French gun laws date back to April 18, 1939, though they have been amended a number of times since. They are certainly tough: There is no right to bear arms for the French, and to own a gun, you need a hunting or sporting license which needs to be repeatedly renewed and requires a psychological evaluation.
[ . . . ]
â€śThe French black market for weapons has been inundated with eastern European war artillery and arms,â€ť Philippe Capon, the head of UNSA police union, told Bloomberg. â€śThey are everywhere in France.â€ť
The number of illegal guns is thought to be at least twice the number of legal guns in the country. Weapons such as AK-47s can be bought for the equivalent of a few thousand dollars.
[ . . . ]
Even so, France may respond to the Charlie Hebdo shootings with a change to legislation. After a series of deadly shootings in 2012 in Toulouse and Montauban (which also involved the use of illegally obtained weapons), the response was a call for a crackdown on gun availability.
Because doing the same thing over and over again will suddenly produce a new result, said insane liberals everywhere.
Seriously, Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times is an idiot. His cell phone goes missing. He’s able to locate it and goes to the address to retrieve it. Here’s what happened next:
The lights were on, so I rang again and knocked hard. I spent five minutes ringing the doorbell and pounding on the door. Finally, a man emerged.
â€śI think you have my phone,â€ť I explained tautly.
â€śYour phone?â€ť he asked.
â€śYOU HAVE MY PHONE!â€ť
â€śOh,â€ť he said, â€śyour phone.â€ť He pulled it out, still with my name, email address and office phone number pasted on it, and meekly handed it over.
I left, no questions asked.
From THAT, he concludes that there are too many guns in the U.S. Why? Because he posted about the incident on his Facebook page and comments to it told him he was crazy to have gone to that house and demanded his cellphone back. He could have been shot! The fact that he wasn’t is of no concern. All that matters is that because the peanut gallery says he’s nuts, that’s a good enough reason to demand more gun control.
Put aside the question of whether I was a knucklehead. Isnâ€™t there a larger question of why we tolerate a society so bristling with guns that such a quest may be perilous? Arenâ€™t we all knuckleheads for tolerating such a threat?
First of all, he is a knucklehead for banging on the door of a presumed criminal. Secondly, you can ban or regulate guns all you like, but criminals aren’t likely to fall into compliance. Just the opposite; they’ll be emboldened to increase their illegal activities, knowing that their potential victims will less likely be armed and offer resistance.
Lastly, this isn’t a case of him being carjacked, or someone smashing in the rear door of his home — where seconds count. Any “quest” such as his should have been carried out by the police. Supposedly that is what they’re there for.
Legal battles against state governorâ€™s with higher political aspirations keep cropping up. But looking deeper into attacks on Republican governors from Texas, Wisconsin and Louisiana reveals George Sorosâ€™ checkbook was behind it all â€“ but the news media arenâ€™t about to point that out.
The group that first filed an indictment charge against Texas Gov. Rick Perry was funded by Soros, the liberal billionaire, but the trail of his money didnâ€™t end there. Both the recall election for Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and an even less successful recall attempt for Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal were rooted in Soros-funded groups. Between them, these three potential Republican presidential candidates were targeted by groups receiving more than $6.3 million from Soros.
The media controls the message for the average voter who is too lazy to do more than watch the big three TV networks, or PBS, or read the NY Times.
The regular editors must be on vacation to let this heresy slip through:
It turns out that big, scary military rifles donâ€™t kill the vast majority of the 11,000 Americans murdered with guns each year. Little handguns do.
Unfortunately, too many liberal, Democrat politicians in many states forced through laws banning them because newspapers (and TV reporters) bought in to the anti-’AW’ propaganda that the NY Times and other liberal media outlets were pushing.
Piers Morgan is gone from CNN, but new host John Walsh plans to continue his campaign for gun control.
Besides hosting â€śAmerica’s Most Wantedâ€ť and advocating for victimsâ€™ rights, Walsh has been a longtime advocate of background checks and other safety measures. He said he would continue that fight now that he is joining CNN as the host of â€śThe Hunt,â€ť a new show about catching fugitives.
