Antigun

Second Amendment Questions

A leftist judge, in an obvious attempt to make the Second Amendment look ludicrous, has ruled that the law prohibiting illegal immigrants from possessing firearms is unconstitutional.

The case at hand centered on Carbajal-Flores, who was “charged with possession of a firearm while illegally or unlawfully in the United States.” He had a handgun in his possession “in the Little Village neighborhood of Chicago, Illinois,” on June 1, 2020. He was charged for being a non-citizen in possession for a firearm.

Question 21l on the 4473 asks if the buyer is an alien illegally in the United States. The law in question is 922(g), which is the same law that prohibits felons, fugitives from justice, veterans with dishonorable discharges, citizens who have renounced their citizenship, people who are under a domestic violence restraining order, and those who have been convicted of domestic violence form owning firearms. Are we to believe that all of those people are now permitted to own firearms?

The court ruled that it is unconstitutional to prohibit someone who has never been convicted of a felony, a violent crime, or a crime involving the use of a weapon from owning a firearm. Think about the implications.

Now consider that this is the first time a Second Amendment court decision that affirms someone’s right to own a firearm hasn’t been protested by the left. Why is that? It’s because the left isn’t antigun. They are anti-people that they don’t like owning guns. Since they love everyone, including brown people, their own security details, and others who follow leftist orders, and hate themselves some white people, any gun decision that favors illegals is something the left will support.

Illegals with guns will be the left’s foot soldiers in the coming Civil War. Picture the military aged males pouring across the border, mostly with military equipment. Now ask yourself what’s going on here.

Now combine that with the man in Plant City, Florida who tried to buy a firearm while there was an ATF agent in the gun store. The agent believed that the man smelled like marijuana, so he ordered the gun store to deny the sale, even though the man had passed a background check for the handgun and denied that he was under the influence of marijuana. In a case earlier this month, the DOJ argued:

Because they are not responsible citizens, unlawful drug users and addicts do not have a Second Amendment right to possess firearms.

DOJ, in their brief for the appeal to SCOTUS of United States vs. Daniels

How is it possible that a person who uses drugs is not a responsible citizen, and can thus be denied the right to keep and bear arms, but an illegal alien, who is neither responsible nor a citizen, has Second Amendment rights?

The answer is simple: your government is at war with you. They are using the law and your rights as weapons against you.

By Divemedic, ago

Propaganda Piece

The ATF gets a puff piece on Face The Nation. One of the key moments in the video that just tipped my “that’s stupid” radar was at 16:40, when they are looking at a Cartel pistol, the woman reporter gets all flustered when the ATF tells her that you can get the Virgin Mary encrusted diamond grips for your pistol, because they are not regulated. Um, why does that matter? What do diamonds on your pistol grip do to make a handgun more deadly?

The ATF’s firearms “expert” doesn’t know how to disassemble a Glock, nor does he know the difference between a clip and a magazine. Then at 19:30, he makes the claim that anyone who walks into a gun store and puts down $12,000 for a Barrett must be a criminal member of a drug cartel, because that’s the only reason why someone would do that, so dealers should automatically refuse to sell it. There is also a SAW on the table, not because people have them, but because it looks scary for the Infomercial they are filming. That’s what this is- it isn’t journalism, it’s a paid Informercial for the ATF and gun control. See for yourself:

The press in this country are nothing more than mouthpieces for the leftists.

By Divemedic, ago

Impossible

Since Canada has all of those gun laws that the left likes to say prevent crime, it isn’t possible that men armed with machine guns tried to assassinate a Canadian citizen by mag dumping it into his vehicle, injuring four. Doesn’t that count as a mass shooting? Even though it was caught on video, there must be a mistake.

By Divemedic, ago

Facts Coming In

This is why the gun banning left tries to get the narrative going on shootings as soon as possible, before the facts are in. With regards to the shooting at the Kansas City Superbowl parade, the shooters were two juveniles and two black adult males with criminal records who got in an argument when one of them made eye contact with another, who began firing.

An account of the bloodshed pieced together from witnesses and video footage found that the violence started when Mays and a group of individuals who confronted him “began arguing about why they were staring at each other.”

