Archive for July 2012
I finally joined Twitter so I can not Tweet while I not blog.
The “You might also want to follow:” feature is hilarious.
I follow Glenn Reynolds @instapundit, Twitter says, “You might also want to follow: Eric Martin @EricMartin24 Senior Editor of The Progressive Realist”
No, I think not.
I follow Adam Baldwin @adamsbaldwin, Twitter says, “You might also want to follow: The Fix @TheFix WaPo’s Chris Cillizza”
I follow Monty @AoSHQDOOM, Twitter says, “You might also want to follow: NBCOlympics @NBCOlympics NBCOlympics.com is the exclusive US home to 2012 London Olympics coverage and the only place to watch LIVE video.Come and explore London 2012 with us.”
I guess Twitter has similar reservations about the Olympics as Romney.
I follow James Pethokoukis @JimPethokoukis, Twitter says, “You might also want to follow: Kevin Hart @KevinHart4real”
Other than them both being men who use Twitter, what do they have in common? Okay, Twitter suggested Kevin Hart again after I followed Walter Olson. What am I missing here?
U.S. Senator Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ), Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY4) and advocates from the gun safety community announced new legislation being introduced this week that would restrict the sale of ammunition over the internet.
Much like a car with no gas in it, a gun with no bullets certainly would be safer. It would also be useless, which is of course the point. Don’t live near one of these as yet undefined licensed ammunition dealers? Well too bad.
Like I said before, if you like your guns you can keep your guns, so long as you don’t put any bullets in them.
The bill, called the Stop Online Ammunition Sales Act, aims to keep Americans safe by limiting the ability to anonymously purchase unlimited quantities of ammunition through the internet or other mail-order means. It would also require that ammunition dealers report bulk sales of ammunition to law enforcement.
Anonymously? Not only do these people know nothing about liberty or firearms, they apparently don’t know jack about the internet either. Or do they seriously think you buy ammo online without giving your identity? Do they have some fantasy that I transfer the funds from a secret Cayman Islands bank account and the company leaves a crate of Black Talons under a bridge for me to pick up under cover of darkness?
“The Stop Online Ammunition Sales Act pulls ammunition sales out of the shadows and into the light, where criminals can’t hide and responsible dealers can act as a line of defense against the planning and stockpiling of a potential mass killer,” McCarthy said.
Of course as Bitter pointed out these new restrictions won’t actually do any of that. So let us say this becomes law. When this fails to prevent the next mass shooting, they’ll come back and tell us the law didn’t go far enough, and of course any “reasonable” person can see that the government must be allowed to curtail our rights. They’ll do this over and over until we have nothing left. This is how the left does things in America.
The man accused of killing 12 and injuring 58 in an Aurora, Colorado movie theater this month had purchased over 6,000 rounds of ammunition on the internet shortly before the shooting spree, according to law enforcement officials.
Of course, as The Duck reminds us, he had been planning this attack for 10 weeks, so he had more than enough time to ration his ammunition purchases.
As for the volume of ammo, it’s math time! Assuming they were all the lighter .223 cartridges (they weren’t), that would be something on the order of 180 pounds of ammo. Needless to say, he didn’t walk into that theater with 180 pounds of ammo on him. They are trying to flaunt a big scary number in the hopes that nobody will actually look at how it translates to reality.
Like everything else the gun-grabbers want this proposal is all emotion and no logic. Do not indulge them by allowing this.
This has apparently been out for a few weeks now, but this is too good not to post.
Via Sebastian at Shall Not Be Questioned:
The amendment was sponsored by Democratic Sens. Frank Lautenberg (N.J.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Jack Reed (R.I.), Bob Menendez (N.J.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Schumer and Dianne Feinstein (Calif.). S.A. 2575 would make it illegal to transfer or possess large capacity feeding devices such as gun magazines, belts, feed stripes and drums of more than 10 rounds of ammunition with the exception of .22 caliber rim fire ammunition.
This is of course in response to the Auoroa, Colorado shooter’s actions. I’m sure a ban on a randomly chosen size of magazines would have be heeded by a man who, last I heard, made his own tear gas and explosives.
“Maybe we could come together on guns if each side gave some,” Schumer said.
Each side giving some? Okay Senator, which of my civil rights are you going to give me back in exchange for infringing on this one? What’s that? “None,” you say? That’s what I thought, you petty tyrant.
He suggested that Democrats make it clear that their goal is not to repeal the Second Amendment.
“The basic complaint is that the Chuck Schumers of the world want to take away your guns,” Schumer said of the argument made by gun lobbies. “I think it would be smart for those of us who want rational gun control to make it know that that’s not true at all.”
If you like your guns you can keep your guns, so long as you don’t put any bullets in them.
He also said average Americans don’t need an assault weapon to go hunting or protect themselves.
At Vox Day’s blog: Mailvox: Aussie logic
Actually, if the Australian Bureau of Criminology can be believed, Americans would be insane to concern themselves with what non-Americans think about American gun rights.
So, if the USA follows Australia’s lead in banning guns, it should expect a 42 percent increase in violent crime, a higher percentage of murders committed with a gun, and three times more rape. One wonders if Freddy even bothered to look up the relative crime statistics.
The International Crime Victims Survey, conducted by Leiden University in Holland, found that England and Wales ranked second overall in violent crime among industrialized nations. Twenty-six percent of English citizens — roughly one-quarter of the population — have been victimized by violent crime. Australia led the list with more than 30 percent of its population victimized. The United States didn’t even make the “top 10” list of industrialized nations whose citizens were victimized by crime.
I might be more willing to treat gun control as a serious policy position if it were not for the fact that there is no demonstrated benefit to banning guns. Such pro-ban positions are based entirely upon misinformation and emotion.
Who are you going to believe: the Democrats, or your own lying ears and eyes?
Edited to add:
Edited again to add:
Edited yet again to add this example of a liberal tying himself into knots:
And from Keith Hennessey’s blog: The Policy Consequences of “You Didn’t Build That.”