April 17th, 2013 by Editor

April 25, 2013 update: According to the Wall Street Journal, HB 956 “died in committee.”  According to its sponsor, Rep. Rodney Moore, “he wasn’t sure that the breeds designated by the bill as aggressive are ones ‘with the most incidents,’ but he said they ‘were the most prevalent by the feedback that I’ve gotten’.”  Really?  So “Representative” Moore proposed HB 956 with no more than anecdotal “evidence” as “proof” that these breeds were “aggressive”?  Perhaps we should lobby for a bill to mandate minimum IQ requirements for potential “representatives.”

***

North Carolina HB 956, sponsored by Representative Rodney Moore and co-sponsored by Representative Larry Pittman, has a laundry list of nanny-state requirements (including the type of background checks through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) that we have seen in gun control laws!) in order for North Carolinians to own dog breeds the bill defines as “aggressive.”  An “aggressive dog breed” is erroneously defined as “any of the following breeds of dog and dogs that are predominantly of any of the following breeds”:

(1) Pit bull, including the Staffordshire Bull Terrier breed, American Staffordshire Terrier breed, and
American Pit Bull Terrier breed.
(2) Rottweiler.
(3) Mastiff.
(4) Chow.
(5) Perro de Presa Canario.

The term “aggressive dog breed” also includes wolf hybrids.  Read the rest of this entry »

April 11th, 2013 by Editor

From AmmoLand Gun News:

…Remember all those who denied that firearms confiscation as a result of New York’s new gun laws was too “insane” to even consider?

That it was strictly in the realm of paranoid conspiracy theorists and the “it cant happen here crowd”?

Those were and remain some of the standard replies to anyone who even thought about the possibility, let alone gave voice to it, despite the fact that Gov Cuomo and numerous other officials made public comments about such a plan, as I discussed in my article “Feinstein & Cuomo Admit Planning Australian Style Government Gun Buy Back” .

…There’s just one huge problem it is happening now in New York State!  Read the rest of this entry »

April 11th, 2013 by Editor

For the idiots and treasonous rats who continue to repeat the propaganda that “they” aren’t trying to take our guns, this should be an eye-opener.   Why propose and pass a bill in secret — meaning outside of a public forum where citizens can speak and oppose the measure — if “they” aren’t trying to get away with something and “they” don’t know precisely how unconstitutional the bill is?  From The Daily Caller:

Connecticut just drafted 138 pages of gun law basically in secret, enacted it before it could be read and digested by those who signed it — and certainly not by the public it pretends to legitimately control — and in doing so ended up requiring federally licensed agents in the state to violate federal law, or flatly deny citizens their rights…

Legislators who draft laws in secret are behaving like the king’s men who ignited the American Revolution. They can expect no less if they continue down such a dark road, many experts say.

What did the officials choose to draft law against by this nefarious method? Only the very palladium of liberty, the very thing the Revolution warned us to guard against, a bill to reduce and actually eliminate a right for keeping and bearing arms the public already legally keeps.

Along with a list of many of the most popular makes and models in use today, the bill includes broad descriptions of arms to cover an untold number of other modern and older firearms.

…These officials operate by consent of the governed, with rights of minorities protected. Laws are to be drafted in public, with input from experts and the public. They deliberately and with malice aforethought chose not to.  Read the rest of this entry »

April 11th, 2013 by Editor

From the Palm Desert Patch:

….After hearing from their constituents, the [Riverside County Board of] supervisors voted 5-0 Tuesday to direct staff to draft an ordinance that would mandate spay and neuter of Pit Bulls and Pit Bull mixes across unincorporated areas of the county.

The draft will come before the board at a later date for consideration.

Among the citizens to speak before the board was Willa Bagwell, executive director of Wildomar-based Animal Friends of the Valleys. She spoke in favor of the proposed ordinance, arguing that Pit Bulls fill up the shelter she operates.

Shouldn’t Bagwell know that breed-specific laws, any breed-specific laws, make shelter intakes skyrocket???

Bagwell also agreed with Beaumont City Councilwoman Brenda Knight, who spoke Tuesday. Knight said she had been attacked twice by Pit Bulls, and argued the dogs have a different, more lethal bite than other canines.

“They rip and tear,” she said. “Their bites are more vicious.

“I am a dog lover,” Knight continued, but she urged the supervisors to move forward with an ordinance.

A dog lover?  Really?  Then why support legislation that’s going to see so many dogs relinquished to local shelters to be killed???  And the tired old line about “pit bulls” (whatever they are since “pit bull” isn’t even a breed) supposedly being more aggressive or more dangerous than any other actual breed of dog, is just that: tired, and long ago debunked.  Read the rest of this entry »

April 11th, 2013 by Editor

From the Times-Picayune:

Westwego officials want to make it more difficult for city residents to own pit bulls. After a near-fatal attack last month, city officials are amending the city’s pit bull ordinance, proposing that the dogs’ owners be at least 21 years old and have at least $100,000 in liability insurance under their homeowner or rental policies, according to a draft version of the city’s new ordinance.

