California Democrats Prefer Criminals Over Legal Gun Owners…

In a move that absolutely defies the slightest semblance of logic, the Democrat controlled California State Senate passed a measure that will lower the sentences for felons who used a gun in the commission of their crimes.  Yes, you read that right.  They are reducing sentences for criminals using guns.  These are the very same Democrats that constantly create and pass stricter and stricter gun control laws, and who constantly scream, cry and whine about how guns are bad.

Sen. Steven Bradford (D-Gardena) said he introduced the bill after a 17-year-old riding in a car involved in a drive-by shooting was sentenced to 25 years in prison even though he denied shooting the gun.

A criminal denied committing the crime for which they are in prison?  Is this moron serious?  Prisons are filled with people who “didn’t do it.” The bill, SB 620, passed based solely on Democrat votes.  Not a single Republican voted for it, and even some Democrats were not stupid enough to pass this ridiculous bill.  This bill just furthers California’s continued (idiotic) approach of going soft on crime, which started with AB 109, followed by Prop 47, and most recently topped off with Prop 57.

SOURCE – DailyCaller.com

Navy SEAL Defends AR-15 With a Warning for America…

Dom_RasoFriends, please meet former United States Navy SEAL Dom Raso.  He’s calling out critics in the media and politics who have renewed calls to ban the AR-15 and similar firearms in the wake of the Orlando terrorist attack.  Dom has a very simple message: Stop talking, because you don’t know enough about the subject. Spread the VooDoo…

SOURCE – Independent Journal

Man shoots himself, doesn’t notice for two days…

forrest_gumpFriends, as staunch supporters of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, we must also (and do) fully emphasize safety above all else when handling firearms.  With that said, we have a new candidate for the “don’t let this happen to you…” club.

Authorities in Florida said a man accidentally shot himself while cleaning his gun and didn’t notice the wound until he changed his shirt two days later.  Really?  The Volusia County Sheriff’s Office said deputies responded to a report of a shooting victim Saturday at Florida Hospital Fish Memorial in Orange City and they spoke with Deltona resident Michael Blevins, 37, who had checked himself in to the hospital with a bullet wound.

Blevins told deputies he was cleaning his .22 caliber pistol in the living room of his home and he was holding the gun close to his chest to prevent his dog from jumping near it.  Blevens said he felt a sharp pain in his back from a previous injury when he tried to stand up and ended up falling face down.  Blevins said the gun fired and he struck his head on the edge of a glass coffee table.

He said he did not believe the bullet had struck him until Saturday, when he removed his long-sleeved black shirt and discovered the bullet’s entry and exit wounds on his arm.  Blevins said the medication he takes for his back injury may have prevented him from feeling any pain from the gunshot.

We want to know just what medication this dude is taking that would block the pain of being shot a close range.  Whatever it is, he must have washed it down with a tall glass of stupid.  Michael… Here’s your sign…

SOURCE – news-journalonline.com

What’s Your Vulnerability Index With A Smart Gun?

SmartGunError-298522_200x200Smart gun entrepreneurs have found that applying delicate smartphone tech onto rugged steel and polymer weapons, and making it work in harsh environments, is harder than writing an Angry Birds app. Despite threats from the federal government under Bill Clinton, state legislative mandates and even Silicon Valley investments, there is currently no reliable, affordable smart gun—after 30 years of trying.

Failing to persuade consumers into desiring smart guns, the Obama administration is now trying a new tactic; they want to force the Department of Defense to buy smart guns. They have asked the DOD to set standards and come up with a timetable for adoption. They hope that using the massive purchasing power of the federal government will “change the gun culture,” and that the military’s adoption will spur consumer interest.

In other words, to achieve its political ends, the administration wants to impose a new, unreliable, unproven, expensive technology onto those whose lives depend upon functioning firearms.

This is like testing a brand-new laptop computer by bolting it into the space shuttle. Check that; it’s more like bolting it onto the space shuttle.

Firearms were the first high-tech industry. (Beretta, the oldest continually operating company in the world, has an invoice to the city of Venice for cannon barrels from the 16th century.) Today’s guns are the product of centuries of development in design, materials science, engineering, tooling, propellants and metallurgy. They operate reliably in extreme heat or cold, in sand, mud, even after being submerged. They can be dropped, sat on, stepped on and bled on, and they still function. They can sit for years and, with a touch of maintenance, will operate perfectly. They have a useful lifespan measured in decades, if not centuries.

