Category Archives: 2nd Amendment

Bob Costas’ Anti-Gun Rant

During halftime on last nights NBC’s Sunday Night Football, veteran sportscaster Bob Costas went on an overwrought, anti-gun tirade that is destined to live in infamy:

BOB COSTAS: Well, you knew it was coming. In the aftermath of the nearly unfathomable events in Kansas City, that most mindless of sports clichés was heard yet again: Something like this really puts it all in perspective. Well, if so, that sort of perspective has a very short shelf-life since we will inevitably hear about the perspective we have supposedly again regained the next time ugly reality intrudes upon our games. Please, those who need tragedies to continually recalibrate their sense of proportion about sports would seem to have little hope of ever truly achieving perspective. You want some actual perspective on this? Well, a bit of it comes from the Kansas City-based writer Jason Whitlock with whom I do not always agree, but who today said it so well that we may as well just quote or paraphrase from the end of his article.

“Our current gun culture,”Whitlock wrote, “ensures that more and more domestic disputes will end in the ultimate tragedy and that more convenience-store confrontations over loud music coming from a car will leave more teenage boys bloodied and dead.”

“Handguns do not enhance our safety. They exacerbate our flaws, tempt us to escalate arguments, and bait us into embracing confrontation rather than avoiding it. In the coming days, Jovan Belcher’s actions, and their possible connection to football will be analyzed. Who knows?”

“But here,” wrote Jason Whitlock,” is what I believe. If Jovan Belcher didn’t possess a gun, he and Kasandra Perkins would both be alive today.”

Instead of guns, maybe we should ban a sport centered upon huge guys ramming their own heads into the heads of other huge guys … you know, traumatic brain injury, and the madness that can follow. Or maybe we should ban a sports culture that collectively looks the other way when players abuse drugs.

Oh well. I could offer all kind of clever arguments against Costas’s calling for the complete elimination of guns. But really all that needs to be said to this dolt comes from a captioned photo circulating in various internet gun boards today:

Report: Obama To Bypass Congress To Ban Semiauto Firearms

If this report is true, we gun owners may soon find ourselves in a world of shit.

According to a report by Jim Kouri, President Obama is considering classifying all semiautomatic firearms as Title II weapons. If Obama directed his Justice Department, ran by Eric Holder, to take this precipitous step, it would mean that legally possessing any semiautomatic firearm or magazine would be as difficult and as expensive as owning a machine gun. Kouri cites a report by gun law expert John M. Snyder. Snyder, in turn, cites “confidential information” from sources within the Obama administration.

Kouri is a PIO of the National Association of Chiefs of Police, and former member of the National Drug Task Force.

Snyder, a former NRA editor, has been called “the dean of Washington gun lobbyists” by The Washington Post and The New York Times, a “champion of the right of self-defense” by The Washington Times, and “the senior rights activist in Washington” by Shotgun News.

If this story is real, it has not yet appeared on the radar of the national media. It has so far only appeared on The Moral Liberal website, at the Before It’s News website, at Ammoland, and on various blogs and message boards.

Kouri writes, “An anti-gun owner initiative considered in Washington could lead to massive civil disobedience and a severe domestic crisis.” This much is obvious. Such a move, which would amount to a ban of all semiautomatic firearms from .22 plinking pistols to large caliber defensive handguns, from Ruger 10-22 rifles to all AR15 platforms, would be banned by fiat. Gun owners – and there are millions of us – would not react very well to such a decree:

“Such a move surely would galvanize the law-abiding grass roots gun-owning American public into opposition as it never has before. At the very least, it would lead to an action in the U.S. House of Representatives to defund if not eliminate entirely the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. To what it would lead at the very most is anyone’s guess,” warns Snyder.

This has done before, albeit on a much smaller scale:

The Obama administration, now safely reelected, may order the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to take the classification step. Some gun-grabbers view the designation of Street Sweeper shotguns as Title 2 firearms during the Clinton administration as precedent for such a move.

