http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Home-Invasion-Death.html
You have to love it when the Laws of Natural Selection and Karma work together to stop a dumbass. Apparently, this 19 year old kid was breaking into a house. He kicked in the door and BAM !! His gun went off when he pulled it from his pants. He ran and bled out.
While the medical examiner rled this accidental, I rule this as a win for Karma.
Monday, June 23, 2008
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Imagine this wallet biter
Imagine that you have saved up for an African Safari. It has cost you ten thousand dollars for the plane tickets, a professional hunter, lodging, dining, and everything else. You are on your way through the airport, get on your plane, deboard at your destination and find out there is a T.S.A. sticker on your luggage. You check your weapon case.. everything looks fine. You check your other luggage... son of a B*itch !! Your ammo is gone.
Yup... the T.S.A. checkers has been confiscating (or possibly stealing) ammo out of bags. Now it's gotten worse, though. There seems to be a pattern..everything over 50 caliber is being confiscated.
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=4002
Cartridges like the .577 Nitro Express have been around for a long time now, over 130 years, but they are very expensive. The.577 Nitro Express with a 750-grain bullet has about 7,000 ft-lbs of energy, about 3.5 times that of a 30-06, and 6 times that of a 223 Remington. Bullets run from about 8 to 20 dollars each...yes, the high end ones are about $19 and change per cartridge. So, if someone steals a box of 10 or twenty from your bag, that's expensive to replace and let's face it, you cannot go into any Walmart or most gun stores to find this cartridge sitting on their shelves.
Yup... the T.S.A. checkers has been confiscating (or possibly stealing) ammo out of bags. Now it's gotten worse, though. There seems to be a pattern..everything over 50 caliber is being confiscated.
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=4002
Cartridges like the .577 Nitro Express have been around for a long time now, over 130 years, but they are very expensive. The.577 Nitro Express with a 750-grain bullet has about 7,000 ft-lbs of energy, about 3.5 times that of a 30-06, and 6 times that of a 223 Remington. Bullets run from about 8 to 20 dollars each...yes, the high end ones are about $19 and change per cartridge. So, if someone steals a box of 10 or twenty from your bag, that's expensive to replace and let's face it, you cannot go into any Walmart or most gun stores to find this cartridge sitting on their shelves.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
We have it easy
We Americans do spend a bit of time debating the 2nd Amendment to the Bill of Rights. Both sides think they have valid arguments. Both sides have statistics, charts, glowing stories of success and horrid displays of failures. Thing is, in spite of the fact that two sides are diametrically opposed, we have it pretty easy....
--Chinese citizens are prohibited from owning any guns. Period.
--In South Korea, it is a death penalty for anyone not related to military to own or distribute firearms.
--Japan has strict laws, and civilians cannot own handguns. They can only own a shotgun or rifle, after scrutiny.
--Article 10 of the Mexican Constitution declares that citizens have the right to bear arms However, it is currently illegal in Mexico for any civilian to own a firearm of any caliber ever used or tested by the Mexican Government or Military. A citizen is stuck with a .22 to .380 caliber rifle or similar firearm without a full-automatic firing system. Ownership of any centerfire caliber designed for automatic or military rifles is forbidden.
--In the Netherlands, only citizens who are members of shooting or hunting clubs can get licences for weapons. This is only for sporting weapons.
--In Taiwan, legal private ownership of firearms and ammunition is severely restricted. Aside from a few individuals licensed decades ago and shooting organizations sanctioned by the government, only aborigines may receive firearm permits.
With approval from the government, Taiwanese aborigines may build and possess up to two muzzle-loading black powder rifles per individual, or up to six rifles per household, for hunting and ceremonial purposes.
This shows, it could always be worse for us, but let's hope not.
--Chinese citizens are prohibited from owning any guns. Period.
--In South Korea, it is a death penalty for anyone not related to military to own or distribute firearms.
--Japan has strict laws, and civilians cannot own handguns. They can only own a shotgun or rifle, after scrutiny.
--Article 10 of the Mexican Constitution declares that citizens have the right to bear arms However, it is currently illegal in Mexico for any civilian to own a firearm of any caliber ever used or tested by the Mexican Government or Military. A citizen is stuck with a .22 to .380 caliber rifle or similar firearm without a full-automatic firing system. Ownership of any centerfire caliber designed for automatic or military rifles is forbidden.
