Tag: gun control

A New Hope

At the risk of serious reprisal from the Empire (Disney) as the new Star Wars movie is about to be released, today I present – A New Hope.

Firearm owners around the country have been living in dark times. Self-proclaimed ‘gun safety’ elitists have been attacking the very foundations of our freedom, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They have been slowly but surely whittling away our Second Amendment rights in the name of “common sense gun safety measures”.

Nowhere has this been more evident than here in California. Every year, new draconian legislation is pushed out upon the citizenry with the promise to make them safer. Every year the rights of law-abiding firearms owners are restricted a little bit more. Every year Second Amendment rights are eroded a little further. Yet every year the rights of criminals are expanded, more criminals are released early from prison, crime gets worse and we are less safe in our homes and communities.

But now there is a new hope. While the 2016 general elections were a mixed bag of results for many, firearm owners are feeling a little safer knowing an outright repeal of the Second Amendment, or having it effectively gutted by executive order, legislative action or judicial activism is NOT the priority of the incoming administration.

One of the most critical elements of hope will be the appointment of a new Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, replacing Justice Antonin Scalia. Justice Scalia, who advocated originalism in constitutional interpretation, wrote the majority opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller. This ruling found an individual right to own a firearm under the Second Amendment. This ruling, which simply confirmed the right Americans have understood and exercised since the founding of our country, is based on the original meaning of the words at the time the Bill of Rights was written. As such, Justice Scalia’s replacement with a strong supporter of the Bill of Rights is a critical appointment in the struggle to retain our rights.

But with hope comes caution. The Heller decision was only 5-4 in favor and still left many questions unanswered. The Supreme Court has also been reluctant to take on new Second Amendment cases since District of Columbia v. Heller and the related McDonald v. City of Chicago. Even with the strongest case there is no guarantee the Court will either accept it or rule in a way firearm rights advocates hope for. Each case is heard and decided on its own merit and could pass or fail at any time regardless of the makeup of the Supreme Court.

We must also realize the United States Supreme Court is the final stop, the last court of appeal. Appeals here mean cases have already been through all other courts and this is the absolute last chance for them to be overturned. What we should be doing is stopping the laws before they are implemented in the first place. Repealing a law, ordinance or regulation is ALWAYS going to be more difficult, more costly, more time consuming and more risky than stopping it in the first place. Once our rights have been stripped away, it is much harder to get them back.

During this last election, a group of elitists took advantage of a contentious national election to put their money into vulnerable states where they could spend millions creating a false narrative to further their agenda. With this they gained important ground to base their next level of infringements upon. Each gain they make costs law-abiding citizens their rights.

So while we have hope with the incoming national administration, legislative branches and with the highest court, our rights in some state and localities are being systematically eroded. Each one of these infringements need to be fought, and fought vigorously. At the same time we need to stop the flood of new and diabolical ways that are being devised to strip away rights and make us all more unsafe.

Every elected seat, at every level, in every jurisdiction counts. Every race is local and every vote counts. If you don’t think the people who have been taking away your rights aren’t already working on the next elections, you are wrong. They most certainly are and we should be too.

Bob

#oddstuffing, #anewhope, #constitution, #billofrights, #secondamendment, #2a, #pleasedontdeathstarmyhousedisney, #mewe, #oddstuffing.com

Odd Stuffing Star Wars Parody

California’s New Assault Weapons

With the stroke of a pen, California’s Governor turned all bullet button firearms in the state into so-called “assault weapons”. I say so-called since the “assault weapon” definition was manufactured by the gun grabbing elite and it is subject to change based only on the whim of whatever administration owns it. What was just a normal rifle is now too dangerous and deadly to own – at least not without an additional license and registration fee paid to the State.

For those of us in California, we know an “assault weapon” is just a semi-automatic, centerfire rifle with a detachable magazine and one or more “evil features” like a pistol grip or adjustable stock. Of course, the exact definition changes depending on your geography. In the now defunct federal “assault weapons” ban, you needed two or more evil features, and bayonet lugs were considered evil as well. (I’m guessing the media just never reported on the ravages of gang drive-by bayonetting.) New York, Connecticut, New Jersey and Massachusetts all have their own versions; with Massachusetts recently updating their definition to include firearms with parts that are interchangeable with previously defined “assault weapons”.

California firearm owners now face a dilemma for 2017. Register their bullet button firearms as California “assault weapons” or go featureless. Some are eager to register with the understanding this will allow them to finally remove the bullet button and run their firearm like it was intended. The problem is, that may not be the case. Nothing from the State so far has positively confirmed what will be permissible or even which of the newly invented add-ons will be allowed. What we do know for sure is registration comes with far more draconian restrictions on storage, transportation, use and the inability to sell or hand your firearm down to a descendant. As of now, there is a path to de-register it, make it featureless and as such, transferable – but we’ll come back to that later.

