Monthly Archives: June 2013

The Journal News invasion of gun owners privacy: Round 2

Standard
The Journal News invasion of gun owners privacy: Round 2

The Journal News is once again seeking to acquire gun owners information and addresses in Putnam, Rockland and Westchester Counties.  This is a rehash of the action they took last year when they published the names and addresses of legal law abiding gun owners in December to try and ostracize  gun owners.

Ironic, that the workers at the Journal News did not seem to enjoy the same treatment when their addresses and information was made available online.

You can see if a Journal News employee lives in your neighborhood here:

Google Interactive Map of Journal News Employees

In December, the Journal News employees were so frazzled that THEIR information was made public that they required therapists to come in to try and calm them and the JN paid for that as well as extra security.

Last I heard, the Journal News did not pay for the therapy of the battered wives in hiding with gun permits who now were in actual fear that their abusive husbands were going to find them nor did the JN provide them with added security.

Which makes it all the more curious that the Journal News is going down this road again.  They have just requested the names of all the gun owners who did not file  “opt out” papers in order to make their identities private.

Let me take a step back and ask this question, why does New York State require you to file papers in order to keep your information private in the first place?  Why can’t they just simply pass a law declaring the information private?

I mean, NEW JERSEY of all places has just done that.  The New Jersey Assembly on Monday unanimously passed a bill that would prohibit the public release of such data — the identities of firearms purchased ID card holders, and handgun purchaser permit holders.

Sigh…it is New York afterall…I guess I shouldn’t expect too much.

The oddest part of this story is what the Journal News intends to do with the names once they have them.   One of the editors from the paper told Rockland County clerk that the paper doesn’t intend to publish the names.

Uh-huh…

Just like when I buy bullets I don’t intend to shoot them…until I do.

Advertisements

No-knock warrants in a lawfully armed Nation

Standard
No-knock warrants in a lawfully armed Nation

Let’s begin with a definition.

No-knock warrant: a warrant issued by a judge that allows law enforcement officers to enter a property without immediate prior notification of the residents, such as by knocking or ringing a doorbell

The no-knock warrant is a “evolution” of police procedures brought on by the war on drugs.  The rationale is that if you announce yourself before entering a property, evidence (mostly drugs) can be flushed down the toilet or otherwise disposed of.  So instead of ringing the doorbell, they either kick down or blow up your front door and pop in smoke grenades and bum rush your house.

While it is logical to understand that the element of surprise stops criminals from disposing of evidence, but what about the THOUSANDS of other times when a warrant is served at the wrong address?

Children terrified, dogs shot, homes destroyed etc etc.  I guess innocent until proven guilty doesn’t extend to a paramilitary force busting down your door in the middle of the night looking for evidence.

And what you receive to placate your traumatized children, dead dog, home damages and beaten spouse?  “Whoops…sorry about that.”

But this isn’t even the most volatile of situations.  What happens when you are a lawful citizen who keeps and bears arms?

I won’t assume anything for you, but if a bunch of armed men, dressed in black wearing ski masks break down my door at night its bullets first, questions later.

Unfortunately, in all states except Indiana, it is unlawful to shoot a police officer in the above or following scenario.  If it is a group of armed criminal home invaders wearing all black with ski masks, then it’s ok, but if it is police, you’re out of luck.  As a gun owner, do you want to take that chance?

Scenario: I’m on the couch watching late night tv, dog is by my feet, wife curled up next to me, kids soundly asleep upstairs when all of a sudden the front door explodes open.  A group of armed ninjas bust in and shoot my dog because he had the audacity to bark at them.

 

noknock

 

49 states would have you first engage these men in dialogue to ascertain why they just attacked your house in the middle of the night.  Barring freezing up due to panic (which happens), if you have a gun handy and aren’t shooting then I say there is something wrong with you.

Your wife’s and kids’ lives are in the balance, not to mention your own, and you are going to ask the men who bombarded your house to please identify themselves before you engage in your own self defense?  That’s ridiculous and also a good way to get yourself killed, your wife raped, your children kidnapped and your house looted…you’re dogs all ready been shot.

