NJ Gov. Christie Seeks Expanded Gun Checks, Video Game Crackdown

It's becoming more evident that Chris Christie wont be running for President, at least not on the Republican ticket. New Jersey is already the second most anti-gun state in the country, with California as #1. Yay! At any rate, he still has a huge lead in his re-election bid, so I guess he's a true believer when it comes to trashing the Second Amendment and proposing useless, emotion-based laws that serve only to expand government power.

 New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is seeking expanded background checks for gun purchases and parental consent for minors to buy violent video games as part of his response to the school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut.

   Christie, a first-term Republican seeking re-election, also wants to ban purchases of the .50-caliber Barrett rifle, and to make it easier for doctors and courts to commit “potentially dangerous” people to mental-health treatment against their will. His proposals come a week after a task force he created in January released 50 recommendations to reduce violence.

Now, I'm not sure how many crimes have been committed with a $7,000, 30 lb, five foot-long rifle, that fires rounds costing over $4.00 a pop. But I'm willing to bet the number is around zero. If someone knows of an instance in which one of these babies was hoisted through a car window on a Chicago drive-by, I'd love to hear about it.

Over 90% of gun homicides are committed with handguns in urban areas, with young, minority males being the most overrepresented perpetrators and victims. Of course there's also the innocent bystanders killed in the crossfire, but guns aren't the reason those lives are being lost. Addressing that issue would take some courage that most politicians don't possess. Evidently, those deaths don't mean much as compared to shamelessly grandstanding on a pile of dead white kids for political purposes. 

In so far as violent video games are concerned, there's been no consistent empirical evidence that shows a correlation, much less a causation linking those games to violent behavior. But it's always easier to blame inanimate objects rather than the people who commit crimes, or to scrutinize the environment in which they were raised.

Making it easier to commit the dangerously mentally ill is an idea with merit. There was a time when it was too easy to institutionalize people, and the laws were used for many nefarious purposes. Now the pendulum has swung the other way for too long. Most of the shooters in these terrible massacres were later found to be visibly and notably over the edge before their crimes. But current laws don't protect them or us.

The Boston Bombing and The Loss of American Values

 The second bomber has been captured, but the search itself was a disturbing comparison to the American culture that once was. The residents of the Boston area dutifully followed government orders to Shelter in Place, which means to cower at home while heavily armed government personnel assume all the responsibility for the community's defense:

Now, there certainly were valid reasons for wanting people to clear the streets; mainly to allow police to more easily identify the perpetrator and not mistake innocents for the terrorist. But the image of a massive armed government takeover of an entire community, in a blue state in which the Second Amendment has been rendered almost meaningless, isn't comforting in the least.

It’s rather ironic that citizens were unable to defend themselves and told to hide after a bombing on Patriots Day, which celebrates the citizens who fought the British government at Lexington and Concord.
There was a time when citizen volunteers would also be hunting these enemies, in the spirit of self-government and self-reliance. Now they cringes in basements, after handing their rights to a para-military government force; in direct contradiction to the purpose and meaning of the Second Amendment and our founding principles. Yeah, I know. I'm paranoid for not believing America's freedoms are a force of nature that can never be taken away. It's silly to think we're not immune from the lessons of history and human nature.

 “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.”
― James Madison, The Federalist Papers

Washington Post on Gosnell Story: You did it too!

WaPo:

The charge of liberal media bias is perhaps undercut by the fact that a number of conservative media outlets — and conservative leaders — overlooked the story, too, until a flood of tweets and commentaries about it began late last week.

The Weekly Standard and the National Review, two leading conservative magazines, for example, hadn’t published anything on the trial, according to a search of the Nexis database. The New York Post’s conservative editorial board has written one commentary — an editorial lamenting the lack of coverage, which, although it doesn’t mention it, includes its own paper. The Washington Times has published five staff-written articles and guest commentaries on the matter, all focusing on the absence of press coverage.
Fox News has been the only consistent national TV source on the story, having run 11 news reports or commentaries on it over the past month.

The Post, New York Times, ABC,NBC,CBS, and CNN have long claimed a leadership role as to what is considered newsworthy. Despite losing audience to other outlets, they still collectively remain the largest source of news in the country.

By comparing their (in)actions to conservative opinion magazines like National Review and The Weekly Standard, along with a NY tabloid, WaPo concedes to what many of us already knew: That the mainstream media should no longer be relied upon for comprehensive news coverage. And that other than size, they are no different than any run of the mill blog.

But the MSM still claims status and privileges as news organizations with unique and superior standards and integrity others lack. And yet, here's The Washington Post comparing themselves to publications they would normally look down their noses upon.

So, we should at least commend them for finally admitting that they, and the rest of the dinosaur media aren't leaders of anything, and deserve less trust and admiration than they give Fox News. 

 Perhaps the press should give this story the same level of coverage it would if seven infants and a patient were shot to death in a doctor's office. Then we could have thousands of stories and editorials calling for 'reasonable restrictions' and 'commonsense laws' so as to 'prevent this tragedy from happening again.' We could also hear about how no one "needs" a partial birth abortion and that it's 'paranoid' to think anyone's trying to take away your right to an abortion. Of course, we'll also have fawning coverage of celebrities and politicians calling NARAL and Planned Parenthood murderers, and their members a bunch of backwards and violent morons.

