One more idiot who has no idea about

what the 2nd Amendment actually says and means, but has a great grasp of bad history.

From Kevin at Smallest Minority on the crap in Britain

One part of it at least.
He returns to the UK. He is visited by the PoPo. He explains that he doesn’t own any firearms. He was in the Land of the Free, where it’s common to own and shoot guns. They go away.

They come back, seize all of his electronic devices (which he needs to do his job in IT) and arrest him “on suspicion of possessing a firearm with intent to cause fear of violence.” After thirteen weeks the charges are finally dropped, but his business is destroyed.

The punishment is the process.

Two:

The wife of a registered gun owner in the UK is diagnosed with terminal cancer. Her husband is an avid bird hunter, and legally owns several shotguns. While is is caring for his dying wife, he decides, for whatever reason, that he no longer wants a couple of the shotguns he owns. He contacts the police to inquire about “deactivating” these two guns. An officer whose job is specifically dealing with legally-owned firearms, comes and takes ALL OF THEM.

Why? Because his terminally ill wife “is a possible threat.”
And as he notes, the hoplophobes and gun bigots here would love to do that to us here.
Which is why they have to be fought, and called liars when they play 'common-sense gun safety' and such crap.

It seems the 'Nobody wants to take your guns!' lie has started around again,

so if you run into that show them this.  Some excerpts:

“Banning guns is an idea whose time has come.” U.S. Senator Joseph Biden, 11/18/93, Associated Press interview

“Yes, I’m for an outright ban (on handguns).” Pete Shields, Chairman emeritus, Handgun Control, Inc., during a 60 Minutes interview.

“I am one who believes that as a first step, the United States should move expeditiously to disarm the civilian population, other than police and security officers, of all handguns, pistols, and revolvers… No one should have the right to anonymous ownership or use of a gun.” Professor Dean Morris, Director of Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, stated to the U.S. Congress

“I feel very strongly about it [the Brady Bill]. I think – I also associate myself with the other remarks of the Attorney General. I think it’s the beginning. It’s not the end of the process by any means.” William J. Clinton, 8/11/93

“The sale, manufacture, and possession of handguns ought to be banned…We do not believe the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual the right to keep them.” The Washington Post – “Legal Guns Kill Too” – November 5, 1999

A: Virginia needs its gene pool cleaned out

B: Some of them wonder why we laugh at and/or insult them.
This level of stupid or lying- or both- is just...

"If your cause is just, why lie?"

is how it's often put at GFZ; the apparent answer is 'because they can't help themselves'.

And now,
On Monday, after receiving messages of support and sympathy over the post, most of which were retweeted by the surgeon, Sakran deleted the post.

The anti-gun rights activist told The Baltimore Sun that he was advised by authorities to delete the post and to cease publicly talking about the alleged threat.
Except
According to The Post Millennial, Fairfax County Police claims they never offered Mr. Sakran such advice, nor has the surgeon filed a police report over the alleged threat.

“The Post Millennial reached out to Fairfax County Police, the local law enforcement jurisdiction surrounding Fairfax Station—where Sakran’s home is located—and media relations officer Lieutenant Webb was able to confirm that Sakran did not file a police report, nor did the Fairfax Police advise him to delete the viral tweet,” the outlet reported Monday.

“That’s just not something we do,” Mr. Webb told The Post Millennial.
Can you say "One more fake death threat/hate crime"?

I knew you could.

They just won't learn

The mayor of Oslo, Norway is calling for a ban on machetes following a series of brutal attacks in the city using the deadly weapon. 
"People are committing crimes!  We must ban objects!

Mayor Raymond Johansen argues that Oslo doesn't have a need for the huge knives because the city doesn't have a jungle, which is where machetes are designed to be used. 
And if you're a gardener, or landscaper, or just a homeowner who uses one?  "Too bad, prole, We have decided you should use something else."

Apparently "Find the criminals and lock them up" is too insensitive, or difficult, or something.

