Author Archives: bulletsfirst

“If you don’t win, cheat”; that’s the Chicago way

“If you don’t win, cheat”; that’s the Chicago way

From the city that gave us Barack Obama, Al Capone and the term “Chicago Politics” now gives us a mash up of all three in order to fight against the recent ruling recognizing Chicagoan’s right to keep and bear arms.

The Chicago City council has taken it upon themselves to try and infringe and limit the newly recognized right within their city by any means necessary.  By using coercion and threats the thugs of the City Council are forcing the owners of businesses that serve alcohol to place a sign in their window banning guns on the premises.

That doesn’t mean just bars, anyplace that serves alcohol will be forced to acquiesce to the whims of the City Council.  This includes restaurants, hotels, bars, clubs, sporting venues, carnivals and festivals etc. Though liquor and grocery stores are exempt.

The stance on this matter is reminiscent of a scene in the Godfather when Michael speaks of the time his father and Luca Brazzi give the bandleader a choice

The city council’s Consigliere in this case is Donal Quinlan who said:

“What we’re essentially doing is making it mandatory for establishments to exercise that right to say, ‘No guns here’. We can’t regulate guns, but we can revoke their liquor license if they don’t exercise that right.

There are so many things wrong with that statement it boggles the mind. If you are making it mandatory to do something you are not allowing people to exercise that right, you are actually doing the opposite.  

I have the right to vote for a candidate, but if you force me to vote for them if i don’t want to that doesn’t mean I’m exercising my right, it means I am being crushed under a tyrannical heel.  This is how third world dictatorships operate.

And the fact that the Chicago City Council has to threaten people in order to get their way because the courts ruled against them is both disgusting and unethical.  Though I guess that is business as usual in Chicago. 

Somehow, the City Council of Chicago, the murder capital of America with over 1200 murders and countless shootings over the past 30 months , believes what; that by harassing business owners and infringing upon a persons right to protect themselves these shootings will stop?

Then again, gun control isn’t about stopping crime…it’s about control…and Chicago and the politicians it produces are all about control, freedom and choice be damned.

How’s Obamacare working for everyone?  I guess Obama learned that trick back in Chi-town.



Gun Free Zones – The Den of Iniquity

Gun Free Zones – The Den of Iniquity

After the Washington Navy Yard shootings two weeks ago, the gun control and background check issues have come up for discussion again, as has the idea of creating more gun-free zones. I don’t know how to break it to the anti-gun people, but it’ll never work to lower violence.

Washington, D.C., Chicago and New York City have the most stringent gun-control laws in the nation, and yet they still have a huge number of gun-related incidents every year, by people who usually have possession of them illegally. But let’s look beyond gun-related crimes.

How about violent crimes? A number of individuals in the anti-gun crowd tout the idea of being passive. In a study of rape cases, there was a 32% instance of successful rapes on women who were unarmed, and a 3% instance in women who were armed and defended themselves. Are those numbers counted in cases of gun violence? Not unless the woman shoots her attacker, in which case it increases the numbers of gun violence incidents, not rapes or murders prevented.

I saw a definition of gun control recently that really grabbed my attention on how the repercussions of gun control are glossed over by the media: “The theory that a woman found dead and raped in an alleyway, strangled by her own pantyhose, is somehow morally superior to one explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal gunshot wound.”

It should be about Equal Rights.

– Read the rest of the article at:

A re-look at gun control on Occam’s razor edge

A re-look at gun control on Occam’s razor edge

Back in January I wrote an article about the false logic of gun control and how the argument between gun control and gun rights fairs when placed within the constructs of Occam’s Razor; the logic principle that the argument that makes the fewest assumptions is the right one.

In the current debate concerning guns in America, I am always astounded by the twisting of facts, logic and reason that the gun control zealots put forth in order to defend their case.  By all sense and logic, gun control cannot be viewed as anything other than a means to oppress a free people and to disarm the law abiding.

When looking at the pro-rights argument against the pro-control argument one needs to cut through the hyperbole and sensationalism with Occam’s razor.

Plainly put, Occam’s razor is the process in which, when you have two competing theories, the one that makes the least amount of assumptions is most likely the correct one.  By using the “razor” to cut away the most assumptions you are left with the correct answer.

To apply this to the gun debate, I argue that gun control, when cut to ribbons by the razor cannot stand.

The argument for the 2nd Amendment.

