Four Gun Laws I Would Repeal First (If I Was a Benevolent Dictator)

7-rounds-robberyBack when I was young, naive and not yet wise to the ways of the world, about two weeks ago, I was fantasizing about being elected Benevolent Dictator of the Universe. You know, just like President Nine Iron.

Since I view the whole gun issue as a great barometer for individual liberty and personal accountability, it would make sense for my first official acts to be striking down some of the more onerous gun laws.

Figuring out exactly which laws to start with would be quite a challenge as there are over 20,000 gun control laws on the books. Why? Because “compromise,” that’s why.

Well, not compromise in the true sense of the word. You see, real compromise means that each side gives up a little, yet wins a little of what they want. Both sides share in their respective upsides and downsides. Like sex.

When it comes to gun control, there is no such thing as real compromise. It’s just a code word for “You guys just keep giving up more and more ground while we give up nothing until we achieve complete and total civilian disarmament.” Real compromise on gun issues, is about as likely as our President skipping a golf outing to attend a national security briefing.

This is why we have 20,000 gun control laws and more being proposed each and every day.

When that glorious day comes, when I’m in charge, I’m going to set about fixing a few things. Think beavers are industrious? Wait til you see me in action with my secret decoder dictator pen! During the first 20 minutes of my reign, I’ll get rid of ALL gun control laws. Well, all except one perhaps. I do kind of like that 2013 Family Protection Ordinance, passed in Nelson, GA, that requires all citizens to own a gun and ammunition. The intent is to “provide for the emergency management of the city” and to “provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants.” I suppose I could live with that one.

Read more: http://www.ammoland.com/2014/10/four-gun-laws-i-would-repeal-first-if-i-was-a-benevolent-dictator/#ixzz3GKezYYQ6

TSA Bully Tactics: Making Travelers Violate Federal Law

This is legal if you pay attention to the rules. Don't let TSA agents bully you in to breaking the law,

This is legal if you pay attention to the rules. Don’t let TSA agents bully you into breaking the law,

When you’re the fastest growing federal bureaucracy in history (that’s NOT a good thing by the way) you get to do pretty much whatever you want, regardless of what the law says. After all, they’ve got uniforms, buy lawyers by the pallet load, and if all else fails, have Eric Holder on their side of the kickball team.

In the case of flying with firearms in checked baggage, the law is short, sweet and intolerably (apparently not for the TSA however) clear. Here it is, as written in the Code of Federal Regulations:

Title 49: Transportation, Part 1540 – Civil Aviation Security: General Rules, Subpart B – Responsibilities of Passengers and Other Individuals and Persons, 1540.111 (c) (iv) – The container in which it is carried is locked, and only the passenger retains the key or combination.

Title 49: Transportation, Part 1544 – Aircraft Operator Security: Air Carriers and Commercial Operators,  Subpart C – Operations, 1544.203 (f) (iii) The container in which it is carried is locked, and only the individual checking the baggage retains the key or combination;

While the emphasis above is mine, the TSA can’t seem to figure out what might be the shortest and simplest federal law on the books, so I added the bold to help them out. I’ve written about this a number of times (here and here for example) in hopes that fellow subjects citizens will know how to travel with firearms according to the law.

Previously, I mentioned that the security folks in the Bend, Oregon airport force travelers to violate the law by surrendering their gun case keys to an agent who inspects the contents of your firearms case in a back room where you are not allowed. More recently, my home airport of Charleston, South Carolina has assumed the same practice. Perhaps the TSA has sharing days at CiCi’s Pizza to swap ideas amongst each other?

Here’s the problem. You are not allowed to surrender your keys or combination to your secure gun case, period. No exceptions are stated for surrendering your key ring to federal employees either. You, and you alone, are responsible for making sure your hard travel case remains locked and under your absolute control. Any variation from that and you are in violation of the law.

Would you care to guess who would win in Judge Judy’s courtroom should something happen with your guns after the TSA opened your case out of your presence? I’ll give you a hint, if it comes to a he said / she said legal argument between the feds and you, you’ll go down faster than Piers Morgan’s ratings.