Here is a link to the entire story, at the Moral Liberal website.

A video of Snyder releasing this information:

I’m not sure this is completely on-the-level, although I feel confident the Obama administration would issue such a directive if they thought they could get away with it. Snyder said the GOP-led House of Representatives would likely retaliate by defunding the BATF, if not the entire Justice Department.

This is a story we should watch very, very carefully.


NPR: Allow Doctors To Ask About Guns

NPR is taking a shot today at patients and lawmakers who oppose doctors asking if guns are present in the home:

Doctors say asking whether someone owns a gun, and if so, if it’s stored unloaded and locked away, is typically part of a larger discussion they have about hazards in the home, generally with parents of young children.

Several venues have passed legislation barring doctors from asking patients if they have guns in the home. This greatly upsets the Left, who feel that officials of some sort need to be up in everyone’s business all the time. With Obamacare going into full effect soon, doctors are perhaps morphing into de facto government officials. Telling a doctor you have a gun will probably involve filling out a form of some kind, or at least an annotation somewhere – which, thanks to Obamacare, can be passed onto the government proper.

If you own guns, and if you visit a doctor who inquires as to firearms in your home, may I suggest a simple expedient: Lying.

Repeat after me. “Why no, doctor. I’d never allow a gun in my home.” Crossing your fingers behind your back is optional. Saying, “None of your damn business” is a tacit admission, and will probably result in a check mark or annotation on some chart.

I went to see my doctor today. I stepped on the scale, and the nurse, looking over my chart, said, “Oh, my. I guess you had a good Thanksgiving. You’ve gained seven pounds since your last visit a month ago”.

At which point I said, “Excuse me”, showed my badge, removed my 1911A1 from my waistband, took off my vest which held four spare magazines and a pair of sap gloves, and kicked off my steel-toed winter boots before stepping back onto the scale. Turns out I’d actually lost a pound or two. I told the nurse that at my last visit, I’d been travelling a bit lighter.

My family doctor knows I’m a cop, so I’m hardly demure about packing heat to appointments. Even so, I wouldn’t want the doc to know the full extent of the firepower kept beneath my roof. Jaysus!

Since government is taking over the healthcare industry, the day may come when patients are expected to disclose the makes, models and serial numbers of all firearms kept in the home. So repeat after me one more time: “Why no, doctor. I’d never allow a gun in my home.”

Extending your middle finger behind your back is not optional.



Unholy Trio: Gun Control, the U.N. and Obama

This is surely the most succinct, powerful opinion piece I’ve read regarding the threat of gun control during Obama’s second term: Unholy Trio – Gun Control, the U.N. and Obama. Syndicated columnist and author Susan Stamper Brown makes a powerful case that our gun rights are in dire peril:

Remember in 2010, when former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi described how liberals would circumvent the electorate to pass Obamacare? Pelosi said they would “…go through the gate. If the gate’s closed, we’ll go over the fence. If the fence is too high, we’ll pole vault in. If that doesn’t work, we’ll parachute in.” And parachute they did.

Now Obama’s doing the same thing with gun control. On one hand, we have the administration telling us they are committed to protecting our Second Amendment rights; while on the other hand, the president is joining alliances with UN gun grabbers by giving them the green light for the ATT. In the real world, presidents work in conjunction with Congress to pass laws, but in Obama Land, anything goes.

Ms. Brown writes that advocates of the ATT offer reassurances that this will only affect illegal arms sales to places like Syria. But these reassurances ring hollow when one reads that signatory nations to the ATT should “take the necessary legislative and administrative measure to adapt, as necessary, national laws and regulations to implement the obligations of this treaty.” Such vague “legislative and administrative measures” could include banning the manufacture, sale or possession of semiautomatic pistols, rifles and shotguns commonly used by millions of law-abiding Americans.

There are doubts in some corners that the U.S. Senate would ratify the ATT. Prior to passage of Obamacare, a great many pundits argued it would never pass the House and Senate. These same pundits underestimated the machinations Democrats were willing to engage in to institute socialized health care in the U.S. Now, Democrats seem equally determined to destroy our Second Amendment rights through any means necessary.

