Leftists desperately need to disarm American citizens. One way to so that is to bankrupt American gun manufacturers. So they claim that guns are being deliberately marketed to mass murderers. A judge in California has agreed.
A so-called mass shooting in Savannah. Two dead and six injured. While this seems to support the “mass shooting” claims of the left, this is not what most people think of when they think about mass shooters. Like the majority of shootings in the USA, this is one group of black males shooting it out with another group of black males over whatever gang and drug related issues that they consider important.
Chief Minter said preliminary information leads police to believe this shooting stemmed from a conflict between two groups. Savannah Police’s gang unit was on the scene Saturday. Chief Minter said it could be connected to a shots-fired incident on Tuesday in the same area. Chief Minter said no one in the area could provide information to police about Tuesday’s incident.
It was a driveby where gangs shot at each other. 60 shell casings were found, 8 people were shot (including a toddler) and no one saw a thing. Tell me again how cops are the problem in black neighborhoods.
The police chief just spins the problem, and that is the main reason why there IS a problem, and why that problem will not ever be fixed. Eight months ago, the police chief said they need “guns off the street” but aren’t saying a thing about controlling criminal gangs.
I saw the headline on Slate, and I thought, oh crap. What will this be?
It is a question written by a pair gun owning, liberal Fudds who believe that guns are only for them and not anyone else, it is over the top ridiculous cuckold crap.
They are locked in the attic (which is only accessible from a pull down ladder that even my 6-foot tall spouse can’t reach without a step stool). What do we do here?
This is NOT responsible gun ownership. Your entire idea of securing your guns away from your children is to hide them in a spot where you think your kids can’t find them. As your kids get older, they will find them just like they would find Dad’s porn stash, except that this cuck likely doesn’t look at porn. Here is an idea- as a card carrying anti-gun hunting liberal, why don’t you have a locking gun safe? Isn’t that what you assholes demand of the rest of us?
The advice he gets from Slate is just as bad:
Explain why you have the guns, appease my fears (that you’re pro-strong gun laws), tell me where you keep the guns, and explain how difficult it would be to access them.
Why not do the same with your bank accounts?
How about this:
Me to neighbor: “I own guns. They are locked in a safe unless I am using them to kill small woodland creatures or frighten off some minorities.”
The quote of the day comes from Rolling Stone magazine:
“When safety is on the line, you want the absolute best product in your hand”
Of course, they aren’t talking about guns. The funny part is that some of their advice can get their readers tossed in jail. One of their quotes:
A stun gun, Angorn explains, is an easy — and legal — way to carry protection without having to carry an actual weapon.
So a Taser isn’t a weapon? This would reinforce the belief of some people that using a Taser on someone isn’t really that big of a deal.
Their “weapons expert” is an idiot. Some states, like Florida define a stun gun thusly:
“Electric weapon or device” means any device which, through the application or use of electrical current, is designed, redesigned, used, or intended to be used for offensive or defensive purposes, the destruction of life, or the infliction of injury.
“Dart-firing stun gun” means any device having one or more darts that are capable of delivering an electrical current.
This becomes a problem when you look at the laws concerning the carrying of electric weapons:
(b) A person who willfully and knowingly possesses any electric weapon or device, destructive device, or other weapon as defined in s. 790.001(13), including a razor blade or box cutter, except as authorized in support of school-sanctioned activities, in violation of this subsection commits a felony of the third degree
I am assuming that the readers of Rolling Stone are not any more familiar with the maze of laws concerning the carrying of weapons than are the people who advise and write articles for them.
Watch the first F-16 fighter jets to be owned by American citizens, remember that an American billionaire is building and launching missiles, then tell me how dangerous is it that private citizens own machine guns.
Or does the Democrat party want to tell us that they are the party that represents the little guy, while they ensure that only Billionaires get to own weapons?
This is what governments do when they are unopposed by armed citizens.
Additionally, a bill passed in Hong Kong last week empowers authorities to bar anyone, without a court order, from entering or leaving Hong Kong – essentially opening the door for mainland China-style exit bans – and fails to prevent indefinite detention for refugees.
Don’t be loaded into the boxcars. Armed citizens are MUCH harder to load into boxcars.
Politico published a story that talked about the Oath Keepers having “stashed” weapons in a Virginia hotel during the January 6 protest, as if they were up to something nefarious. The entire trope was put in place by the government and their lackeys in the press.
The reality is exactly the opposite. It is virtually illegal for anyone to have firearms in Washington, DC. So the protesters followed the law, leaving their firearms in the nearest location where it was legal for them to be. They rented a hotel in nearby Virginia, stashed the weapons there with a person tasked to ensure they didn’t fall into the wrong hands, and proceeded into Washington for the protest.
Instead of proving some nefarious plot, it shows me that the people involved were doing what they could to comply with the law. If they were actually trying to overthrow the government, it was the worst plot ever.
The sign is misleading. Chapter 790 only prohibits weapons and firearms in a pharmacy, and even so, law enforcement and those licensed to carry concealed weapons are exempt. Since you are prohibited from carry firearms unless you fall into either of those categories, that particular law is redundant. There are no laws prohibiting a person with a concealed weapons permit from carrying a weapon in a hospital, nor do signs carry the force of law in this state.
Even so, the law prohibiting weapons in a pharmacy does not extend to the entire hospital, just to the portion of the hospital that is the pharmacy. This sign is deliberately misleading, which indicates to me that the SDA church (who owns the hospital) is being less than honest when it comes to this signage.
I ignore the sign and enter with my weapon anyway, and so do the criminals, apparently.