Obviously, this is terrible, terrible advice.
via: Weasel Zippers
BIDEN: Well, the way in which we measure it is—I think most scholars would say—is that as long as you have a weapon sufficient to be able to provide your self-defense,” Biden said. “I did one of these town-hall meetings on the Internet and one guy said, “Well, what happens when the end days come? What happens when there’s the earthquake? I live in California, and I have to protect myself.”
I said, “Well, you know, my shotgun will do better for you than your AR-15, because you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door.” Most people can handle a shotgun a hell of a lot better than they can a semiautomatic weapon in terms of both their aim and in terms of their ability to deter people coming. We can argue whether that’s true or not, but it is no argument that, for example, a shotgun could do the same job of protecting you. Now, granted, you can come back and say, “Well, a machine gun could do a better job of protecting me.” No one’s arguing we should make machine guns legal.
See more at: Weasel Zippers
via: Washington Secrets
William Ayers, the co-founder of the violent 1960s-era Weather Underground and who later befriended Barack Obama at the University of Chicago, has been named a “visiting scholar” at Minnesota State University, continuing his transformation from radical activist to establishment leader.
Once the head of a group linked to bombings of buildings tied to the Vietnam war, including the Pentagon and Capitol, he has been invited to play a role in the school’s efforts to include social justice in class courses. (Read More)
Here’s a recap of Bill Ayers’ most notable contribution to society:
Naturally, the gun-grabbers see nothing wrong with this.
via: Washington Times
A proposed disaster emergency ordinance in Guntersville, Ala., would give police overreaching power to disarm individuals in the event of an emergency. (…)
“This is in there to protect public workers and any volunteers helping should someone become unruly — which can happen since emotions are high — that it would give an officer that authority,” the mayor told ABC 31. “It’s just there to protect people.” (Read More)
Having solved all the real problems in NYC…
via: New York Post
Say goodbye to that 2-liter bottle of Coke with your pizza delivery, pitchers of soft drinks at your kid’s birthday party and some bottle-service mixers at your favorite nightclub.
They’d violate Mayor Bloomberg’s new rules, which prohibit eateries from serving or selling sugary drinks in containers larger than 16 ounces. (…)
“It’s ludicrous,” said Robert Bookman, a lawyer for the New York City Hospitality Alliance. “It’s a sealed bottle of soda you can buy in the supermarket. Why can’t they deliver what you can get in the supermarket?”
Families will get pinched at kid-friendly party places, which will have to chuck their plastic pitchers because most hold 60 ounces — even though such containers are clearly intended for more than one person. (Read More)
Democrats in Minnesota have introduced legislation that commands all “assault weapons” to be surrendered, destroyed, registered with the state, or removed from the state by September 1, 2013.
The bill (H. F. 241) defines an “assault weapon” as any semi-automatic pistol, shotgun, or rifle with a pistol grip, telescoping stock, or a thumbhole stock, as well as other arbitrary features.
The bill provides no means of compensation for the owners of any of these lawfully purchased firearms, and calls for the prosecution of those who fail to submit to state registration. Those who register their firearms will be subject to home inspections to assure proper storage.
The bill is authored by the following Constitution-shredding Democrats:
This affront on the 2nd Amendment, if enacted, will obviously have no effect on violent crime. However, Democrats in Minnesota have made it clear that they have no intention of discussing the effectiveness of their legislation.
The “Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011” (HR 347) may not be a particularly insidious piece of legislation in and of itself, but it does make it easier for the government to abuse it’s power.
To be clear, HR 347 did not create any new laws. It simply amended a trespass law originally passed in 1971.
That trespass law, still in effect, makes certain temporary locations restricted where individuals under Secret Service protection are present. Certain conduct within these restricted areas which would “disrupt the orderly conduct of Government,” is a criminal offense.
As the ACLU points out, the passage of HR 347 makes it easier for the government to convict these “disrupters”:
Under the original language of the law, you had to act “willfully and knowingly” when committing the crime. In short, you had to know your conduct was illegal. Under H.R. 347, you will simply need to act “knowingly,” which here would mean that you know you’re in a restricted area, but not necessarily that you’re committing a crime.
The president should be able to give a speech without being interrupted by protestors. But with every reasonable allowance, there is always the possibility that it can be abused.
Democrats keep saying they want to have a “discussion” on gun rights in order to pass “common sense” solutions to combat gun-violence.
So imagine my surprise when 5 Minnesota Democrats decided to march out during expert testimony from two firearms experts.
— Rob Doar (@robdoar) February 6, 2013
The presenter, Rob Doar, calmly, and rationally explained how the gun-control laws currently being proposed would needlessly outlaw cosmetic features which have no affect on the accuracy or rate of fire of the weapon.
Apparently, that was an inexcusable offense.
Rep. Debra Hilstrom, Rep. Shannon Savick, Rep. Dan Schoen, Rep. Erik Simonson, and Rep. Linda Slocum, all walked out of the room.
— Rob Doar (@robdoar) February 7, 2013
Perhaps Rep. Debra Hilstrom could have provided the insufferable presenter they invited with examples of all of the criminals inflicting additional damage due to a retractable stock that she encountered as a prosecutor. But alas, the public was deprived her rebuttal.
As a former mayor, I assumed Rep. Shannon Savick would be used to the agony of listening to the grievances of the commoners. With her vast knowledge of firearms, she could have provided an articulate reason as to why the presenters’ testimony was worthless.
Surely Rep. Dan Schoen has no objection to police officers using so-called “assault weapons” to protect themselves – even retired ones, such as himself. Perhaps, due to his experience, he already knew everything presented and felt patronized by the expert.
Rep. Erik Simonson is the co-sponsor of a bill to ban “assault weapons” and “large-capacity” ammunition magazines. His devotion to having a meaningful discussion on the effectiveness of his proposed legislation apparently ends as soon as someone attempts to have one. Rep. Simonson’s self-described greatest qualification as a lawmaker is found in his ability to reach “common ground” between adversarial parties – unless, of course, the adversarial party actually challenges his predetermined viewpoint.
Rep. Linda Slocum is the classic irrational hoplophobe, who describes her position as “not real pro-gun.” Quite ironic that a teacher, who likely has little knowledge of the information which was presented, decided to remain willfully ignorant, leaving the room in order to protect her naïve, unsupported views on firearms.
These representatives are contemptible cowards. Completely unable to refute factual evidence, they couldn’t scurry out of the room fast enough.
Democrats have no intention of having a “discussion” on firearms. They want you to shut up and turn in your guns.