More at the link, including a quote from Vice President Joe Biden referring to pro-gun politicians as “Tea-baggers.”
There is so much bad logic and statistical crap in today’s Brattleboro Reformer editorial that I don’t even know where to begin. And since this is a holiday weekend, I won’t. Essentially the writer is parroting Gun Sense Vermont — which is funded by former NYC Mayor Michael Blowhard. Now, Gun Sense Vermont claims they only want “universal background checks” put into law in this state. As if criminals would submit to that. But here’s their slippery slope, real agenda:
As we’ve noted before on this page, the Reformer believes it’s time for common senses gun control in Vermont. We back Gun Sense Vermont’s call to require a background check prior to the transfer of a firearm between private parties and prohibit the transfer or possession of assault weapons, 50 caliber rifles, or large capacity ammunition magazines. We also back its call to require firearms dealers or purchasers to obtain a state license and the reporting of mental health commitments or adjudications for firearm purchaser background checks. The number of firearms that may be purchased at one time should be limited and a waiting period should be imposed to purchase a firearm. We also believe, as does Gun Sense Vermont, that junk guns such as Saturday Night Specials, should be banned and local governments should be allowed to regulate firearms. Finally, a permit and training should be required for anyone who wants to carry a concealed firearm.
Oh, is that all?
Chris Conover absolutely takes apart an anti-gun article at Vox.
The liberal audience couldn’t applaud enough as the liberals on ABC’s The View exclaimed that they are gun owners, but… Video at the link.
CNN Slashes School Shooting Stats Claim By 80 Percent
CNN has drastically revised a claim it made, which was based on a graphical map from a pro-gun control group, which purportedly showed that 74 school shootings have occurred in the U.S. since the Sandy Hook massacre in Dec. 2012.
The news outlet circulated the graphical map, which came from the group Everytown for Gun Safety, after a shooting that occurred Tuesday at a high school in Oregon which left two dead, including the 15 year-old gunman.
[ . . . ]
It acknowledged that many of the shootings listed by Everytown did not fit the profile of a Sandy Hook-type shooting, in which the attacks are seemingly random.
Instead, CNN said, â€śsome of the other incidents on Everytownâ€™s list included personal arguments, accidents and alleged gang activities and drug deals.â€ť
Obviously I’m not happy that there are ANY school shootings and I wish there were a magical cure for it. Parents locking up their firearms better would be a great place to start. Parents taking more responsibility for noticing erratic behavior of their kids (not an easy task when it comes to teenagers). Better security and arming teachers might help.
Lastly, and controversially, I DO believe that violent video games, movies, etc., have SOME effect on SOME kids. Does that mean banning such material? Well, no. I’m against censorship in general. But, surely Hollywood and the game industry could come up with something different once in a while instead of just churning out the same old kill-as-many-people-as-you-can scenarios. I believe that a constant diet of such material inures kids to the genuinely ugly reality of violence and murder.
Some anti-gun liberal at the Daily Beast is wetting his pants with an article titled Itâ€™s Time to Think Big or Shut Up on Gun Control.
Writing in the New York Times today, Joe Nocera provides a perfect example of how “Progressives” are willing to infringe upon the rights of all to protect the rights of a few. He concludes his editorial:
You read the stories about Elliot Rodger and it is easy to think: If this guy, with all his obvious problems, can slip through the cracks, then what hope is there of ever stopping mass shootings?
But, of course, there is another way of thinking about this. Instead of focusing on making it harder for the mentally ill to get guns, maybe we should be making it harder to get guns, period.
Well, I wouldn’t call it a ringing endorsement. Video at the link. Too bad he disagrees with us on a lot of other things.
Yes, it’s Jon Stewart and, yes, he’s pounding on us. My question is . . . is it justified in some cases? That’s a rhetorical question, but I’d like to see some discussion about it. Is going into a Chipotle’s with so-called “assault rifles” really the best way to get the message out? Is blocking the sale of the “smart gun” after the N.J. legislator who came up with the ‘three-year’ legislation decides to rescind it a smart way to win over the other side? Watch the first segment and decide for yourself.
