'Shills of the gun industry' trying to expand 'prohibited purchaser' list

Mr. Codrea, regular readers will remember, is the originator of the statement that "anyone who can't be trusted with a gun can't be trusted without a custodian." In other words, we do not need to designate more "prohibited purchasers"--or even keep the list we have now. We need to realize that people who are so dangerous as to warrant the denial of the fundamental human right to possess the means of defending their lives and liberty are too dangerous to be walking free among society--with or without legal access to guns.

So, Violence Policy Center, CSGV, Brady Campaign, President Obama--join us in resisting the "shills of the gun industry," and stop any attempt to turn more Americans into "prohibited purchasers." [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.

Local Jewish newspaper wants 'conversation' about guns; history not invited

The uncompromising pro-armed citizenry stance of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO) is the only logically defensible--or morally defensible--product of any accurate reading of history.

The St. Louis Jewish Light has some explaining to do. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.

CSGV once again stands against free citizenry, with jackbooted thuggery

It's a point I consider important. Forcible citizen disarmament advocates, like CSGV sycophant Bob Stone, never tire of contemptuously dismissing the notion of effective armed resistance against a tyrannical government, because even with our so-called "assault weapons" (demonized by "gun control" advocates as ultra-powerful "weapons of war" in every other context, but suddenly dismissed as useless for combat in this one), we would not stand a chance. Boston demonstrates otherwise.

But let's see where Horwitz goes next:

Patriotic citizens from coast to coast rallied around our government after witnessing the courageous actions of first responders and law enforcement in Boston.

Watch the video here (and read the article while you're at it), and decide if this is the government we should have "rallied around." Decide if the "courageous actions of first responders"--going door to door, without warrants, forcing families out of their homes at rifle-point, while screaming threats at them, should be venerated as the actions of a government that exists to "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

And CSGV equates Mike and me with terrorists. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.

Bloomberg says interpretation of Constitution must 'change'--Boston is on it

Tuesday's column, specifically that last lesson, drew the ire of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. Among CSGV's herd of herbivores is one Bob Stone, who, presumably extrapolating from his own cowardice, flatly stated that no gun rights advocate would really dare resist government-mandated forcible citizen disarmament, when faced with "a platoon of Marines" (I suspect, by the way, that Stone has neglected to consider how the Oath Keepers will change the calculus).

Let Bloomberg get his way, and get the "change" to the Constitution he demands, and we'll soon enough find out if Mr. Stone is right. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.

Missouri House resoundingly passes strong 'Second Amendment Preservation Act'

The federal government will, as always, resist any attempt by the states to assert their Tenth Amendment prerogative to refuse to recognize federal power that exceeds Constitutional limits, and is therefore illegitimate. Given the history of the federal courts, the states should probably not count on any help from that corner.

Still, though, when it comes down to actual boots-on-the-ground enforcement of the federal laws, and defiance of Missouri's, will the feds' hired muscle really want to poke that hornets' nest? That will most likely depend on how seriously they take the states' (and residents') will to resist unconstitutional federal diktat. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.

My turn to put some bees in CSGV's britches

Sunday evening, I dropped a note to Mike Vanderboegh, congratulating him for having "put a swarm of bees in CSGV's britches," in response to his knocked-it-out-of-the-park speech in Connecticut this past weekend. That speech did not sit well with the cud-munchers of CSGV, as their anguished bleating on both Twitter and Facebook demonstrates. Do yourself a favor and read through the Facebook comments--but don't try to swallow a beverage while doing so--you'll squirt it painfully out your nose for sure.

Today was my turn. CSGV was only marginally less unhappy about my Examiner article today. On Twitter:

Pro-gun activist: "Lesson" of #Boston is militia groups can kill law enforcement, military forces en masse http://exm.nr/13SB2ah

And on Facebook:

A pro-gun activist shares the "lessons" he learned from the terror attacks in Boston:

"If one or two men can so thoroughly shake the security apparatus of the United States, the idea that the Second Amendment's protection against tyranny is outdated, because the U.S. is now a modern superpower, and therefore 'resistance is futile,' is simply not going to hold up. Imagine, after all, what even a small militia group of perhaps a dozen members could do, if the battle were not between terrorists and a country whose people can still convince themselves that they're relatively free; but between a determined and angry citizenry who will no longer submit to enduring a long train of abuses and usurpations, and the government perpetrating those abuses. Now imagine a couple dozen of those militia groups. Now imagine hundreds of them."