  1. An armed people are a free people 

That’s pretty much the only assumption that needs to be taken into consideration for the 2nd Amendment.  Freedom does not guarantee safety, it does not ensure absolute happiness, it only assumes that if people are armed they will be free so long as they remain so.

The argument for gun control requires a lot more assumptions to be made (many of which have been proven false).

  1. The 2nd Amendment is about hunting (because hunting is a past time and our founding fathers could always go to Wal-Mart in order to buy some meat)
  2. The founding fathers didn’t know what weapons would be available in the future and wouldn’t have written the 2nd Amendment if they had (they just fought a revolution using the same guns as the tyrants army, why would they then turn around and deny the same to those who follow)
  3. Gun control will stop criminals from getting guns (there are a number of shootings in “gun free zones” that have proven this false)
  4. The government will never turn on its people (I guess we’re just ignoring the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina)
  5. The police are enough to keep you safe (i feel that Alexian Lien might feel differently as no less than 5 cops sat and watched him dragged from his car and beaten in front of them)
  6. Criminals will follow gun laws (just like they follow the signs at “gun free zones”)
  7. Shall not be infringed doesn’t mean that the 2nd Amendment can’t be infringed (a single mustard seed of doubt means you have doubt so too does a little infringement mean you are infringing)
  8. Gun control only fails because we don’t have enough of it (and our government is in debt because we don’t spend waste enough money)
  9. Only the government needs guns, law abiding people don’t (i guess that’s true…if you’re a tyrant)
  10. Armed citizenry couldn’t stop tyranny (see 1775-1783)

Those are just 10 assumptions that I have heard the gun control zealots use that come to mind.  I’m sure many of those reading this have heard even more.

The long and short of it is this, you have to make a LOT of assumptions in order to get on board with gun control while the 2nd Amendment only requires you to make 1 assumption.  And that assumption just seems so rational and has been proven in history that it boggles my mind that people still choose to deny it.  At this point it’s more fact than assumption.

So the next time you find yourself in a war of words with some “enlightened” gun control advocate, don’t forget to bring your razor.

Only in California: Private party gun transfers illegal while backalley abortions just signed into law

Only in California: Private party gun transfers illegal while backalley abortions just signed into law

I really wonder about California sometimes.

The militant liberal left, the one that welcomes all voices so long as they agree with them, the one that is the most vicious and violent to those who disagree with them, the one who unabashedly infringe on everyone’s rights except those that narrowly fit into their ideology, has done it again.

Gov. Jerry Brown signed AB 154 on Wednesday allowing for non-physicians to perform abortions.  It would be one thing if that meant only handing out medication like the day after pill but the bill actually allows for non-physicians to perform invasive medical procedures in order to kill the unborn child.

Now, I have the knowledge and the steady hand to remove a person’s appendix but I doubt my zero years in medical school would cause a lineup of people at my door looking for appendectomies.

I don’t care what your stance on abortion is, outside of the most ardent pro-abortion mouth foamer out there, this can’t be considered a good idea.  The people performing these procedures aren’t even going to be trained by doctors and while the bill says the abortions will be performed under a doctor’s “supervision” there is nothing in the legislation requiring a physician to be present or on-site during an abortion.

It is not only the ridiculous decision by Gov. Brown and the CA legislature that boggles my mind but their abject hypocrisy.  They will push their agenda, regardless of how extreme yet have no problem with the complete oppression of others.

It is now LEGAL for a person who is not a physician to perform an invasive medical procedure.

It is completely ILLEGAL to sell a gun to someone else without going through a licensed dealer.

From  the Office of the California Attorney General:

Firearm sales must be conducted through a fully licensed California firearms dealer. Failure to do so is a violation of California law. The buyer (and seller, in the event that the; buyer is denied), must meet the normal firearm purchase and delivery requirements.

Yet California does not have any of the major types of abortion restrictions—such as waiting periods, mandated parental involvement or limitations on publicly funded abortions—often found in other states.

If I’m a Californian and I want to sell my over under rifle I use for skeet shooting I can’t just go to my buddy and exchange it for cash, I need to go to someone who is licensed by the state of California and have them oversee the transaction.  I have to deal with background checks, waiting periods and other infringements.

Yet if you want to undergo invasive medical procedures that will rip out and end a life/potential life (depending on your beliefs) then all you need to do is head over to the nearest abortion clinic and anyone who has taken the equivalent to watching a Grey’s Anatomy marathon can hook you up immediately.

