Missouri Democrats seek confiscation of firearms

Via Gateway Pundit

Missouri Democrats introduced an anti-gun bill which would turn law-abiding firearm owners into criminals. They will have 90 days to turn in their guns if the legislation is passed.

Dana Loesch Radio reported on the new legislation being pushed by Missouri Democrats:

Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution.

Here’s part of the Democratic proposal in Missouri:

4. Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution:

(1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;

(2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or

(3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations.

5. Unlawful manufacture, import, possession, purchase, sale, or transfer of an assault weapon or a large capacity magazine is a class C felony.

To be very clear, the bill define as “assault weapon” in part as

(b) Semi-automatic pistol, or any semi-automatic, centerfire or rimfire rifle with a fixed magazine, that has the capacity to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition;

            (c) Semi-automatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and has one or more of the following:

 a. Any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the nontrigger hand;

            b. A folding, telescoping or thumbhole stock;

            c. A shroud attached to the barrel, or that partially or completely encircles the barrel, allowing the bearer to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned, but excluding a slide that encloses the barrel; or

            d. The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at any location outside of the pistol grip;

That is one very small step from defining every pistol in this nation. All pistols have “detachable magazines”. This is a far reaching bill in that it seeks to take guns away, and in the fact that the language is getting dangerously close to banning all guns except revolvers, pump action shotguns, and bolt action rifles

 

Your Daley Douchebag is Joe Scraborough

Via Newsbusters

On today’s Morning Joe, host Joe Scarborough said that a Senior Fellow at the Independent Women’s Forum testifying in favor of assault rifles looked “like a jackass.”

Gayle Trotter, who holds undergraduate and law degrees from the University of Virginia and is the co-founder of a D.C. law firm, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday.  She argued that having an assault rifle could help a woman defend herself and her children against intruders. Immediately after playing a clip of her testimony, Scarborough said: “if you go out and try to defend assault weapons, then you end up looking like a jackass.” Mika Brezezinski agreed: “I’m sorry, but that’s true.”

A jackass Joe? Really, I would say a jackass is someone who, on national TV uses a term, “assault weapon” that was not even in existence until 1989, when gun control zealots invented it to stir up fear. I would say a jackass is someone who mocks a woman for having an opinion. And I would say a jackass is someone who refuses to defend Trotter’s main point which is that a weapon like an AR-15 CAN be a very good one for a woman in defending her home. I would hope that Joe would at least offer to shed some reality on the subject. Of course, I would also say jackass applies to your co-host Mika, who laughs, as if what Trotter says is just the most ridiculous things she has ever heard. Mika, of course is a special case, a woman who simply lives in her own little bubble world where things like reality do not apply. She is a hateful woman, and there is Scarborough, licking her feet everyday, looking very much like the poster boy for wimpy men every day. I bet Joe owns LOTS of sweater vests, just sayin’.

 

The Left and guns. Why the Left cannot bridge their reality gap

The Left has long embraced the wish to ban some, or all guns. There are really only two reasons in play here. For those in power, like Dianne Feinstein, the wish to revive the “assault weapons”ban is based in starting us down the road to an outright ban, and eventually, I believe, confiscation. Feinstein’s motives do not come from a lack of knowledge about guns. She knows the term assault weapon is ridiculous, and she knows it is about ginning up an emotionally driven image of fully automatic machine guns in the minds of Liberals, and other Americans who are ignorant of what a “semi-automatic” gun is. So-called assault weapons look scary to those who are not familiar with guns. In fact an assault rifle, like the dreaded and demonized AR-15 are just rifles with scary looking features, like a pistol grip, or a larger magazine. Feinstein and her ilk know that they can show these weapons, and throw around the term semi-automatic, and frighten people. They do this in hopes of turning public opinion towards supporting first an assault weapons ban. then, when this law proves a failure, they can then focus on all semi-automatic guns. Of course most guns ARE semi-automatic, so, you see where this road leads.

For those who support “reasonable gun laws” as if we have no gun laws on the books, their support comes from ignorance, and emotional reactions to gun violence. We all know that when we react emotionally, we tend to make mistakes, except of course while we are emoting like there is no tomorrow. That is exactly what the likes of Dianne Feinstein want. This story, from Fontana, California, has some great examples of how ignorant many are about not just guns, but about self-defense as well.

The Fontana Unified School District Police Department purchased 14 AR-15 assault weapons to protect students in response to recent shootings across the country, but some school leaders and citizens think it’s a step in the wrong direction.

FUSD Superintendent Cali Olsen-Binks approved the acquisition of the rifles, which are being stored on campuses in locked safes for responding police officers in the event of an attack.

Fontana Police Chief Rodney Jones and Mayor Acquanetta Warren supported Olsen-Binks’ decision.