As I’ve written about before, the law as written rules out use of TSA locks, since by very definition, tens of thousands of people have the “key” to your TSA locks. That’s the entire purpose of TSA locks. They have a “master key” so pretty much anyone can open them.

Back to Charleston. Not long ago, when declaring firearms at the ticket counter, the agent would call downstairs to TSA and request an agent. The TSA agent would walk up a flight of steps to inspect your gun case (in your presence) then allow you to lock it back up. That’s exactly how it’s supposed to work.

Now, TSA no longer wants to walk up the steps or maybe they just prefer to rummage through your gun case in private. They want you to send your keys downstairs, while you wait upstairs, so they can do whatever it is they do. No thanks. I love those spiffy TSA uniforms and all, and nothing makes my day like getting groped in the privates, but as much as I like those folks, I’m not going to violate federal law for them.

What do do?

Leave for the airport early in case you have to have a polite discussion with the agents. Quote the law mentioned above. Better yet, print it out. If you’re not making any headway, request an airport law enforcement officer and explain it to them. It’s a pain. You might miss your flight. But if you don’t start pushing back against abuse of power, you might find yourself resisting involuntary cavity searches before the next season of The Bachelorette is canceled.

You Might Be A Gun Control Activist If…

Gun-Control-911

You might be a gun control activist if…

You think Shannon watts makes a lot of sense if people would just listen to her.

You think that Shannon could deliver her message more effectively if she talked slow and loud, like you do when visiting foreign countries.

You’ve had a pot luck supper at Michael Bloomberg’s house.

You’ve smoked pot with Michael Bloomberg.

You think that the FBI has fudged crime statistics data for the past 20 years because Wayne LaPierre takes them out for CiCi’s pizza every Tuesday.

You’ve ever said “If it could save just one life…

You’ve never used the phrase “If it could save just one life” when it comes to drunk driving, swimming pool drownings, or car accidents.

You’ve ever uttered the words “If it could save just one life” while drinking a glass of wine by your swimming pool.

You’re convinced that law abiding citizens, who take a class, submit fingerprints, get probed by the FBI and wait months for a permit, are the root cause of drive by shootings.

You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than nuclear weapons, terrorism and the unchecked spread of Shake Weight use.

That millions of Americans who knew how to shoot didn’t make all that much difference when it came to winning World Wars I and II. Everyone knows the French turned the tide in our favor.

You believe that Riker’s Island inmates are more scared of “No guns allowed” signs than clowns, Freddie Kreuger or Rosie O’Donnell.

You choose not to remember that the biggest, baddest assault weapons in existence were owned by private citizens when the 2nd Amendment was written.

You believe you are 937 times more likely to die by spontaneous combustion or killer bunions if you have a gun in your home.

You think that the people with the least amount of relevant knowledge have all the great ideas.

Read the rest at AmmoLand!

Pro-Gun Policy Will Fail Because There Were No Nuclear Wars

 

Cold War strategy sucked

Some gun control mantras make my head explode – and they don’t even use the phrase “for the children!” I’ll venture a guess they will cause you equal frustration. So go find a roll of duct tape. Then wrap your head with it. Done? Good. Now wrap an extra couple of layers, because I’m going to repeat the argument here loved by gun control groups like Moms Demand Alimony From Tyrannical Little Elitist Socialist Mayors with Napoleon Complexes (MDAFTLESMNC).

Concealed carry doesn’t stop mass shootings! There aren’t any examples of mass shootings where a concealed permit holder citizen stopped a mass shooting!

If you read this one slowly while moving your lips and concentrating really hard, you’ll detect some broken logic. The logic flaw boils down to this:

If someone is there to stop (or even disrupt) a mass shooting, the event never has a chance to become a mass shooting in the first place. The whole point is about the benefits of prevention, like blocking Anthony Weiner’s texting plan.