You can watch the video here.
The NBC station in New York City recently discovered that the new and allegedly improved “assault weapon” ban championed by Gov. Andrew Cuomo has not done much to make guns less lethal, since the features it prohibited are mostly cosmetic. Reporter Chris Glorioso visited Long Island gun dealer Martin Tretola, who showed him the difference between an AR-15 banned by the SAFE Act and an AR-15 designed to comply with the law: They are pretty much the same, except the legal rifle has none of the features that offended Cuomo.
More at the link.
The biggest difference to me, of course, is the limit on magazine capacity. If I’m ever in a bad situation, the last thing I want is for my attackers to have more ammo than I do.
Just another in their series designed to demonize anything gun related.
Me? Trying to build my own gun is too much like work. I’d rather buy one from a reputable manufacturer, knowing that it will function properly. Also, I’ve never had to wait more than about 30-seconds for an NICS background check approval.
Publisher of Local NY Paper that “Outed” Registered Gun Owners in Interactive Map Sends Tweet Denigrating NRA Chief to Her Twitter Followers.
Screen capture and details at the link. Basically, it showed a photo of Wayne LaPierre from a Huffington Post article titled, “Stark Raving Mad.”
I guess readers of the LoHud Journal News should have no doubt now about the bias of the paper. Well, okay, they probably did already — given past performance.
The head of Mayors Against Illegal Guns is stepping down in June. Here’s the 2nd and 3rd paragraph of the Reuters written news story:
Mark Glaze was named head of Mayors Against Illegal Guns in 2011, three weeks after a gunman opened fire in an Arizona shopping plaza, killing six people and critically wounding Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. It was the first in a string of mass shootings, including one at a Newtown, Conn., elementary school in 2012, that helped galvanize the gun control movement.
Glaze helped turn the group into the largest and most prominent gun safety organization in America.
Actually, the National Rifle Association is the largest and most prominent gun safety organization in America. A large part of its mission (rarely reported by the liberal press) is running firearm safety classes, ranges, and CCW permit classes.
Because, you know, any policy difference you have with “progressives” makes you a racist:
1. The gun issue allows conservatives to express ethnic and cultural anxieties in ways that are not overtly racial.
America is changing in ways many conservatives find unwelcome. The election of Barack Obama symbolized those changesâ€”and has in turn accelerated them. As the spectacular flameout of Cliven Bundy demonstrates, most conservatives find it difficult to express their opposition to these changes in ways that resonate with a large public. Gun owners have found that way.
“We know, in the world that surrounds us, there are terrorists and home invaders and drug cartels and carjackers and knockout gamers and rapers, haters, campus killers, airport killers, shopping-mall killers, road-rage killers, and killers who scheme to destroy our country with massive storms of violence against our power grids or vicious waves of chemicals or disease that could collapse the society that sustains us all. I ask you. Do you trust this government to protect you?”
This language is studiously racially neutral. The NRA works hard to present itself as a civil-rights organization for people of all races. NRA members will even tell you, quite falsely but very sincerely, that the group was founded after the Civil War to uphold the gun rights of freed slaves.
But the image of mayhem LaPierre conjures up nonetheless speaks to deep racial anxieties. Who are the knockout gamers? Who are the rapers? Who are the killers planning to collapse the society? And who are the mobs that will spread across the countryside after the collapse, looting and stealing the goods that can only be protected by an individual firearm? More to the point: What color are they?
The writer is the one asking, “What color are they?” Not the NRA, or you, or me. Come to think of it, I’ve never really thought about what color the spreaders of chemicals, disease, or power grid attacks might be. I just know that if it happens, I have the supplies, food and water, and — yes — my guns to see me through it.
It’s the “progressives” and lefties who are obsessed with race.
Related: Referring to the same quote above, the liberal Guardian newspaper of the UK accuses Wayne LaPierre of sedition:
LaPierre’s bleak vision is exaggerated dystopianism in service of sedition, a wide-ranging survey of targets that put justice against the intrusions of the IRS on a continuum with (as an advertisement he ran during his speech put it) workplace “bullies and liars”.
