54 Colorado sheriffs sue to overturn new Colorado gun control laws

Good for them!

A consortium of plaintiffs led by 54 of Colorado’s 62 elected county sheriffs filed a lawsuit in federal court against the state Friday in an effort to overturn two new gun control bills that are set to go into effect on July 1.

The plaintiffs have in their sights one law that effectively bans all firearm magazines, and one that requires a background check for every gun transfer when the gun will be in the possession of someone other than the owner for more than 72 hours.

El Paso County Sheriff Terry Maketa said the laws are not only unconstitutional, but also confusing and unenforceable.

For example, the ban on magazines was discussed by its Democratic sponsors as applying only to those that hold more than 15 rounds, in response to mass-shooting incidents in Aurora, Colo., and Newtown, Conn.

But the law also outlaws any magazine that can be easily converted to hold more than 15 rounds, which applies to practically all magazines with a removable base plate that can be replaced with an after-market extender.

After July 1, the owners of such magazines cannot sell them, loan them or give them away. In effect, it means that even if they give their weapon to someone else for safekeeping — or, in the case of one wheelchair-bound plaintiff who spoke Friday, to hold momentarily as he gets in and out of his chair — they will be breaking the law.

This is a major issue with so many pieces of legislation, the devil of details are in the fine print, or in the poorly written wording. What a bill says it does, and what it can be twisted to do are entirely different.

 

New York Governor calls gun control opponents paranoid, extremists

Your Marxist Moron of the Day

Gov. Andrew Cuomo dismissed the latest lawsuit against the state’s new gun control law, the SAFE Act, as “propaganda” that the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association is using to keep its members in line.

“I think the paralysis in Washington on this issue is sad, frankly. If this nation doesn’t get it after Newtown, Connecticut … people all across the nation are begging their government to respond,” Cuomo, a Democrat, told Susan Arbetter on “The Capitol Pressroom.”

“What the extremists do is spread fear and unrealistic theories of conspiracies and the citizenry that needs to be armed because the government is possibly tyrannical, and they need their arms to defend themselves against the tyrannical government,” Cuomo continued. This is true: at gun rallies, I’ve heard this “slippery slope” line of argument from multiple attendees. They view the right to bear arms as a kind of check against government power.

Gov. Cuomo is a fine one to be slinging mud. What he is is a thug. Really no better than the slime ball who tried to rob me years ago. If not for my being armed that night, who knows what would have happened. To me, that punk and Cuomo are two sides of the same coin. No, Gov. Cuomo will never try to rob me in an alley. But he is all too willing to rob everyone he can of their most basic human right, the right of self-defense. Of course, I am sure Cuomo would lecture me on my “needs”. Well, I am sure it is easy for a man surrounded by armed security to not see the need of  a common American to have firearms for self-defense. As far as Cuomo calling anyone who opposes his unconstitutional law extreme? Statists like Cuomo despise liberty, and Individualism and consider anyone who does not wish to be dependent on the State an extremist, so, that is a badge of honor. Oh and one more thing……….

a15 AR-Rosa-Parks

So where is news made these days?

The Liberal Consensus Factory of course!

Otherwise known as the news media:

In the wake of the horrific school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut on December 14, the Big Three (ABC, CBS, NBC) networks quickly moved to exploit the tragedy to push for more gun control legislation while mostly ignoring solutions that respect gun owners’ Second Amendment rights.  . . .
Stories advocating more gun control outnumbered stories opposing gun control by 99 to 12, or a ratio of 8 to 1.

And they wonder why we think they are biased?

 

How do thugs like Jerry Nadler (D-irtbag) get elected?

Have we really sunk so far? From Madison, and Franklin, and Mason, and Jefferson and Washington to bottom feeders like THIS bag of dung?

Out of all the Democrats exploiting this tragedy, Nadler is leading the pack.

(CNY) — Today, following the shooting massacre of 20 children in a Connecticut school, President Obama said that “meaningful action” needed to be taken to prevent such tragedies from happening in the future.

But what “meaningful action” can Obama actually take, given Republican control of the House and Congress’ deeply felt fear of the politically mighty National Rifle Association? And politics aside, what new laws would actually solve or make a dent in the country’s crazed-gunman problem?

Rep. Jerry Nadler said thinks that the president has only one option.

“There’s only one meaningful action he can take, which is to take on the N.R.A., label them as the enablers of mass murderers they are, really push for strong gun-control legislation and call out those congressional leaders who don’t support it,” Nadler told me this afternoon.

“It is time to call out the N.R.A. as enablers of mass murder and start embarrassing people and saying, ‘Who do you stand with? The parents and children of this country or the potential mass murderers?’”

The fact is if there HAD been a couple of NRA members there they would have done their best to stop the killer, but Nadler does not give  a flip about facts. I suppose slandering people who value liberty and obey the law is a small price to pay for furthering his Statist agenda. Instead of looking gleefully at this as an opportunity to eradicate self-defense rights, why is Nadler not pushing for armed security in our schools? Could it be he cares far more about control than he does about protecting kids?

 

Morally retarded publicity whores threaten to descend on Sandy Hook Elementary

The Westboro Bastards Church is going to go too far one day. 

I cannot think of a more cruel bunch of trash. To seek to inflict more pain upon these families? If these miscreants possess souls they must be black. Like I said one day they will picket the wrong person’s funeral. 

What we SHOULD have been doing years ago to prevent school shootings?