It’s an axiom of gun owners and holds true here…it’s better to be judged by 12 than carried by six.

The negatives of no-knock warrants far outweigh the perceived benefits and it is about time that states and the courts took a long hard look at curtailing and eliminating this unconstitutional action.

I mean, what is more of an unreasonable search and seizure than being attacked by armed hooded thugs who break down your door in the middle of the night without announcing themselves a cops?  Even if they do announce themselves, the warrant is to look for evidence, a no-knock warrant assumes your guilt and that the evidence is all ready there.

Perhaps this wouldn’t be such a big deal if cops getting it wrong was rare…but it’s not.

Cop Shoots service dog servicing warrant at wrong house

Army Vets dog killed when police raiding wrong apartment

Pittsburgh woman’s apartment ransacked with 2 children inside  on a warrant with bad information. “The way they all came in here and just threw smoke bombs and kicked in the door, we could have gotten hurt,” Earnest said.

61 yr old man shot to death by cops while 70 yr old wife handcuffed to radiator when cops raided wrong house

Cops Raid Wrong House, Threaten Children and Kill Their Dog 

And those were just a few in the past 90 days.  I didn’t want to link ad nauseum so I kept it to 5 examples that cover the basics, children terrified, dogs shot, houses ransacked, husband killed, wife roughed up etc.  Remember, these people are INNOCENT.

This is still America and no knock warrants have no place here.  The innocent are supposed to be protected from both criminals AND cops.  The 2nd Amendment is for the former, the 4th Amendment is for the latter.

What the DOMA ruling means for the 2nd Amendment

Standard
What the DOMA ruling means for the 2nd Amendment

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional and as such homosexual couples will be recognized by the federal government.

The court ruled that the Federal Government had no right to regulate or fail to recognize the rights of gay couples to marry in a state that allows it.

I find this very interesting.  You see, the liberal justices, with Justice Kennedy joining them, have just said that the Federal Government cannot deny the rights of a citizen in a state that recognizes said rights.

This is interesting because when it comes to an actual right (marriage in the eyes of government is about tax breaks and power of attorney), one that shall not be infringed , the federal government doesn’t seem to have any problem trying to trample it underfoot.  They may not find it so easy to do in the future thanks to this ruling.

Let me quote you some of the majority opinion written by Justice Kennedy, but this time, let us assume that DOMA is some federal gun control measure.  I’ve swapped out and bolded the equatable terms.

Page 19: The States’ interest in defining and regulating the 2nd Amendment, subject to constitutional guarantees, stems from the understanding that the right to keep and bear arms is more than a routine classification for purposes of certain statutory benefits.

Page 21: The avowed purpose and practical effect of the law here in question are to impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into gun ownership made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the States.

Page 22: Weapon Bans principal effect is to identify a subset of state- sanctioned firearms and make them unequal. The principal purpose is to impose inequality, not for other reasons like governmental efficiency. Responsibilities, as well as rights, enhance the dignity and integrity of the person. And weapon bans contrives to deprive some gun owners under the laws of their State, but not other police officers, of both rights and responsibilities.

Page 23: By this dynamic, federal gun control under- mines both the public and private significance of state-sanctioned gun rights; for it tells those gun owners and all the world, that their otherwise valid firearms are unworthy of federal recognition and must be banned.

Page 23: Under federal gun control, gun owners have their lives burdened, by reason of government decree, in visible and public ways. By its great reach, gun control touches many aspects of a law abiding citizen, from the mundane to the profound.

Page 25: While the Fifth Amendment itself withdraws from Government the power to degrade or demean in the way this law does, the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment makes that Fifth Amendment right all the more specific and all the better understood and preserved.