Again, the comments are hysterical (both hysterically funny, and literally the products of hysterical bed-wetters).

The honor of being despised by the despicable. They are the gift that keeps on giving, and it should never be thought that I am ungrateful

P.S. By the way, "Bob Stone" left a comment on both my Examiner article, and on CSGV's whiny Facebook post:

“When they come for my gun, they will have to pry it out of my cold, dead hands,” is a common refrain I often hear from the Neo-Cons when there is a threat, credible or otherwise, that the US government is going to take their firearms.

And, when I hear this crazy talk, I agree with them openly. “You are right. They will pry your gun from your cold dead hands,” which I often follow with the question, “And where will that leave you except face down in a pool of your own blood [in] the middle of the street, just another dead fool resisting the State?”

This is not a question they are comfortable with, if only because the intent of their saber-rattling was to imply they would fight to keep their weapons, and win.

Nice fantasy. It’s not happening.

And, to you tough-talking Neo-Cons with your AR-15 rifles and a few thousand rounds of ammo, here is the reality: they will take your guns, and no, all your Second Amendment bluster aside, you are not going to do anything about it. You are not going to take on a platoon of Marines with state-of-the-art automatic weapons and the best body armor you cannot buy protected by armed personnel carriers and attack helicopters unless you choose to die that day — for nothing. You will either be in the country or out, and if you are in, you will stay in and you will comply.

That, naturally, demanded a response, and I (naturally) drew heavily on Mike:

Bob, as great American Mike Vanderboegh often says in response to the same "argument" (I'm being charitable here) you are making, "Do not extrapolate from your own cowardice."

http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2011/04/christian-science-monitor-pimps-saints.html

I have no doubt that YOU would do whatever the government decrees you must, that no indignity would be too much for YOU to endure. That YOU are unwilling to die for the liberty you do not deserve is no surprise at all.

Not all of us are so degenerate, so eager to lick the hands of those who would be our "masters." Perhaps because of that, you will still be standing (or at least kneeling) when I am dead. I will still have LIVED far more than you.

'Gun control,' and the lessons of Boston

What's the relevance? If one or two men can so thoroughly shake the security apparatus of the United States, the idea that the Second Amendment's protection against tyranny is outdated, because the U.S. is now a modern superpower, and therefore "resistance is futile," is simply not going to hold up. Imagine, after all, what even a small militia group of perhaps a dozen members could do, if the battle were not between terrorists and a country whose people can still convince themselves that they're relatively free; but between a determined and angry citizenry who will no longer submit to enduring a long train of abuses and usurpations, and the government perpetrating those abuses. Now imagine a couple dozen of those militia groups. Now imagine hundreds of them.

. . .

And with that final, most important lesson, class is dismissed. Once the people know that they have the power--and the responsibility--to defend their freedom, it's time to move out of the classroom, and to the gun range and training grounds. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.

Enraged 'gun control' advocates unleash their hate, prepare next attack

The gun prohibitionist lobby has always claimed to be motivated by a desire to end violence, and by love of humanity. Some, apparently, are now taking that phony mask off. In so doing, they are also demonstrating the wisdom of gun rights advocates being at all times prepared to defend ourselves. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.

Lautenberg introduces 'gunpowder control' legislation

Apparently, those exploiting tragedy for the agenda of more oppressive gun regulation are not finding enough shooting victims to exploit. Now they need bombing victims, too. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.

Illinois gun-haters running out of time to influence defensive handgun carry

It's time to stop offering concessions. Theirs is the side desperate for a law--any law--because if they cannot come up with something by June 10, Illinois' carry ban simply . . . disappears. In other words, the pro-rights side has very little incentive to meet the mandated defenselessness crowd's demands, while the other side has very little choice but to make a deal, or leave concealed carry essentially unregulated--a notion they cannot abide.

Hell with 'em. Offer a lean, clean, minimalist "shall issue" bill, and tell them to take it or leave it. Speaking personally, I kinda hope they leave it. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.

