While I have my doubts about some of the more asinine gun control measures passing at the federal level, here in Colorado things aren’t looking so good for gun owners. Among the measures that stand a good chance of passing both houses of the legislature is banning concealed carry permit holders from bringing guns on college campuses. This would reverse a 2008 Colorado Supreme Court decision which stated that the CU Board of Regents could not prohibit permit holders from carrying concealed weapons on campus because college campuses were not exempted according to Colorado’s Concealed Carry Act of 2003.
These sentences in this Denver Post article jumped off the page:
“Students and guns are a bad mix,” said Rep. Claire Levy, D-Boulder, the sponsor of the bill, adding that college student engage in risky behaviors like heavy drinking and drug use.
“As the research shows, you don’t need a gun on a college campus to be safe,” Levy said, saying data overwhelmingly shows students are at low risk of violent crime on campus.
There’s a lot of back and forth on the internet right now. Guns tend to get folks riled up pretty well. Gun rights advocates are screaming to the top of their lungs about universal gun registration, while gun grabbers are yelling that it’s about keeping guns out of the wrong hands.
Well folks, you may not realize it, but the gun rights advocates are actually right on this one.
Sure, no one who supports universal background checks is saying registration. In fact, they honestly believe they’re avoiding gun registration. Unfortunately, there’s a reason why gun rights advocates don’t believe them.
First, one must understand the entire process of purchasing a gun through a licensed dealer. The background check is only part of the process. The rest involves paperwork that also registers information about the weapon purchased. These records aren’t shredded after a certain period of time. No, the dealer is required to hold onto these records indefinitely.
By forcing all gun sales to go through Federal Firearms License holders, you force all weapons to have paperwork filed on each and every firearm purchase. That is a form of de facto registration.
Now, this isn’t some gun armeggedon or anything. Most guns would still transfer just as they always have (Obama’s figure that as many as 40 percent of all sales don’t go through the background check is complete bull), but some will now have to go through a third party. So what’s the big deal?
The gun control debate has brought out the crazy. This issue always brings out the passionate opinions from both sides. For those who oppose the Second Amendment and wanted to extensive gun control measures enacted by Congress or in various state legislature, they’re forgetting one basic thing — criminals don’t obey laws. That’s why they’re criminals.
The Second Amendment provides a means for Americans to protect their life, liberty, and property from those who would do them harm — and they do so millions of times each year. But don’t tell that to State Rep. Joe Salazar, a Colorado Democrat. He doesn’t think women need guns for self-defense. In his opinion, they would be better off calling the police or using a rape whistle to alert of an attack.
“It’s why we have call boxes, it’s why we have safe zones, it’s why we have the whistles,” State Rep. Salazar said on the floor of the House. “Because you just don’t know who you’re gonna be shooting at. And you don’t know if you feel like you’re gonna be raped, or if you feel like someone’s been following you around or if you feel like you’re in trouble when you may actually not be, that you pop out that gun and you pop…pop a round at somebody.”
Here’s the video:
We all knew it was coming. Well, it’s here. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) continues her jihad against so-called “assault weapons” by introducing the bill she warned the world was coming earlier today.
The bill, as ugly as we expected, seeks to ban scores of firearms including all types of AK and AR pattern rifles. A number of shotguns and pistols are also including in that list. Of course, Feinstein and her fellow gun jihadists believe they’re fighting the good fight:
During the press event at the Dirksen Senate Office Building, the Democrats described these firearms as “dangerous military-style assault weapons.” The bill would also ban high-capacity ammunition feeding devices that can hold more than 10 rounds.
Feinstein said the country’s “weak” gun laws allow massacres like the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting occur.
“Getting this bill signed into law will be an uphill battle, and I recognize that — but it’s a battle worth having,” Feinstein said in literature handed to reporters at the Thursday event.
Feinstein is right that it’ll be an uphill battle for the bill. However, Feinstein has to know just how little of a chance this bill has.
The bill will also essentially turn all currently possessed firearms into Class III weapons. That is the same classification of guns as fully automatic machine guns. Now, this will mean that those AK and AR pattern rifles are about to soar in value should a bill like this actually pass.
Like a true leftist ideological warrior, this past Wednesday, Obama prepared for a speech on new gun control measures by surrounding himself with children who’d written him about gun-related violent crime. Like a soldier behind a wall of sandbags, the children were used as an emotional prop to protect Obama from the projectiles of logic and reason bombarding his weak position on the Second Amendment. The children were there to deflect the blows of contrarian facts which undermine his argument. They gave him the ability to make the argument, as the left is so masterful at, that opposition to his agenda was proof that his opponents don’t care about protecting children.