A nightmare for the PC clowns of San Francisco:

Minority people demanding their right to arms.
“Can you imagine if all the Asian people owned a gun and they could protect themselves?” she told me Wednesday, with a lilt in her voice conveying this would be her utopia.

I, of course, had to push back a bit — what about all of our recent mass shootings? Didn’t more guns in our society make those possible? Think of Gilroy, I said.

“The people who shoot at us, the mass shootings, they’ll always get [guns], because they’re bad,” she answered. “Good people like you and me, who have common sense, if we could carry we could come out and defend ourselves.”

The gun bigots and hoplophobes have the standard response:
“People don’t feel safe,” Lee acknowledged by phone Wednesday. But, “we don’t want to encourage people to arm themselves, it’s too dangerous, it’s not in today’s society. We have to rely on the police to protect us, but we want them to do a better job.”
With various city officials also shitting their pants at the idea.

Tab clearing

"Yes, we DO want to take your guns."  As if there'd been any doubt.
Get this:
Realistically, a gun control plan that has any hope of getting us down to European levels of violence is going to mean taking a huge number of guns away from a huge number of gun owners.
I don't think they actually realize what they're wanting.  Or they wouldn't want it.


Interesting:
“The greater the bureaucratization of public life, the greater will be the attraction of violence. In a fully developed bureaucracy there is nobody left with whom one could argue, to whom one could present grievances, on whom the pressures of power could be exerted. Bureaucracy is the form of government in which everybody is deprived of political freedom, of the power to act; for the rule by Nobody is not no-rule, and where all are equally powerless we have a tyranny without a tyrant.”


Is today’s generation of children “the sickest generation”? No.
Although, if you count the SJBs as mentally ill...


According to reports on Twitter and in the media, the man shot and killed by police after killing nine and injuring 27 in a mass shooting in Dayton, Ohio, was not just a Democrat but an open socialist. He also supported gun control, would vote for Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), and encouraged violence against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).


What’s Really Behind the ‘White Supremacy’ Terrorism Scare

This is such a level of chickenshit and stupid,

it's truly hard to describe.
Dear Amy: This week I discovered that my intelligent, hard-working, responsible 24-year-old daughter (who lives with me) is a gun owner! And it’s not a normal gun either — it is a 40 caliber semi-automatic, and she has hollow point bullets to go with it.
And it goes downhill from there, 
I love my daughter and would be so sad for her to move into a place that she would hardly be able to afford, but now I have to lock my bedroom door at night because I don’t know what she’s going to do.
Oh, that's so caring.  I'm sure she likes to be told you think she'll come into your bedroom at night and murder you.

These hoplophobes truly are insane.

We warned the Fudds: they'll get to bolt-action rifles. They started years ago,

and they're pushing it now.  Because
Who the hell needs to hit something, anything, from over a mile away? I’ll tell you who: an Army or Marine sniper, that’s who. They’re selling military-grade rifles to the general public. That’s what this sniper rifle is, and that’s what all the various iterations of the AR-15 style assault rifles are. Military-grade killing machines.
You need to read it for the full, pants-crapping effect that people enjoying long-range shooting gives this clown.

Coming soon:

So of all those "I've turned in my gun!" posts,

there were actually very few.  Surprised?

Considering the media, I'm not.

Let's also consider this from Mr. Williamson:

which will probably cause the authorities in New Zealand to want him arrested for hate speech or something.

Yes, the Evil Party wants to ban everything. Still.

Again.

No surprise, the Evil Party lives by lying, and emotion over fact

Last Thursday the Washington Post published an impassioned appeal from Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) imploring Americans to ban guns. You might think that hearing a senator from Illinois sing the praises of gun control laws to the rest of the country would border on high satire if only it weren’t so tragic a subject.
...
This kind of accusation makes political persuasion and rational discourse impossible: bypassing every single argument, fact, narrative, and alternative course of action offered by your opponent, you make it clear that the well is poisoned. Their motive is self-interest that weighs their campaign dollars against children’s lives and finds the latter wanting.
It's what they do.  Disagree on something touching on women, you're a misogynist; about anything involving non-whites*, you're a racist.  And on, and on.