Going featureless means swapping out those dreaded “evil features” and making your modern sporting rifle look a little less scary and more like any other rifle. After all, its just cosmetics and does nothing to impact the actual operation of the firearm. While this avoids the dreaded “assault weapon” registration, it gets really expensive, really quick. Featureless parts or modifications can easily add $100 to $500, or more to each firearm you own. But then, you will be able to take off that foolish bullet button.

Assembly Bill 1663

One of the bills that didn’t make it into law in 2016 was AB1663. This bill removed the “evil features” criteria for centerfire, detachable magazine fed firearms. This would have redefined rifles such as the vintage M1 carbine and Mini-14 Ranch Rifle as “assault weapons”. Good news for now, but you can be absolutely certain this will be back in 2017 or 2018 or 2019 or until it is passed. Note: These firearms are already defined as “assault weapons” in some other states.

Remember that part about de-registering your “assault weapon” to make it featureless and transferable? Once all featureless rifles are considered “assault weapons”, there will be no more de-registering and no more transferring of featureless rifles.

Rimfire

One of the few safe havens of California firearms has always been the rimfire, the most common being the lowly little .22 LR. To date, California’s “assault weapons” laws have always specified only centerfire. Rimfire firearms have been exempt and can have all the “evil features” their older cousins cannot. The question you need to ask is how long will this be true? Consider that the word “centerfire” has already been removed from other states’ “assault weapons” descriptions. Also consider the firearm reportedly used to kill five people in the September 23, 2016 shooting at the Cascade Mall in Washington was a simple wood stock Ruger 10/22. The fact that the shooter used a 25 round magazine will be irrelevant to the gun banners here in California.

There have been calls to outlaw all registered “assault weapons” in California on more than one occasion. That call will come around again, but most likely not until every possible firearm is already included in that classification. At that point, one more signature makes them all go way and turns their previously legal owners into felons.

So where does it end? The answer is it never will. There is one and only one end goal of the gun grabbers; the elimination of private firearm ownership. The elitists in California like to believe they have the higher moral obligation to lead the nation on creating pointless laws that only restrict law-abiding citizens from owning firearms and ammunition.

Each of us must choose how we respond to the new “assault weapon” laws by registering, going featureless, taking our firearms out of the state or turning them in. None of the options are ideal and all just put off the eventual total ban that is unquestionably in our State’s future.

We can only hope that the upcoming United States Supreme Court will help strike down some of these anti law-abiding citizen laws.

Bob

#oddstuffing, #2ndAmendment, #2A, #CAAssaultWeapons, #featureless, #registration, #mewe, #oddstuffing.com

Gun Control Discrimination Part II – May Issue

A while back I wrote about how those who believe in Gun Control also believe in discrimination. Now I want to take that one step further and discuss an even more flagrant discriminatory practice, May Issue.

I am referring to the issuance of concealed carry permits, also known as CCW, CCL, CPL, CHL or other TLA’s. They are government permission to carry a concealed firearm in public and are issued by either a state, county or local entity. This is the opposite of Constitutional Carry, which refers to the view that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution permits no restrictions or other regulations on gun ownership or possession. It is also referred to as permitless carry or “Vermont carry”

Having grown up and lived a considerable portion of my life in a constitutional carry state, I’ve always viewed the need to obtain a permit to carry a firearm with a certain level of disdain. The Second Amendment has always seemed pretty clear.

“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.”

However governments always have and always will insert themselves into places where they don’t exactly belong, and licensing the carrying of firearms is a good example. After all, it’s my life and my family’s life – and if you’re not going to be there to effectively protect it 24/7, why shouldn’t I be able to?

Shall Issue vs. May Issue

Shall Issue jurisdictions require a permit or license to carry, however the applicant generally only has to meet certain objective criteria, such as submitting fingerprints for a background check, to be free of disqualifying criminal or mental health issues and passing a firearms training class or qualification. Note that there are fees for all of these steps.

May Issue jurisdictions on the other hand impose additional, non-objective criteria, which include justifying the ‘need’ to carry a firearm beyond that of simple self-defense. Applicants must show this ‘good cause’ is above and beyond the level of protection currently offered by law enforcement in the area. In addition to training classes and qualifications, May Issue jurisdictions also typically impose additional psychological testing requirements. These add to the cost and time commitment required to obtain the permit and serves as yet another barrier to those who cannot afford it.