Hypocritically, just an hour after Obama surrounded himself with children to announce nearly two dozen Executive Orders meant to infringe on the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves, White House spokesman Jay Carney was whining to the press about an NRA ad which referenced the fact that Obama protects his own daughters by surrounding them by men carrying guns (as he should). Said Carney, “Children should not be used as pawns in a political fight.” If the irony was any thicker, you could pour it over pancakes.
The meeting yesterday between Vice President Joe Biden’s gun control task force and the National Rifle Association didn’t go that well. Biden is expected to hand his recommendations to President Barack Obama on Tuesday, who will, in turn, push for legislation from Congress to enact them.
In addition to reintroducing the assault weapons ban and trying to eliminate the so-called “gun show loophole,” Biden laid down some of the policies that will be pursued by the White House in Congress in the coming days:
Biden gave the most detailed description so far of what his panel will propose, telling sporting groups at the start of their session that there is broad consensus among those he has surveyed to require background checks on all gun purchases and to restrict the amount of ammunition that can be included in a gun magazine.
After the meeting the NRA issued a statement explaining, “While claiming that no policy proposals would be ‘prejudged,’ this Task Force spent most of its time on proposed restrictions on lawful firearms owners — honest, taxpaying, hardworking Americans.”
Some may be questioning why the NRA even entertained the White House when the outcome was so obvious. From a standpoint of public perception, it’s not like they had much of a choice. If they didn’t go, it would look like they weren’t even interested in a discussion. But if they did go, they provided the White House with a talking point that they had “met with the NRA.” It was a lose-lose for them.
Dear Piers Morgan,
We get it. You, a British citizen and a subject of the Crown, are not a supporter of gun rights. This is something we understand perfectly well.
However, I feel that as a fellow journalist, I need to reach out and let you know that I’m on to your little tricks. Frankly, if this is the best you’ve got, maybe you should rethink your position on gun rights…or at least quit making it such a point on your show.
The first trick was to shout down reasonable debate when you had Larry Pratt on your show. Pratt, the executive director of Gun Owners of America, went on your show to have a reasonable discussion, and you shout him down with tactics more akin to Bill O’Reilly’s. Every time he opened his mouth to counter your points, you were rude and drowned him out.
Time and time again, you called Pratt names like “stupid,” while countering with no facts of your own. You were as unprofessional as I have ever seen, and with Kieth Olbermann and O’Reilly still in my memory, that’s saying something.
Last night, you had Alex Jones on your show. Ostensibly, it was about the petition to have you deported. For the record, I did not sign it and did not support it. Freedom of speech is freedom for all, or else it’s freedom for none. Jones started it, and you had him on your show. Unsurprisingly, the topic went over to gun control.
Both sides of the debate on so-called “assault weapons” have been in high gear lately. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) had already declared her intention to introduce a new assault weapon ban before the horrific tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School thrust guns into the national spotlight. However, most debate was really centered around the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban because all we had was Feinstein’s statements. There wasn’t an actual bill to speak of.
Well, now thanks to Sen. Feinstein’s website, we know what the bill will look like.
National Rifle Association Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre broke his organization’s silence since last week’s atrocity at Sandy Hook Elementary by giving apress conferencethis morning. The press conference’s tone was rambling at times and it appeared to generally lack focus. The NRA gave some reasons they thought that there were mass shootings
There exists in this country, sadly, a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells and stows violence against its own people. Through vicious, violent video games with names like “Bullet Storm,” “Grand Theft Auto,” “Mortal Combat,” and “Splatterhouse.”
LaPierre also went on to blame violent movies and music videos as well. LaPierre also appeared to claim that there was a media conspiracy to cover up the role of violent media by blaming gun owners.
The problem with blaming violent video games for crime is that its simply not true as is pointed in this piece in the National Review. Also, is the message that we need to gut the First Amendment to save the Second Amendment the right message we need to send right now?
LaPierre unfortunately wasn’t finished with his Joe Biden impersonation. He had some suggestions for improving school security:
Gun rights had been enjoying a miniature golden age. Following the Supreme Court decisions of Heller and McDonald, gun rights advocates have kind of been skating on cloud nine. Even the halfhearted pushed by President Obama for more gun control, spurred on by violent crime south of the border, sputtered and died following “Operation Fast and Furious” came to light. Unfortunately, that seems to be changing.
More Americans prioritize gun control above Second Amendment rights by the widest margin since President Barack Obama took office, according to a new poll released Thursday in wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings.
Forty-nine percent of those polled said it’s more important to control gun ownership, compared to 42 percent who say it’s more important to protect Americans’ rights to own guns, according to a Pew Research Center Poll.