Buying into the exact same logic construct would mean that the Cold War failed. The whole point of the Cold War strategy of Mutually Assured Destruction is to prevent either side from throwing a pre-emptive nuclear missile haymaker. If you decided to evaluate the success of the mutually assured destruction strategy by counting the number of nuclear wars, then you would be well qualified to calculate unemployment numbers for the government.

“Hey! Our Cold War strategy sucked! You can’t name a single example of a nuclear war that was ended by the cold war strategy! Nyah, nyah, nyah! Now go get me a copy of the New York Times.”

Most studies define mass shootings as events where more than four people are deliberately killed in a single incident at a single location. Unless you develop the number using common core math, in which case you get an answer of -17.9 apples. But I digress. So, stick with me here, because the logic gets complex.

If a killer is stopped before they manage to harm four or more people, then it’s not a mass shooting.

See where I’m going here? If someone like, oh, say a concealed carry permit holder, is on the scene to disrupt a shooter’s plans, then they never get the opportunity to harm four people, so the event is not classified as a mass shooting, and like nuclear wars that never happened, it doesn’t factor into Emperor Mikey and Queen Shannon’s statistics.

The whole point of concealed carry is that first responders to an event – that would be you, not the police – have the right and responsibility to protect themselves. Rather than allow a homicidal maniac to proceed with their plans uninterrupted, an armed first responder – again that’s you – can disrupt the event as soon as it starts, so it never has the opportunity to become a mass shooting.

Let’s talk about the importance of disruption for a minute. Something sheeple don’t understand is that mass shooters are not highly trained Delta Commando Para Spetsnaz Seals. They’re psychopathic killers, but in terms of tactical skill, not so impressive. They rely on a docile and unarmed target environment in order to succeed. Rarely are special tactics are required to disrupt a mass killing plan. And disrupt is the keyword here. That’s all it takes. Disruption may, in fact, stop a killer cold or it may slow and delay their plan. Both are better scenarios that allowing them continue uninterrupted.

You don’t have to look far to find examples where armed citizens did, in fact, prevent mass shootings. The key word here is prevent, as the whole idea is to keep a criminal event from ever becoming a mass shooting in the first place.

In fact, you only have to look back as far as last week. Right here on Bearing Arms, you might have read about a doctor who stopped an armed killer in a medical facility. Unfortunately, one person was killed before the citizen was able to stop the killer. According to police, the armed doctor saved a lot of innocent lives.

Another classic example of the power of legally armed citizens occurred within one week of the tragic school shooting at Sandy Hook. A 22-year-old shooter, who I will not name, entered the gun free zone of Clackamas Mall On December 11, 2012 and started shooting random people in the vicinity of the food court. A concealed carrier on the scene, Nick Meli, drew his Glock 22 on the killer, but held fire out of concern for innocent bystanders behind the shooter. When the shooter saw an armed Mr. Meli, he ran into a stairwell and ended his own life with this final shot. The shooter claimed two innocent lives and was surely intent on causing a tragedy of epic proportions. Only because a citizen on the scene disrupted the shooter’s plans, was a tragedy and “mass shooting” prevented.

Clackamas is a perfect example of the benefit of armed citizens. Mall customers, armed or unarmed, were the first responders. Our citizen first responder only had to disrupt the killer’s plan to save the day. It’s that simple.

Like mutually assured destruction, concealed carry is about preventing war in the first place.

Make sense?

Be sure to check out Tom’s latest books!  They are ON SALE now for a limited time!

Which Foot Is Legal?

gun free zones

One foot in this photo is in a legal concealed carry zone, while the other is in a gun free zone.

Make sense to you? Me neither.

Useless, pointless, ineffective and ill-conceived legislation gets people killed.

Write your congress leech.

The Chicken Little Diaries: Close Encounters of the Neighborly Kind

 

Food Lion Shooting Range-1

Last time, I relayed the first part of the Chicken Little Diaries: A Shooting Range Zoning Saga. It was about a neighborhood and town council reaction to the proposed opening of an indoor shooting range. This week, the saga continues…

Every neighborhood has one of “those guys”, right?

