Assault Weapons Ban III : The Return of... Pelosi?

I did a triple take on this one.

Pelosi throws cold water on weapons ban.

No. Really. It's not a link to the Onion.

"I think we need to enforce the laws we have right now,” Pelosi said at her weekly news conference. “I think it's clear the Bush administration didn’t do that.”

Wow.

Did Pelosi finally get a kick in the head of common sense? Does she understand that the second amendment is in the constitution for a reason?

Or... perhaps she realized if this AWB was floated right now, the Democrats would lose several seats in the House and Senate in the upcoming elections. Even if they only lost a few, that would be enough. Obama's presidency would be in trouble from that point on.

I think the Attorney General let the cat out of the bag too soon. I do think the democrats will try in earnest for the AWB, but only after the house and senate elections.

But Holder... just! couldn't! wait! to! tell!

Assault Weapons Ban II : The Democrats Strike Back

Well, that didn't take long! From ABC news...

Obama to seek new assault weapons ban

Wow. With all the other problems in the world, all the other burning fires to put out, this ranks up there enough to whip out in the first 100 days.

"As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons," (Attorney General Eric) Holder told reporters.

Tactics 101: Don't give any help or comfort to your enemies.

Banning "assault weapons" is going to bring any dissent in the Republican party under control real quick. You know they are going to present a unified front to attack this proposal as soon as it hits the floor for debate. And an angry, motivated and unified Republican party is the last thing Obama needs right now.

This ban should also pull back any moderates who believed Obama's "I won't take your guns" inferences during the campaign.

And add this quote of Holder's to the mix...

"Holder said that putting the ban back in place would not only be a positive move by the United States, it would help cut down on the flow of guns going across the border into Mexico, which is struggling with heavy violence among drug cartels along the border."

Waitaminute. I thought this was the Unites States Of America. Not UMexico.

So guns are being smuggled to Mexico? And what about all the drugs being smuggled into the United States? Why are we not holding Mexico and their rotten, filth ridden, corrupt government accountable for their complete failures to stop the drugs freely flowing into our country? Why are we not suing the Mexican government for every single child and adult in the United States directly or indirectly killed by the use of drugs? Banning assault weapons in the United States will stop the violence in Mexico.... how?

The cartels, with their dump trucks full of money, will still continue to purchase their SMUGGLED firearms ILLEGALLY even though they may cost more! What is a few thousand more dollars to those that stack money in $207 million dollar piles PER DEALER? Don't believe me? Take a look at the haul from just ONE bust: DEA LINK. BBC LINK. US NEWS LINK. DALLAS NEWS LINK. PHOTO LINK. ARTICLE LINK. ANOTHER ARTICLE LINK. (NOTE: All links are from the same bust. Just different photos and different amounts of detail per article.)

With resources like this, the drug dealers aren't going to give a damn about their firearms being more expensive. The only people this is going to hurt are Americans. Americans who do not have a large bedroom dedicated to $50s and $100s.

Once again, the democrats are actively solving the wrong problem!

Morons in Mumbai

I kept this image from a news site (MSNBC I think) about the Mumbai hotel massacre. I wanted to comment on it at the time, but out of respect for the victims, I thought a little time should go by first before I put in my two cents.

Its been long enough.

I saw a lot of photos like the one in this post. Some idiot, calling themselves a "commando", casually firing a full auto over their head. With no cover. And one handed. At no obvious or visible targets.

No wonder it was a massacre.

The police force responding to the hotel situation was a complete, total, wretched joke. Worthless. Far worse than pathetic. I saw a bunch of hapless morons so painfully obviously untrained in the basic and proper use of firearms it made me shudder. This was the best "tactical response" team in the country? For a national emergency, this is who they collected as their go team? What clustertwats trained them on suppressive and/or cover fire? Did their training regimen use too many big words? What crackerjack box did these nimrods get their badges out of?

I knew those people in the hotel were going to die. There was no way a loose bunch of idiots like this could pull off a wrapper from a stick of gum, let alone pull off "securing a center".

Which brings me to my point for today. Situations like this are why most law enforcement departments in America (and even individuals in the departments) go for training so often. Very often. And sometimes at their own personal expense. To be able to handle a real-world situation such as this. To give innocents caught by some random monster a chance to live.

Mumbai police are case exhibit A on what an untrained, unmotivated, and unrehearsed police force is capable of.

Absolutely nothing. Absolute failure.

The next time somebody in your hometown complains about the local police wanting a little more equipment, a little more training, or even the ability to send one or two officers to a special event, please consider sending a quick letter to the local newspaper. Or speak up at a city council meeting.

Like the old saying goes... hope for the best, but plan for the worst.

(Edit: Mirrored a week late to blogspot.com.)

Texas petition for open carry

Petitiononline has a link for people to sign up to request Texas allow open carry.

