Tag Archives: 2nd Amendment

This. Is. Insanity.

quarter gunI don’t care how you feel about firearms, it should concern you that the people charged with educating children are too stupid to be able to differentiate between a weapon and a keychain.

Yet another student has landed in trouble for having something that represents a gun, but isn’t actually anything like a real gun.

This time the student is 12-year-old Joseph Lyssikatos, a student in advanced math who had perfect attendance last year. The seventh-grader made the mistake of bringing a ridiculously small, silver keychain shaped like a gun to Alan Shawn Feinstein Middle School in Coventry, R.I, reports local NBC affiliate WJAR.

The two-inch keychain fell out of Lyssikatos’s backpack while he was at school.

After another kid picked it up and displayed it to other students, a teacher intervened and impounded the keychain.

And it’s even worse than that.

The Feinstein Middle School handbook entitled “Serious Disciplinary Infractions” declares: “Possession/carrying/use of/threat of use of a firearm or replica shall result in a recommendation for expulsion for a period of time up to one full calendar year.”

I wonder. Do the school officials who handed down the suspension believe that the keychain is an actual firearm or a replica of a firearm? It’s hard to tell which it is from the photo.

Just kidding.

Not only are these school officials too stupid to differentiate between a real threat and, shall we say, no cause for concern whatsoever, they can’t even correctly interpret the language used in their own policies. In my dictionary, and I’m guessing in every other dictionary in America, “replica” is defined as “any close or exact copy or reproduction.”

I admit to not keeping current with all the latest trends in firearms, but I’m fairly certain no one is making any that are barely larger than a quarter. I wonder what kind of ammo that would use, anyway. Seed beads?

Do I believe middle school students should be allowed to bring weapons to school? Of course not. Do I believe they should be allowed to bring toys that no rational person with an IQ over 17 would mistake for a firearm? Why, yes. Yes, I do. So shoot me with a keychain.

Read more here.

6 Comments

Filed under Constitution, Education

And Here Is What I Love About Rand Paul

He is fearless in speaking the truth as he understands it…without the Crazy Uncle Harry vibe I always got from his dad.

Leave a comment

Filed under Washington

Irony Upon Irony

Piers MorganPiers Morgan thinks it’s ironic that there’s a campaign to deport him for exercising his right to free speech under the 1st Amendment

I think it’s ironic that Piers Morgan claims 1st Amendment protection in his campaign to strip law-abiding, actual citizens of their 2nd Amendment rights.

4 Comments

Filed under Washington

Cat-Free Zone

Cat-free at last; cat-free at last; cat-free at last!

As the mice celebrated a new life of freedom and safety….

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics

Bob. Just. Stop. Talking.

Please. Because I don’t really have time for all this writing.

You’re so close to the truth, here, Bob (can I call you Bob?), but you’re blinded by your anti-gun bias.

“Give me one example of an athlete — I know it’s happened in society — but give me one example of a professional athlete who by virtue of his having a gun, took a dangerous situation and turned it around for the better. I can’t think of a single one. But sadly, I can think of dozens where by virtue of having a gun, a professional athlete wound up in a tragic situation.”

Getting back to the idea that you’re a moron, how can you speak those words and not understand what you’re saying? Let me break it down for you.

  1. You can’t think of a single example where a gun, in the hands of a professional athlete, led to a good outcome in a dangerous situation.
  2. You acknowledge that guns do contribute to good outcomes in those situations among the general population.
  3. You can’t think of a single example where a gun, in the hands of a professional athlete, led to a good outcome in a dangerous situation.
  4. You acknowledge that guns do contribute to good outcomes in those situations among the general population.

Do you see where I’m going with this? You’re not talking about a problem with the “gun culture”, whatever it is that you mean by that, Bob, and you’re not talking about a problem with the law-abiding general population. You’re talking about a problem with the pro sports culture.  And when I say “pro sports,” I’m mainly talking about football today and I’m including D1 college ball.

Now, there are many, many fine, law-abiding, upstanding individuals playing pro sports and this post specifically does not refer to them; unfortunately there are also a substantial number who take their own press too seriously. They’ve been pampered, coddled and told they’re special…some of them since before they entered high school. It’s not hard to imagine how they come to feel entitled to special treatment. They indiscriminately father illegitimate children, some of them in numbers that would be comic if it weren’t so tragic. Then, they mock Tim Tebow for declining to join them in their bad behavior.

They’ve not been made to face the consequences of their own actions. A case in point? Jerramy Stevens, a man who should have been in jail for assault but instead was playing football, on “scholarship” (and don’t even get me started on that), at the University of Washington, where he committed rape, but instead of serving time, was drafted by the Seattle Seahawks. And who, a decade later, is still behaving badly.