Ours is a very left-leaning political activist. He’s so far left-leaning that he regularly tips over while walking in counter-clockwise circles. He’s so active that we frequently see large numbers of alfalfa-powered adult trikes parked in front of his house.

At first, I assumed these were gatherings of the Sedona, Arizona fan club. You know, when they plan the annual communal building of a happy-thought-powered rainbow bridge connecting the local Whole Foods wheat grass juice bar and Brown University. Later I found out he’s really Mini-Me-Obama, in charge of the local political regime. You would think these political gatherings are harmless, but I nearly wrecked my bike the other day, almost rear ending a departing Prius with a low battery charge.

Anyway, one day after circumventing what I believe to be the local Venezuelan consulate here in our neighborhood, I exited my car, in my driveway, only to be approached by the aforementioned guy.

I knew he wanted to talk about some activist thing, and I was feeling particularly spunky, so I decided to engage. I’ve been assured by my esteemed Editorship over at Bearing Arms that any bail and/or legal fees directly related to my work are fully covered. It’s mentioned right after the clause guaranteeing that I can sign up for Obamacare on my own nickel. It’s all right there in my Bearing Arms contract. Umm, I do have a contract, right?

In the interest of education, and to see if I can actually make any readers physically nauseous just from reading, I’m recreating the ensuing conversation here to the best of my recollection. I was speaking with my neighbor the whole time, but given all the sound bites he as throwing my way, sometimes I wasn’t quite sure who I was talking to…

My Tilting Neighbor: I’m glad I caught you. Do you have a minute to talk?

Me: Oh, really? [I already knew why he was there, but couldn’t resist engaging in the discussion from scratch. I’m sorry. But not really.] Do you want to borrow alfalfa sprouts? Or a cup of wheat grass juice? No disrespect, but as I keep trying to tell you, I don’t have any hippie food. I eat bacon, wrapped in bacon. Usually with a side order of bacon.

Hugo Chavez: No, not that. Some other neighbors are signing a petition, and I wanted to see if you would sign it too.

Me: Oh? A petition to tear down the golf driving range and replace it with a clay target course? Great! Where do I sign?

Wolf Blitzer: Well, no. They want to build a shooting range in the old Food Lion store.

Me: That’s even better! I’d love to have one there! That old Food Lion never had ammo in stock anyway. Where do I sign?

Ted Kennedy’s Suit: Well actually some people are concerned about it.

Me: What, that it won’t be big enough? That’s okay, I’m sure we’ll find a way to manage. We can share and all that.

Susan Sarandon: Well actually, we’re concerned about the kind of people that type of business could attract.

Me: Oh. You mean people like me, my wife, my son, and my daughter?

Rachel Maddow: Well… We’re also concerned about children. There’s a dance school and a karate studio in the same strip mall. Children will be walking all around there. And people will have guns going back and forth to the shooting range.

Me: Whew, that’s a relief. I’ve been worried about all those kids walking around unprotected forever. Glad to see they’ll be safer now.

Timothy O’Leary: Umm, but we don’t want all those guns near all those children!

Me: You do realize that we live in South Carolina and 119% of the homes in our neighborhood already have guns, right?

Cher: (Blank look)

Me: So if one of the homes in our neighborhood has children in it and that home doesn’t have guns, that means the houses to the left right and behind all have multiple guns. And their guns have guns. I’m just sayin’.

Sean Penn: But what about the crime? Having a gun range so close by will be a crime risk!

Me: More than the Food Lion? The one that had an armed robbery just before it was closed by the health department? [Uncontrollable laughter] I guarantee you that parking lot will be the safest one within 20 miles of here.

Bill Maher: I hope you’re right…

Me: When was the last time you heard about an armed robbery in a gun store?

Cindy Sheehan: [Crickets…] Well, I ‘m guessing you won’t be signing the petition then?

Me: I’m guessing you don’t want to go to the range with me later?

UPDATE: The Town Council vetoed the indoor range as it required a zoning variance. But we get the last laugh. The space is already zoned appropriately for a retail gun store (without a range) and construction begins soon with a grand opening 90 days later.