Why They Wont Learn About Guns

                            


This random act of media honesty has likely cropped up because the willful ignorance of the gun-control crowd is getting awfully hard to ignore, and Jake Tapper is one of the best of a bad lot.

Nevertheless, the gun-controllers betray their desire to ban all, or most guns with these all too frequent gaffes. If you want to eliminate all versions of something, why bother to learn the details? It's all the same to you.

Prohibitionists didn't make a distinction between all the varieties of beer, wine or spirits. They wanted to ban all alcohol, and said so. The gun-banners are forced to make these distinctions because the Bill of Rights and public opinion doesn't allow for such honesty. The trashing of the Second Amendment has to be done incrementally, and it's hard to learn things you don't want to know. 

Lead House Gun Control Sponsor Doesn't Know What She's Banning

I guess it's too much to ask that when a legislator wants to ban something, they at least know what the hell it is they're banning:

Asked how a ban on magazines holding more than 15 rounds would be effective in reducing gun violence, DeGette said:
“I will tell you these are ammunition, they’re bullets, so the people who have those now they’re going to shoot them, so if you ban them in the future, the number of these high capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot and there won’t be any more available.”

 Ms. DeGette's claim is tantamount to saying that running out of gas requires the purchase of a new gas tank.. Perhaps the source of her confusion apparently stems from the belief that magazines are bullets, or something. And I'm not even going to quibble over the fact that a magazines hold cartridges and the gun shoots bullets.

But we're just manipulative nit-pickers, according to her office:

“The Congresswoman has been working on a high-capacity assault magazine ban for years, and has been deeply involved in the issue; she simply misspoke in referring to ‘magazines’ when she should have referred to ‘clips,’ which cannot be reused because they don’t have a feeding mechanism,” Johnson said. “Quite frankly, this is just another example of opponents of common-sense gun violence prevention trying to manipulate the facts to distract from the critical issue of keeping our children safe and keeping killing machines out of the hands of disturbed individuals. It’s more political gamesmanship that stands in the way of responsible solutions.”

First Rule of Holes: When you're in one, stop digging.  Clips are most certainly reused. For the uninitiated, a clip is used to quickly load the magazine, while the magazine is the device that loads the ammo into the gun's chamber. Tutorial here.  But DeGette has been working on this issue 'for years', (BTW - What the hell is an Assault Magazine?) so one would think she's become an expert on the matter by now. But knowledge isn't necessary when your true motive is to effectively ban all guns incrementally and make their purchase and ownership so burdensome as to render the Second Amendment meaningless. Learning about guns might expose one to inconvenient facts. Degette and her allies would repeal the Second Amendment if they could, and no, that's not paranoia.  Ask a gun control advocate. If they're honest, that's what they'll tell you.

Obama: Don't stock up on guns

From The Chicago Sun Times:

"I believe in common-sense gun safety laws, and I believe in the second amendment," Obama said at a news conference. "Lawful gun owners have nothing to fear. I said that throughout the campaign. I haven't indicated anything different during the transition. I think people can take me at my word."

Since your campaign was nothing but a series of lies, please excuse me for believing your actions speak louder than your meaningless words:

But National Rifle Association spokesman Andrew Arulanandam said it's not Obama's words — but his legislative track record — that has gun-buyers flocking to the stores.

"Prior to his campaign for president, his record as a state legislator and as a U.S. Senator shows he voted for the most stringent forms of gun control, the most Draconian legislation, gun bans, ammunition bans and even an increase in federal excise taxes up to 500 percent for every gun and firearm sold," Arulanandam said.

Free Plaxico Burress

The Giants player may lose his freedom (3 1/2 yrs) and carreer for committing a "crime" in NYC that would be a wristslap in most other jurisdictions that respect the Bill of Rights. From the WSJ:

...In 40 states, including Connecticut, law-abiding adults are issued permits once they pass a fingerprint-based background check and a safety class. In New Jersey, carry permits are virtually never issued. In New York City, carry permits are issued, but to applicants with some form of political clout rather than on the basis of his or her need for protection.

The Second Amendment might not require New Jersey or New York City to issue as liberally as Connecticut does. But with a population of several million and only a few thousand (consisting mainly of politicians, retired police and celebrities) able to get permits, New York City's licensing process is almost certainly unconstitutional on a number of grounds,including sheer arbitrariness...

Having said that, Burress is an idiot. If you're going to spend $500.00 or so for a gun, then spring for a $50.00 holster. And don't ever carry a gun stuffed into your sweatpants!

Brady Campaign Endorses Obama

The Anti-Second Amendment group, Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence has endorsed the Obama/Biden ticket.