At this time, about 57,257 people have signed the petition. That's a lot of names, but not enough to overwhelmingly convince the state legislators to quickly adopt the bill.

All the points in the petition are ideas I agree with, and I signed the petition just now even though the idea of open carry doesn't personally appeal to me. But I do support the option of open carry and would like to see it made legal in this state.

The link to the petition is here.

The petition reads...

To: Texas State Legislature and Texas Governor Rick Perry

We hold that all citizens who may lawfully purchase a handgun be allowed to carry openly in public in the State of Texas except for those places prohibited by law. We also call for state preemption of all handgun laws concerning open carry in Texas.

1. Every individual has the right and responsibility to defend their self against unjustified threats of death or serious bodily injury.

2. The Constitution of the United States guarantees the right of individuals to keep and bear arms.

3. Criminals are not deterred by rules, regulations, and laws forbidding the possession of weapons. A man bent on mass murder will not be stopped by a rule forbidding him to have a gun.

4. It is well known that the requirement to conceal a handgun for the purpose of protecting self, friends, and family can be difficult especially in Texas with our extreme heat since a person will usually have to wear a jacket to properly conceal a handgun and to avoid "printing."

5. The requirement to conceal a handgun can make it difficult to draw the weapon should the life of the carrier or the life of someone else be in danger.

6. A criminal will not open carry a weapon because he does not want to draw attention to himself. We believe that a citizen openly carrying a handgun lawfully will be a deterrent for crime.

7. Ten states including Arizona, Alaska, Idaho, Kentucky, Montana, New Mexico, South Dakota, Virginia, Vermont, and Wyoming all allow open carry of handguns without a license. Twelve states including Connecticut, Indiana, Iowa, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Utah, and Tennessee allow open carry of handguns with a license. In fact, Texas is one of only SIX states in the entire United States that completely bans open carry of handguns.

8. In these states, Open carry is very common and it does not alarm law enforcement or other citizens.

For the foregoing reasons, we residents of the State of Texas affirm and assert that all citizens who may lawfully purchase a handgun be allowed to carry openly in public in the State of Texas except for those places prohibited by law. We also call for state preemption of all handgun laws concerning open carry in Texas.

A challenge for those who want to ban firearms

I challenge all those people who want to ban firearms and say you can use an "alternative means of self defense" in case your home is burglarized to try a little experiment.

Get a month's worth of your salary in cash. Put it in your home. Anywhere you can get to it will be fine. (IE: Don't encase it in cement.)

Tell four or five of your very fit and in-shape friends they can have all of that money if they can take it from your home. Warn them about your "alternative means of self defense", but if they can get by that, all the cash is theirs.

Tell them to break in sometime between 1 and 6 AM. They have to find the money themselves. And you won't hold them responsible for any damages they do to yourself or to your home. In writing.

As a bonus, they can't tell you when they are going to do it. And you can't put a time limit on when they can try.

Don't forget when it finally happens, these are supposedly your friends steamrolling over you. See how long that "alternative means of self defense" holds up.

If you have a method that works, please let me know!

4 armed suspects recorded on home invasion

This is a terrifying video of four armed men charging a man's home this last week. What happens next is brilliant. The homeowner defends himself with his own firearm and sends the four armed thugs running.

I would like to take a moment to ask all the anti-gun activists a few questions based on the video.

1) What do you think these four armed men were intending to do, not only to the individual in the home, but to anyone who encountered them in the process of their morning exercise?

2) Since assault rifles are illegal, how do you think the first suspect in this video had one in his possession? EXTRA CREDIT: Do you think the individual was aware or cared if the possession of his assault rifle was illegal? What social situations may have driven him to obtain this illegal assault rifle?

3) If this was happening to your home, what would you have done to solve or avoid this problem? Would your response and the options you take possible and/or available for those with a low to middle class income level to enact in their own homes?

4) Explain why you believe these four armed men may have more and/or equal rights compared to the individual inside the home they were running into. Who do you think has the ability to sue whom? Who committed a crime in this video?

5) Construct a linear timeline based on ten second increments for the following two situations: (A) The time required for the individuals in the video to approach in their vehicle, exit, and run toward the home. (B) The time required to call 911, clearly inform the dispatcher of the situation and location of the incident in progress, and for the police to arrive at the scene. Which is timeline is longer? Which is timeline is shorter? Do you think this may be important?

Not soooo fast!

I just deleted my last post. It was a touch premature.

Hunter's Mark (the store) will re-open soon with accessories, paraphernalia, and gear for all your hunting and sporting needs.

If you are looking for a FFL to transfer your online purchase to, please visit auctionarms.com or gunbroker.com and look in their "find an FFL" section.

"In the business world, the rearview mirror is always clearer than the windshield."
- Warren Buffett