Wait for the shrieks of panic. Wait for it…

Grab a copy of my free eBook, A Fistful of Shooting Tips. It will help make you a better shooter and the envy of your range in no time.

Feds Target Firearms Businesses in Banking Crackdown

Image courtesy of GrandViewOutdoors.com

Image courtesy of GrandViewOutdoors.com

A recent initiative launched by the top government regulator of financial institutions to restrict access to credit services by businesses like porn shops, payday lenders and so-called “pyramid schemes” has expanded to ensnare gun stores and ammunition sales, Grandviewoutdoors.com has learned.

According to documents and interviews, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Department of Justice have been working through a program dubbed “Operation Choke Point” to squeeze businesses the Obama Administration deems at “high risk” of committing fraud on their customers.

“Operation Choke Point [is] attempting to shut off the financial oxygen of what are called Third Party Payment Processors,” the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Iain Murray told NRA News.  “What they do is remotely create checks to allow you to buy a product online or sometimes over the phone.”

In a document obtained by Grandviewoutdoors.com, the FDIC deems high-risk merchants and activities to include “get rich” products, pay day loans, home-based charities and credit repair services. The goal of Choke Point is to put banks that service these industries under additional scrutiny from federal regulators to make sure they’re not defrauding their customers.

But in a move that has alarmed many firearms retailers, the FDIC document also includes “ammunition sales” and “firearms/fireworks sales” as being potentially subject to Operation Choke Point’s mandates.

Read the rest at GrandView Outdoors!

 

The Chicken Little Diaries: A Shooting Range Zoning Saga

Presumably, some attendees donned life preservers as a protective measure. Because the discussion involved talking about guns!

Presumably, some attendees donned life preservers as a protective measure. Because the discussion involved talking about guns!

You remember the Chicken Little story, right? That was the one where a chicken went into apoplectic hysterics, causing premature delivery of a large egg which subsequently fell off a wall, injuring a large number of king’s men. I might have some of the details wrong, but the gist of the story is that it never pays to get hysterical about imagined scenarios with no basis whatsoever in fact.

Much to my amusement, I’ve got a real-life Chicken Little saga going on in my town. There’s an outdoor shopping center adjacent to my very suburban neighborhood, previously anchored by a Food Lion grocery store.

We all know how Food Lions tend to attract the classiest of customers. This particular one was so classy that four upstanding citizens (that I know of) are currently volunteering in the state rock-breaking facility for a period of not less than 15 years for armed robbery of said Food Lion. I think, because their quality standards were simply too high for even an affluent neighborhood, the store went out of business a few years ago, and the space remains empty.

Now, a fast growing firearms retailer, Palmetto State Armory, has expressed interest in opening a retail store and shooting range in the budget grocery store / armed robbery bait trap formerly known as Food Lion.

As you can imagine, the possibility of a shooting range moving in to replace the Food Lion is creating quite a stir in this relatively quiet community. At the first town planning committee meeting, a number of nearby residents expressed concern about the range being so close to a neighborhood. Comments from the public record include the following. Names have been redacted to protect those suffering from baseless hoplophobia.

“She suggested that this would not enhance the neighborhood and should not be located near any neighborhood.”

“He suggested that the shooting range should be located in a more secluded location away from residences and children.”

“stated that he is opposed to a shooting range, particularly because of safety for the public and child safety.”

“expressed concern with child safety.”

“expressed concern with child safety with a shooting range in proximity.”

“expressed concern with the potential sound issues associated with a shooting range and safety issues. She stated that they are a family business and expressed concern with having a shooting range in proximity.”

“She expressed concern with child safety…”

“expressed concern with the safety of the facility, particularly what would prevent stray bullets. She expressed concern with having the shooting range in a shopping center as opposed to a stand-alone building. She suggested that children should not be exposed to possible stray bullets and sales of ammunition.”

“expressed concern for child safety and the pedestrian path in proximity to the shopping center and amenity center. He expressed concern with carrying guns from the parking lot to the shooting range.”

