Category: Anti-Gun Nannies

Silliness

Anti-Gun Nannies, Psychos

Here’s one that made me send an extra couple mags’ worth of ammo downrange yesterday:

President Trump has again threatened to take away Rosie O’Donnell’s citizenship, as she has moved to Ireland and is in the process of obtaining Irish citizenship to become a dual citizen.

“As previously mentioned, we are giving serious thought to taking away Rosie O’Donnell’s Citizenship. She is not a Great American and is, in my opinion, incapable of being so!” Trump posted.

And to think I once ridiculed Jimmeh Carter for getting involved in such minutiae as deciding White House parking privileges…

Dear POTUS:  why the fuck are you bothering with this kind of silliness?  Has the DOGE finished its job?  Have you done with Putin?  Are you going to make the Brits pay dearly for their anti-free speech activities?  Have you even started to address the dire state of the national debt, not to mention next year’s budget?  [200 more Presidential / CEO-type high-level issues deleted, for reasons of space]

Stop pissing around with the small stuff, and get serious about the important stuff.

And speaking of stupid shit… this one’s for AG Pam Blondie.

One of the several things that upsets me about the MAGA-Trump Administration is how they can forget that sometimes governmental action not only doesn’t work, but has been proven not to work in the past.  Take this next bit of foolishness, for example:

The Department of Justice is actively exploring a ban on gun possession for transgender individuals in the wake of a mass shooting at a Catholic school by a transgender gunman, Breitbart News reported, citing “multiple sources familiar with the matter.”

The Office of Legal Council has reportedly organized multiple meetings to explore the possibility of denying transgender people access to firearms on grounds of mental illness.

Sigh.

Just a little reminder:  gun bans don’t fucking work.  (If they did, there would be zero gun-related deaths and crimes in Britishland, to take but one example.)  Not only do they not work, but the cost of policing such bans is astronomical.

And just who, pray tell, is going to be the arbiter of “mental illness”?  You? A panel of “experts”?  The local school’s PTA?

Stop wasting your time with “multiple meetings” (because they too don’t work, and waste time withal).

Here’s something that has a far higher chance of success:

Order that all public schools maintain an armed and trained security force on the premises.

What we know for a fact is that even the psychos shy away from playing their little reindeer games when there’s a good chance they’ll be shot dead right before they take aim at someone, or right after they’ve fired their first shot / stabbed their first victim.  (Feel free to check the stats on this:  it will be a far better use of time than these multiple meetings, for starters.)

And to force the gun-fearing wussy school administrators (e.g. in California, New York and Illinois) to comply, make all federal funding dependent on the installation thereof.  (I mean, the Education Department exists for just such a reason, as opposed to promoting the ghastly LGBTOSTFU agenda in said schools with taxpayer money.)

But no, by all means go with what doesn’t work.  If nothing else, it will prove that government, whether conservative, MAGA or Screaming Commies, doesn’t have a fucking clue.

Not that we ever needed such proof.

Never Justified

Anti-Gun Nannies, Rights, The Gun Thing

I see that someone in the Golden Shower State has come to their senses:

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a mandate Thursday overturning California’s “one-gun-a-month” restriction.

The Second Amendment Foundation noted the “one-gun-a-month” restriction allows law-abiding citizens to purchase only one handgun or semi-automatic centerfire rifle (or combination thereof), from a licensed dealer within a 30-day period.

Here’s the thing about this ridiculous law.

Quite apart from its prima facie  Constitutional illegality, the 30-day restriction just makes absolutely no sense — I mean, what are they trying to achieve (other than a broad restriction, of course)?  Are they trying to stop someone from arming a group or gang? (I know, nonsensical.)

As with all laws like this, it should be looked at as part of a whole.  What is intended is to make a thicket of laws like this so that the breaking thereof becomes an inevitability — and the side-benefit (to the anti-gunners) is that the people most likely to fall foul of this nonsense would be gun owners.  (We always talk about lawful or law-abiding gun owners, but what we sometimes forget is that to the anti-gun set, all gun owners are evil, and not just the criminals.)

Anyway, it’s gone away, and good riddance.  Best of all is that because of this ruling, it’s going to apply to any and all other states who have similar nonsense in their raft of laws;  and all that’s left is for the SAF guys bring suit in each of them.

Go to it, guys.

Side note:  I have more than one friend who won’t give money to any gun lobbying group like the NRA or even GOA.  But they give lots to the Second Amendment Foundation because Alan Gottlieb and his guys are doing the work where it matters most:  in the courts.

Think about it.

Self-Evident

Anti-Gun Nannies, The Gun Thing

From some guy in Arizona who gets the idea (of the Second Amendment):

Arizona state Rep. Quang Nguyen (R) used an X post to warn that an American citizenry devoid of guns would soon be a citizenry without freedom of speech and property rights too.

He noted that the Second Amendment “right to keep and bear arms” is the one which upholds and protects all the other freedoms enumerated in the Bill of Rights. A disarmed citizenry would put in jeopardy the ability to control one’s own property, hedged in by the Third Amendment, as well the freedom to exercise rights to privacy and security, hedged in by the Fourth Amendment.

Nguyen warned that, “A disarmed populace is more vulnerable to censorship, unlawful search and seizure, and political oppression.”

Yup, we all know that, but thankee for re-stating the point, sir.

Now here’s a graphic illustration of a non-Second Amendment society:

Never confront burglars. They could be armed. They could be high on drugs. You don’t know anything about them, except that they are in your home. And you want them out.