"Washington, D.C. - Sarah and Jim Brady and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence with its network of Million Mom March Chapters endorsed Senator Barack Obama for President and Senator Joseph Biden for Vice President today, and urged Americans to vote for them. "

This is the same group that decried the Supreme Court's Heller decision that held in part: "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

How radical. At the time the Brady Campaign said: “Our fight to enact sensible gun laws will be undiminished by the Supreme Court’s decision in the Heller case."

What was the "reasonable" law that was struck down? Here's a summary:

"The District of Columbia generally prohibits the possession
of handguns. It is a crime to carry an unregistered
firearm, and the registration of handguns is prohibited. Wholly apart from that prohibition, no person may carry a handgun without a license, but the chief of police may issue licenses for 1-year periods. See District of Columbia law also requires residents to keep their lawfully owned firearms, such as registered long guns, “unloaded and disassembled or bound by a triggerlock or similar device” unless they are located in a place of business or are being used for lawful recreational activities."

In other words, the Brady campaign defines "reasonable" as outlawing an entire class of commonly used self-defense firearms and rendering every other gun useless in an emergency.

There's nothing unusual about this endorsement as Obama dishonestly pays the same lip service to the Second Amendment as Kerry and Gore did during their campaigns. From Obama's Fight the Smears site:

During Barack’s career in the Illinois and United States senates, he proudly stood to defend the rights of hunters and sportsmen while doing everything he could to protect children — including his own two daughters — from illegal gun violence...

Barack has clearly spelled out his position on guns to Field
& Stream:
“I am very mindful of the fact that sportsmen in America
may have gone hunting with their fathers, their grandfathers, their mothers, their grandmothers, and that this is part of a tradition and a way of life that has to be preserved. And there’s nothing that I will do as president of the United States that will in any way encroach on the ability of sportsmen to continue that tradition.”

Notice his position is that the Second Amendment was written only to protect my right to duck hunt or shoot paper targets. I guess my inalienable rights to Life, Liberty and The Pursuit of Happiness are not so inalienable since Obama doesn't believe I have a right to defend them.

Make no mistake. An Obama presidency along with a Democrat congress will be relentless in its attempts to negate the Second Amendment. The Democrat party has always lied about its anti-Second Amendment position because the truth is a political loser. Obama is no different

Buying Nothing

Buffalo, NY is preparing to waste its time and money with another useless gun buy back program:

Even Buffalo’s police commissioner wryly stated that he doesn’t expect
many criminals to be lining up outside seven local churches Sept. 27 to
turn in their weapons for prepaid cash cards.
“But it’s a beginning,” Evans said of the buyback. “We have to start somewhere, so why not start here. If even one gun is taken of the street, it’s worth it.”

No it's not worth it. Do these fools really believe that criminals will turn in guns that that they may want for future crimes? The people who show up for these things are typically ordinary citizens who want to unload old or broken firearms. I have a broken Beretta Tomcat that's not worth fixing. I'd be happy to sell it to these saps for 75 bucks. That's a lot more than I'd get at a pawn shop or gun show and I can use the funds to buy a new one.

"None of last year’s weapons was tested, said Police Department
spokesman Michael J. De- George, so officials cannot say whether any had been
used in crimes. Mayor Byron W. Brown said he hopes the “no questions
asked” buyback will result in even more guns being turned in than last
year."

I guess a criminal could unload a gun with a body on it with no worry. From the Chicago Tribune:

"The continuation of buy-back programs is a triumph of wishful thinking over all
the available evidence," said Garen Wintemute, director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California at Davis...University of Pennsylvania professor Lawrence Sherman, who headed a wide-ranging assessment of crime prevention programs, called gun buy-backs "the program that is best known to be ineffective" in reducing firearms violence.

The bottom line is that the gun control nuts continue to think that crime problems are really gun problems. That's an easy, feel good excuse for ineffective law enforcement that does nothing but convince the incompetent and ignorant that they're "making a difference". In fact, a lot of taxpayer money is being wasted to do absolutely nothing.

Armed Israeli Citizen Thwarts Bulldozer Terrorist

Sixteen people were wounded, one of them moderately, as a bulldozer driver went on a rampage in central Jerusalem Tuesday afternoon in an apparent attempt to recreate the terror attack in the capital earlier this month...

The first man to respond to the attack was Yaakov [Yaki] Asa-El, whose brother Amotz is a Jerusalem Post columnist. Asa-El, 53, a father of nine living near Mount Hebron.
Asa-El fired the first shot at Abu Tir, and then the border policeman arrived and fired at the attacker from both sides of the bulldozer.

The gun control nuts here must be shocked that Israeli citizens are allowed to defend themselves against terrorist thugs in their midst. It just encourages more violence don't you know.

D.C. Still Trying to Circumvent The Bill of Rights

The District won't go quietly in its attempts to deny citizens their right to defend their right to defend their lives with its wiseass new law in response to the Heller decision.

"Weapons must be unloaded, disassembled or trigger-locked, except when there is a "threat of immediate harm to a person" in the home."

In other words, their complying with Heller by allowing people to keep and bear a handgun in the home for self-defense but not be able to use it unless needed immediately. Then it can be re-assembled and loaded, which renders the weapon virtually useless for self-defense.