“stated that she is opposed to the shooting range, particularly in proximity to a bar. She expressed concern with stray bullets and sale of ammunition. She stated that when the shopping center was established it was noted that it would not support bingo parlors and other uses such as a shooting range.”

I have to agree with some of these comments. Who in their right mind would want a bingo parlor near homes, families and pets? We all know those are notorious for violent senior citizen gang initiation rituals. Next thing you know, we’ll have a chinchilla rescue moving in, and that would be tragic indeed.

When you filter out the fruit salad of huff-puffery, the concerns boiled down to two predictable, yet entirely baseless issues:

Because Children!

A number of residents expressed concern that children are frequently in that same strip mall, either walking home from school or attending dance or karate classes. I had to agree with this point because there’s not much more dangerous than a bunch of primary schoolers with mad karate skills. Can you imagine the bloodbath if we were to allow bands of martially trained munchkins to roam free like packs of rabid meerkats? Worse yet, they would probably be wearing gang colors like those yellow and green belts.

Later I found out that these folks were not actually worried about the danger from hordes of “Youth Lee” but rather the danger to kids from the gun store and shooting range. No one clarified on exactly how this business might endanger children, but that’s beside the point. You know why. Because children!!!

I did some fact checking and looked on Google, but I could find no record of other Palmetto State Armory locations abducting children for ritual sacrifices. But maybe I just missed the story.

Because Ammunition!

A number of folks seem concerned about the sale of ammunition near homes and a restaurant that sells alcohol. I for one was glad to hear someone raise this issue because before now I didn’t realize that ammunition, left unsupervised, was prone to multi-day drinking benders. Heads up people!

This objection really stumped me for a bit. Across the street is an Ace Hardware store that sells a wide variety of ammo. Better yet, a Wal-Mart a couple of blocks away sells truckloads of ammunition. Oh, and they sell beer and wine in the same store! And toys! Gadzooks! Because ammunition AND alcohol AND children! Fortunately, this particular Wal-mart built extra durable deep foundation supports so the bloodbath wouldn’t erode the building over time.

Predictably, the overlords of the planning committee voted unanimously to deny the zoning variance. But there’s a second reading coming up, and after that, the first reading in front of the full town council. The project is not dead yet, just wounded.

If the whining continues, I’m going to see if I can lure an indoor lawn tractor racing league into leasing the space. That’ll show ‘em.

Grab a copy of my free eBook, A Fistful of Shooting Tips. It will help make you a better shooter and the envy of your range in no time.

5 Million Freakin’ People vs. Moms Demand Bloomberg Alimony Checks

NRA-Millions-video

Breaking news! The White House released a new report suggesting slight statistical corrections to previous figures. Earlier this year, Vice President Biden claimed that 90% of Americans support increased background checks. The new findings indicate that 90% of Americans actually ATTENDED the recent NRA Annual Meeting in Indianapolis, Indiana. You heard it here first folks.

Speaking of 75,267 people, and yes that’s the actual number that attended the NRA Annual Meeting last weekend, the NRA’s new ad campaign makes it abundantly clear the difference between the anti-gun effort and the Second Amendment rights preservation effort.

In the words of a new NRA membership video called Bloomberg’s Millions, “He’s one guy with millions, but we’re millions with our 25 bucks. Let’s see who crushes who.”

That. Is. Brilliant.

As a career marketing puke, I know it’s a brilliant campaign because it doesn’t spin, fool, or exaggerate. It hits the crux of the issue harder than that Mike Tyson punch where he swacked Zach Galifianakis in The Hangover. In case you didn’t see the movie, that punch was painful to watch, but entertaining for all except Zach.

The issue is simply this. The NRA has no power. None. None whatsoever.

You know what has power? 5 million freakin’ people who voluntarily send $25 a year to the NRA because they believe in the NRA’s position.(Tweet This!)

Power comes from 75,267 men, women and children who spend a whole lot of their hard-earned money (thanks Indianapolis, you were wonderful hosts!) to travel across the country to visit, talk, see products, hear speeches and vote.

