,0,4800258.story
Colorado recall election is a referendum on guns
Two lawmakers linked to sweeping gun control laws are targeted in Colorado's first recall election, whose results are expected to reverberate nationwide.

[DougMacG]

COLORADO SPRINGS — Colorado Senate President (Democrat) John Morse thanked and urged fellow lawmakers to continue fighting Tuesday as voters ousted him from office for his support for stricter Colorado gun laws.

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_24064007/colorado-recall-morse-says-turnout-lower-than-he
---------
The Democrat incumbent is losing in the Pueblo race too.
http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_24064647/sen-giron-has-theoretical-advantage-going-into-recall
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/elections/2013/by_state/CO_Page_0910.html?SITE=AP&SECTION=POLITICS

[G M]

Suck it, dems!

[DougMacG]

Yes. They overstepped.  If Republicans come up with a worthy opponent, Gov. Hickenlooper will fall next.  Gun control is NYC and DC politics and legislation in a (formerly) mountain west state.

The Pueblo contest was most impressive.  The Democrat incumbent lost by 12 in a district Obama carried by 20 points, a 32 point swing.  About half of Pueblo’s population is Latino. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/11/colorado-recall_n_3907655.html

http://nbclatino.com/2013/07/16/in-colorado-first-term-latina-state-senator-faces-recall-over-gun-control-support/

[bigdog]

Guro, you posted about Missouri's gun law veto session, though I can't find it anywhere to link to your original post.

Here is an update: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/missouri-legislature-fails-to-override-vetoes-of-tax-cut-gun/article_9e4aedb4-71de-5df7-b407-e80179a71a54.html

In a word, the veto override failed.

[Crafty_Dog]

BD: Sorry, do not remember.



http://gunssavelives.net/blog/gun-laws/california-assembly-passes-semi-auto-firearms-ban/#

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.kxxv.com/story/23405676/fort-hood-issues-new-policy-after-soldiers-protest-for-open-carry-rights?clienttype=generic&smartdevicecgbypass

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09/12/unlucky-thugs-target-texas-man-with-heightened-sense-of-awarenessand-a-concealed-carry-permit/

[Crafty_Dog]

http://gunssavelives.net/blog/video-black-gun-owners-defend-nra-in-multiple-videos-after-sarah-silverman-mocks-black-nra/

[Crafty_Dog]

Because we don't want those facts getting in the way, right?
A gentle reminder:
Firearm-related homicides declined 39 percent and nonfatal firearm crimes declined 69 percent from 1993 to 2011, the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) announced today. Firearm-related homicides dropped from 18,253 homicides in 1993 to 11,101 in 2011, and nonfatal firearm crimes dropped from 1.5 million victimizations in 1993 to 467,300 in 2011.
Since you'll inevitably begin hearing about the "gun show loophole" whether or not the shooter at the Navy Yard got his gun from a gun show . . .
In 2004 (the most recent year of data available), among state prison inmates who possessed a gun at the time of the offense, fewer than two percent bought their firearm at a flea market or gun show. About 10 percent of state prison inmates said they purchased it from a retail store or pawnshop, 37 percent obtained it from family or friends, and another 40 percent obtained it from an illegal source.
And, of course, the shooter violated plenty of laws on the books before he fired his first shot:
By just being in the city with a loaded firearm, regardless of whether he was the legally registered owner, the suspect Aaron Alexis would be in violation of D.C. law. Carrying a concealed firearm or carrying a firearm openly in D.C. are both against the law. Bringing a firearm from out of state without registering it in D.C. is illegal. Assault-style rifles are banned. And even traveling through D.C. with a firearm is illegal.
In addition, the Navy Sea Systems Command headquarters is a federal facility that is subject to federal law, which prohibits carrying a firearm onto the premises (except by law enforcement or members of the armed forces).

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.wzzm13.com/news/article/268289/14/Enraged-drivers-shoot-kill-each-other

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/10/01/see-the-chilling-moment-a-man-rolls-down-the-window-pulls-a-gun-and-allegedly-fires-at-a-fellow-driver-while-moving/

[Crafty_Dog]

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/09/30/federal-judge-to-doj-no-you-may-not-dismiss-this-fast-furious-just-because-you-feel-like-it/

[bigdog]

This post could go many places. For reasons that will be clear if you read the article, I place it here.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/02/world/africa/during-siege-at-kenyan-mall-government-forces-seemed-slow-to-respond.html?_r=0

[Crafty_Dog]

Second Amendment: Gun Crime Is Way Down
 

Given the recent clamoring from Barack Obama and his cadres on gun violence, you would think violent crime levels were astronomical relative to past decades. Far from it. In fact, the latest statistics from the FBI reveal a substantial decline. Unsurprisingly, the mainstream media and this administration dedicated to gun confiscation have greeted the encouraging news with deafening silence.