No one with a shred of morality could help but be devastated by yesterday’s horrific events. Evil was visited upon us and the toll, is, in ways immeasurable. There is no more heinous an act than what was perpetrated yesterday. Babies slaughtered by an evil man, so close to Christmas. Dear God this is awful. I can not imagine how any parent, or grandparent or sibling copes with such an atrocity. I do not know if I could. Our national heart has been broken, but the hearts of these families? I pray God gets the through, and, in fact, I think ONLY God could get anyone through such a time. I so wish we could, as a nation, simply grieve and look at ways to be pro-active, rather than reactive in such a time. But, the usual inane blame game has started already, and that simply adds to the sadness I feel.

No, it was not video games, or movies, or guns that caused this act. Only two things are to blame, and only one of those can we hope to have any control over. The one thing we cannot control is the severe mental illness that drives such murderers. I know  many work diligently to find ways to predict certain behaviors. Maybe one day they will find a way. Should we look at institutionalizing people with certain mental abnormalities? The Other McCain, whom I respect, raises this topic

Psycho, loony, bonkers, daft, zany, berserk and cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs.

Advocates for the mentally ill discourage such colloquial terms as tending to stigmatize psychiatric patients. But we might ask whether stigma — and the consequent damage to the fragile self-esteem of kooks — is really worse than turning loose a homicidal schizo who kills 27 people.

I saw we might ask that, except that it’s politically incorrect to do so. We have been carefully taught that wackos are victims, and we’re not supposed to talk about the possibility that they might also be dangerous, lest we infringe the “rights” of murderous lunatics.

To quote Dirty Harry, “Well, I’m all broken up over that man’s rights.”

You’ll excuse me if I sound somewhat bitter about it, but this school shooting kind of spoiled my plans for the day. And also, some kids in Newtown, Connecticut, will miss the rest of their lives.

Our culture has lost all sense of perspective, of reasonable balance, so that we are unable to make common-sense judgments about risks. Which is the greater danger: That a schizophrenic might have his feelings hurt, or that a schizophrenic might go off his meds and kill people?

Common sense is quite nearly illegal nowadays and it’s certainly unfashionable in the Obama Age. So the usual liberal dingbats — including the ACLU types who assured us it was “a fearless, independent life style” for a crazy woman to defecate in public on the streets of Manahattan — are telling us we need more gun control.

And I say, no, what we need is more kook control. But no member of Congress in either party would have the guts to introduce “The Dangerous Lunatic Incarceration Act of 2013,” which would put wackjobs like Adam Lanza some place where they couldn’t kill people.

The question here, to me, is this. Do I trust the government to judge who is a “danger”. That, of course is a big one isn’t it? To be sure some people ought to be locked up, in a mental health facility, but, who do I trust to use such a responsibility properly? I doubt Congress, as inept as it is, could be trusted not to screw that up. I know that McCain IS on the right track here. It is who decides that concerns me.

Now, the other thing to blame is pretty straight forward, certainly it is not as complicated as who should be taken to the Padded Wall Hotel.  That other thing that SHOULD have been in place ever since Columbine. That other thing being this. We spend money on top of money on education, yet none goes to properly securing our schools? That other thing that, I am almost sure WOULD have stopped the act yesterday, and would have stopped most, if not all recent school shootings is to have armed security in our schools. Yes, I know, Liberals will howl over this idea. I can hear them now. “What kind if country do we want to live in?” Well, how about a country that acts pro-actively to protect our children? That IS, after all, one responsibility our government actually does have. So what is the plan? Here it is…

Driving home yesterday, a caller to the Medved Show, a retired police officer suggested that we hire retired police officers to protect our schools. His argument was sound. These who are trained, and know what to do. Their job would be one thing. To prevent such atrocities. I would add some particulars. I would prefer that private companies handle this security. In my view they would be more trustworthy than some government agency. The only provisions would be that they hire former, or current police officers, especially former SWAT, former FBI agents, or Secret Service agents, former U.S. Marshals, military personnel, especially former special forces Rangers, SEALS, Green Berets, Marine Recon, etc. In other words people with particular skill sets that could be trusted to neutralize threats to our children in school. The answer to violence is not to be found in metal detectors, ID badges. It is in having trained, armed personnel who have the ability, and willingness to take deadly action to stop violent predators.

Such a plan, in my view would have two immediate impacts. First, the security measures these people would implement would certainly be much more effective than current ones. Second, the temptation to attempt such an act of horror, and do not delude yourself into thinking that such acts are not beyond the minds of terrorists, would be greatly reduced. There is a reason these mass killings tend to happen in “gun-free zones”. However twisted the minds of these killers may be, they never seem to target areas where they might encounter armed resistance. And yes, it is true that a truly deranged person might attempt to shoot up, or attack a school in some other way. In that case, who do you want in place to stop them? Someone asking for ID or a highly trained warrior who will not hesitate to terminate the threat?

Yes, I know, I can hear it now. Some Liberal will ask where the money would come from to pay for this. I would answer FIND the money. Maybe by using some of the money we waste so freely now? Further I recognize that such a plan will not happen. It just makes too much sense. And common sense is an endangered species it seems Yes, I know Liberals will cringe at the prospect or armed security. Liberals hate guns, they see them as the problem, not as a tool that can as easily prevent tragedy as it can be used to commit an act of evil. Liberals do not get that and most never will, I do not care about them. Let them wallow in their ignorance. I care about protecting our kids.

So there it is, a fairly simple plan to secure our schools. Perhaps we can present such a plan to our Congressmen, and Senators? Both on the federal and state level? Who knows, we might just be able to push some rational ideas into their heads.