Maybe it’s just me, but this is not my idea of a healthy sub-culture. And, Bob, you project it onto the larger population. Now you think we need to have a conversation about guns and easy access to guns. I disagree. I don’t think that law-abiding citizens should have to accept, or even consider, any more infringements on their Constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms. Maybe it is time, though, to have a conversation about the pro sports culture and how it contributes to producing infantile men-children who blunder about like malicious Baby Hueys, unaware of their own potential for causing harm, requiring ever increasing amounts of supervision to keep them from harming themselves and those around them.

And that’s a conversation where I think you could add some value, Bob.

2 Comments

Filed under Washington

Bob Costas Still Wrong on Gun Control

Bob Costas laments the fact that he broke his own rule about not commenting on nuanced topics unless there’s enough time to “flesh them out.” Sadly, given more time to discuss his thoughts on gun control, he is still wrong.

“Here’s where I stand: I do not want to see the Second Amendment repealed. … People should be allowed to own guns for their own protection. Obviously, those who are hunters. … Access to guns is too easy in some cases. I don’t see any reason a citizen should be able to arm himself in some states in ways only police or military should — to have a virtual militia [by] mail order or gun shows. Why do you need a semi-automatic weapon? What possible use is there? … Whitlock wrote about a gun culture. That’s what I was focusing on.”

 Isn’t that special? Bob doesn’t want to see the Second Amendment repealed. Good for him! But it appears that he may not be fully aware of the actual wording of said amendment.

“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.”

Bob doesn’t think we need any pesky militias, but that would seem to be the very intent of the authors of the Second Amendment. A wise person once wrote, “Whether or not the ‘framers of the Constitution’ envisioned semi-automatic weapons has no bearing on the advisability of the current legislation. Rep. Kohl-Wells should re-read the 2nd Amendment and try to understand the thinking behind it. The 2nd Amendment wasn’t written to protect the rights of hunters and sportsmen; it was written to protect the ‘the security of a free state.’ Consequently, it should be assumed that the author envisioned citizens as being well armed according to the standard of the day.”

Sorry, Bob…keep spinning.

1 Comment

Filed under Washington

Dear Bob Costas

You, sir, are a moron.

Honestly, how can you be wrong in so many ways? First off, you were apparently under the impression that millions of Americans were waiting breathlessly on the edge of their seats to hear your opinion on gun control.  WRONG! Years of yammering on about sports doesn’t make you an expert on 2nd Amendment rights. Obviously. And if someone is going to lecture me about maintaining perspective, it had best be someone who doesn’t make a living yammering on about sports.

Next, you appear to be under the impression that depriving law-abiding citizens of firearms will magically make all firearms disappear. WRONG! The thing about criminals is that – get this, it’s a revolutionary thought – they don’t mind breaking the law. Mind-boggling, isn’t it? In fact, in the first two years after handguns were banned in the U.K., crimes involving the use of a handgun were UP by 40%. And why not…it’s not as though the criminals were at any risk of being fired on themselves.

Last, you claim that if firearms were unavailable, Jovan Belcher and Kasandra Perkins would be alive today. WRONG! Ace makes the case that a trained athlete can kill a woman with a knife. He doesn’t go quite far enough. It’s my thought that as a 6′2″, 228 pound athlete in the prime years of his NFL career, Jovan Belcher likely could have killed Kasandra Perkins with his bare hands.

Do you know what might have made a difference? If Kasandra Perkins had had a handgun of her own and been able to protect herself from an assailant of overwhelming strength. Maybe then her infant daughter would have, if not an intact family, at least a loving mother.

Three strikes, Bob. You’re out.

6 Comments

Filed under Washington

40 Logic-Based Reasons To Ban Guns

Just one example of a factual, logical liberal argument that is so hard to refute.

No one is more committed to logic and reason than the American Liberal. Take the debate about guns, for example. Who could possibly refute these extremely logical points?