On the other hand, astroturf, or lack of power comes from…

Protest Prostitutes.

As you may have heard, there was a protest by Moms Demand Something Or Other For Baby Emus, no wait, I think it’s Moms Demand Salaries From Michael Bloomberg, hang on, I’ll get it in a minute. Moms Demand Every Town Install Free Pillow Spray Dispensers. I think that’s it, right? Sorry, they keep changing names so frequently I lose track.

Anyway, Mom’s Demand Bloomberg Alimony Checks came to Indianapolis to “confront and challenge” the NRA. Fortunately, there are cheap flights to Indy because Bloomberg had to foot the bill to fly the couple of dozen men and women holding identical, organization provided signs. That’s right; they had to be paid to protest.

If your sign and t-shirt are issued when you clock in for your protest shift, you might be a protest prostitute. (Tweet This)

If your convictions are for sale for $8.50 an hour, you might be a protest prostitute. (Tweet This)

If the energy level of your protest won’t melt butter on a hot day, you’re a protest prostitute. (Tweet This)

While entertaining to watch, protest prostitutes have no real power, they’re just the hired help.

Once there, and between union-mandated coffee breaks, they “confronted” the NRA from a safe distance of about a mile away. You know, because we’re all gun totin’ savages just raring to shoot people and shout things like “I was in fear for my life!” Especially moms.

Heck there was no need to confront. If they had bothered to come to the convention, they would’ve found 75,267 of the most polite and respectful people around. Well, in all honestly, it was only 75,266 because of that one guy who failed to say “excuse me” when he stepped in front of me at the Wall of Guns exhibit.

Let’s get back to the whole power thing.

Groups like Moms Demand Piers Morgan for President constantly refer to the NRA as if it were some autonomous organization that derives its power from an obelisk buried deep within the moon.

In fact, the only power that the NRA has comes from those 5 million freakin’ members who contribute 25 bucks a year to fund its efforts. Those are voluntary partings with hard-earned money by the way. Voluntary. Not one rich elitist with a couple of unemployed protest prostitute sycophants.

I don’t know why this is such a difficult concept for the gun control movement to understand. They continue to speak of the NRA as if it had a will of its own that disregarded the will of the people.

If I hear one more person talk about the political clout of the gun lobby and NRA, I’m going to strap on a meatloaf suit and jog through the African Lion Safari exhibit at Busch Gardens.

The NRA has too much power? 5 million freakin’ people are SUPPOSED to have political clout. Lots and lots of it. (Tweet This!)

It’s part of that whole constitutional republic democratic process thing. Remember?

It’s a simple concept.

“He’s one guy with millions, but we’re millions with our 25 bucks. Let’s see who crushes who.”

If you’re reading this, and are not a member of the NRA, you need to join now. If 10% of the people who agree with the NRA would simply join, we wouldn’t be having these silly discussions about preserving our rights.

 

Grab a copy of Tom’s free eBook, A Fistful of Shooting Tips. It will help make you a better shooter and the envy of your range in no time.

Gun Crime, Pabst Blue Ribbon and Mikey on the Hamster Wheel

New York Safe ActGun Crime makes me sick.

But just the “crime” part, not the “gun” part.

If I hear someone say “gun crime” or “gun deaths” one more time, I’m gonna start puking up bearded Llama puppies. (Tweet This) Do you call the little ones puppies? I’m not sure, but I’ll be ejecting them from my mouth none-the-less.

The whole “about to vomit” thing comes from the fact that I can’t get my laparoscopic adjustable gastric band around the fact that…

People believe that if you remove the “gun” part, the crimes won’t happen. Poof! They disappear! Kind of like Benghazi witnesses. (Tweet This)

To me, that’s like believing you can wave a magic scepter to vanquish all of the Pabst Blue Ribbon DUI’s. Do you think this would reduce the number of drunks on the road? Seriously? At best, it would simply improve the “quality” of drunkenness. More people would be drinking beer of better repute once PBR has been removed from the supply chain.