May Issue criteria tends to be more arbitrary than not. Since the determining authority has the full, ultimate and non-appealable discretion of who gets a permit and who does not, the deciding factors are purposefully nebulous. What is ruled a valid reason for one person, may not be considered for another. Many May Issue jurisdictions liberally issue to some but not to others. Even the most restrictive jurisdictions, the ones where the normal citizen is flat out told no before they even apply – or who won’t even accept an application – do in fact issue to a select few. Typical among these are the wealthy, famous and close family and friends of the issuing authority.

So what is the difference between a simple self-defense need and a ‘good cause’ self-defense need? That is usually the million-dollar question. The ONLY reason why anyone, including law enforcement and everyone other than criminals, carries a firearm is for self-defense. The average citizen can be a victim of violent crime at any time, in any place and their expected response under May Issue is to call local law enforcement that may be minutes away, at the absolute best, and only if someone else is able to call them.

Then there is the argument that having more people carrying firearms will make all citizens less safe and put law enforcement in more danger. Having been a citizen and law enforcement officer in a Constitutional Carry state I can tell you flat out that this is not true. The only impact is the criminals don’t know who is and who isn’t able to defend themselves. In other words, it’s a deterrent to crime.

It boils down to who is entitled or is privileged enough to be able to defend their lives. The wealthy, famous or connected justify it by saying they are more of a target for crime than others. While they may attract more attention to themselves, they are also in a position to have more personal protection barriers than the average citizen and are actually less of a potential target.

The most likely target of crime is always going to be the most disadvantaged in the community. Without the financial or political clout to obtain a permit, they are denied the most effective means to defend their lives and their family’s lives.

Denying that a basic right to self-defense exists in the name of ‘keeping everyone safer’ separates the haves and have-nots. You don’t have a higher level of ‘need’ simply because of who you are, what you do or whom you know. Personal safety and security is everyone’s right and May Issue is simply another discriminatory system to keep the privilege in the hands of a select few.

Bob

#oddstuffing, #self-defense, #2ndamendment, #constitution, #Vermont-carry, #discrimination, #mayissue, #mewe, #oddstuffing.com

Gun Control Equals Discrimination

Here is my bold statement of the week. If you believe in gun control, you believe in discrimination.

The whole concept of gun control is to keep guns out of the hands of someone else. In order to do this, you have to have people WITH guns in the first place. These chosen people will be the only ones allowed to have guns. You, as someone who won’t have guns, will be safer because only THEY will have guns. At least that’s what you’re told.

So what’s wrong with this progressive utopian dream? Well, to start off with gun control only takes firearms from the lawful citizens. It never has and never will take firearms away from criminals. Remember, the definition of criminal is someone who doesn’t obey the law. Why in the world would you believe adding more laws about not owning firearms would take firearms away from people who don’t obey the law in the first place? Guns are their tools of the trade and, with lawful citizens not being able to own firearms, it makes their job all the easier.

If you think new gun control laws are going to make it harder for criminals to get them, think again. Smugglers move tons upon tons of drugs and goods into and out of this and every other country every day of the week. Firearms of every description are already part of program. Don’t believe it? Take a look at how many firearms the London UK police or law enforcement in Australia seize every day. These aren’t World War II relics someone dug out of grandpa’s old Army footlocker. These are state of the art, modern semi and full automatic firearms being brought in to feed the criminal demand. How is making this a little bit more illegal than it already is going to change this?

And let’s take a look at who is promoting this gun control agenda, a close-knit group of politicians and ultra-wealthy elitists. The political gun control extremists have police and federal agents to protect them 24/7. At home, traveling or making appearances in public, law enforcement officers we pay for guard them. The economic elite employ private security companies drawn from the ranks of the best police, federal agencies and the military. They are well trained and well armed to keep the elite safe. These are the people telling you you will be safer unarmed.

Who isn’t safer with more gun control? You and everyone else that can’t afford the privilege of having armed security protect them. Your publicly sponsored protection is the law enforcement agency of wherever-you-are-at-the-time. They will respond to your call for help after something bad has happened to you as quickly as possible, anywhere from a few minutes to an hour or more.

The more economically disadvantaged you are, the less likely you’ll be able to defend yourself and the more likely you are to be victimized. Firearms, or any force multiplier for that matter, are costly. Add in ammunition and training and you’ve got a very expensive entry point into self-defense. Now add in the additional government imposed transfer, license and permit fees, special “gun violence prevention” fees and “anti-gun violence” taxes on ammunition and you’ve essentially priced the right to effective self-defense out of the hands of people who need it the most.