--In the Netherlands, only citizens who are members of shooting or hunting clubs can get licences for weapons. This is only for sporting weapons.
--In Taiwan, legal private ownership of firearms and ammunition is severely restricted. Aside from a few individuals licensed decades ago and shooting organizations sanctioned by the government, only aborigines may receive firearm permits.
With approval from the government, Taiwanese aborigines may build and possess up to two muzzle-loading black powder rifles per individual, or up to six rifles per household, for hunting and ceremonial purposes.
This shows, it could always be worse for us, but let's hope not.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
The Brady Bunch
The NRA has its facts page and so does the Brady Bunch...
http://www.bradycampaign.org/issues/gvstats/
Now, why would a Pro Bill of Rights person, like myself, go to the oppositions webpage? Simple, know you enemy. As with any war, intel is the key. How can you wage wage with something when you do not know its abilities, strengths, or weaknesses?
For example, "In 2005, 30,694 people in the United States died from firearm-related deaths – 12,352 were murdered; 17,002 killed themselves; 789 were accidents; 330 died by police intervention, and in 221, the intent was unknown." What they fail to point out is that all this happened during the Assault Weapons Ban.Hi Cap Ban period they helped to promote and that these numbers have been decreasing steadily for the past twenty plus years.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/issues/assaultweapons/
"The Federal Assault Weapons Act, banning the sale of semiautomatic military-style assault weapons, was passed as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. President Clinton signed it into law on September 13, 1994.
The Act led to a dramatic decline in the incidence of assault weapons traced to crime. In the five-year period (1990-1994) before enactment of the Assault Weapons Act, assault weapons named in the Act constituted 4.82% of Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) crime gun traces nationwide. After the law’s enactment, however, these assault weapons made up only 1.61% of the guns ATF had traced to crime - a drop of 66% from the pre-ban rate."
Assault weapons have never been a major part of crime in the U.S. and even they admit there was only 1.61% of all crimes that had anything to do with an assault weapon...and if you actually looked at the weapons in question and compared those to the real definition of an assault weapon, the percentage would drop a lot more. I am very suspicious of these statistics since they can be using a Ruger 10-22 with a folding stock and call it an assault weapon because it looks imposing.
Take a look at their site... it's a scary, eye-opening entertainment
http://www.bradycampaign.org/issues/gvstats/
Now, why would a Pro Bill of Rights person, like myself, go to the oppositions webpage? Simple, know you enemy. As with any war, intel is the key. How can you wage wage with something when you do not know its abilities, strengths, or weaknesses?
For example, "In 2005, 30,694 people in the United States died from firearm-related deaths – 12,352 were murdered; 17,002 killed themselves; 789 were accidents; 330 died by police intervention, and in 221, the intent was unknown." What they fail to point out is that all this happened during the Assault Weapons Ban.Hi Cap Ban period they helped to promote and that these numbers have been decreasing steadily for the past twenty plus years.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/issues/assaultweapons/
"The Federal Assault Weapons Act, banning the sale of semiautomatic military-style assault weapons, was passed as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. President Clinton signed it into law on September 13, 1994.
The Act led to a dramatic decline in the incidence of assault weapons traced to crime. In the five-year period (1990-1994) before enactment of the Assault Weapons Act, assault weapons named in the Act constituted 4.82% of Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) crime gun traces nationwide. After the law’s enactment, however, these assault weapons made up only 1.61% of the guns ATF had traced to crime - a drop of 66% from the pre-ban rate."
Assault weapons have never been a major part of crime in the U.S. and even they admit there was only 1.61% of all crimes that had anything to do with an assault weapon...and if you actually looked at the weapons in question and compared those to the real definition of an assault weapon, the percentage would drop a lot more. I am very suspicious of these statistics since they can be using a Ruger 10-22 with a folding stock and call it an assault weapon because it looks imposing.
Take a look at their site... it's a scary, eye-opening entertainment
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Something to ponder
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
So, someone explain to me what the "bear arms" portion of this important statement in our Bill of Rights. If bearing arms means what the Founding Fathers intended, it means that the citizens of this country have the right to carry their arms whenever and where ever they want.