“It’s unfortunate that we have to have that, but it’s the best message we can send to anybody that thinks to harm our children,” said Jones. “The message we’re sending is…not here, not now, we’re prepared for you. And if you seek to harm our children, we will neutralize that threat and you will most likely be killed.”

Warren said, “Everyone wants children safe. At this time, we as a community, we have to come together and find other ways. But in the interim, our police officers need to be equipped.”

On these opening paragraphs we see the media plying along with the emotionally charged terms. Note they call AR-15’s assault weapons, when in fact they are simply rifles. The truth is that police feel that having such arms at hand will help them prevent, or stop a school shooting. The tactical merits of the plan can be legitimately debated, but listen to how a school board member, obviously driven by an emotions reacts.

School board member Sophia Green, however, doesn’t believe anyone will be safer if weapons are kept inside schools.

“If a person who has the intention of coming on campus to kill… knows we have the AR-15s…they might come with something even bigger or better. They will come prepared,” she said.

This is the classic Liberal response to fighting crime. They scoff at the notion that anyone can defend themselves. Of course this fallacy is driven by Liberal rhetoric, and a news media that exploits mass shootings, and ignores the tens of thousands of times Americans use guns to defend themselves against violent criminals. To Ms. Green, it is incomprehensible that a school shooter could be stopped by a good guy armed with a weapon. To her all guns are bad. All gun uses are bad, and all who carry or own guns are bad. I would bet that she believes the Liberal lie that all violence is equal. Liberal gun control groups use these lies all the time. Lumping all gun deaths together, even when police, or law-abiding Americans shoot violent criminals. Their stats are meant to skew our perception. Their other favorite trick is to exclude times when armed citizens use their gun to defend themselves by brandishing their weapon, or firing a warning shot. Such cases make up over 90 % of defensive gun uses. So, excluding these shrinks the number of what I call positive gun uses.

Another Liberal voice is cited in the article

Anna Conklin, a child development specialist, also opposed storing the guns on school grounds. She told KCAL9′s Dave Bryan that a counseling program would be a better way to address violence on campus.

“Children aren’t born with a gun in their hand and vengeance in their mind. They aren’t necessarily going to grow into being a killer. We, as a society, need to address why children are growing up to commit these acts as teens and adults. I don’t see how adding more weapons on a campus is addressing that,” Conklin said.

A counseling program? For what? To help grief-stricken students deal with another tragic incident? I have no issue with counseling, but it has nothing to do with preventing school shootings. Neither does disarming the good guys. More guns on campus, if they are in the hands of the good guys is a good thing. Certainly gun-free zones is an idea that has failed miserably. Again, a Liberal assigns blame and responsibility to inanimate objects rather than to those who use those objects. Again, this is the all violence is equal, all guns are bad nonsense. The Liberal sheep who drink the Kool-Aid Dianne Feinstein serves them have allowed themselves to be indoctrinated by the likes of Feinstein. Feinstein, and her fellow Statists need useful idiots like the two women in the story above to help push their agenda through. This is why education is so important my friends. People who know about guns do not fall for the lies Feinstein spins

 

A list of President Obama’s 23 executive orders on gun violence

Via the Lid, who sums up the usefulness of these EO’s

What a pile of nothing. Both the POTUS and the SCHMOTUS had been warning that Obama would take hard constructive action on gun control.  For days advocates of the constitution were worried that Obama would seek to destroy the Second Amendment by executive fiat. Instead his actions were the typical political “We will do better and we will study.” One thing the POTUS missed…there is no executive order preventing the Federal Government from selling weapons to Mexican Drug Cartels…everyone would support that one. 

Basically, these 23 EO’s are a pile of emptiness. Of course, the Democrats can use these later when they do nothing at all to stop the next high-profile shooting. They can then tell us that they did not go far enough. Of course, they can say the very same thing if they get a new assault weapon ban pushed through too. They new that new gun laws will not prevent the next school shooting, but, they are hoping they can get some more restrictions in place now. Then, when those restrictions are ineffective, they can use their emotional appeals to aim for even more restrictions in the future. The Left is all about getting what they want incrementally folks. This is why we must never sleep on them. They are persistent if nothing else.

Chris, at Wyblog points out two troublesome items from the list

16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.  

17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.

I do not like these either. I have never had a doctor ask me about guns in my home, and I would never answer such a question, but, again, this is one of those cases where we might rightfully wonder where these two executive orders could lead.

Your doctor is spying on you. And depending on what you tell him, he’ll rat you out to Dear Leader faster than you can say “Second Amendment.” Because it’s now his duty to ask you about your guns.

Newark, NJ Mayor Cory Booker started us down the fascist trail by offering a $1,000 bounty to folks who turn in their gun-owning neighbors. Dear Leader took it one better. Your doctor can’t tell you if your teenage daughter asks for birth control pills. But now he’s required to tell the feds if you own a gun.

Remember when asking librarians to report “suspicious” reference requests was tantamount to detonating the pillars of our civilization? Me neither.