Politicians often say they ‘stand with the people’ when in reality they stand with them just long enough to ask for their money and votes – and only at arms length with their armed security in between. Once the election is over the closest the ‘people’ get to them is seeing their motorcade speed by on the way to meet with the other elites.

You are responsible for your own safety at home, at work, traveling, shopping or out for a walk with your family. Allowing a group of political and economic elite to take away your right to self-defense, a privilege they enjoy and will never give up, is wrong. Being wealthy or politically connected shouldn’t be the deciding factor in whether or not you can defend yourself.

Your safety, your life, your family’s life may mean nothing to them but it means everything to you. If you aren’t fighting to defend your rights today, you may not be able to defend your life tomorrow.

Bob

#oddstuffing, #guncontrolequalsdiscrimination, #gunvote, #2ndamendment #mewe, #oddstuffing.com

If It Saves Just One Child’s Life…

It’s the ultimate tug-at-the-heart gun control argument. If it saves just one child’s life, isn’t it worth it? How could any intelligent, caring, common-sense person disagree with anything proposed under such an umbrella? After all, it’s for the children!!! Well, I guess I’m just a despicable human being since I disagree.

Let’s say for just a moment that we comply and implement every one of the gun control elitists’s draconian, anti-constitutional measures. This would include, but not be limited to, a complete ban on so-called “assault-weapons”, semi-automatic and pump operated firearms, “high capacity” magazines and handguns. Bolt-action hunting rifles and single-shot shotguns, all that are legitimately needed for hunting can be kept with a license, for now, since the government respects the Second Amendment. Australian-style buybacks (a.k.a. confiscations) are implemented and “Mr and Mrs America turn ’em all in” is the new law of the land. What then?

First, let’s look at what this will accomplish. Law-abiding citizens will turn in their previously legal firearms for mass destruction. Very few firearms will be in the hands of the civilian population and those that remain, along with restricted quantities of ammunition, will be under strict regulations for storage, transportation and use. The days of carrying or keeping a firearm for personal protection will be gone. We will save that one child’s life.

But what about the criminals, gang bangers, thugs, hoodlums and terrorists? The law now says no one can own firearms, certainly they will comply, right? Umm.. No. These are people who, by the very definition of them do not follow the law. They have never been able to legally own firearms or ammunition and their use in criminal activity breaks even more laws. They now enjoy a government imposed armed advantage over every single law-abiding citizen in this country. What in god’s green earth would make anyone believe they would willingly give up the tools of their trade when they know the incredible advantage they have gained against their intended victims?

Well, at least the supply chain of guns will be shut off now and they won’t be able to get any more, right? Umm.. No. Every day, tons and tons and tons of illegal merchandise is smuggled into this county. Everything from drugs to jeans to electronics to automobiles to people. How are firearms going to be a problem? It already happens today, packed in right along with everything else. And we aren’t alone here. Australia and the United Kingdom, whose gun control models our elitists seek to emulate, have HUGE illegal firearm smuggling problems. It just isn’t part of the narrative we are told to believe. Take a look at what the London police confiscate every single day to see how ineffective a ban would be for criminals.

Certainly violent crime will drop and we will all be safer, right? Umm.. No. Criminals, who have long since lost their fear of the law, law enforcement and the courts, have really had only one obstacle left, an armed citizenry. With this obstacle removed, very little stands in their way. Again, go to the most gun controlled countries around the world and see what their violent crime rate is.

But what of the police you say? They will protect us, right? Umm.. No. You’ve heard the phrase “when seconds count, the police are only minutes away”? Even with a vastly increased police presence, demanded by an ever increasingly victimized populace, the best police response is going to be minutes away at best at any given time.

Try this simulation if you would. Do burpees or run in place while holding your breath for two minutes to simulate fighting for your life. Assuming someone called for help the instant you were attacked AND the police can take the call, dispatch an officer and the officer arrives in that two minutes, you’ll be just fine, right? Umm.. No. All this assumes the most ideal circumstances which sadly, will never apply to you. It also assumes you were not shot, stabbed, strangled, poisoned, folded, spindled, mutilated, stapled or paper clipped in the process by someone who really doesn’t care about your life or anyone else’s.

So why do I disagree? Because if we decide to trash the Constitution and Bill of Rights with the promise to save that one child’s life, we will sacrifice scores more in cities and towns all across the country. No, I’m not saying it’s acceptable to lose a single child’s life or that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one. But how do you justify sacrificing so many for the hope, the dream, the fantasy, of saving just one?