If this is the case, then isn't the C.C.W. requirement to carry a weapon hidden on your body unconstitutional? If the bear arms part means what the Found Fathers intended to, doesn't getting a C.C.W. actually limit your Rights? Think about it, by getting a C.C.W. you are agreeing to the terms of the C.C.W. laws in your area and signing away your Constitutional rights to carry whenever and where-ever you want. Now, I have a C.C.W. but I never considered this before.
It's just something to think about.
So, someone explain to me what the "bear arms" portion of this important statement in our Bill of Rights. If bearing arms means what the Founding Fathers intended, it means that the citizens of this country have the right to carry their arms whenever and where ever they want.
If this is the case, then isn't the C.C.W. requirement to carry a weapon hidden on your body unconstitutional? If the bear arms part means what the Found Fathers intended to, doesn't getting a C.C.W. actually limit your Rights? Think about it, by getting a C.C.W. you are agreeing to the terms of the C.C.W. laws in your area and signing away your Constitutional rights to carry whenever and where-ever you want. Now, I have a C.C.W. but I never considered this before.
It's just something to think about.
Monday, June 16, 2008
Liberals
According to Dictionary.com the word "Liberal" means:
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.
10. given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.
11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.
12. of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts.
13. of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman. –noun
14. a person of liberal principles or views, esp. in politics or religion.
15. (often initial capital letter) a member of a liberal party in politics, esp. of the Liberal party in Great Britain.
[Origin: 1325–75; ME < class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">liberals of freedom, befitting the free, equiv. to līber free + -ālis -al1] —Related forms
—Synonyms 1. progressive. 7. broad-minded, unprejudiced. 9. beneficent, charitable, openhanded, munificent, unstinting, lavish. See generous. 10. See ample.
When did this word take on a negative connotation? Many of the political changes that have improved America came from liberals, Democrat, Republican, or any other party. Using this term to be derogatory to Democrats is just plain stupid. I know many Democrats who are not only gun owners but are ardent supports of the 2nd Amendment. Berating these people is shooting our own brothers in the foot.
Why is the term Liberal so well established in the Pro-2nd as a term of dis-endearment? Let's be real. They are the Anti's, we are the pro. Not all gun owners are Republicans and not all Republicans are pro-guns. The Democrats are not all Anti-2nd and many are gun owners.
Stop flaming our others.
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.
10. given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.
11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.
12. of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts.
13. of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman. –noun
14. a person of liberal principles or views, esp. in politics or religion.
15. (often initial capital letter) a member of a liberal party in politics, esp. of the Liberal party in Great Britain.
[Origin: 1325–75; ME < class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">liberals of freedom, befitting the free, equiv. to līber free + -ālis -al1] —Related forms
—Synonyms 1. progressive. 7. broad-minded, unprejudiced. 9. beneficent, charitable, openhanded, munificent, unstinting, lavish. See generous. 10. See ample.
When did this word take on a negative connotation? Many of the political changes that have improved America came from liberals, Democrat, Republican, or any other party. Using this term to be derogatory to Democrats is just plain stupid. I know many Democrats who are not only gun owners but are ardent supports of the 2nd Amendment. Berating these people is shooting our own brothers in the foot.
Why is the term Liberal so well established in the Pro-2nd as a term of dis-endearment? Let's be real. They are the Anti's, we are the pro. Not all gun owners are Republicans and not all Republicans are pro-guns. The Democrats are not all Anti-2nd and many are gun owners.
Stop flaming our others.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Changing laws
I have tried to mention many of the laws that have been changed or proposed that are of significant importance. But, I know I have missed more then a few, especially local ones here in Arizona.
Newly signed in laws, within the past year, for Arizona:
---SB 1258 -- Affects A.R.S. §26-303. Prohibits the Governor, or Adjutant General, from confiscating lawfully held firearms, ammunition or their components during a state of emergency, specifically invoking federal and state constitutional guarantees. This important limit has been placed on many officials nationwide, after highly publicized abusive confiscations in Louisiana following hurricane Katrina. Specifically, emergency powers, "shall not be construed to allow the imposition of additional restrictions on the lawful possession, transfer, sale, transportation, carrying, storage, display or use of firearms or ammunition or firearms or ammunition components." Authorities can, however, move large supplies of ammo ("stores of ammunition") "out of the way of dangerous conditions." The governor had previously refused to sign this common-sense bill because, she said, it would prevent moving an ammo stockpile during a forest fire. AZCDL added the language to neutralize that excuse, which lead to the law's passage. CH101
Gotta like this one...so, just a Katrina, the government cannot legally disarm us.