Rep. Israel's 'undetectable' magazine ban requires new licensing bureaucracy

H.R. 1474's text seems to provide a clue as to how current law would be changed to go after these "lone wolves," while sparing the "legitimate" manufacturers:

`(C) any ammunition magazine, manufactured by a person who is not a licensed manufacturer--

Wait a second--"not a licensed manufacturer"? A license is to be required to manufacture magazines? Firearm manufacturers have been saddled with a licensing requirement for decades, but now magazine manufacturers are to be licensed, as well? [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.

So this is what 'anti-violence' advocacy looks like

Boy, are the gun-haters unhinged about their "best" hope for federal "gun control" going ignominiously down in flames today. Angry editorials in the Chicago Tribune are one thing. Obama throwing a tantrum, like a petulant, spoiled 6-year-old, is also to be expected.

Sadly, though, this venomous, hateful, vitriol should probably not be considered surprising, either:

Senator, May you live to see one of your family gunned down in front of you while you watch the life pour out of them onto the street. You are a coward and you disgust me!

That was David Stachelksi, expressing his wish to U.S. Senator Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) that someone she loves will be murdered, in punishment for her courageous willingness to defy the anti-gun bullying she has endured for months, with her vote today against a vastly expanded federal ban of private gun sales.

They want forcible citizen disarmament, and they don't care who has to die for them to get it.

Boston bombing could be exploited as justification for 'black powder control'

Another possible target of the gun-haters--there has been no word of Tannerite (a legally-sold explosive used to make exploding rifle targets) being used in the Boston bombs (or any others, really), but an escalation of efforts--for which FBI seems to have been laying the groundwork well before the bombing--to more strictly regulate that would hardly be surprising, either.

The forcible citizen disarmament lobby and the politicians they own are opportunists, and high profile death and carnage are, disgustingly, their opportunity. Don't expect them to waste it. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.

'Compromise' on gun rights inevitably surrenders Constitutional high ground

The instant we put Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human rights (such as the right to conduct firearms transactions privately) on the bargaining table, subject to exchange for fuller recognition of other rights--even if on what seem very favorable terms--we have, to paraphrase the joke, already established what kind of Constitutional rights advocates we are.

We have now surrendered any reasonable expectation of respect for the sanctity of our rights, because we have shown no such reverence ourselves.

I will not, to once again paraphrase the joke, haggle over the price of my rights, and nor do I authorize anyone else to do so on my behalf. The price is blood--enough to refresh a certain famous tree. Any takers? [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.

NRA could silence 'gun industry shill' accusations by lobbying against H.R. 1474

He cannot admit it, but his real objection to printed guns (worth a page of its own on his site's "Issues" section) is not their notional "undetectability," but that if millions of us can anonymously produce guns at home, the government cannot effectively disarm those of us unwilling to comply with edicts mandating a "government monopoly on force." And that terrifies him (and others). Good--and by itself enough to be worth the NRA's forceful opposition to H.R. 1474. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.

Rep. Steve Israel introduces his 'undetectable' gun and magazine ban

That would be the perpetually abused interstate commerce clause--the hands-down favorite choice of federal lawmakers who want to regulate something the Constitution of the United States gives them no power to regulate (any federal gun law, for example). "But," one might well ask, "if I print an AR-15 lower receiver and a dozen "Cuomo" mags in my home, and never sell them, and never take them beyond my state borders, what has that to do with interstate commerce?"

That is indeed a good question, and in the significant number of states that have passed or are considering "Firearms Freedom Act" legislation, by which states deny federal power to regulate firearms and ammunition produced within the state, and kept within the state, it is an even better question. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.

Anti-gun Senate bill apparently intended to close 'advertising loophole'

Perhaps more importantly, does any ostensibly "pro-gun" Senator seriously believe that with the "advertised gun loophole" closed, the gun prohibitionists will be in any way sated in their lust for more oppressive gun laws? Are we to believe that when this legislation inevitably fails to reduce violence at all, the forcible citizen disarmament lobby will not shriek that the reason for that failure is that it does not go far enough, and that only "universal background checks" will be enough? That they will not say, as this column does, that the distinction between advertised private sales and unadvertised ones is entirely arbitrary and artificial?