(this one is DIRECTLY applicable without even changing a word)

Page 26: Federal Gun Control and weapons bans singles out a class of persons deemed by a State entitled to recognition and protection to enhance their own liberty. It imposes a disability on the class by refusing to acknowledge a status the State finds to be dignified and proper.  The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its understanding of the 2nd Amendment, sought to protect in personhood and dignity.

 

Now, I’m not going to argue for or against gay marriage.  But if the precedent set here is going to be applicable in the future then gun owners should be happy.

Here’s the breakdown:

Page 19: The 2nd Amendment is a fundamental right

Page 21: Gun bans seek to stigmatize those who take enjoyment in those banned weapons.

Page 22: Gun bans seek to limit law abiding citizens to shotguns and hunting rifles while the government employees can muster assault rifles and automatic weapons.  Thus creating a sub-set of citizen, unequal to their government employed neighbors.

Page 23: Reaffirmation of States’ rights.

Page 25: 14th AmendmentSection 1.  No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.  *with that logic, state gun bans are illegal too.

Page 26: By this ruling, every Firearm Freedom Act that has passed or will pass in States, cannot be challenged or abridged by the Federal Government.

 

So not only would the logic of this ruling assure that FFA states are beyond federal reproach, but it would also outlaw things such as the NY SAFE act.  The act which allows for some citizens (police officers, active and RETIRED) to keep “assault” weapons and magazines loaded with more than 7 bullets, but denies that right to others.  This is a clear violation of the Kennedy opinion because it creates a sub-set classification of citizen.

Now, there are gun grabbing bigots out there who may rail against me.  How they disagree with me on how I exercise my inalienable rights.  How it disgusts them to see a gun on my hip.  All I have to say to them is…

I was born this way  :o)

The History and Hypocrisy of Jim Carrey – a buffoon who talks from his ass in real life too

Standard
The History and Hypocrisy of Jim Carrey – a buffoon who talks from his ass in real life too

In case you haven’t heard, Jim Carrey has been desperately trying to climb back into the public eye.  Ever since his butt talking and pun heavy shtick grew cold he has tried in vain to recapture some of the fame and media attention.

Like political ghouls before him such as Bloomberg and Obama, Carrey has used the death of innocent children to foster his own resurgence into the public eye.

Carrey is listing the tragedy at Sandy Hook elementary as the reason he is condemning his new movie that he has a supporting role in, “Kick Ass 2”.   Carrey tries to side step his own hypocrisy in profiting from a character who glorifies the use of gun violence by saying that it was filmed one month before Sandy Hook and because of that he is now anti-gun and regrets taking the part.

But is that the truth?  Did Carrey become anti-gun because of Sandy Hook?  A quick look at his twitter feed tells a different tale.

On the 23rd of June 2013, Carrey writes:

Yet, last year, this Canadian expresses his view that we lowly simple minded Americans are being exploited by the gun industry and have an addiction to violence.

He went on in simpler terms throughout the summer…MONTHS before he filmed Kick Ass 2…to tell us what he thinks should happen with guns and the 2nd Amendment.

Of course, Carrey really hit his stride after Sandy Hook when he found that his outlandish vitriol was getting him noticed again.  Even going so far as making a video parodying Charlton Heston in “Cold Dead Hands”.  But even BEFORE Sandy Hook, Carrey was calling to seize ALL GUNS and “revise” the 2nd Amendment.  That is anti-gun code for scratch it out.

Some people say that maybe Jim Carrey didn’t know what he was getting into when he signed on for Kick Ass 2.   Scottish comic-book writer and Kick-Ass 2 executive producer Mark Millar, whose original work forms the basis of the sequel, responded on his own blog, pointing out that Carrey, who plays a character named Colonel Stars and Stripes, knew exactly what he was getting himself into.  I mean, a returning character from the first movie is named “Hit-girl”, who is a teenage assassin and good guy.  Her father was a walking arsenal and sniper.  Anyone who saw the first movie, of which Carrey said he’s a fan, and read the script would surely know what the movie was about.