Just a look at the numbers:

Total Number of Abortions in CA (2008): 214,190

Approx. number of murders via firearm in US (2008): 12,000

Abortions are nearly 20 times more prevalent in California than murders by firearm are in the ENTIRE United States yet California cracks down and infringes on the rights on the law abiding to keep and bear arms while streamlining the process of aborting babies by not even requiring someone with a medical degree to be involved.

Apparently the inmates have taken over the asylum in Sacramento.


Did the NYC cops at the biker beatdown have a duty to intervene? “No” says court precedents

Did the NYC cops at the biker beatdown have a duty to intervene?  “No” says court precedents

Now that we have found out that at least 5 New York City cops were at the scene where Alexian Lien was pulled from his vehicle in front of his family and beaten by a biker gang, understandable outrage has come from the public. Calls for these officers to lose there jobs, be arrested and sued have been prevalent, but will they?

While it is true that 1 cop has all ready been arrested, that was for his active participation of the beating, the fates of the other cops who just stood by and watched has yet to be determined.

Would it surprise you that legally these cops have no duty to interfere and stop a crime against an individual?

In 1856 the Supreme Court ruled in South v Maryland that local law-enforcement had no duty to protect individuals, but only a general duty to enforce the laws  But that was over 150 years ago, things have surely changed since, no?


The courts have ruled consistently for the past 30 years that the police are under no obligation to stop a crime and protect a person.

In July of this year the courts in New York City dismissed a lawsuit brought on by Joseph Lozito.  Lozito tackled and subdued spree murderer  Maksim Gelman after Gelman killed 4 and injured 5 while both men were on the No. 3 train pulling out of Penn Station.  Lozito’s heroics earned him a couple of stab wounds to the head requiring 22 stiches and 20 staples to close it up.

Why was Lozito suing?  Because there were two transit cops in that train car with him who didn’t intervene for the 60 seconds that he was struggling with Gelman.  Those officers waitied until the threat was subdued and Lozito immobilized the mass murderer before they calmly tapped him on the shoulder and told him “you can get up now”.

According to Manhattan judge Margaret Chan, the transit officers—who were reportedly searching for Gelman at the time—did not have an obligation to aid Lozito, as there was no evidence to suggest they knew he was in trouble. But Lozito, a father of two, says that’s not the case, and that two people—including Gelman himself—had gotten the officers’ attention, and they failed to protect both Lozito and the other people riding with him in the subway car.

I guess watching a man get stabbed for 60 seconds doesn’t constitute “trouble”.  What did the cops think, this was just boys being boys?

Then there is the DC Court of Appeals ruling in the case Warren v DC in 1981 in which the court once again stated that police do not have a duty to provide police services to individuals, even if a dispatcher promises help to be on the way.

In this case, Carolyn Warren and her female roommate were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their third female roommate downstairs screaming as she was being raped by a pair of intruders.  The women upstairs called 911 and waited.  After 30 minutes when they saw a police car drive by and their roommates screams stopped they assumed the police had arrived and went downstairs.  The police hadn’t arrived and for the next 14 hours the three women were raped, robbed and beaten.

By a 4–3 decision the court decided that Warren was not entitled to remedy at the bar despite the demonstrable abuse and ineptitude on the part of the police because no special relationship existed. The court stated that official police personnel and the government employing them owe no duty to victims of criminal acts and thus are not liable for a failure to provide adequate police protection unless a special relationship exists.

Funny thing about that “special relationship” vernacular, you would think it would cover people with restraining orders or who were otherwise at risk of danger. Yet once again the courts side with the police not having any duty to actually protect a person.

In 2005, the Supreme Court ruled in Castle Rock v Gonzales that a town and its police department could not be sued for failing to enforce a restraining order, which had led to the murder of a woman’s three children by her estranged husband.

These are but a few cases in which the courts throughout the land have reiterated that the police do not have the duty to protect or serve YOU the individual.  It’s more like an ethereal idea of protect and serve than actually doing either.

What does this have to do with firearms?

Plenty.  The gun controllers and anti-gun zealots have long boasted about how the right to keep and bear arms is an antiquated and unnecessary relic of the past because we have the police to protect us.

Yet in reality, you can have a cop right in front of you while you are being a victim of a violent crime and they are fully allowed to legally just stand their and watch you die.

They can ignore your pleas for help and your 911 calls and even show “demonstrable abuse and ineptitude”  and still be in the clear.

Since the cops have no duty to protect us, if you don’t protect yourself, who will?