“Those responsible pit bull owners will not have a problem with this, I’m sure, recognizing we do not want to take their dog away,” Mayor Johnny Shaddinger said Wednesday, a day after City Attorney Joel Levy submitted a first draft of the proposed ordinance.

…Under the proposal, owners must have microchips installed in the animals to track them if they escape. Breeding pit bulls will be banned, and the dogs must be spayed or neutered, Shaddinger said. If not confined to backyards, the dogs must be muzzled and must be walked on leashes no longer than 4 feet, he said.

Licensing fees haven’t been set, but the punishment for violating the ordinance could include up to six months in jail and a fine of up to $500, Shaddinger said.

Responsible “pit bull” owners do have a problem with this.  Breed-specific legislation (BSL) is unconstitutional, it unfairly scrutinizes law-abiding “pit bull” owners because of what a very few so-called “pit bull” owners do, and it erroneously defines “pit bull” as if it were an actual breed.  That and should “pit bull” owners in Westwego be assured that Westwego won’t eventually take their dogs away since this will be the second addition to an already existing breed-specific ordinance?  If Bluefield, W.V. is any indication, breed-specific ordinances often escalate to out-and-out bans, so if I were in Westwego, I wouldn’t be consoled by the fact that the Mayor says he doesn’t want to take my dog away.  Yeah, maybe not this time, but since Westwego is currently considering an escalation in their already not working BSL, how can Westwego citizens really trust that city officials don’t want to take their “pit bulls” away?  Read the rest of this entry »

April 5th, 2013 by Editor

April 11, 2013 update: Chippewa Falls Council stops short of a ban on “pit bulls.”

From the Chippewa Herald:

Does the city have a vicious dog problem? That’s the question Chippewa Falls City Committee 3 will discuss at an upcoming meeting.

“We haven’t set a date yet, but we’ll certainly do something (on) vicious dogs,” said Council Member Bill Hicks, vice chair of Committee 3, which deals with public safety issues.

The conversation has been initiated by resident Jillian Wollmer. She told the City Council Tuesday night that on March 29 her husband was chased into a vehicle by a dog she identified as a pit bull, before it and another pit bull mutilated the family’s cat, Ely, in her yard. Ely had accidentally been let out into the yard earlier by Wollmer’s 21-month-old son, who Wollmer said was fortunately inside the residence at the time of the attack.

The dogs ran off after police officers arrived at the West Central Street residence.

“As of now, the police haven’t found the dogs,” Wollmer said Wednesday. “They’re still out there, and no one knows if they’ve had any aggressive incidents prior.”

…“There will be serious discussion about a ban. The way (Wollmer) described her story, it could’ve been her child hurt or killed,” Hicks said. “Do we have to wait before someone is seriously injured first before considering this?”

…Ferg said the city’s ordinance against dogs running at large is a common citation, though the vicious dog citation applies to more serious incidents that involve injury or potential harm.

“The police are pretty good about when it’s a plain case of an animal running loose by accident and try to give a warning, but when there are repeat cases (of a dog running around) they will get cited,” Ferg said.

…“I can understand both sides (of the pit bull argument) but I think safety comes first,” she said.

Safety should always come first in any community, so why consider a breed ban or breed-specific restrictions for “pit bulls” when it is well known that breed-specific legislation (BSL) doesn’t work?  Oh, and that there is no actual breed “pit bull” .  Besides, Chippewa Falls doesn’t have a “pit bull” problem; Chippewa Falls has a free-roaming dog problem.  Read the rest of this entry »

April 5th, 2013 by Editor

Few in the older generations put much stock in what Hollywood has to say about American politics.  The Baby Boomers and the Silent Generation are wise enough to know better than to take seriously the political ramblings of people who come from artists’ communes and Fabian “think tanks.”  Even more so when these actors come from other countries entirely and think they have a right to try to change our American policies.  Yet nowhere is their hypocrisy more apparent than when they dare to speak on American gun control.

For instance, Jim Carrey, by way of our favorite disinformation site the Huffington Post, opined,

“I disagree wholeheartedly with those who say that there are just too many guns out there to control and that more gun laws won’t make a difference….I care deeply about our future and I feel it’s my duty as a citizen to do everything in my power to make this a better place.”

Carrey claims we can’t tell him to go back to Canada because, while he was born in Canada, he is a naturalized American citizen now.  Well, I could likewise tell him about how my grandparents and great grandparents came over here from Europe, thankfully before Hitler tried to take over the continent, and that it was their pure joy to become Americans.  To them, being Americans meant they didn’t bring over the exact kind of politics they were trying to get away from; they adopted the American politics they were seeking.  They didn’t try to turn America’s government into a monarchy, for instance, or a Socialist State either for that matter.  So immigrants?  Sure, we love em!  But the ones who want to change our way of living, including our government?  No thanks.  In fact, I believe that’s what’s called sedition.