Not only that, but at least one of the guns was stolen.

I’m willing to bet they were gang members, but we will never know, because now that the shooters wasn’t a white male wielding an AR-15, the lefty antigun press no longer cares. Now it’s just black dudes participating in their culture.

By Divemedic, ago

Useless Boondoggle

The city of Chicago spent $49 on Shotspotter, costing the city a quarter of a million bucks for each Shotspotter arrest, with the system missing 99% of the shots fired. Even when the system DOES work, it takes Chicago PD more than half an hour to respond to one of their own being shot and killed.

In a city where it takes cops a half an hour to respond to a cop being shot, how long will you have to wait when you call them to report the killer breaking into your home?

Answer: The rest of your life.

By Divemedic, ago

Just for Me, Not You

Andrew Wilkow has a theory that the only reason why the left is opposed to capitalism and rich people is because they can’t stand knowing that ordinary people have access to luxuries that only the important people should have. After all, what’s the point of being a VIP if anyone with money could do it? He calls this theory his “Everyman a King” theory. So what’s an elitist to do?

Advocate for laws that restrict the poor from having things while leaving yourself exempt. Check out Taylor Swift, a gun control supporter.

Now check out her $3 million a year worth of armed security, including hiring off duty armed cops. Even in Australia, she is accompanied by armed guards. Guns are only illegal in Oz if you are poor, I guess.

She is so paranoid about security that she admits to carrying what she calls “Army grade QuikClot bandage dressings” for gunshot or stab wounds. She uses facial recognition at her concerts to help weed out security threats.

So she hates guns- unless they are to protect her. Even then, this airheaded, paranoid moron fires her security guards for doing their jobs. It may be a well paid gig, but I wouldn’t be interested.

By Divemedic, ago

Not Conflict Resolution

The author of this piece is Dr. Tom Hastings, the conflict resolution coordinator at Portland State University. Portland. Enough said, but let’s look closer at his nonsense anyhow.

It is long past time to repeal the Second Amendment.

Why?

To strengthen democracy.

I don’t want democracy. With democracy, 50.1 percent of the voters would be able to legalize slavery. The voters could easily vote to euthanize everyone over the age of 65, or even confiscate the property of everyone who has a net worth of more than $500,000 so that it can be redistributed. The beauty of our system of government is that, while they are democratically elected, our representatives can’t violate the rights of the individual.

Already in 2022, as of Sept. 25, there have been 32,643 gun deaths in America from a variety of causes, including murder, homicide, accidents and suicides. Many of these deaths were in places that attempted strict gun control, including a ban on assault rifles, but were successfully sued by the NRA or other gun rights groups and their local or state laws vacated by rulings prompted by the Second Amendment.

Let’s start with the “gun deaths” metric. First, a “gun death” is a stupid metric. An early death is no more tragic if carried out by cancer, diabetes, being tossed out of a helicopter, or simply beaten over the head with a hammer.

Second, more than 26,000 of those “gun deaths” were actually suicides. A person intent on killing themselves could, if guns were outlawed, simply step in front of a train, leap from the window of a tall building, or overdose on sleeping pills. Getting rid of the Second Amendment would not save the lives of anyone intent on suicide. The fault in logic here is stunning- the left contends that people who wish to take their own lives would not do so if there were no guns in the home. Ridiculous and easily demonstrated as a false premise. In the United States, over 48,000 people take their own lives each year, and there is no reason to believe that things would improve with the outlawing of guns. Take Guyana as an example, where the government has passed every single dream of gun control proposed by the left.

In Guyana, Category B firearms are only available to sport shooters who hold a license to practice for at least 6 months, with a medical certificate, without a criminal conviction, and additionally require at least three shooting sessions with an instructor. Specific purchase and possession permits can then be applied for from a local police department, are valid for 5 years and can be extended. These weapons can then only be used for sport shooting in shooting ranges, never for hunting. Category B includes all assault rifles such as AK-47/AKM, AK-74 or AR-15/M16/M4, as well as all similar weapons, even if they are chambered for rimfire (.22 LR) cartridges. These can only be semi-automatic. All handguns, including those using rim ammunition, are classified as Category B. It is illegal to possess these Category B weapons after the expiry of a specific non-renewed license: the weapons must be disposed of (e.g., sold to a firearms store or otherwise destroyed).

