Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Terror Gap, oh, noes

From HuffPo

Under current U.S. law, there are several ways a person can fail the background check required to purchase a gun. Being on the FBI's terrorist watch list is not one of them.
A group of military veterans is hoping to fix that problem by reviving a long-stalled bill, the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act. The proposed law would allow the FBI to block gun sales to people on the watch list, closing what the veterans call the "terror gap."

Tuesday, February 28, 2012

Gun Free UK is Safer than US....or not

Ahhh, yes. Another comparison from the anti-rights establishment. This time represented by National Gun Victims Action Council. 

They start their little "study" with the question

Do we Know what would happen to the puplic's safety in a country where only the criminals had guns? Yes we do.

Then start and finish the first paragraph with

There is a country where only the criminal have guns—England. ....the criminals illegally get all the guns they want.  They can get hand guns that shoot 32 bullets at a time

I'm not sure if the author was just making a fanciful statement or declaring that gun bans don't work and seriously? their guns shoot 32 bullets at a time? That must be a big ass gun with 32 barrels. I'm sure the author meant that it can hold 32 bullets, but that just shows the ignorance of the anti-rights establishment.

Laws for thee but not for me

The anti-rights establishment tell us that only Law Enforcement and Military should have firearms. They put that much trust into a public servant, that the anti-rights establishment would prefer to be unarmed and hold the police responsible for their safety. There are two very big problems with this line of thinking. First and foremost, SCOTUS has ruled several times that the police are not the citizens personal bodyguards and have to duty to protect the individual and have no liability when not enforcing the laws. The second problem, is officers like this one.

Saturday, February 25, 2012

"Shoot First Laws"

I was clicking around over at Coalition to Stop Gun Violence and came across an article titled "Shoot First Laws". Apparently the author was embarrassed to write it, because it's not attributed to anyone.
From the article:
"Shoot First laws expand the right to use deadly force in self-defense beyond the home and eliminate a person's duty to retreat..."

My first question is, how far should someone have to retreat? Suppose you are accosted on the street and run, and the thug chases you, how far should you run? Do you run until you drop dead of a heart attack? Do you run until you're out of breath and can no longer defend yourself? Do you run (whew, I'm getting tired just typing run) until the thug catches you? The answer is non of the above. An individual has an obligation to conform himself to the law, not to retreat from the lawless.

Furthermore, the law provides immunity from both criminal prosecution and civil litigation to those using deadly force in the manner described.

This is the way it should be. Why should a law abiding citizen be put through the legal systems because he defended himself. Why should a law abiding citizen have to defend himself twice, once from a violent criminal and second to a jury.

...the Shoot First statute is a naked assault on the rule of law, because it divests (deprives) police and the courts of the power to settle disputes, substituting a bystander or crime victim's judgment for trial by jury and the presumption of innocence.
Apparently the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence is only interested in stopping gun violence and not all violence. This leads the average person to believe the the CSGV has an ulterior motive. It seems that the CSGV would prefer a woman be raped than to use a firearm to protect herself and certainly, the CSGV must realize that the presumption of innocence is a legal principle that requires the government to prove the guilt of a criminal defendant and relieves the defendant of any burden to prove his or her innocence. If a person truly was innocent prior to trial, what right would the government have to hold an accused in jail prior to a trial?

Another question I have, why should a woman allow herself to be raped, instead of using deadly force to protect herself, and wait for the judicial system to work? According to the FBI Uniform Crime Report, police have an average clearance rate of 47.43% for violent crime. Keep in mind, too, that a clearance it not a conviction, it's only an arrest.

Stories of Americans being shot needlessly—and legally—now regularly appear in newspapers across the country.

I have to agree with this statement. It is needless. If the violent criminals would only stop committing crimes, they would stop getting shot.

Father arrested for child's gun drawing

via only guns and money
Canada is one of the countries that the anti-rights establishment wants the US to use as a model for our gun laws. This is a story about a father, who's four-year-old child drew a picture of a man holding a gun. When the child was asked who the man was, her response was “That’s my daddy’s. He uses it to shoot bad guys and monsters.”  

The events that followed are shocking. He was arrested, strip-searched and told that he could see a judge the next morning. His family was summoned to the police station and his kids were taken to Family and Children’s Services to be interviewed. Yep, that's some common sense right there at it's finest.

After he was released, Sansone was asked to sign a paper authorizing a search of his home. He signed, even though he didn’t have to, he said. HELL TO THE NO! It's unclear, however, if the police wanted to search for an alleged handgun or the alleged monsters that were killed. So far, no murder charges have been filed, so apparently they found no monster bodies.

In a related story, it was a plastic, transparent toy gun.

“It caused all this nonsense,” Squires (the mother) said. “I don’t even want it in the house anymore.”

NO, IT WAS NOT THE TOY that caused all that nonsense, it was an overreacting anti-rights establishment!

Imagine the investigation that will ensue when she draws a picture of her riding a unicorn.