*I effing hate the term 'people of colour', as Larry Correia once said it's just a PC way of saying colored people.

There's an idiot named Henry Rollins

who has a meme that's basically "Guns are for weak people, you're wrong if you think otherwise."  Which is stupid on its face for a variety of reasons, but Burkhead has his own response for a lot of people:
Yes, guns are tools for the weak.  They are what give the weak a fighting stance against aggressors who are stronger than them.  If you really think that worshiping the strong over the weak is a good thing, I have only one thing to say to you:

Crack open a history book.

If, however, you think that justice demands that the weak, faced with a violent encounter, to return safely to their loved ones then you can’t ask for a better option than to allow them to be armed, to be armed with weapons that do not rely on strength or lifelong dedication in developing skill.
My response anymore to idiots who pop up with "You can learn to protect your self unarmed, guns are bad!" is "So people who're weak, or sick, or crippled, aren't allowed to defend themselves?  You ableist bastard!"

It pisses them off, which is the idea.  I'm sick of them.

Which won't stop the anti-rights people from pushing for it

 However, Karen Kaplan, the science and medicine editor for the L.A. Times wrote a story that argues such gun control would have little to no impact on violence here in the United States.

Australia has not seen a shooting like the Port Arthur massacre since, and the National Firearms Agreement is widely credited for this success. Gun control advocates in the United States — including former President Obama — have spoken admiringly of the law and suggest it should be a model for reducing gun deaths here.

That wouldn’t do any good, according to the authors of a new study.

Mass shootings get the most attention, but they account for a tiny fraction of total gun deaths in the U.S., data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show. Among the nation’s 36,252 firearms-related fatalities in 2015, 61% were suicides and most of the rest were ordinary homicides.

Neither of those kinds of deaths actually fell in Australia as a result of the National Firearms Agreement, researchers reported Tuesday in the American Journal of Public Health.

“Many claims have been made about the NFA’s far-reaching effects and its potential benefits if implemented in the United States,” wrote Stuart Gilmour, a statistician at St. Luke’s International University in Tokyo, and his coauthors from the University of Tokyo. “However, more detailed analysis of the law shows that it likely had a negligible effect on firearm suicides and homicides in Australia and may not have as large an effect in the United States as some gun control advocates expect.”

Most of the advocates really don't give much of a crap about violence: they care about control.  The ones that do care about violence?  When the new law fails to stop it, will just decide they haven't got enough control; "Now we need to control language, because then we'll make the violence stop!" 

And on, and on, until it's all that UN-controlled world in the Man-K'Zin Wars novels, where talking about unapproved history gets you put in a camp.  Because it's bad for people to know the facts, and unapproved thoughts might lead to unapproved actions.

Reason has a good piece on 'assault weapons',

and all the bullshit and lies the anti-rights people push on the subject.  A few bits:
Although "assault weapons" fire no faster than any other semi-automatic, such as a Glock 19 pistol or a Ruger 10/22 hunting rifle, politicians routinely conflate them with machine guns, which have not been legally produced for civilians in the United States since 1986. Prohibitionists like Feinstein argue that "assault weapons" are good for nothing but mass shootings and gang warfare, despite the fact that only a tiny percentage of these guns are ever used to commit crimes. They say these firearms are "weapons of choice" for mass shooters, who are in fact much more likely to use handguns, and claim they are uniquely deadly, even though the category is defined based on features that make little or no difference in the hands of a murderer.
...
Many supporters of "assault weapon" bans seem confused about what they entail. In a widely mocked 2007 interview on MSNBC, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D–N.Y.), who had introduced a bill that would have banned semi-automatic rifles with barrel shrouds, confessed, "I actually don't know what a barrel shroud is. I'm assuming it's a shoulder thing that goes up." Politicians such as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton often say "machine guns" or "automatic weapons" when they are talking about semi-automatic rifles. According to a Reason-Rupe survey conducted around the time that Feinstein introduced her 2013 bill, about two-thirds of Americans mistakenly thought "assault weapons" fire faster than other guns, hold more rounds, or use higher-caliber ammunition. The respondents who harbored these misconceptions were especially likely to say such guns should be banned.
Ah, the McCarthy "I don't know what it is, but it should be banned!" interview, the gift that keeps on giving.  It's rare to have a politician demonstrate so well that they're ignorant fools and/or liars. 