With gun ownership in American at an all-time high, violent crime, according to the FBI's most recent national crime report, is at its lowest level in more than four decades. The rate of homicides in which murderers use guns has decreased almost 50%, from a high of 6.62 per 100,000 to 3.27 in 2012.

But why are mass shootings rising, you ask? A recent Wall Street Journal report helps explain one of the primary reasons: "One theory is the proliferation of public areas where guns are outlawed. 'Since 1950, almost every single public shooting in the United States in which more than three people have been killed has taken place in what are commonly known as "gun-free zones,"' reports the Washington Examiner. Recent shootings at schools and movie theaters illustrate this point. The Navy Yard shooting is another example. A policy implemented 20 years ago effectively banned people other than security guards from carrying guns on military bases. The shooters go where it's less likely that someone will fire back."

Imagine that: It's leftist policies that are behind the overall rise. The Left's fantasy "gun-free zones" effectively encourage perpetrators to pick the point of least resistance.

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.realfarmacy.com/gun-wielding-homeowner-successfully-protects-property-from-corrupt-electric-company/#qY6MDuqm2dF80dvS.01

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.tpnn.com/man-arrested-for-owning-firearms-in-nj-banned-from-seeing-his-son-for-four-years/

Respect to Christie for commuting the sentence; nonetheless the agony of being denied seeing his sons , , ,   

[Crafty_Dog]

I remember being angry when President Clinton moved review of rocket technology export from State to Commerce in order to facilitate business for his donor Bernie Schwartz -- who then promptly gave away some rocket technology to the Chinese.

I can't say that the logic of Pravda on the Hudson here is wrong:

=====================================

Shortsighted Arms Deregulation
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
Published: October 18, 2013

President Obama has rightly earned praise for signing the international Arms Trade Treaty, which seeks to keep many kinds of conventional weapons out of the hands of terrorists and other criminals who fuel conflicts around the globe. He now risks undercutting that treaty, as well as American laws and national security interests, by loosening regulatory controls on many of America’s own military exports.


Early in his administration, Mr. Obama began an effort to reform export control laws that nearly everyone agreed needed to be simplified and updated. But the new regulatory regime, which started to take effect this week, has raised fears that it could increase sales of American-made military parts to conflict zones and make it harder to enforce arms sanctions, including on Iran.

For decades, the United States, primarily through the State Department, evaluated arms exports case by case to ensure that they did not contribute to human rights abuses and could not be transferred to terrorists and other prohibited users. The new system shifts responsibility for thousands of military components to the business-friendly Commerce Department under more flexible controls. In some cases, companies no longer will have to obtain a license to export certain items.

The first group of American-made equipment affected by the regulation changes includes gas turbine engines and thousands of parts for military aircraft, like propeller blades, brake pads and tires, which could be sold even to countries subject to United Nations arms embargoes, according to the news organization ProPublica, which analyzed the changes. In January, other revisions will be announced that will affect military vehicles and submarines.

The White House has said that the old system strained resources by trying to protect all items on the control lists instead of focusing on the most militarily significant ones. It also said that the system disadvantaged American companies competing with foreign enterprises not subject to rigorous controls. Those are not strong arguments. The United States already dominates the international arms market, with nearly 80 percent of the sales, and the State Department denied a mere 1 percent of the arms export license requests from 2008 to 2010.

The deeper reason for the relaxed controls is that American defense companies, which lobbied heavily for the weaker rules, are scrambling for new markets in an era of plummeting Pentagon budgets. Before going ahead with the next round of revisions, the administration and Congress need to step back and see how the new rules work out. If it appears that military items are falling into the wrong hands, the rules should be redrawn again.

[Crafty_Dog]

http://bearingarms.com/we-arent-here-to-start-a-war-alamo-open-carry-starts-off-as-a-media-disaster/

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/20/us/gun-sentiments-and-guns-on-display-at-alamo-rally.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20131020

[Crafty_Dog]

http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/2013/11/what-happens-when-ammo-burns-saami-video-reveals-truth/

[DougMacG]

Worry - if you hear your President say, if you like your gun you can keep it.