Antigun

From an Away Game

Liberal Moron: The person that owns the gun is responsible for making sure anyone that touches, or buys it, is not a criminal, and can be trusted with it, no excuses. If you supply to criminals, you get a really long time locked up getting to know lots of criminals.

I’m not absolutely for banning guns; yet am very much for making sure guns are only allowed in the hands of fit and proper people that can demonstrate they can be trusted with them. If we can’t have this then sure ban guns, though I have no hope that would ever happen

ME: If a person can’t be trusted to own a gun, they can’t be trusted to own baseball bats, knives, or gasoline and matches. If a person is so large a threat to the public that they can’t own tools that can be used to kill, then they should be locked up like animals.

LM: All those other things exist for purposes other than killing, a gun does not have any other purpose. It is an extra step for someone to take what is for one everyday purpose and turn it to another, that extra step can be enough to make many untrustworthy person to pause and not do this. (I consider knives that are purpose made to be used as weapons to be killing weapons.)

Yet as guns have only one purpose and are owned and carried with the intent of that purpose, then there is already an established decision to use it to kill with. For those that are untrustworthy the pausing and considering has already been done and has been set aside, the decision to kill has already been made, they only thing needed is what or who, to kill and when to kill.

Trustworthy people have not made up their mind about this, that is the first reason why they are trustworthy.

ME: Funny. I have owned multiple guns for decades and I have never used them to kill anyone. I have used them to target shoot, for recreation, and in competition. For the same reason that I can be trusted to own bats, knives, and gasoline, I can be trusted to own firearms.

Still, how about this-
Every person who has not been convicted of anything that would prohibit firearm ownership has an emblem placed on his state ID. drivers license. Say, a picture of a thumbs up in the corner. That way, anyone who wants to sell them a gun can simply look at their license. Now you know they are good to go.

By Divemedic, ago

Social Justice

Self described “social justice warrior” Monique Worrell beat “law and order” candidate Jose Torroella in 2020 to become the prosecutor for the 9th judicial district of Florida. She ran on the following platform:

Monique Worrell has pledged to:

  • Implement policies to hold police officers accountable for misconduct
  • End the use of cash bail
  • Expand programs to divert children and adults away from jail
  • Partner with community programs to address mental health and substance abuse issues

The voters of Orange and Osceola counties overwhelmingly voted for her. In so doing, they sided with the “Defund” movement and elected someone who is soft on crime. The woman she replaced was removed from office by the Governor for the exact same policies.

The shooter in this case was pulled over by OPD with three of his friends less than a year ago. They had drugs and ski masks in the car. They had thrown at least one firearm out of the window before stopping. If the prosecutor had done her job instead of campaigning for “soft on crime” social justice, those people wouldn’t have been shot.
So, I ask the voters there: Where is the social justice in a known gang member with multiple violent felonies on his record being able to walk the streets and kill children and news reporters? Yeah. Dead women. Dead reporters. Dead kids. That’s the justice you voted for. You are getting what you wanted.

Enjoy.

But instead, as I predicted, you are blaming law abiding firearms owners. Screw you. Keep voting for this shit. Keep watching animals murder your women, your children, and each other. I don’t care. This is what you wanted, and you have it.

Enjoy.

By Divemedic, ago

This Makes Me Happy

A Federal Judge in Illinois ruled that outlawing particularly dangerous weapons, high capacity magazines, and dangerous weapons accords with US history and tradition, meaning that the state of Illinois lawfully exercised their authority to control their possession, transfer, sale and manufacture by enacting a ban on commercial sales, which comports with the Second Amendment.

I love this decision because it doesn’t set court precedent, but is almost guaranteed to be overturned on appeal, which WILL have precedential meaning.

By Divemedic, ago

That’s a Bold Plan, Cotton. Let’s see how it works out for them.

The leftists in the Blue cities want to starve the red states out economically until we submit to their socialism and gun control. The Civil War that follows is going to be epic. Larry Correia cuts to the quick in his usual outspoken style.

Olbermann is one stupid son of a bitch.

By Divemedic, ago

I Fully Support This

In fact, I threw all of mine out just recently. It’s for the children.

By Divemedic, ago

Shouldn’t Have Been There

One of the big arguments you hear from the left about the Rittenhouse case is: Kyle is a murderer because he had no business being in Kenosha. If he had only stayed at his mom’s house, he wouldn’t have needed to defend himself.

OK, let’s play that game. I will counter that claim with one single name: Manuel Terán.

Manuel Terán was from Venezuela. He had a student visa to attend Florida State University. Instead, he decided to drop out of school to become a self described “forest defender” who would protest to protect the environment. In other words, he was in violation of the terms of his student visa, and was then an illegal immigrant. He headed up to Georgia and began camping in the woods to prevent the construction of a new police training center near Atlanta. By camping in the woods, protesters hoped to prevent the construction crews from clearing the land.

When Georgia State Police arrived to clear out the protesters, one of the officers was shot. When police returned fire, the dead body was found to be holding a handgun. Ballistic tests matched the bullet taken from the police officer to that handgun. The dead protester was identified as Manuel Terán.

His mother said that Manuel was not the type of person to shoot at police, and also claimed, “They said he had a gun. If he had one, it was for protecting himself against the animals in the forest.” Except it is illegal for him to have a gun, since he was in the country illegally.