But don’t just lie there terrified, praying that they won’t come into your bedroom.

The law allows a householder to act in self-defense. But prowling the house is not self-defense. And keeping a weapon by your bed implies premeditated intention to commit assault.

Burglars are not looking for a fight. They just want your valuables, probably so they can sell them to get money for drugs or drink. These days, with so many young people carrying knives or machetes, it’s increasingly likely that an intruder will be armed. But even so, if you go on the attack, the law will label you as the assailant.

Well, maybe.  Maybe the burglar just wants to get your stuff.  On the other hand, maybe your stuff is not what he’s after;  he’s after your life, your wife’s life (or body), your daughter’s life (or body) or your son’s life (or body).  We can debate the point forever, but the plain fact is that the criminal’s motives are unknown to everyone except him.

We — that is, our politicians as well as the public — are aware of that fact, but it appears the British have willfully chosen to bury their heads in the sand.

And the reason that their law is more on the side of the criminal than the victim is, quite simply, because the people have been systematically disarmed by the government, so the government gets to make the decisions on behalf of the public, with the result that the nation of once-Great Britain has been turned into a nation of victims.

Thanks, but no thanks.  We’ve seen what’s happened Over There, and we want no part of it.

We uncultured rubes on this side of The Pond prefer to turn criminals into victims.  And we have the law on our side.

Unbelievable

Anti-Gun Nannies, Lies and Untruths

Not that we should believe anything that Josh Sugarman’s Violence Policy Center ever says, but even for them, this is egregiously terrible:

“More Than 2,500 Non-Self Defense Deaths Involving Concealed Carry Killers Since 2007, Latest Violence Policy Center Research Shows”

Yeah, except that the data shows no such thing — unless you lie, twist and conceal data which negates your premise, that us.

When you discount all of the categories that don’t match VPC’s horrid headline—suicide, murder/suicide victim, cases still pending, accidents and cases still under investigation—the final total is 625 over a 17-year period. Do the math, and it equals 36 a year, equal to about two holiday weekends in Chicago.  (Of course, this assumes that VPC’s figures are even close to being correct.)

And they pretty much aren’t.  Considering that only a (shamefully) small percentage of gun owners carry concealed, I wouldn’t even believe that annual number of three dozen.

The only problem with bullshit like this — Sugarman would call it a feature, not a bug — is that the numbers will be uncritically used by The Usual Hoplophobic Suspects — media, Congress, etc. — to bolster their demands that All Guns Should Be Confiscated, Right Now.

Uh huh.  Dream on, assholes.

Double Whammy

Anti-Gun Nannies, Patriotism

I know it was just a coincidence, but these two headlines came one after the other at Townhall.com last Thursday, and the combination thereof has pissed me off mightily, for two different reasons.

Here’s the first:

Dem Congresswoman: Musk Can’t Be Trusted Because He’s an Immigrant

…because he’s only been here for 22 years, you see, so naturally his patriotism must be suspect.

Well fuck you all to death, Congresswoman Kapur.  Like Elon Musk, I’m a naturalized U.S. citizen (since 1990, i.e. 34 years ago), and I was living here for four years before that.  That’s nearly five decades, you fucking socialist sow, and I’ll tell you what:  I’ll put my (and Elon’s) patriotism ahead of yours, for one, any day of the week.

You see, Musk and I have a lot in common.  We were both born into the same racially-stricken society.  He left to get away from it, while I (briefly) struggled against it — by lawful means, of course — but left because I could see no solution to the problem that would not involve pain and bloodshed.  We both arrived in this country legally, and both made our respective ways as productive, law-abiding citizens (he a lot more successfully than I, but that’s the way it goes).  What we came to was the promise of America, where everyone was equal under the law, and had the freedom to seek the happiness and success that would probably have been denied to us in our country of birth.  Our story, or its foundation, is no different from millions of others, and what the country has come to mean is a place which has absolutely replaced any allegiance to another, and instilled in us a lasting gratitude for the opportunities we were able to grasp.  Our patriotism is not one that we were born into, but one we chose — and in all fairness, it may run still deeper in us than in many native-born Americans.  We were not changed by the “magic dirt” of the United States;  we found that magic for ourselves, and I bitterly resent your belittlement of our patriotism.

Then there’s this little slur (behind a paywall,sorry,  but the headline says it all):

Violence Policy Center Tries to Paint Citizens Carrying Concealed as Threat

Fuck me, another country heard from.

Listen, assholes:  I am a gun owner who carries a gun, and I can say categorically that the only person who could ever be “threatened” by my gun is someone who wants to do me or mine harm.  In other words, it would be a reaction to a threat, and not a threat to others.

I came from a country where not everyone was “allowed” to own a gun, because there was absolutely no Second (or First, or any other) Amendment.  And guess who was denied that right?  Yeah, Black people.  That’s how oppression was maintained, and it was one I fled as rapidly as Elon Musk did.  And the only way my right to own a gun (or carry;  the two are indistinguishable) might ever be a “threat” is to those who would deny me that right.  Or to threaten me with violence, in any form, whether felonious or State-inspired.

That’s it.  End of sentence, end of statement, end of story.  Leave me alone, and all will be well.  The alternative is your choice.

These people — both groups (and there is considerable overlap between the two) — make me fucking sick, projecting their fears and their prejudices onto me and others like me.  I won’t stand for it, and I will fully exercise my First Amendment right to make statements like the above.

Fuck you, all of you.