In the past, gun control efforts have been relatively incremental – upsetting, but not so Draconian as to cause utter outrage. In the near future, we may find ourselves facing actions by our government on par with what we see in other totalitarian regimes around the world.

Be ready.

Another Fight Over Guns Looms In Tennessee

As in all other states (besides backward Illinois), Tennessee citizens may carry concealed firearms in public, with one caveat: owners of businesses may bar customers who are packing heat.

However, a new law being considered in Tennessee would remove that restriction.

Gun rights advocates and big business are loading up for another battle in the Tennessee legislature over whether business and property owners should be allowed to ban employees and the public from bringing guns stowed in locked vehicles onto their properties.

The issue has dominated the legislature’s gun debates since lawmakers in 2010 allowed handgun-carry permit holders to carry guns into places serving alcohol, if the proprietor doesn’t ban them and if the permit holder isn’t drinking alcohol. So far, business has blocked bills that would remove property owners’ authority to ban guns from their premises.

The argument being used by many business owners is that they should be able to control who brings what onto their property. On its face, this sounds reasonable. However, it creates a class of persons – CCW holders – who may not enter a particular establishment while exercising their rights. This is tantamount to Jim Crow laws. Furthermore, a good argument can be made that a Constitutional Right applies everywhere; if the local grocer bars persons from carrying firearms, he is in effect telling them they must leave their rights at the door.

What is driving business owners to object to armed citizens on their premises isn’t so much an anti-gun bias, per se, but legal liabilities. If I am shopping at the local grocers, and a madman takes a butcher knife from the display shelf and charges at me, and if I shoot him in self-defense, either he or his survivors will likely sue not just me, but the business where this occurred.

Given the increasing chaos we see at places of public accomodation, such as malls, defensive shootings are bound to occur, probably with increasing frequency. Business owners would prefer not to be named in the multi-million dollar lawsuits that will inevitably ensue.

So they post their signs, “No Guns Allowed On Premises”, as a means of thwarting that. Gun owners take umbrage, and insist the signs be taken down.

The typical remedy for persons violating “No Guns” signs is that the business owner asks them to leave. Only should the customer refuse may they be arrested for trespass. As a practical matter, the business owner will only become aware of a customer carrying a concealed firearm, and invoke the “No Guns” rule, if the customer is improperly carrying his firearm. If the firearm is properly carried and concealed, the business will not be aware of it. No harm, no foul.

In the event of a defense shooting on a public property, of course, the dynamic changes. While the business owner can argue he took proper steps to bar armed persons from entering his business, the CCW holder now has the additional burden of having violated the business’ rules by carrying a gun.

In a perfect world, the solution would be both simple and logical: write a law that permits CCW holders to be present at public accomodations with their firearms, while including language that the owners of those establishments could not be named as civil plaintiffs should an armed customer fire in self-defense.

We don’t live in perfect world, however – we live in a world infested with lawyers. The Trial Lawyer’s Association is a powerful lobbying group, and not terribly supportive of any legislation that would tend to limit the amount of damages they could collect from the deep pockets of commercial establishments.

It’s too bad one of the victims of the Aurora, Colorado “Batman Movie Massacre” hasn’t hit upon the idea of suing the theater for prohibiting patrons from carrying concealed, and potentially saving lives and injuries by shooting maniac James Holmes at the start of his rampage. On the other hand, had an armed patron corked Holmes early on, the theater would still have been named in the inevitable lawsuits.

I don’t see this issue being resolved anytime soon. We will continue to live in a violent and dangerous society, all the more so because there are businesses where you are expected to abandon your Second Amendment Rights upon entering.