  1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, & Chicago cops need guns.
  2. Washington DC’s low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Indianapolis’ high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.
  3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are “just statistics.”
  4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect in 1994 are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates, which have been declining since 1991.
  5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.
  6. The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.
  7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.
  8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.
  9. When confronted by violent criminals, you should “put up no defense – give them what they want, or run” (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields, Guns Don’t Die – People Do, 1981, p. 125).
  10. The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns; just like Guns & Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.
  11. One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seat belts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for internal medicine, a computer programmer for hard drive problems, and Sarah Brady for firearms expertise.
  12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which was created 130 years later, in 1917.
  13. The National Guard, federally funded, with bases on federal land, using federally-owned weapons, vehicles, buildings and uniforms, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a “state” militia.
  14. These phrases: “right of the people peaceably to assemble,” “right of the people to be secure in their homes,” “enumerations herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people,” and “The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people” all refer to individuals, but “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” refers to the state.
  15. “The Constitution is strong and will never change.” But we should ban and seize all guns thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments to that Constitution.
  16. Rifles and handguns aren’t necessary to national defense! Of course, the army has hundreds of thousands of them.
  17. Private citizens shouldn’t have handguns, because they aren’t “military weapons”, but private citizens shouldn’t have “assault rifles”, because they are military weapons.
  18. In spite of waiting periods, background checks, fingerprinting, government forms, etc., guns today are too readily available, which is responsible for recent school shootings. In the 1940′s, 1950′s and 1960′s, anyone could buy guns at hardware stores, army surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, Sears mail order, no waiting, no background check, no fingerprints, no government forms and there were no school shootings.
  19. The NRA’s attempt to run a “don’t touch” campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, but the anti-gun lobby’s attempt to run a “don’t touch” campaign is responsible social activity.
  20. Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.
  21. A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.
  22. Women are just as intelligent and capable as men but a woman with a gun is “an accident waiting to happen” and gun makers’ advertisements aimed at women are “preying on their fears.”
  23. Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.
  24. Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.
  25. A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population supported owning slaves.
  26. Any self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be a “weapon of mass destruction” or an “assault weapon.”
  27. Most people can’t be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.
  28. The right of Internet pornographers to exist cannot be questioned because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the use of handguns for self-defense is not really protected by the Bill of Rights.
  29. Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self- defense only justifies bare hands.
  30. The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other parts of the Constitution.
  31. Charlton Heston, a movie actor as president of the NRA was a cheap lunatic who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas, a movie actor as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.
  32. Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger capacity pistol magazines than do “civilians” who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.
  33. We should ban “Saturday Night Specials” and other inexpensive guns because it’s not fair that poor people have access to guns too.
  34. Police officers have some special Jedi-like mastery over handguns that private citizens can never hope to obtain.
  35. Private citizens don’t need a gun for self- protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.
  36. Citizens don’t need to carry a gun for personal protection but police chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a building filled with cops, need a gun.
  37. “Assault weapons” have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people. The police need assault weapons. You do not.
  38. When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft preferential promotion, that’s bad; but when the Federal government pressures cities to buy guns only from Smith & Wesson, that’s good.
  39. Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their duty weapon.
  40. Handgun Control, Inc., says they want to “keep guns out of the wrong hands.” Guess what? You have the wrong hands.

I’d love to credit the author of this list but it’s been kicking around the internet, I’ve been told, for at least a decade, it’s hard to say who that may have been. Likewise, I haven’t checked the current accuracy of any of the factual statements.

1 Comment

Filed under Constitution, Politics

Chipping Away At Our Freedoms And Offering Nothing In Return

“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.”

Western Washington is reeling at the deaths of six law enforcement officers in just under two months: Officer Timothy Brenton, Sergeant Mark Renninger, Officer Ronald Owens, Officer Tina Griswold, Officer Greg Richards, and earlier this week, Deputy Sheriff Kent Mundell.

With a lightning quick response – Rahm Emmanuel would be proud – supporters of the Aaron Sullivan Public Safety and Police Protection Bill are using one of the deaths, Brenton’s, to justify the legislation, which would ban the sale of military-style semi-automatic weapons.”

The bill  is sponsored by Rep. Ross Hunter, D-Medina; Sen. Adam Kline, D-Seattle; and Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles, D-Seattle. “The ban would cover semiautomatics designed for military use that are capable of rapid-fire and can hold more than 10 rounds. Semiautomatics designed for sporting or hunting purposes wouldn’t be banned.”

This is the type of empty gesture of which the left is so enamored. It gives the appearance that the sponsors are “tough on crime” yet does nothing to actually stop criminals from acquiring such weapons, nothing to actually increase public safety…while at the same time seriously infringing on the right of honest citizens to keep and bear the arms of their choice.

Yet Kohl-Welles doesn’t believe the ban would be unconstitutional.

She also said she doesn’t believe such a ban would violate the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms. “Did the framers of our Constitution ever envision something like a semi-automatic weapon?” she asked.

Whether or not the “framers of the Constitution” envisioned semi-automatic weapons has no bearing on the advisability of the current legislation. Rep. Kohl-Wells should re-read the 2nd Amendment and try to understand the thinking behind it. The 2nd Amendment wasn’t written to protect the rights of hunters and sportsmen; it was written to protect the “the security of a free state.” Consequently, it should be assumed that the author envisioned citizens as being well armed according to the standard of the day.

I believe that Hunter, Kline and Kohl-Welles are well-intentioned, albeit dangerously misguided. Here is the simple and rather obvious point that they are missing: You can never make enough laws to guarantee good behavior from people who are willing to break the law. You can, however make so many laws that the rights and freedoms we cherish are gradually eroded until…they are…no more.

3 Comments

Filed under Washington