On Face the Nation, yesterday, Bob Schieffer went after Rick Santorum on the issue of gun control. I think Santorum did a fine job defending his principles. I’m not a Santorum fan and hope he isn’t the 2016 Republican nominee, but on the “gun issue” he’s correct. Via NewsBusters, here’s part of the transcript:
BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, we`re going to answer the question now, what has Republican — former Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum been doing lately? Well, he has just published a new book. It is called “Blue Collar Conservatives.” And he joins us from Austin, Texas. But in the immediate past, you were at the NRA convention, the gun owners` convention, and I wanted to start there, because I want to ask you about this gun law that they just passed down in Georgia, which, as I understand it, allows people to take guns into airports. Do you think that`s a good idea, Senator?
RICK SANTORUM (R), FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: You know, I think a — I said this at the NRA. I think a well-armed family is a safe family, a well-armed America is a safer America. I think if you look at anything from all of these attacks that had taken place, is if people actually had been — had weapons there, those attacks would have been thwarted and peopleâ€™s lives would have been saved. In fact there are millions of lives that are saved in America every year — or millions of instances where gun owners have prevented crimes and stopped things from happening because of having guns at the scene.
SCHIEFFER: But isn`t there also a possibility that a lot of people could have been killed in a cross-fire if a gunfight had broken out? I mean, as I understand it, you can`t go through the security for a…
SANTORUM: Sure, of course not.
SCHIEFFER: But you can walk up to security with a gun. Does that mean you could take like an AK-47 into the airport?
SANTORUM: Well, I don`t know who wants to take an AK-47 into an airport unless you`re going there to cause some harm. And, of course, they don`t really care if they break the law or not. I mean, that`s really the point. This is where the law-abiding people are going to have the right to defend themselves. And, you know, my wife and I both have concealed carry permits. And we do so, why, because we believe that we have an obligation to protect ourselves just like everybody else does. And, so, no, I don`t think this is going to do anything to encourage some bad guy to cause harm in an airport. But it`s going to create an opportunity that if something maybe bad does happen in an airport that maybe someone will be there to be able to stop it.
SCHIEFFER: Does it bother you or does it worry you that we may be going backwards, that we`re going back to the day of the OK Corral and the Old West where everybody carried a gun? Is that where we`re headed here?
SANTORUM: You know, everybody romanticizes the OK Corral and all of the horrible things that happened. But gun crimes were not very prevalent back then. Why? Because people carried guns. And the folks who use guns in the commission of crimes are cowards. They do so — and if you look at the — going to theaters, they went to a theater in Aurora, Colorado, that they knew, you know, you could go there and no one else was going to be there with a gun. If we are a country where the criminal doesn`t know whether someone has a gun or not, they`re going to think twice about whether opening fire or not because they won`t be able to accomplish what they want. It`s a wrong-headed approach that somehow or another that we if we take guns away from people — law-abiding people who want to protect themselves that the world is going to be safer. In fact, just the opposite is the case.
SCHIEFFER: Well, you know, I would just say one thing. Some of these most horrible crimes we`ve recently had were committed by people who had severe mental problems. Do you think it would bother them to know that people might have guns? I`m not sure they would know about that.
SANTORUM: You know, just because someone has a mental problem doesn`t mean that they don`t look at the situation and make an assessment. I don`t think they completely lack capacity.
So, no, I think people do analyze the situation and if they want to accomplish something, they want to kill a lot of people, they`re not going to go into place that has someone who`s going to shoot back.
Besides which, if a mental case DOES decide to commit a mass shooting, at the very least there is a chance of an armed, law abiding citizen stopping him from doing the maximum carnage.
Update: I misread the transcript this morning when I wrote the following paragraph: Schieffer’s question about someone at a Georgia airport bringing their AK-47 onto a plane is simply uninformed and inane. The new expansion of civil rights in the Peach Tree State means that you can be in an airport with a CCW firearm, not that you can violate federal law by proceeding up the loading ramp of a jet. *Sigh*