Along that line, apparently Bloomberg came out of hiding and gave a speech that ought to be referenced every time Everytown and Watts mouth off.
Clayton Cramer has some video of Bloomberg Bloomberging. Smartest strategic move Everytown has made is pushing him into the background and using him as a wallet rather than a face. What we need to do, conversely, is make sure everyone knows Everytown is Mike Bloomberg. I won’t mention them without his name if I can help it.


A couple came into the range the other day for the lady's first try at shooting.  Not the most successful, and the sound really bothered her.  Which brought to mind one of the probable reasons the anti-rights clowns hate the idea of suppressors being commonly available: they'd take away much of the scary noise and make it easier for many to give guns a serious try.

More of the Australian Model the left loves so much

...Although the same Victrix bolt-action rifle is marketed in the US as suitable for uses including “military” and “law enforcement”, in Australia the Victrix (and similar weapons) are categorised with firearms licensed for hunting and sport.
Gun control advocates have dubbed the Victrix guns “high-powered and military-style”. They warn that an increasing range of these guns – which still have design specifications that allow them to be classified as sporting and hunting firearms – have hit the Australian market.
 
Gun Control Australia has called for a rewrite of weapons classifications, which the group says are outdated and do not properly codify modern hi-tech guns.
Because bolt-action rifles are just as bad to these clowns as semi-auto, and they want ALL of them banned.

And when this doesn't work, they'll ban ALL knives in public.

or something equally stupid.  Because blaming objects for what people do just doesn't work.
So now the city intends to crack down on knives. Khan also has announced that "patrols have been stepped up with extra stop-and-search powers in place in the worst-affected areas." If London is anything like New York, those stop-and-frisk policies will target minorities and the poor at highly disproportionate rates, without achieving much of anything: In New York, stop-and-frisk searches found weapons a mere 1.2 percent of the time.
Note that Khan used to say this stop & frisk stuff was racist and probably islamophobic.  But now...

And the winner in this stupidity competition:
But that is still not enough for some. John Crichton, chairman of the Royal College of Psychiatrists in Scotland, wants the country to ban pointed kitchen knives as well. "He first suggested the move three years ago," reported the Express last year, "but his proposal did not win enough support from policy-makers. Since then dozens of people, including schoolchildren, have lost their lives as a result of attacks involving bladed instruments."
Because dying of a stab is much worse than death by cuts.  And- assuming you could actually ban pointed knives- no one would ever think of using a grinder(or file, or piece of sidewalk) to put a point on one.

(formerly Great)Britain.  Going down the drain.

I find myself wanting to build an AR pistol

solely because of the people it'll piss off.

The level of ignorance and dumbass out there...

In a thread on Bookface, someone's been insisting on 'ban the assault rifles' while not being willing to define exactly what they mean, in the meantime
Violent crime doesn't really count unless it involves a firearm.
'You can use a knife for self-defense instead of a gun, it's quieter and easier to carry'.
'Britain has almost no gun crime!'
'Australia is the future!'
'Target shooting is not a sport and should not be allowed.'
Basically, take every talking point and bullshit argument you've run across and get them from one person.  It's amazing.  And then she finally 'defines' what she's wanting to ban:
"My definition of an assault/ Armalite rifle or a bump stock attachment is a gun that can murder 58 people and injured many, many more in ten minutes with pauses during firing."
You may note that she has a fixation on the AR.  And doesn't/won't understand that, with some practice, you could do what she's talking about with a 100-year-old bolt-action.

Of course, she wants to ban the bolt-action as well.  And everything else.  Because feels and cares.

Also, she thinks Obama only told eight lies during his whole Presidency.  Believes it with a passion.

It's amazing.