I thought any felon from across the globe could waltz into a gun show, pick up a Ma Deuce with a chainsaw bayonet attachment and four billion rounds of ammo with nary a background check? And free grenades! Lots of free grenades. And lasers to blind pilots, and stuff? For about a hundred bucks?
AAAHH!!! THE NARRATIVE HAS BEEN BREACHED!!!
I must admit … it’s kind of satisfying watching that mayoral sack of crap wriggle around in a state of perpetual denial and outrage.
“Ban gun stores!”
“One gun per resident!”
“Extra Insurance!”
And this is about as plain, simple, and logical an argument as you can get:
“If somebody, whether it’s an employee or a citizen, decides they want to do harm to somebody, they’re going to do it,” he said. “They don’t care what was written in a policy.”
How many stories will it take?
A crowd of panic-stricken SEPTA subway passengers looked on in horror yesterday as one male passenger repeatedly plunged a pair of scissors into another man, police said.
Scissors. Available at dollar stores everywhere! We should ban them, so people can’t stab other people in the face.
Cops found the alleged assailant, Sheldon Mullings, at Methodist Hospital, where he was seeking treatment for a cut above his eye, Kelly said.
Oooh. Sorry guys. Response-Time Fail.
It appeared that no one on the subway came to the victim’s aid. “Lots of people were on there and saw this happen,” Kelly said. “No one called 9-1-1. Everyone just got out of there.”
Eeek. Call-For-Help Fail.
SEPTA spokeswoman Jerri Williams said late yesterday afternoon that surveillance cameras on the Oregon Avenue platform didn’t show anyone getting off the subway who appeared to have been stabbed.
Surveillance Fail.
So right there, you’ve got the “Big Three” favorite nanny protection schemes failing all at the same time.
Surveillance? No. That can only show you what happens AFTER you get yourself stabbed in the face. It doesn’t prevent a crime from happening.
911 or calls for help? No. People don’t do it. They don’t intervene, they don’t want to get stabbed in the face like you just did. At best, it reports the crime long after it happens, it doesn’t not prevent a crime from happening.
Police? Unless we get the whole pre-crime thing going, the best they’ll hope to do is clean up afterward. And even that doesn’t go smoothly:
All of this led SEPTA officials to believe the stabbing had occurred above ground, Williams said. Police, however, were adamant that the attack occurred on the subway.
Mr. Left Hand, meet Mr. Right Hand! This is what he’s doing right now …
So … two major points to make regarding this story.
First, had the victim been carrying a firearm, it may or may not have helped him in this situation. There’s no guarantee how that may have factored in this situation. Simply having a gun doesn’t prevent crime either.
Second … no matter what some legislator, emotion-driven anti-gun lobbyist, or scholarly paper may try to convince you of, there is no person, piece of equipment, law, location or inanimate object in existence throughout this entire universe that is responsible for your own personal safety and protection.
It’s just you, buddy. Your physical self, and your own sense of self-protection and willpower.
You are totally and completely alone, just like me, just like all of us.
GURA: Scalia! An argument for incorporating under privileges and immunities, YOU CAN HAS!
SCALIA: WTF are you talking about? We can incorporate it under due process. I hate due process and I even think that.
GURA: Uhhh
SCALIA: Are you trying to get a job at a law school?
GURA: Oh shit
SCALIA: SERIOUSLY STFU IF WE USE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES THESE FUCKOS WILL LEGITIMIZE EVERYTHING STFU STFU STFU
GURA: But you hate due process
SCALIA: I LIKE IT NOW
I’m sorry. I had to repost it.
Looks like AWB 2.0 is an old story … but that doesn’t mean I can’t bust out a little fun!
I actually had to go to the Wayback Machine to dig it up as I didn’t have a copy saved and that was a previous incarnation of the blog when I wrote under the name of “Liberty”. For those of you reading who are unfamiliar … I wrote this back in January (I think) of 2008. Holy cow … have I been blogging that long? Yikes. Apparently, it still applies today!
INCONCEIVABLE!
Well, I normally wouldn’t bust out this big of a story without a press release and a great deal of fanfare, but I was recently able to sit down with Paul Helmke and discuss what truly constitutes an “assault weapon.” Following is a nearly complete transcript of our conversation:
HELMKE: *holding a spork against a copy of the Constitution* So, it is down to you. And it is down to me.
LIBERTY: Let me explain-
HELMKE: — there’s nothing to explain. You’re trying to reclaim what I’ve rightfully hijacked.
LIBERTY: Perhaps an arrangement can be reached?