How many children would grow up without parents because the parents couldn’t protect themselves? How many wives and husbands would lose their partners because they were not allowed a means of defense? How many parents would lose their children because they are not allowed to keep them safe?

Yes, let’s save that one child by not letting someone else decide who lives and who dies.

Bob

#oddstuffing, #2ndamendment, #constitution, #billofrights, #tosaveonechildslife, #notavictim, #mewe, #oddstuffing.com

A Fight Worth Losing

I read an article recently that really disturbed me. The gun control / ban elitists were predicting a clean sweep of new gun control initiatives in Maine, Washington and Nevada during this year’s general election. Much of the success they were attributing to the massive amount of money they had poured into these initiatives compared to that of the national gun rights groups. Funding here had all but dried up for fights that were not considered winnable.

I find this disturbing because without the support of larger state and national organizations, it is nearly impossible for local grassroots groups to successfully fight off the extremely well funded and well organized national gun control / ban elitists who are systematically chipping away at their rights. Propped up by billionaires who have no interest in the Bill of Rights for anyone other than themselves, they are pouring millions into these states to buy all the votes they can.

The people living in these states are fighting for their core constitutional rights, and eventually for their actual lives as they are faced with losing their ability to defend themselves and their families. Why are these fights not worth fighting?

I understand the realities of national politics and that appearance is everything. Appearing invincible can dissuade others from fighting you in the first place. However I also understand that an advantage not used is a disadvantage.

I am reminded of a story from my past; a K-9 officer with a new drug detection dog. When called to assist another department with a vehicle stop or search, he would not deploy his dog unless he first evaluated the circumstances and was completely convinced a hit by his dog would produce the desired contraband. He explained he was protecting his dog’s stats so they would be more solid for future court cases. With this approach, his dog had an impeccable search record. The unintended consequences however were that other officers would not call for K-9 search assistance when he was working. A powerful advantage that could have been used in a wide range of situations was not in order to protect a reputation.

We can’t always pick and choose the fights we fight. Sometimes they are thrust upon us and we have no choice but to fight the best we can. More than a few of us can recall a time in our lives where we walked into a situation and quickly realized – yup, I’m gonna get my ass kicked today. Bloodied and bruised, most of us survive these things and wind up a little stronger and wiser because of it.

But what about fights that involve others? Here we have more than just our own flesh or reputation to think about, we have to consider what the fight means for them. We fight to help those who cannot win alone. We combine our efforts and fight side-by-side. Tested by adversity, we forge alliances that might never have been possible and become stronger together.

Not fighting can have far more consequences beyond losing the single battle we avoid. It demoralizes those who are committed to the cause and can set up a series of future defeats when our adversary no longer sees us as a threat to their cause. This is what we are witnessing in Maine, Washington and Nevada. Small victories on prior campaigns exposed weakness that are now being exploited to take even more rights away from law abiding firearm owners.

No one goes into a fight intending to lose and let’s face it no one likes to lose. But sometimes, the fight is more important than the outcome. Sometimes fighting the good fight and losing is better in the long term than the victory would have been. Our history is full of tragic losses that inspired and invigorated populations to be better and stronger than they ever thought possible.

In 430 BC, King Leonidas lead a combined Greek city-state force of roughly 7,000 men, including his infamous 300 Spartans to stop Xerxes Persian army estimated in the hundreds of thousands. After holding the Persians for seven days, three of them in combat at Thermopylae, Leonidas learned he was being flanked and dismissed the vast majority of his troops, remaining to cover their retreat. While nearly all that remained were killed, Leonidas’s fight turned out to be critical to the eventual defeat of the Persian army the following year. His response to the Persian king’s demands for his weapons remains as inspirational for us today as it was then; Molon Labe – Come and take them.

With the lack of support from state and national organizations during the recent unsuccessful Veto Gunmageddon ballot measure signature drive in California, I’ve heard a lot of patriots denouncing these groups’ inaction and cancelling their memberships. This is a sad and not entirely unexpected result of feeling like someone you support is not supporting you in a time of urgent need. Even though we all have the same goals, the lack of cohesion and cooperation on these critical local and state issues only serves to further fracture the firearms community and set us all up for more losses at a time when we should be working together.

Wanting to win every fight is natural, but sometimes you have no choice but to fight the fight you are handed. Sometimes the fight itself is the prize and the unity it creates, the community it inspires, the passion it invokes in others is worth far more than the cost of not winning. Sometime, it really is a fight worth losing.