So, the truth of the matter is that Jim Carrey is a Canadian immigrant who has gotten rich off the American way of life, sold out his own convictions for a paycheck, and then wants to eat his cake too by backtracking now that he is getting blowback from his obvious hypocrisy.

Unfortunately, I wanted to see Kick Ass 2 since I liked the first one.  But, Carrey is so brazenly hypocritical and his hatred and belittling of American gun owners is so palpable I will not support him or his movies in any way.

Eventually, if enough people do the same, Carrey will not be able to betray his own feelings for a paycheck…because the offers with stop coming.

A tale of two cities, one with victims, one with citizens

Standard
A tale of two cities, one with victims, one with citizens

This past weekend has once again replayed both the triumph of gun rights and the tragedy of gun control as it relates to the average citizen.

Two men, nearly 1000 miles apart, facing two strikingly similar situations, find the outcome drastically different thanks to the city in which they live.

The first man, Giovanni Donancricchia was a pizzeria owner in Chicago.  The second man was just a guy waiting in line for a store to open in order to buy a pair of sneakers.

On Friday morning, after closing up shop from a busy Thursday night, Giovanni faced a life or death situation as a armed robber broke in through the back door and went to the cash register where Giovanni’s wife, Angela was working.  Giovanni, physically confronted the man and bought Angela enough time to run out the back.  Giovanni rushed after his wife, when he turned to see what the robber was doing he was shot once in the chest and died.

To the south in Atlanta, while a line formed outside of a shoe store as customers waiting to buy a new pair of sneakers being released that Saturday morning, a man with a gun attempted to rob those waiting in line.

I say attempted, because an unnamed law abiding man who was waiting in that line, drew his legally owned firearm and shot the would be robber dead with one shot.

Here we have two cities, two men and two sets of gun laws that allowed one man to die nobly in defense of his wife and another to live nobly while defending a group of people AND stopping an armed and dangerous criminal.

In Chicago, only criminals are allowed to have guns and when that happens the bodies of law abiding citizens keep stacking up.

In Atlanta, in a state that prides itself on the freedom of its citizens to defend themselves, the story is much different.  The man in the line gets to go home at the end of the day and be with his family and live his life.

When the life and death moment came, he was given the opportunity to choose life.  Chicago denied Mr. Donancricchia that ability and as such, his blood is on the hands of the gun control cartel that runs Chicago politics going all the way to Governor Quinn, who has still not signed the Illinois Concealed Carry bill.

How many innocent people have to die in the murder capital of the US in order to get the Chicago political machine to do what’s right?

The Pointlessness of Gun Control and Necessity of Gun Rights Illustrated

Standard

In my internet cruising I have come across a great many interesting people and artists from around the world.  One of my favorites is a bi-weekly webcomic written in Germany but which takes place in the US.

The title of the comic is Sandra and Woo.  Its a Calvin and Hobbes type story about a girl and her talking raccoon.  Hi-jinks occur.  The reason I’m bringing this up today is that the author, Oliver Knorzer, has been on a bit of a pro gun rights kick as of late.  I’m not sure if it is by accident or not  but I wanted to share nonetheless.

The first illustrates the futility of gun free zones in an interesting way:

pencilcontrol

How simple is that?  Any item, in the hands of someone willing to use it can be turned into a weapon.  Should we have pencil control?  Go back to using safety scissors? Do schools still have shop class?  As I recall, that is a room full of files and saws and picks and pointy things that can be used for nefarious intent.   So maybe, if we want to start dealing with the problems of violence instead of gun grabbing talking points, we can look into why children are ready to snap more today than in the past.  But that is a post for another time.

The second strip that caught my 2nd Amendment tuned eye was about Ruth the meat eating squirrel and a lynx looking for lunch.

psycho-squirrel

Of course, the animal kingdom would be a lot different if squirrels were really packing heat but the sentiment is an important one.  In no situation can a squirrel defend itself against a lynx.  It’s a quick meal for the lynx.