With the court ruling consistently on the side of sideline cops who just stand their and watch, chances are the 4 other police officers on the scene in New York who stood and just watched Alexian Lien beaten in front of them will not be charged or sued successfully.

I guess at the end of the day, the shield is just for their protection.  The rest of us are on our own.

A Look at Obama “Under the Radar”

A Look at Obama “Under the Radar”

Back in 2011, President Obama promised Sarah Brady that he was working on gun control being quoted as saying to her, “We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.”

So over the past 2 years, what has “under the radar” entailed?  While the President continues to fail infringing on gun rights by championing legislation, he succeeds by sneaking through continuous executive orders and other directives to federal agencies in order to push forward his gun control agenda.

Through executive order the President has done the following:

  • Bans the re-importation of over 600,000 historical M1 Garands to the US
  • Makes it more difficult for gun trusts to purchase firearms
  • Harassment of gun shops on the southern border
  • Set up impediments for the return of property wrongly seized by the government
  • Encourage, through Obamacare, for doctors to ostracize gun owners
  • Push for industry bankrupting false science initiatives such as micro stamping

With the signing of the UN Arms Trade Treaty, the Obama administration has set up the groundwork for the following:

  • Requiring a national registration to meet treaty requirements

“The most recent draft treaty includes export/import controls that would require officials in an importing country to collect information on the ‘end user’ of a firearm, keep the information for 20 years, and provide the information to the country from which the gun was exported. In other words, if you bought a Beretta shotgun, you would be an ‘end user’ and the U.S. government would have to keep a record of you and notify the Italian government about your purchase. That is gun registration. If the U.S. refuses to implement this data collection on law-abiding American gun owners, other nations might be required to ban the export of firearms to the U.S.”

Obama has spent the past 5 years staffing his administration and the courts with anti gun zealots.

  • Attorney General Eric Holder:  “We have to brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way. What we need to do is change the way in which people think about guns, especially young people, and make it something that’s not cool, that it’s not acceptable, it’s not hip to carry a gun anymore.”
  • Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor: Wrote a legal theses at Princeton, “Deadly Obsession: American Gun Culture” wherein the text she argues that firearms have been illegal for individuals to own since the passing of the Bill of Rights.
  • Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan: While working for the Clinton Administration drafted the executive order restricting the importation of semiautomatic rifles.

Then there is the absence of action on the Obama administration because sometimes no move is a strike against the 2nd Amendment.

  • The administration continues to block the selling of used military brass to the public, driving up prices for ammunition while fuelling shortages
  • Obama uses veto threats to stop nationwide reciprocation of concealed carry permits

These are what under the radar maneuvers look like in the Obama administration.  While overt Manchin-Toomey type infringements are defeated in Congress thanks to the will of the people, these back door dealings that don’t get the same press and are harder to stop, continue.  Obama is winning the shadow war on the 2nd Amendment because no one else is playing.  He will continue to appoint rabid gun control zealots and he will continue to scrawl out executive orders that only infringe rights but makes no one safer.

The promise President Obama has made to Sarah Brady has been playing out his entire term and unless the public really starts looking under the radar they may find the 2nd Amendment completely undermined.

A few facts gun owners should keep in mind


There are a few factoids that gun owners should keep in mind.  These mental notes both remind gun owners of what is important and also are good conversation anecdotes to have with those who might not understand why gun ownership is such an important thing.

  1. Guns only have 2 enemies – rust and politicians.
  2. Gun effectiveness in regards to distance is on a bell curve.  If your target is too far your weapon is ineffective, too close and its effectiveness can be compromised
  3. The average response time of a 911 call is 13 minutes. The response time of a .357 is 1400 feet per second.
  4. You can either shoot and be judged by your peers or not shoot and take your chances with the goodness of the criminal.
  5. God made all men, Sam Colt made all men equal.  That’s even more true when you include women.
  6. Center mass for bad guys, head-shots for zombies.  If you aim for anything else, you’re wrong.
  7. Guns are used 80 times more often to prevent crime than they are to take lives.
  8. Nations with more guns have less crimes.  Cited from  a study published by the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy.
  9. Nearly every US mass shooting in the past 60 years has taken place in a so called “gun free zone”.
  10. Guns are like fire extinguishers, you may not expect it, but if needed they both should be loaded, ready and accessible.

Just a small list to ruminate on with some points to bring up if anyone every questions why you are carrying a loaded handgun.