Bob

#oddstuffing, #2ndamendment, #constititution, #billofrights, #Thermopylae, #molonlabe, #wearesparta! #mewe, #oddstuffing.com

The Cost of National Gun Control

You probably didn’t see the story this summer of 11 family members who were slayed in their home by an alleged rapist seeking revenge against the victim whose complaint had incarcerated him. Among the victims were two girls eight and nine years old as well as a pregnant woman. The family members were each shot multiple times and slashed, and it appeared the suspects attempted to decapitate one of them.

Why didn’t you see this story? The cold-blooded murders occurred in hamlet of San Jose El Mirador, Coxcatlan, in the central state of Puebla, Mexico. It is located a little southeast of the capital, Mexico City.

Why do we care about what happens in another country? Other than the horrible loss of human life at the hands of despicable, sub-human individuals, it’s a precautionary tale for the rest of the world.

When the United States government and gun control activists compare “gun violence” rates, they pick and choose the countries they include so as to make the US look worse in comparison. They call this exclusive list the “advanced” or “industrialized” countries. Our neighbor to the south is not on this list. For reference, when looking at worldwide violent death rates, Mexico ranks 15th and the United States ranks 85th out of 172 nations.

Apparently Mexico, who continues to capture more and more of the United States’ manufacturing in automotive, both in components and assembled vehicles, machinery, medical and electronic equipment, plastics, iron and steel products, isn’t advanced or industrialized enough to be part of the comparison. In reality, it’s because Mexico’s gun control environment is a textbook case of failure.

Mexico does recognize the right to keep and bear arms as a constitutional right under Article 10 of the Mexican Constitution of 1857. However, numerous revisions throughout its history have restricted this right nearly out of existence. Openly carrying a firearm or carrying a concealed firearm is virtually forbidden to private citizens unless authorized by Secretariat of National Defense. Personal protection firearms, up to nine long guns and one handgun, are only permitted in the residence, only when registered by the federal government and only of the type and caliber permitted by law. Separate special permits must be obtained to have a firearm in a place of business and to transport it between locations.

Is this beginning to sound familiar?

There is one and ONLY ONE place to legally purchase firearms and ammunition in Mexico. It is the Directorate of Arms and Munitions Sales operated by the Mexican military on a secure base in Mexico City. As a result of the extraordinarily tight gun control laws for legal possession, very few Mexican citizens are able to obtain the permits or travel to this one legal store to purchase them.

Of course this has had no impact on the criminal possession of firearms. Smuggled into the country, the black market trade in firearms creates an abundant illicit supply. While the United States is often blamed for the proliferation of illegal firearms, including those allowed to come in from our own government, they come from every corner of the world and include such items as rocket propelled grenades (RPGs) and full automatic rifles and pistols. Despite the rhetoric, these are not items you can pick up at any local shop in Phoenix.

Following the United States narrative for ever restrictive gun control measures, in August 2016 at the Second Conference of States Parties to the Arms Trade Treaty of the United Nations, the Foreign Minister of Mexico called on the US to implement a new “assault weapons” ban. She blamed Mexico’s rampant gun crime on the lax US laws citing the absence of a ban on “assault weapons”. She even parroted the US government myth that in the US it is “as easy to get guns as it is to get a liter of milk or a box of cereal.”

Disarming the law-abiding citizen is never, ever going to disarm the criminals. Its only effect is to transform the people into a population of victims. No matter how big or how well armed the government is, it will never be able to prevent the violence or reduce the death toll caused by disarming the people.

While you think about the ongoing deterioration of your own Second Amendment rights, take a moment to think about the victims around the world who are not able to defend themselves and are not among those as being important enough to protect themselves.

Bob

#oddstuffing, #2ndamendment, #thecostofguncontrol, #mexico, #victimsofviolence, #mewe, #oddstuffing.com

Gun Control vs. Suicide Prevention

The topic of suicide is always a dicey one between gun control and gun rights advocates. The gun control lobby point to the firearm and say the “gun” is the cause. Any mention of the topic by gun rights groups is labeled as being insensitive towards human life. As such, it tends to be the forbidden topic. I disagree. It’s time to grab hold of that highly charged third rail and do something about it.

The gun control lobby has forever included suicide numbers in their counts of “gun violence victims”. They’ve also infamously included mass shooting perpetrators who took their own life after killing others or were lawfully killed by law enforcement. Why wouldn’t they, it increases the numbers. However I don’t see an individual taking their own life and an act of violence towards another person – by any means – as being the same thing. One is done voluntarily to one’s self, the other is done involuntary to another.