Yet when Carrey attempts to steer around the paradox of his arguing for gun control while having an armed body guard himself, he says,

“For those who say I’m a hypocrite because I have an armed bodyguard, lets make one thing clear: No one in my employ is allowed to carry a large magazine and NO ONE IS ASKING ANYONE TO GIVE UP THEIR RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS.”

Well, your critics are right Mr. Carrey.  You are being hypocritical.  Who cares how many rounds your bodyguard’s clip holds?  And, since you like to yell, let me return the favor.  Maybe you’ll hear me.  ANY GUN CONTROL IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  Didn’t you have to learn the Bill of Rights before you became a citizen?  The 2nd amendment states that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”  The 2nd amendment doesn’t give Americans the right to bear arms in defense of themselves or others; that right is already inalienable, endowed to us by our CREATOR.  The 2nd amendment simply states that that inalienable right is not to be infringed.  And what is gun control?  IT’S AN INFRINGEMENT!  Read the rest of this entry »

April 4th, 2013 by Editor

Colorado Representative Diana DeGette has been fodder for an Internet gigglefest for a few days now after having said this:

“What’s the efficacy of banning these magazine clips? I will tell you, these are ammunition, they’re bullets, so the people who have those now, they’re going to shoot them” says Rep DeGette. According to her, “the number of these high capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will be shot and there won’t be any more available.”

via Co-Sponsor Of Bill Banning Magazines Demonstrates She Doesn’t Know What They Are, Mistakes Them for Bullets | CNS News.  Read the rest of this entry »

April 1st, 2013 by Editor

Lately the revisionist “historians” have been intolerable, telling us things like that Paul Revere didn’t make his famous midnight ride, that Betsy Ross didn’t sew the first flag, and that the founding fathers weren’t God-fearing Christians.  These “revisions” denigrate our history, and downplay our revolutionary founding.  But then, maybe they’re supposed to. 

Now these “historians” have turned their attention to Nazi Germany arguing that one must steep oneself in the historical context of the Holocaust in order to understand, and therefore comment on, its significance.  Those who study the Holocaust have seen this kind of protectionism before, which unfortunately keeps those who need to know their history from studying it, and therefore gleaning its meaning.  Perhaps that too is the point.

For instance, the Huffington Post’s Adam Geller recently wrote,

In the months since the Newtown, Conn., school massacre, some gun rights supporters have repeatedly compared U.S. gun control efforts to Nazi restrictions on firearms, arguing that limiting weapons ownership could leave Americans defenseless against homegrown tyrants.

But some experts say that argument distorts a complex and contrary history. In reality, scholars say, Hitler loosened the tight gun laws that governed Germany after World War I, even as he barred Jews from owning weapons and moved to confiscate them.

Advocates who cite Hitler in the current U.S. debate overlook that Jews in 1930s Germany were a very small population, owned few guns before the Nazis took control, and lived under a dictatorship commanding overwhelming public support and military might, historians say. While it doesn’t fit neatly into the modern-day gun debate, they say, the truth is that for all Hitler’s unquestionably evil acts, his firearms laws likely made no difference in Jews’ very tenuous odds of survival.

…With the 1938 law [meaning the Nazi Weapons Law, passed on March 18, 1938, which, is the source of the U.S Gun Control Act of 1968], Nazis seized guns from Jewish homes. But few Jews owned guns and they composed just 2 percent of the population in a country that strongly backed Hitler. By the time the law passed, Jews were so marginalized and spread among so many cities, there was no possibility of them putting up meaningful resistance, even with guns, said Robert Gellately, a professor of history at Florida State University and author of “Backing Hitler: Consent and Coercion in Nazi Germany.”

Am I reading this correctly?  Do Geller, et al, mean to argue that while, yes, Hitler confiscated guns from the German Jews, it wouldn’t have mattered anyway because there were so few Jews, even fewer Jews with guns, and that they were scattered, so they would’ve been captured and thrown in death camps anyway???  That’s their argument against 2nd Amendment defenders’ argument that gun confiscation preceded every major 20th century genocide like those in China, Russia, Cambodia, and, yes, Germany?  That’s what their brilliant think-tankers came up with?  Well, I can sleep better at night knowing the gun grabbers aren’t the sharpest knives in the drawer.  Wait, or are we not allowed to have knives either?  Read the rest of this entry »

March 28th, 2013 by Editor

As the Huffington Post has been posting all week, here is a picture of “Boom,” the Staffordshire Bull Terrier who poses with a big smile on his face with chicks and bunnies.  Awwww!