NRA’s Chris W. Cox: Gun Owners Enter The Fight Of Our Lives

Here’s a relevant opinion piece from The Daily Caller: “Gun Owners Enter The Fight Of Our Lives“, by the Executive Director of the NRA’s Institute For Legislative Action, Chris W. Cox:

And not long after Obama floated the idea of banning semi-automatic firearms, we learned that California Senator Dianne Feinstein was working with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to draft new legislation that would ban semi-automatic rifles, shotguns and handguns, so-called “high capacity” magazines, and rifles and shotguns with pistol grips. Reportedly, Feinstein wants to make it illegal not just to sell your guns and magazines, but to leave them behind in your will.

That Obama and his lieutenants intend Draconian gun control during his second term seems to be Big News at the Daily Caller. At UDAOF, we file this sort of thing under, “Really? Well, no shit.”

Winnebago Co, Illinois, Considers CCW

Yet another Illinois county is defying the Chicago Democrat political machine – this time in upstate Illinois – and is considering a Concealed Carry Ordinance.

Positioned at the northern edge of Illinois, Winnebago County joins a Southern Illinois venue, Pike County, in seeking to allow residents of the Land of Lincoln (LOL) to carry concealed.

In the only state that doesn’t let its residents walk around with concealed firearms, a northwest Illinois county could become the testing ground for gun enthusiasts who want a clean sweep for their Second Amendment rights.

A grass-roots movement in Winnebago County is taking aim at Illinois’ long-held position, setting up a possible showdown between gun rights advocates and a sympathetic state’s attorney who believes the effort won’t pass legal muster.

In the meantime, GOP candidates for state offices in Illinois, such as Kyle McCarter, are running on pro-gun, pro-CCW platforms. McCarter’s red billboards, which read “My Gun, My Right”, decorate much of the Southern Illinois landscape.

But just as our galaxy is gravitationally dominated by the supermassive black hole at its core, so Illinois is dominated by Cook County liberal politics. Sadly, the entire State of Illinois orbits Chicago.

How so?

The population of Cook County is listed as 5,194,675. Demographically, 24.8% of Cook County is black, and 24% is Hispanic. Doing the math, I find that 2,535,002 residents of Cook County are either black or Hispanic. This figure represents an awful lot of votes. And blacks and Hispanics overwhelming vote Democrat in elections.

Working from figures in the 2000 Census of Counties in Illinois, I find that the black and Hispanic population in Cook County outweighs the total population in Illinois’ 30 southernmost counties. For example, the aforementioned Pike County is home to a mere 17,384 souls. Nearby Pope County has only 4,413. Even if, for the sake of argument, these counties vote 90% Republican (as do blacks and Hispanics vote Democrat), these counties are demographic drops in the bucket next to Cook County.

But these rural, southern counties don’t vote 90% Republican. Many of the residents are farmers, who receive subsidies from the government. Guess which party they tend to vote for? And many of the residents are unemployed or underemployed. Guess which party they tend to vote for? Here’s a hint: people who get money from government tend not to vote for Republicans.

So, comparing the 30 southernmost counties in Illinois, the residents of which vote both Dem and GOP, to the black and Hispanic population of Cook County, which votes 90% (or higher) Dem, isn’t a good comparison. There simply isn’t enough conservatism in Illinois to counterbalance, let alone topple, the influence of Cook County.

It should be axiomatic that Democrats hate guns; or, more to the point, that Democrats hate guns in the hands of private, law-abiding citizens. CCW is as popular with the Jackass Party as is Jewish stand-up comedy with the Taliban.

And so, the quest for a concealed carry law in Illinois – while noble – is more than a little Quixotic. Unless blacks and Hispanics in Cook County wake up, and convert to conservatism (a hopeful wish, but I ain’t holding my breath), concealed carry is forever doomed in Illinois.

Obama, Romney Debate “Assault Weapons”

At last night’s second Presidential Debate, President Barack Hussein Obama and Republican Candidate Mitt Romney were asked about their positions on gun control.