First of course there is the argument that the easy availability of firearms in this country as why individuals kill themselves. One would think that the United States, with the highest percentage of firearms owners in the world, would have the highest suicide rate. In fact we are tied for 50th with Uruguay. Many of the countries with higher rates, such as Japan at 17th, highly restrict or outlaw civilian firearm ownership. Eliminating one mechanism, a firearm, is going to have no impact on the suicide rate. Other means will always be found.

Here’s my admittedly non-professional opinion. Suicide is a societal AND a mental health issue.

As a culture we too often look at life as being disposable. While suicide may not be accepted, it is tolerated, considered morally responsible or even honorable at times. Sadly, fighting this philosophy is the most difficult task we face.

There are many stimuli that can lead individuals down a path to take their own life. Depression, a primary cause from any number of sources, is generally treatable. However the way we view mental health and depression can be a roadblock in treatment and prevention. Just the shame of seeking help for a mental health “issue” can keep people from seeking the help they need. Just mentioning depression to a health care professional can initiate scrutiny from many levels and include heavy doses of medication and the potential to lose your job or rights and privileges that are a necessary part of our daily lives. By stigmatizing any form of assistance, we make the problem worse and lose lives we might otherwise be able to save.

As of 2014, nearly half of all suicides in the United States used firearms and about two thirds of firearm fatalities were suicide. But it doesn’t have to be this way.

This past week, September 5th – 8th was National Suicide Prevention Week. Together with the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention (AFSP), the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) announced a pilot program, involving community-based AFSP chapters in four states. This is the first time a national suicide organization has collaborated with firearm retailers, range owners and the firearm-owning community about suicide prevention. There are also other partnership programs in Washington, Vermont and other states bringing together mental health professionals and retailers to help identify those at risk and get them the help they need.

Will this effort eliminate all suicides? No, of course not. Not all suicides involve individuals purchasing firearms as a prelude to the act and in no way does removing one method eliminate all others. What it does do is get more training, more awareness and more resources available to those who may be able to intervene in their shops or elsewhere in the community.

One would think the gun control / gun elimination folks, who claim to be interested in saving lives, would have been all over National Suicide Prevention Week. Instead, they focus on one thing – more gun control. Eliminate the gun, eliminate the problem. They just want to remove the one item they don’t like and bury their head in the sand for every other means. Perhaps lives lost to other means are less important to them.

Eliminating firearms doesn’t remove the issue from our society or our minds. Instead we need to remove the stigma of mental health and change the way our society treats lives. All lives… yes, ALL lives matter.

Bob

#oddstuffing, #2ndAmendment, #suicidepreventionweek, #nssf, #afsp, #afsp.org, #alllivesmatter, #mewe, #oddstuffing.com

Veto Gunmageddon – Getting Your Rights Back

For those who are paying attention to California gun laws, it’s time to get your rights back.

A quick review: On July 1st, California’s Governor signed six draconian gun control laws, then quickly fled the country. After his return, he signed one more. ALL of these laws target law abiding firearm owners and their legally owned firearms. NONE target criminals or have anything to do with criminal behavior or making anyone except the criminals safer. The one bill presented to him that would have targeted criminal behavior, he vetoed. Welcome to Kalifornistan.

These news laws are:

  •  Expands the definition of “assault weapons” and ban their sale or transfer (AB-1135, SB-880)
  •  Requires an ID and background check to purchase ammunition (SB-1235)
  •  Keeps records of gun owner’s ammunition purchases (SB-1235)
  •  Requires a background check to loan a firearm to someone other than a close family member (AB-1511)
  •  Bans possession of ammunition magazines that accept more than 10 rounds. (SB-1446)
  •  Makes it a misdemeanor to knowingly make a false report that a firearm has been lost or stolen (AB-1695)
  •  Requires a serial number on all firearms (AB-857)

Enter Carlsbad CA businessman Barry Bahrami and Veto Gunmageddon. Bahrami started Veto Gunmageddon to bring back the firearms rights to the law-abiding citizens of California. Seven referendums were created, one for each oppressive new law.

This is a referendum process and will be an up or down vote for the gun control measures signed this year. Each of these referendums needs 365,880 valid signatures to qualify for the ballot. If the signatures are received by August 29, 2016, the referendums will be placed on the November 8, 2016 general election ballot. If the signatures are received by September 29, 2016, the referendums will qualify for the November 2018 general election.

A couple of facts about Veto Gunmageddon: This is a 100% volunteer run program. Unlike other state sponsored ballot measures where pay-for-signature staff is used, volunteers are coordinating and distributing all the materials and collecting all of the signatures. Donations are being accepted to help cover the cost to print and distribute the materials. Firearms retailers, ranges, sporting goods stores, restaurants, private businesses of all types and sizes around the state are lending their time and space to collect signatures. This is the epitome of a grassroots effort in action.