Yeah, so much for that patient confidentialty and “right to privacy” thing. It only applies when it doesn’t conflict with progressive groupthink. Like I said, fascism.

As I stated above, never trust the political Left. Always assume they have ulterior motives. And remember that their number one priority has always been total control of our lives. 

Why the creepy little weirdo who shall not be named on this blog did it

The Other McCain, who I stole part of that headline from, reports that we may have a motive in the Newtown shootings

We now have the first clear suggestion of a motive:

NEWTOWN, Conn. –  The gunman who slaughtered 20 children and six adults at a Connecticut elementary school may have snapped  because his mother was planning to commit him to a psychiatric facility . . .
[The creepy little weirdo], targeted Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown after killing  his mother early Friday because he believed she loved the school “more than she  loved him,” said Joshua Flashman, 25 . . .

“From what I’ve been told, [the creepy little weirdo] was aware of her petitioning the court for  conservatorship and (her) plans to have him committed,” Flashman told  FoxNews.com. “[The creepy little weirdo] was apparently very upset about this. He thought she just  wanted to send him away. From what I understand, he was really, really angry. I  think this could have been it, what set him off.”

A senior law enforcement official involved in the investigation confirmed  that [the creepy little weirdo's] anger at his mother over plans for “his future mental health treatment” is being looked at as a possible motive for the deadly shooting.

Sounds plausible. I think it is clear that this creepy little shit needed to be locked away, for his good, and for those around him as well. What it takes, legally, to put a dangerous sicko away I am not familiar with, but surely it is not easy, and with mostly good reasons. One question I do have though. If I lived with a person who was a wacko, yes, I know by calling him a wacko I am being insensitive, but, I think we should be a tad more honest about wackos, so too bad if it hurts your sensitivities. If I lived with a wacko, I would make sure they could NEVER get my guns. So, I do wonder if his mother had them locked away. As a practice, I believe in locking guns away only in certain situations, for safety reasons, such as having small children around. Frankly, having you gun locked up, unloaded, makes it harder to use if it is needed in a hurry.

Speaking of guns, The Other McCain also notes that on the MSNBS Gun Control 2012 Telethon, which benefits the delusional Leftists among us, some ass hat, there are so many on MSNBS called the weapons the creepy little weirdo used “exotic”, which is, how shall I put this delicately, BS!

Today on the Endless Gun Control Telethon that is MSNBC — I Watch, So You Don’t Have To™ — a guest on Morning Joe referred to the Newtown shooting as exemplifying the problem caused by “exotic weapons.” This demonstrates the problem caused by common ignorance.

Adam Lanza’s weapons were a Bushmaster .223-caliber semi-automatic, a type described by the New York Times as “the most popular rifle in America, according to gun dealers,” as well as two 9-mm pistols (Glock and Sig Sauer) and a shotgun of unknown make.

These are not “exotic weapons” by any definition.

Of course, to Leftists, any gun is exotic, because Leftists, and Liberals, HATE guns. Liberals hate guns because they do are ignorant about guns, and because they have been taught, indoctrinated to think of guns, and gun owners, as bad. Leftists also hate guns, but for  a different reason. They see guns as the ultimate symbol of the thing they hate most, Individualism. Anything that makes people more independent is evil to a Leftist. And make no mistake. Leftists KNOW that bringing back the idiotic “assault weapons” ban will not do a single thing to curb any mass shootings. They know that, as Stacy McCain notes, the Bushmaster rifle was not banned by Diane Feinsteins’ pet legislation.

Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Californication) and Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Corruption) are vowing legislation to bring back the (absurdly misnamed) “assault weapons ban.”

We will leave aside the biggest aspect of the misnomer (i.e., semi-automatic rifles are not “assault weapons”) and focus instead on the “ban” part of this rhetorical delusion. The Bushmaster was NOT banned under the law Democrats want to bring back.

What we are dealing with here — amidst the chaotic cacophony of frenzied liberal noise — is another one of those “do something” episodes that occasionally afflict the media/politics nexus. The follies that result from the “do something” impulse, as politicians react to the latest headline and try to reassure voters that government can fix whatever problem concerns them, has resulted in some of the most awful stupidity in history, including Republican stupidity: Terrorists strike New York? Create a new government agency for airport security! Give the feds more wiretapping authority! Invade some foreign countries! And . . . how’d that work out for ya?

Their aim is to take out individualism, and they see this as an opening to further their agenda. The Left is at war here, as they have been for a long time, against Individualism, to achieve the end of destroying Individualism, they must take away the guns. As Stacy notes, Liberals are squealing like stuck pigs over the rhetoric the Leftists are using. The Leftists use that rhetoric “Assault weapons” “Exotic weapons” “Gun Culture”, and it gets the Liberals, who emote instead of thinking, into Do Something Mode. This is how we get stupid, ineffective laws that end up restricting rights rather than preventing crimes.