Meanwhile, Guyana has the highest suicide rate of any nation in the world: 40.8 suicides per 100,000. That number represents a suicide rate three times that of the United States. So gun laws have no effect on suicide rates, which are more of a mental health issue than they are a firearms issue. In Guyana, the suicide problem is related closely to alcoholism, not guns.

Civilized countries enact laws that actually protect their children. Unlike every single other developed or large country in the entire world, the number one cause of death for children in the US is firearms. 

Wrong. Homicides don’t even come close to being the number one cause of death, even including homicides by all mechanisms. Unless you consider 15-24 year olds as being children.

The simple fact is that more than half of the homicides in this country are actually due to street gang activity where one gangs are resorting to violence in order to protect their drug dealing turf. I don’t need to go any further- this guy’s post is filled with enough factual deficiencies that we already know he is lying to support his agenda.

To prevent Civil War 2.0.

With approximately 400 million guns floating around US society and an armed MAGA-driven polarization met by an increasingly armed leftist radical wing, along with evermore virulent rhetoric and escalating numbers walking around open-carrying war weaponry in public, half of America believes that civil war is coming. Tossing out the Second Amendment would free legislatures and city councils to begin seriously ending such belligerent displays of combat weapons. 

During Vietnam, the left thought they were clever by asking “What if they threw a war and no one showed up?” The more important question is “What if they threw a war and only one side showed up?” The answer to that is, of course, genocide. Disarming one side allows the other side, still armed, to do with the unarmed as they please.

It’s as if he thinks that getting rid of the Second Amendment would cause the 600 million plus guns already in US hands to simply disappear. Instead, the repeal of 2A would cause many of those 600 million guns to be used against the very people who would be attempting to confiscate them, guaranteeing the onset of an American civil war.

This guy, who is supposed to be interested in conflict resolution, is advocating for the one thing that is guaranteed to cause more conflict than any other single thing that the government could do. Clueless, but the left’s ideas usually are.

By Divemedic, ago

Guns, Crime, and Statistics

I get so tired of people moving the goal posts. Every time you talk to someone from a country which has banned guns, you always hear this argument (or a version of it):

As guns are banned here, we don’t face that reality. Although there is some gun violence in the UK, however, it is very rare.

But does that really pass the smell test? They always put the “gun” qualifier on the front of it. Taking away the guns from the equation doesn’t stop the violent criminals from being violent. It just makes the potential victims defenseless.

The violent crime rate in the UK is 9,360 per 100,000. The United States has a violent crime rate of 381 per 100,000. This means that you are nearly 25 times more likely to be a victim of a violent crime in England or Wales than you are to be one in the United States.

What about homicides, though? It’s impossible to compare the homicide rates of the US to other nations, mostly because definitions of homicide differ between the US and other countries. In the United States, there are three ways to die: Natural causes, homicide, suicide. If there is a death that wasn’t natural causes or a suicide, then it is a homicide. For the US, that comes out to about 7.8 homicides per 100,000 people.

Other nations don’t do that. In Australia, a death isn’t a homicide unless someone is arrested and charged with the killing. So if the killer commits suicide or is shot by law enforcement, the people that he killed are not considered to be homicide victims. This means that we can’t directly compare Australia’s reported homicide rate to the US, because the methodology is different.

In the UK, a killing isn’t a homicide until the crown court has ruled it to be a homicide. There is a substantial legal process to determine cause of death in suspected homicides, and the court must complete that process. If the court doesn’t find that there is compelling evidence that one person killed another, it isn’t a homicide. Since 1967, homicide figures for England and Wales have been adjusted to exclude any cases which do not result in conviction, or where the person is not prosecuted.

In short, the outlawing of guns doesn’t stop violent crime. There is no evidence that it stops people from killing each other, either.

By Divemedic, ago