Still, Manuel Terán has become a martyr for the cause in Atlanta. If only he had stayed where he belonged. Isn’t it funny how Kyle Rittenhouse was wrong for visiting his father in Kenosha, less than 50 miles from his mother’s home, but an illegal immigrant is celebrated for crossing a national border illegally, travelling thousands of miles, arming himself with a handgun (which the left wants outlawed), then using that handgun to shoot a police officer?

By Divemedic, ago

Kavanaugh Is Wrong, IMO

This past week saw a huge win for gun rights, in that SCOTUS the Fifth circuit struck down a part of the GCA that was added during the Clinton administration– making eliminating a provision of the law that prohibited persons out of people who are subject to domestic violence restraining orders. AWA over at GunFreeZone did an excellent post on the ruling, and I won’t attempt to recreate that here.

There are those who oppose that ruling and are claiming that there will be domestic abusers lining up to kill their former partners over this. I don’t think that there will be any big changes. Those who want to kill their partners just aren’t deterred by a piece of paper saying that killing someone is illegal, even if signed by a judge. The left always assumes that criminals are simply honest people who gave in to a moment’s impulse, and each of us is equally likely to give into an impulse to kill others. An interesting insight into the leftist mind, eh?

My opinion on these DV orders is that they are bullshit aimed at men in an attempt to give women another arrow in their lawfare quiver. About ten years ago, I was the subject of one of those orders. It was sought and granted without me even being present, with the initial order not even having my correct name on it, by a woman that I hadn’t even seen in months, and in that order she alleged that I did things in stalking her that were impossible because I was not even in the country when they were alleged to have happened.

David Letterman was once subject to a DV order that was obtained by a woman who lived thousands of miles away, after the woman alleged that they were in a secret affair and that Letterman was sending her secret messages using his top 10 lists as a code. Using accusations of domestic violence has become a common tactic for women who wish to win divorce and child custody cases, as well as angry girlfriends who wish to get back at former boyfriends. Men have no legal recourse against women who are proven to be lying.

 Here are the disturbing statistics:

The decision that is the subject of this post fixes some of that. That isn’t how the left, or apparently Brett Kavanaugh, sees it. Kavanaugh wrote a concurring opinion in the Bruen case, arguing that sometimes we have to weigh in on whether or not a law is a good idea.

That’s where he is wrong.

The Amendment says “shall not be infringed.” It doesn’t say “… unless you have a really good reason to do so.” The Supreme Court isn’t there to decide whether or not a law is a good idea. The court is there to decide whether or not a particular law comports with the Constitution. Deciding whether or not a law is a good idea is the job of Congress. All of the authority of the government derives from the Constitution. Any power or authority that the government takes upon itself that is outside of that authority is nothing more than tyranny, an unconstitutional power grab that is based upon the principle of “might makes right” that flies in the face of the principles upon which the “government of the people, by the people, and for the people” was built upon.

There are those who would try and make the case that there is some balancing act to be done, but that isn’t how our government is supposed to work. Thomas sees that. Scalia, although a pragmatic sort of man, saw that as well. Kavanaugh does not.

The left, well, they don’t see the Constitution as anything more than a piece of paper containing words that can be worked around, as long as the words are pretty enough.

Fuck them. Not one more inch. This decision is proof to me that the jury box isn’t completely dead. The war continues.

By Divemedic, ago

Blood in the Streets

My news aggregator turned up this little gem: A convicted felon flouted gun laws and was arrested at gunpoint. When he was arrested, he had three different handguns, as well as a supply of drugs, on his person.

What really struck me about this, is that this story came to me while the liberals of Florida are in the midst of a meltdown over Republicans (and especially Ron DeSantis) pushing Constitutional Carry in this state. The biggest arguments that I see are:

  • that, without a law making permits necessary for legal concealed carry, criminals will carry guns
  • Police can’t tell the difference without permits telling them who the good guys are

What is so disingenuous about this, is that it wasn’t that long ago that they were saying that people with concealed weapons permits are nothing more than criminals who haven’t been caught yet, who will snap at the slightest provocation and turn every contested parking space into a full scale firefight.

As I said in response to the above linked article: There are already 25 states that have passed Constitutional Carry. Crime and shootings in those states haven’t gone up any more than anywhere else. Every time a gun rights bill comes up, the anti gun people drag out the same old, tired arguments about how every car accident will result in a gun battle and it never happens. They did made that argument in 1989 when Florida passed concealed carry. None of it happened then, and none of it will happen now.

What we know for sure is that criminals are called criminals because they don’t obey the law. This is evidenced by the number of convicted criminals who are caught not only possessing weapons, but doing so without a permit. Therefore, we must assume that this law only works to prevent people who AREN’T criminals from carrying weapons. Who would be opposed to a person who isn’t committing crimes carrying a weapon? The answer is obviously one of the following:

  • people who are planning to commit a violent act against that armed person
  • people with so little self control that they themselves know that they cannot be trusted to carry a firearm, and are projecting that lack of violent impulse control upon others

So my question to those people who are opposed to law abiding citizens carrying weapons is: Which of those are you?

By Divemedic, ago