HELMKE: There will be no arrangement — *presses the spork against the 2nd Amendment* — and you’re destroying this …
LIBERTY: But if there can be no arrangement, then we are at an impasse.
HELMKE: I’m afraid so — I can’t compete with your assault weapons. And you’re no match for my legislation.
LIBERTY: You’re that thorough?
HELMKE: Let me put it this way: have you ever heard of Bloomberg, Feinstien, Schumer?
LIBERTY: Yes.
HELMKE: Sissies.
LIBERTY: Really? In that case, I challenge you to a battle of wits.
HELMKE: For the Constitution?
LIBERTY: *nods*
HELMKE: To the death?
LIBERTY: *nods again*
HELMKE: I accept.
LIBERTY: Good. Pour the Kool-Aid. *holds up a blank picture* View this, but do not touch.
HELMKE: I see nothing.
LIBERTY: What you do not see is called an “assault weapon”. It is imaginary, inanimate, impossible to legislate, and is among the more reviled weapons to your average liberal or GOP candidate.
HELMKE: Hmm.
LIBERTY: *reaches into a bag, places two nearly identical weapons on the table in front of Helmke* All right, where is the assault weapon? The battle of wits has begun. It ends when you decide and we both shoot, and find out who is right, and who is … wrong.
HELMKE: But it’s so simple. All I have to do is divine from what I know of you. Are you the sort of man who would put the assault weapon in front of him, or his enemy?
Now, a clever man would put the weapon in front of him, because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I’m not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the weapon in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool; you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the weapon in front of me.
LIBERTY: You’ve made your decision then?
HELMKE: Not remotely. Because assault weapons come from gun show loopholes, as everyone knows. And gun shows are entirely frequented with criminals. And criminals are used to having people not trust them, as you are not trusted by me. So I can clearly not choose the weapon in front of you.
LIBERTY: Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
HELMKE: Wait till I get going! Where was I?
LIBERTY: Gun shows.
HELMKE: Yes — gun shows, and you must have suspected I would have known the weapon’s origin, so I can clearly not choose the gun in front of me.
LIBERTY: You’re just stalling now.
HELMKE: You’d like to think that, wouldn’t you!
You’ve beaten legislation sponsored by the Virginia Tech families, which means you’re exceptionally well funded. So, you could have put the assault weapon in front of yourself, trusting in the evil gun lobby to save you. So I can clearly not choose the weapon in front of you. But, you’ve also sent a 2nd Amendment case to the Supreme Court which means you must have studied. And in studying, you must have learned that assault weapons are mind-controlling, so you would have put the weapon as far from yourself as possible, so I can clearly not choose the gun in front of me.
LIBERTY: You’re trying to trick me into giving away something — it won’t work –
HELMKE: It has worked! You’ve given everything away! I know which one the assault weapon is!
LIBERTY: Then make your choice.
HELMKE: I will. And I choose — *suddenly stops, points* — LOOK! Somebody shooting squirrels with a .50 BMG!
LIBERTY: What? Where!? I don’t see anything.
HELMKE: *switches the guns* Oh, well, I-I could have sworn I saw something. No matter.
LIBERTY: What’s so funny?
HELMKE: I’ll tell you in a minute. First, let’s shoot — me with my weapon, and you with yours.
*three shot bursts ring out*
LIBERTY: You guessed wrong.
HELMKE: You only think I guessed wrong — that’s what’s so funny! I switched guns when your back was turned. You fool.
HELMKE: You fell victim to one of the classic blunders. The most famous is “Never claim a righteous shooting in Massachussetts.” But only slightly less well known is this: “Never go in against the BRADY CAMPAIGN when a GUN BAN is on the line! HAHAHAHAHA!”
Just a note … few teeeny weeeeny minor edits in the above piece for re-publishing. The most drastic of which was the addition of Bloomberg. Come on, I had to!
Hope you enjoyed it for the second time!
And of course, the original scene from the movie:
Morons.
I hope they fail in everything they do.
UPDATE: The story is from Feb 2K9 – clearly an old story. That being said, I wouldn’t put it past this administration to try. McDonald v. Chicago is coming up and I think no matter the outcome all sorts of 2A tests from both sides are going to be flying around.
“All we’re doing is handcuffing good people, restricting their constitutional, God-given right to carry and perhaps their ability to defend their families,”
Way to go, Arizona. Keep it up. Lastly, note this:
The gun rights bills follow a string of new, less-restrictive gun laws passed last year. They were helped make possible by the elevation of Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican, to replace Janet Napolitano, a Democrat who vetoed efforts to loosen gun laws until she resigned a year ago to join the Obama administration.