Obama, while paying lip service to the Second Amendment, and the right of citizens to own firearms for sport, hunting and self-defense, had this troubling soliloquy for the cameras:

But I also share your belief that weapons that were designed for soldiers in war theaters don’t belong on our streets. And so what I’m trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally. Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced, but part of it is also looking at other sources of the violence, because frankly, in my hometown of Chicago, there’s an awful lot of violence, and they’re not using AK-47s, they’re using cheap handguns.

Candidate Romney, for his part, parried by encouraging two-family homes, and “changing the culture”. Significantly, he said that “automatic weapons are already illegal” – a reference to the fact that by strict definition, an “assault weapon” is one capable of fully automatic fire. Civilian variants of the AK47 or AR15, say, will only operate in semiautomatic mode.

But where Romney is perhaps under-educated about gun issues – he talked about the rights of “hunters”, as if the Second Amendment is only about blasting ducks – he is at least educable.

Obama, on the other hand – despite his vain attempt to reassure gun owners he supports our rights – gave the game away when he mentioned pressing for a new Assault Weapon Ban.

The choice for gun owners is clear.


Illinois County Proposes “Violence Tax” On Guns, Ammo

The Moonbat Gestapo in Cook County (Chicago), Illinois, is at it again.

Toni Preckwinkle (pictured above), County Board President of this benighted jurisdiction, today announced a proposal to levy a tax on firearms and ammunition. Their idea is to raise revenue for the bankrupt State of Illinois … er, that is, to reduce violent crime and stuff. The proposal has been called the “violence tax”.

Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle proposed the tax, claiming it would help fill a towering $115 million budget hole next year while stemming Chicago’s rapidly increasing gun violence in light of the summer’s climbing murder rate. “It’s a problem for us in our criminal justice system and it’s a problem for us in our health care system, and I make no apologies for the proposal,” Preckwinkle asserted, adding that shooting victims cost taxpayers an average of $52,000 because the overwhelming majority of them do not carry health insurance.

Neither Preckwinkle nor her co-conspirators have mentioned how high such a tax might be. Past proposals for taxes on guns and ammunition in Cook County have ranged from 10 cents a bullet, to as much as 50 cents a bullet.

Liberals don’t seem to understand that when taxes are raised on a certain items, people who own that item just move away – except for the gangbangers that hold sway over the streets of Chicago, and who are responsible for the surge in Chicago homicides this year. They won’t be moving away anytime soon. Nor will they be paying taxes on their guns and ammunition.


A Psychiatrist Examines The Anti-Gun Mentality

Here’s an excellent article, published at the Ohio-based Buckeye Firearms Association (and elsewhere) about working to change the attitudes of those opposed to firearms. Entitled, “Raging Against Self-Defense: A Psychiatrist Examines The Anti-Gun Mentality”, this lengthy but thought-provoking article is written by psychiatrist Dr. Sarah Thompson, M.D.

Dr. Thompson dissects the psychological defense mechanisms anti-gun people have, determines that it is their own pent-up rage that leads to their attitudes, and offers tools for trying to change their minds about firearms and self-defense.

Most gun owners, when confronted by an anti-gun person, become angry and hostile. This is understandable, because gun owners increasingly face ridicule, persecution and discrimination. (If you don’t believe this, ask yourself if anyone would seriously introduce legislation to ban African-Americans, women, or Jews from post offices, schools, and churches. Even convicted felons aren’t banned from such places – but peaceful armed citizens are!) But an angry response is counterproductive.

While Dr. Thompson’s approach might be helpful in dealing with gun-haters in one’s family, in one’s circle of friends and co-workers, and other fairly intimate groups, it doesn’t seem particularly useful in dealing with anti-gun politicians. Names like Sarah Brady, Charles Schumer and Father Michael Pfleger come immediately to mind. The reason is that the base reason these people want to deny us the means of self-defense isn’t so much irrational fear of guns as it is a desire for the kind of political power that evolves from ruling over a disarmed populace.

Myself, I have very little patience with anti-gun people. I’ll discuss the issue with them, rationally, for maybe five minutes. After that, I usually say something like, “You don’t like guns? Then don’t buy one. Idiot.” before walking away.