No one believes that. And our so-called "allies" in the Senate want to preemptively surrender the beachhead from which the next "universal background check" assault will be launched. There is a name for such people. There are also consequences. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.

Filibustering senators under no obligation to 'play fair' to protect gun rights

Our Constitutional Republic has suddenly become "our democracy," according to Obama. Suddenly, we are to live under majority rule, while proponents of oppressive gun laws "deserve a vote" and 90% of the people (we're told) agree with them. Should be "game over," shouldn't it?

Thanks to the wisdom of the Founding Fathers, it doesn't work that way. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.

Suppressor reform: New, creative(ly stupid) avenue for attacking NRA

The purported objections to making safety devices like suppressors more easily available are so illogical--so, frankly, silly--that it's hard not to suspect an ulterior motive. Perhaps the idea of deaf gun owners appeals to them. They would, after all, benefit from gun rights advocates being unable to hear--and rebut--the idiocy so many of them so often spew. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.

Use social media to confront 'universal background check' pushers on '40%' lie

One would imagine that Obama--and all the other "40%" liars--should not have had much trouble predicting that continuing to push that bogus figure, while pretending not to notice that some see through it, and want answers, would be noticed. And yet they still keep pushing the lie. Why would they do something like that, knowing that it clearly carries the political risk of damaged credibility?

The only sensible answer is that they think it's worth the risk. That their case for a private sales ban is too weak unless it's bolstered by nearly doubling or tripling the more likely numbers. That's the story that needs to get out: that even the biggest boosters of "universal background checks" do not believe that the truth would justify the law they claim is so desperately needed. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.

Fanatically anti-gun doctor says armed self-defense is for 'wusses'

Dr. Hemenway is indisputably well within his rights to think of me as a "wuss," and even to do his best to convince the public that I am exactly that.

I strongly suggest he not attempt to prove it, though. Come to think of it, he should probably not try to prove that charge against Mary Shepard, either. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.

S. 649: The 'Young Adult Disarmament Act'

One concern that I have not seen raised elsewhere is how this would affect young adults between the ages of 18 and 21. After one's 18th birthday, but before one's 21st, owning a handgun is legal under federal law (assuming an absence of other disqualifying factors rendering the young man or woman a "prohibited purchaser"), but, thanks to the Gun Control Act of 1968, buying one through a licensed dealer is not (and attempts to change that have not so far borne fruit). That was bad enough when there were other options for buying guns.

Under S. 649, though, all sales (with a few exceptions for immediate family) must go through a licensed dealer, who would be prohibited from proceeding with a handgun sale to a buyer under the age of 21. In other words, 20-year-olds, considered responsible enough to employ a superpower's most advanced weapons for national defense, cannot buy a handgun for their own. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.

'Researchers' argue that white males' thoughts on mass shootings are suspect

The Childresses, judging from the Washington Post article and their book, are apparently working through their deep-seated resentment of white men, and good luck to them with that. But they, and anyone else, who argue that one's race and gender determine one's credibility on any issue have no right to complain about discriminatory oppression. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.

'Progressive' CSGV objects to self-defense assistance for the poor

Ah, yes--the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence--champions of "progressive" values, which normally include helping the poor. Not in this case, obviously. Nor do Everitt and CSGV seem to have much sympathy for the plight of women unable to defend themselves, despite their habit of donning the mantle of "Protectors of Women," to the extent that they apparently believe that merely pointing out that a critic of their positions is a white male is a devastating debate point. Everitt certainly does not respond to the women quoted in the Fox article who are enthusiastic about the program.

. . .

The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence should be asked what is so "progressive" about condemning efforts to equip the poor with the means of self-defense. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.

St. Louis anti-gun rally openly calls for subversion of 2nd and 14th Amendments

Granted, the likelihood of this proposed amendment becoming reality is exactly zero, and that high only because a negative likelihood is mathematically impossible. The mere introduction of the amendment in Congress would be something of a shock, even considering some of the bizarre amendments that do get introduced.

Still, to ignore fringe loons like Drs. Garrett and Flood, to allow their insane rhetoric to go unchallenged, is to risk that some day it will move from fringe lunacy to mainstream lunacy. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.