The fight for 2A rights are NOT won and lost on the federal level, or even broadly on the state level. They’re won by awareness in small local elections, putting people with your views in the pipeline and eventually helping them to a place where they’re making positive changes.
Or … so says this elitist swine.
Why would someone need more than say, five weapons? I mean really, from Saturday night specials to pearl handled .45 automatics, the obsession has verged on psychosis with our protectors — law enforcement — having to battle criminals who sometimes have weapons more powerful than police. And this happens all because it’s our right to bear arms?
Enough.
Some parts of our country have become armed camps.
Oh my. Where to start …
First … “pearl handled .45 automatics”. Yeah, I got a couple of those lying around in the safe. No big deal.
Secondly, let’s once again apply this screeching to the first amendment of the Constitution. Remember, the 2nd is just one Amendment away from the first, after all … the re-write?
Why would someone need more than say, five topics they’re permitted to speak freely about? I mean really, from peaceable assembly to saying whatever you want on a blog, the obsession has verged on psychosis with our protectors — legislators — having to battle criminals who sometimes have a larger listening audience than police. And this happens all because it’s our right to free speech?
Enough.
Some parts of our country have become filled with people speaking freely.
If it doesn’t make sense to curtail one right, then it doesn’t make sense to curtail another. Perhaps we should be looking at the behavior, not the object used.
Lastly … “Some parts of our country have become armed camps?”
Yeah.
Like Detroit, MI (#11 on the Brady List. Most Dangerous City according to Forbes)
Stockton, CA (#1 on the Brady List. 8th Most Dangerous according to Forbes)
Baltimore, MD (#5 on the Brady List. 10th Most Dangerous according to Forbes)
Camden, NJ (#2 on the Brady List. OFTEN the Most Dangerous in the US)
And let’s not forget places like Chicago and Washington DC (which, the Brady’s don’t rank … likely because it’s too embarassing.
Finally, all you need to know about the author of this diatribe is right here:
I mean, imagine what the outcome would have been if we would have had gun control laws, stringent gun control laws, as it related to Maurice Clemmons, who killed four Lakewood police officers?
Are you serious?
From his wiki entry:
Prior to his alleged involvement in the shooting, Clemmons had at least five felony convictions in Arkansas and at least eight felony charges in Washington.[2] His first incarceration began in 1989, at age 17. Facing sentences totaling 108 years in prison, the burglary sentences were reduced in 2000 by Governor of Arkansas Mike Huckabee to 47 years, which made him immediately eligible for parole. Clemmons was released in 2000.
Yeah. Gun control. I’m sure if we ban guns people like Maurice Clemmons would instantly become Boy Scouts. Instead, you have someone telling me how many I may own, when and where I may have them, what I am and am not permitted to do with them, why I should be tracked, registered, in a federal database, and considered dangerous because of my political views and ownership of a firearm while you coddle “misunderstood” criminals with rap sheets four miles long and call for even more restrictions on my rights because of their evil behavior.
Gun Control isn’t about guns. it’s about control. Period.
Better known as the “Commerce Clause“, will eventually be this Great Nation’s undoing.
This little piece of language right here:
…provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States
Is seen by politicians as carte blanche to do absolutely anything they want.
It’s what they invoke when the conversation of Healthcare comes about. Fairness Doctrine? Commerce Clause. Internet Taxation? Commerce Clause. And that’s exactly what they’ll invoke when it comes to gun control.
Gun Control? Interstate Commerce? Surely, you jest!
Maybe not. Look closely:
The Department of Justice, in a brief filed this week in U.S. District Court in Missoula, said that federal gun control is a “valid exercise of Congress’ commerce power under the Constitution.”
Allow me to translate:
We can restrict the Bill of Rights and render State Rights moot because the Commerce Clause says so. Nanny. Nanny. Boo. Boo.
Let’s jump over to those smart suckers at Cato for a little primer on the “Elastic Clause” also known as the Commerce Clause:
For proponents of a limited central government, the General Welfare Clause has been a source of great mischief. Interpreted elastically by constitutionalists of the “living document” persuasion, the Clause has helped serve up a gourmand’s feast of government programs, regulations, and intrusions that would have been unimaginable to the Framers.
Remember the language in this Clause and particularly the term “General Welfare” which lefties and their ilk take to mean, “Errr um … anything we want!”
I’m telling you. Read the Clause. Read the link at Cato. Then spend five minutes doing some searches and look at all the crap that’s been caused by Article I, Section 8.
Your firearms are not safe. Period.