Now, let’s consider smart phones, the technology that inspires favorable comparisons from smart gun promoters. My iPhone is such a wonder of technology, its battery exhausts itself just trying to make it to lunch. If I drop it in water, I have to take it apart and let it dry; In fact, if a drop of water even falls on the screen, it goes into a coma. Its touch-ID technology is ideal under ideal conditions, but it doesn’t work if my thumb has even a smidge of grime on it. If I wash my hands, it won’t work because my thumb is now moist. It won’t even work if my thumb is wrinkled from the shower.

Lets brainstorm a sequel to “Lone Survivor.” Set in the year 2024, we have chosen to give the SEALs smart guns. As usual, we’ll give the SEALs 100 basis points for their VX, and add or subtract points as they become more, or less, vulnerable. Please, be considerate and silence your cell phones:

  • The SEALS spend days hiking from the LZ to their objective. Along the way, their smart gun batteries die. So do they. (+1,000 pts.)
  • The SEALS wear gloves, defeating fingerprint or palmprint ID. Their guns don’t work. They die. (+1,000 pts.)
  • A SEAL stumbles while scrambling over a goat path at 7,000 feet. His smart gun bumps a rock and knocks a circuit loose. It dies. He dies. (+1,000 pts.)
  • A SEAL is wounded in a gun fight. He has blood on his shooting hand, impairing his smart gun connection. It fails. He dies. (+1,000 pts.)
  • Wounded in his strong hand, a SEAL has to shoot with with his weak hand. Unfortunately, the smart watch on his strong wrist, which enables his smart gun, is also weak. He dies. (+1,000 pts.)
  • One SEAL picks up the smart gun of another SEAL when he goes down, but the smart gun doesn’t know him. He goes down, too. (+1,000 pts.)
  • We set “Lone Survivor II” in sub-Saharan Africa, but the smart guns got too hot. The SEALS all died. (+1,000 pts.)
  • We returned to Afghanistan, but it snowed. The smart guns got some condensation in them. The SEALS all died. (+1,000 pts.)
  • We set it anywhere, but it turns out it rains most places. The smart guns took a nap. The SEALS died again. (+1,000 pts.)
  • We fed the above scenarios into the VX supercomputer, and substituted “hesitated” for “died” when referring to smart gun fails. The SEALs still died.
  • On the upside, we could think of no scenario where an ISIS, Taliban, Al Qaeda, Al Shabaab or other bad guy picked up a SEAL’s smart gun and shot him with it. (-1 pt.) So, you can’t say we haven’t been fair.

But we also couldn’t think of a scenario where the SEALs’ situation was made better by making their already smart gun more like their smart phones. So, tell us, Mr. Obama, are you really willing to risk our servicemen’s lives by dumbing down their guns?  Yes? Fuck You!

SOURCE – americas1stfreedom.org

5 Gun Controls that don’t work, just infringe rights…

gun_controlFriends, we all know our elected leaders are (for the most part), a special kind of stupid.  We regularly see them in action in all facets of government bureaucracy.  The tell us how this piece of legislature and that new law will keep us all safe from the bogeyman (foreign and domestic varieties).  The issue which seems to demand the attention of our most idiotic (talking to you, Senator Feinstein) among others is gun control.  The problem is, they never get it right…

As reported by Breitbart News, here are five of the worst gun control proposals regularly recycled and put forward at the state and/or federal level:

  • Hollow-Point Ammunition Ban — Democrats in San Francisco have banned hollow-point ammunition in the city. The argument is that hollow-point ammunition is more dangerous — due to its expansion on impact — and therefore using full metal jacket bullets is safer. But reality teaches a completely different lesson. The NYPD used to mandate full metal jacket bullets for their officers, but reversed course when they realized the lack of expansion in a full metal jacket bullet tends to allow the bullet to pass through the perpetrator’s body and strike innocents behind him or her. In other words, the absence of hollow-point ammunition actually contributes to a higher rate of collateral damage. In July 1998, when the New York Times reported the NYPD’s switch from full metal jacket bullets to hollow points, they quoted NYPD police commissioner Howard Safir, saying: “We are, in fact, going to switch to hollow-point ammunition as soon as we receive it. They are much safer than fully jacketed bullets, which will go through a person or tumble through a person’s organs and then continue on and hit innocent victims.”
  • “Assault Weapons” Ban — Democrats pushed through a federal assaults weapons ban under Bill Clinton that lasted from 1994 to 2004. The impact of the ban was negligible at best, and some studies — like that contained in Applied Economic Letters — show an significant increase in gun-related murder rates while the “assault weapons” ban was in place. For example, the study in the November 2013 issue of Applied Economic Letters showed the gun-related “murder rates were 19.3 percent higher when the Federal [‘assault weapons’] ban (AWB) was in effect.” We currently see this same truism playing out at the city level — in places like Chicago — where an “assault weapons” ban is simply correlating with a higher rate of shootings and murder, rather than a reduced rate of either.
  • “High-Capacity” Magazine Ban — Like the “assault weapons” ban, a ban on “high capacity” magazines is a favorite gun control push for Democrats following nearly every high-profile shooting or mass public attack. Yet “high-capacity” magazine bans are demonstrable failures and, as with all gun controls, give the criminal who continues to use “high-cap” mags an advantage over the law-abiding citizen who turns his or hers into the police or governing authority. For example, during the May 2014 Santa Barbara attack in which Elliot Rodger shot and killed three innocents, all his magazines had a capacity of 10 rounds or less. Rodger made up for the smaller magazine capacity by simple carrying more magazines with him. And following the heinous April 16, 2007, attack on innocents at Virginia Tech — where Seung-Hui Cho used 15-round magazines in carrying out a murder spree that killed 32 — a Virginia Tech review board found that limiting him to 10-round magazines “would have not made that much difference in the incident.” Why would smaller magazines have made little difference? Because the overarching problem was a gun-free zone that dictated all law-abiding citizens be disarmed. Therefore, the gunman had all the time in the world to shoot, reload, shoot, reload, shoot, ad nauseam.
  • Universal Background Checks — Universal background checks have been the preferred control option for Democrats and Republican Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) ever since the heinous December 14, 2012, attack on Sandy Hook Elementary. Such checks would require all gun sales — retail and private — to be conducted under the purview of a Federal Firearm License (FFL) holder, who would run the buyer’s personal information through an FBI database to check for criminal background, etc.
    • Problem #1: Such a check would not have stopped or even hindered the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting because the gunman, Adam Lanza, did not buy his guns. Rather, he stole them.
    • Problem #2: The criminals on the streets of Baltimore, Chicago, Milwaukee, NYC, Philadelphia, St. Louis, etc., are not of a mind to stand in line and let an FFL run their black market gun sales through a FBI database.
    • Problem #3: Such a check already exists in retail stores — Dick’s Sporting Goods, Walmart, Academy, Gander Mountain, mom & pop gun stores, etc. — and it has offered no impediment to determined attackers who wish to acquire a gun for criminal use. For example, one of the strongest proponents of background checks is former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, who was shot by Jared Loughner on January 8, 2011, yet Loughner acquired his gun by passing a background check.  And it is not just Loughner. In October 2015, the New York Times did a story on mass shooters and revealed that the vast majority of them acquire their guns by passing background checks. The exceptions to this pattern are those who steal their guns — think Adam Lanza — and the small fraction of high-profile gunman who get someone to purchase the gun for them.
  • Gun-Free Zones — The common thread running through high-profile shootings and mass public attacks in America is not the type of gun used or the color of the attacker’s skin. Rather, it is the unnatural condition law-abiding citizens endure when they find themselves disarmed in a “gun-free zone” by a local, state, or federal government mandate. To be fair, in some cases the “gun-free zone” is the result of a business owner’s decision. We saw this with the Aurora movie theater in July 2012 and the Lafayette movie theater in July 2015.

Breitbart News previously reported that in an 8-year time period ending August 2, 2015, “gun-free zones” cost 105 innocent lives taken by gun fire and more than 150 others injured. Think about it — 105 persons unable to defend their lives because their Second Amendment rights were curtailed. Does this mean all 105 of those persons would have carried a gun for self-defense if the “gun-free zones” had been abolished? No. But it does mean that they could have. And it means removing the impediment to their doing so would have at least given them a fighting chance instead of leaving them trapped in a defenseless posture when yet another criminal ignored the signs that said “no guns allowed.”

SOURCE – Breitbart.com

  • Ads