Too often in the real world a small woman is set upon by a large attacker who wishes to rob, rape and/or kill her.  While whistles and yelling for help are a nice sentiment, sometimes you have to be your own cavalry.

And like Ruth, sometimes you need to put down the animal who wants to make an easy meal out of you.  That’s just life…your life.

If you are interested in reading more Sandra and Woo and finding out what else happens to the gun toting squirrel visit the site:

http://www.sandraandwoo.com/

 

Update Edit: Just re-reading the second comic and it dawned on me just how real to life the lynx’s reaction is.  Criminals are often shocked and dismayed the moment a seemingly defenseless mark turns the tables on them.  In this case the lynx must be an MSNBC watcher in thinking that an armed female protecting her life makes her a “psycho”.

Bloomberg & crew honor Boston Bomber in roll call

Standard
Bloomberg & crew honor Boston Bomber in roll call

Once again Bloomberg and his cronies illustrate that they are against guns regardless of fact or reason.  This time, they compounded their own disdain for the 2nd Amendment with disdain for common sense and decency.

At a Mayors Against “Illegal” Guns rally Tuesday in Concord, New Hampshire (humorous that these anti freedom thugs would go to the “Live Free or Die” state to begin with) the group thought it would be a moving tribute to read off the names of those who have been “killed with guns” since the December 14th shooting at gun free zone school in Newtown, CT.

Included in these honored dead, MAIG saw fit to include Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s name.  Yep.  The Boston Marathon Bomber who killed 3 people and injured another 264 and was shot dead by Police is an example that Mayor Bloomberg and his cabal hold up as a victim of gun violence.

I reiterate, Mayor Bloomberg thinks it is sad that Tsarnaev’s life was cut short because of a firearm wielded by the Boston Police Department.

There are a few things that we can take away from this.  First, the “I” in MAIG is a joke.  Bloomberg and his group aren’t against illegal guns, they are against ALL guns.  By including Tsarnaev’s name as an example of those who died by gunfire as a negative, they illustrate how completely out of touch and extreme their position truly is.

Secondly, if they included this publicly known TERRORIST in their numbers of those who died, how many more in their list were criminals shot by cops, shot by other criminals, shot by law abiding citizens defending themselves etc?

Bloomberg has all ready decided that logic wouldn’t factor into his crusade so now he has decided that neither shall actual facts.  He is so hell bent on trying to restart the gun control push that he has to pad his numbers of gun violence victims with TERRORISTS and CRIMINALS.

Finally, Bloomberg and his ilk continue with their hypocrisy in their crusade to make sure everyone is disarmed except for their bodyguards.  I mean, he laments the death of a terrorist via a firearm at the hands of Boston PD yet is surrounded by armed guards 24/7.  At a speech at MIT he even referred to the NYPD as “my own army”.

“I have my own army in the NYPD, which is the seventh biggest army in the world. I have my own State Department. We have the United Nations in New York, and so we have an entree into the diplomatic world that Washington does not have.”

This little despot truly thinks he rules his own city-state dictatorship.  What do dictators hate more than anything?  An armed populace to stand against them.  He even denied the National Guard from entering the city to help restore order after Hurricane Sandy because they had guns.

That’s why NYC makes up their own rules to make it nigh impossible for the law abiding to own a gun yet   The NYPD has a 1,000-man army within its increasingly militarized ranks. It has tanks, combat rifles, anti-aircraft weaponry, non-lethal anti-terror sound cannons, and, supposedly, a submarine. And it’s all under the command of one guy, Ray Kelly, who answers solely to one other guy: Mike Bloomberg.

So yes, Mayor Bloomberg is against illegal guns.  He just thinks that all guns that aren’t under his direct control are illegal.  But can you expect much more from a man who feels that the death of a terrorist by a firearm is a tragedy?

Once again, and even i’m surprised he could, Mayor Bloomberg has lowered the bar on revolting slime.

Then again…just look at his upstanding gang of mayors he includes into his group:

meet-the-mayors