If you were paying attention to the PBR analogy, you probably figured out what happens when Pabst becomes extinct. People drink other types of beer. Like National Bohemian. Some might even switch to hard cider if they’re feeling really rambunctious.

Of course you could ban all the cheap beers, and cider too. But folks would simply start drinking the hard stuff.

Heck, some people might even drop those little umbrellas in their cocktails – and that would be tragic indeed.

Do you see where this is going? It’s an endless game of trying to remove objects associated with bad behavior, while blissfuly ignoring the fact that behavior is, well, a behavioral problem. You can ban one object, only to have the problem continue with different objects. It reminds me of a dog chasing it’s tail. Or Harry Reid continuing to insist that people love Obamacare.

I like to picture a miniature Michael Bloomberg (yeah, I know, he’s kind a Napoleonic mini-tyrant anyway) running in one of those hamster wheels. He runs, and runs, but never accomplishes anything. Run Mikey, run!

And therein lies the problem.

Drunk driving is a behavioral problem. Removing one type of drunk juice from the equation solves nothing. Heck, we tried to remove all the drunk juice from the equation and that was a miserable failure. Can you say Prohibition? The behavior never went away.

Crime is also a behavioral problem. Removing guns, or placing restrictions on them does not remove evil intent from the hearts of darkness.(Tweet This)

You can ban all the guns you want, but nothing positive has ever been accomplished by that. Australia did it. Crime went up. The UK did it. Crime went up.

I think the primary argument of the gun ban crowd is based on this flawed assumption. If you remove guns, then any crimes previously associated with guns will simply not happen.

This flawed assumption smacked me upside the head with a recent discussion with Phil the Australian. Phil seems to be a really nice guy, and I enjoyed a very polite and civil discussion with him online. I’d like to meet him over a good Australian beer. I hear they don’t really like Fosters over there — apparently it’s for tourists or something — so if we ever meet in person, I’ll trust him completely on his selection of beverage.

The basic gist of my part of the discussion was this.

Let’s suppose we live in Obama-Topia, a place with 100 murders per year, and 70 of those murders involve guns and 30 some other murderous weapon. Now, we get smart, and use our disappearing gun ray to remove all the guns. Yet, we still have 100 murders a year, but none of them involve guns. Yay! Zero gun deaths! But the people who have been “death-ed” by some means other than guns really don’t feel much better, do they?

My point is, both Australia and the UK have had either unchanged, or in the case of the UK, INCREASING murder rates since their major gun control initiatives. Guns or no guns. In fact, in the UK, the “gun related” murder rate has actually gone up since their gun ban. And of course their overall murder rate has gone UP since their gun ban. Australia’s has stayed relatively flat before, during and after.

By the way, things like assault and forcible rape are 2 to 4 times more likely in the UK and Australia, respectively, as the US. Just sayin’ you know.(Tweet This)

Another side note, gun ownership in Australia is essentially back to where it was before the 96/97 buyback, yet the murder rate really hasn’t changed as a percentage. Huh? If you’re going to make major changes, you would expect the crime rates to change as a result, no?

So, if crime, murder, rape, assault, armed robbery et al. do not change regardless of the tools used, who cares?

I want CRIME down. Not gun crime. Or electric stapler crime. Or Silly Putty crime.(Tweet This)

The only thing that’s relevant is the overall crime rate.

If I’m to be murdered, I certainly won’t consider it a moral victory if I’m murdered with something other than a gun. If I’m the murderee, then a gun control policy that ensures I was murdered with something other than a gun really doesn’t help me.

The flaw in the gun ban argument is that if you remove the guns (or knives, or electric staplers) then those types of crimes go away. They don’t.

That. Has. Never. Happened. Ever.

Because you can’t solve a behavioral problem without addressing the, ummm, behavior.

Grab a copy of my free eBook, A Fistful of Shooting Tips. It will help make you a better shooter and the envy of your range in no time.

Legal Disclosures about articles on My Gun Culture