---HB 2469 -- Affects A.R.S. §13-3112. Reduces the penalty for not carrying your CCW permit with you to a petty offense (from the current Class 2 misdemeanor). It also restricts the application of the law to concealed-weapons-permit holders, and clarifies that permit holders can only be charged if they are carrying a concealed weapon when they fail to present their permit at the request of a law enforcement officer. If, on appearing in court after being cited for failure to have your permit with you, you produce a legible permit that was valid at the time of the violation, you "shall not be convicted." CH45
This one is another big one. What happens if you forget your wallet/purse in your car or home and you are out and about when the officer confronts you? Previously, your license was revoked. This gives good, honest people a chance to redeem themselves for a silly mistake.
---May 15, 2006: The Castle Doctrine and Burden of Proof laws were clarified and strengthened, and with the Emergency Clause, they went into effect when they were signed in April. Also, the two-hour CCW renewal class was eliminated (though permits must still be renewed every five years), and all legally issued state firearm permits will now be recognized in Arizona, with minor conditions.
---Arizona has dropped its reciprocity approach to out-of-state permits and adopted a recognition scheme. Under the new deal, spelled out in HB2074, Arizona will recognize a valid firearm permit from any state if it was legally issued by that state, the person is not an Arizona resident and is legally in Arizona, and the person is not a prohibited possessor
There are a ton of minor changes to wording, clarification, but I thought these were the good ones.
Newly signed in laws, within the past year, for Arizona:
---SB 1258 -- Affects A.R.S. §26-303. Prohibits the Governor, or Adjutant General, from confiscating lawfully held firearms, ammunition or their components during a state of emergency, specifically invoking federal and state constitutional guarantees. This important limit has been placed on many officials nationwide, after highly publicized abusive confiscations in Louisiana following hurricane Katrina. Specifically, emergency powers, "shall not be construed to allow the imposition of additional restrictions on the lawful possession, transfer, sale, transportation, carrying, storage, display or use of firearms or ammunition or firearms or ammunition components." Authorities can, however, move large supplies of ammo ("stores of ammunition") "out of the way of dangerous conditions." The governor had previously refused to sign this common-sense bill because, she said, it would prevent moving an ammo stockpile during a forest fire. AZCDL added the language to neutralize that excuse, which lead to the law's passage. CH101
Gotta like this one...so, just a Katrina, the government cannot legally disarm us.
---HB 2469 -- Affects A.R.S. §13-3112. Reduces the penalty for not carrying your CCW permit with you to a petty offense (from the current Class 2 misdemeanor). It also restricts the application of the law to concealed-weapons-permit holders, and clarifies that permit holders can only be charged if they are carrying a concealed weapon when they fail to present their permit at the request of a law enforcement officer. If, on appearing in court after being cited for failure to have your permit with you, you produce a legible permit that was valid at the time of the violation, you "shall not be convicted." CH45
This one is another big one. What happens if you forget your wallet/purse in your car or home and you are out and about when the officer confronts you? Previously, your license was revoked. This gives good, honest people a chance to redeem themselves for a silly mistake.
---May 15, 2006: The Castle Doctrine and Burden of Proof laws were clarified and strengthened, and with the Emergency Clause, they went into effect when they were signed in April. Also, the two-hour CCW renewal class was eliminated (though permits must still be renewed every five years), and all legally issued state firearm permits will now be recognized in Arizona, with minor conditions.
---Arizona has dropped its reciprocity approach to out-of-state permits and adopted a recognition scheme. Under the new deal, spelled out in HB2074, Arizona will recognize a valid firearm permit from any state if it was legally issued by that state, the person is not an Arizona resident and is legally in Arizona, and the person is not a prohibited possessor
There are a ton of minor changes to wording, clarification, but I thought these were the good ones.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)