Right now this is our best opportunity to get our constitutional rights restored. The California legislature used every backdoor, underhanded, unethical, immoral and yes, very likely illegal tactic they could to cram these misguided measures through the Democratic controlled legislature. Dissenting voices were not allowed and complaints about the lack of transparency and improper legislative procedure fell on deaf justice ears. This is our chance to let our voices be heard.

I know many of the estimated eight to 12 million firearms owners in California are leaning towards or registered Democrats. The good news about these referendums is you can vote to keep your rights without having to give up your party unity.

Can the Veto Gunmageddon initiatives qualify for this year’s election? I sure hope so. This year’s general election is going to set the foundation for the preservation or destruction of individual rights for generations to come. It would be a shame to waste the chance to tap into a potential record setting voter turnout.

Can Veto Gunmageddon win? I wish I knew. As with any issue thrown out to the voters, November 8th could be a huge victory or crushing defeat. All I know is we MUST try. We MUST fight to restore our rights before we have no rights to fight with or fight for.

I urge each and every one of you to go to the Veto Gunmageddon website at www.vetogunmageddon.org, locate a petition site and sign all seven BEFORE August 29th. If you have the time and ability to do it, please consider hosting the petitions or volunteering your time to help gather signatures, or donating to the cause.

You MUST be a registered voter to sign as well as help collect signatures. If you are not registered to vote in California yet, you can register to vote online at: http://registertovote.ca.gov

Bob

#oddstuffing, #2ndamendment, #gunvote, #gunvoteca, #vetogunmageddon, #mewe, #oddstuffing.com

Mirror Mirror

A comment on one of my posts stated that if we could point to one study that backs up our claim that people would be safer armed, he would never say a public word about guns again. This got me thinking about what research is out there. Yes, there are studies showing owning and carrying firearms do make individuals and communities safer. There are also studies showing owning and carrying firearms makes you less safe. So, how can it be both?

Research studies are very similar to expert testimony in court proceedings. Two highly educated and credentialed “experts” examine the very same piece of evidence and come to completely opposite conclusions. The only difference is one is being paid by the prosecution and the other by the defense. Since both sides cannot be correct, the jury must make up their mind on the arbitrary points surrounding the “experts” like personality, appearance and presentation as a measure of credibility as well as their own preconceived notions about the facts.

Somewhere along the line, scholarly research also turned into a paid for results enterprise. It may have been around the last time we believed a network news reporter was unbiased. Sadly there are no more Uncle Walter’s out there.

Governments, private companies and causes all commission their own research. In a perfect world, the researchers are unbiased professionals who take great care to ensure their results are impartial and have sound, verifiable results. Instead, what we usually see are results that are so highly skewed they can’t stand the light of day to say nothing of peer review. Yet, they are held up as ironclad, scientific proof of whatever points someone was trying to make.

Research results that go against a position are quickly attacked to minimize it. The methodology is said to be faulty, the data incomplete and the researchers biased. Anything and everything is done to discredit any study that doesn’t point to someone’s preconceived notion.

For the most part, no research is going to change your mind if you already have an opinion on the topic. It’s either going to confirm what you believe or conflict with it. “Research” is put out to try to influence the unconvinced, the people who’s opinion can be swayed by the all powerful myth of a scientific study.

Every so often you hear about a commissioned study pointing to results opposite of what they were supposed to find. Does this change the minds of the people who paid for this study? Hell no! They simply bury it and commission another one to come up with the ‘right’ results.

If you wonder why the Second Amendment community opposes radically anti-gun administrations in the White House and California funding “gun violence research”, this is why. Let’s just save the time and taxpayer money and publish the results first – guns are evil and their gun control plans are the only way to stop all violence. Just the results they are paying for – even if they do defy logic.

Of course this does not mean all research is biased garbage. True professionals do exist and their work is commendable. What I’m saying is that it is exceedingly difficult these days to sort out the paid for, pseudo-science opinion pieces from the real deal.

So my response to anyone looking for studies backing up my claims is this: Do a little research of your own. We all have access to news and information around the state, country and world at our fingertips. Look at the ‘studies’ from both sides of the argument. Look at the raw data from law enforcement at the local through the national level. Look at news yourself and don’t be lulled into thinking that just because one news outlet reports something it is fact. Be forewarned, the results may surprise you.

Or, you can simply start off your hypothesis with the phrase: Mirror Mirror on the wall….

Bob

#oddstuffing, #2ndAmendment, #2A, #guncontrol, #mirrormirror, #mewe, #oddstuffing.com