One Lesson Why Government Should Be Made To Move Slowly…

by Steve MacDonald

New York State and it’s governor acted with great haste in the wake of the Newtown tragedy, writing and enacting even tougher gun control laws than they already had.

But a state permitted to legislate like a three year old who has just discovered a spider on their arm is destined to make mistakes. Government should never EVER be encouraged to do something NOW! It will screw it up.  There is very little that a state or federal government need address that it cannot first study at great length and detail. My suggestion would be months, years, and more often than not, never. The people will be safer and more well fed on the fruits of their own labor when their government is at rest, or acting–when necessary at all–with the speed of a sloth.

In the case of New York, their triumphal achievement was to restrict magazines to a size (seven) that does not exist for almost every weapon ever made, while it was still illegal to purchase the ten round magazine the law was supposed to have permitted for range practice.

The answer?  Make the sale of ten round magazines legal in all cases but make it illegal to put more than 7 rounds in them.

I kid you not.

 Hot Air

Colorado Ammo Mag Company says “You Pass that Bill and We’re Gone.”

News from the world of ‘How bad did you really want that‘ and “reap what you sow“…(Michelle Malkin.com)

On Friday, liberal lawmakers in the Colorado state House passed legislation requiring background checks on private gun sales and placing limits on ammo magazines. A final vote may come today before the bills move on to the state Senate. Dems now hold majorities in both chambers and the governor’s mansion is occupied by Democrat John Hickenlooper.

…

Colorado’s largest and most profitable manufacturer of high-capacity ammunition magazines has vowed to leave the state if lawmakers pass a measure banning the devices — a move officials with the company say could cost hundreds of jobs and upward of $85 million in potential spending this year

Most of Magpul’s materials vendors are in Colorado and it looks like some of them may follow Magpul wherever they go, taking jobs, revenues…all of it with them.

So is Magpul that serious?

Arrogant Democrats here in Colorado have fooled themselves into thinking that companies like Magpul are bluffing. The company fired back last night on Facebook:

We’re hearing some rumors that the Gov and the Dem caucus think we are bluffing. Just to clarify for them, then…we’re not a political company. We don[']t play political games. We’ve made our position very clear, very publicly. We would not survive lying to our customer base, nor would we ever consider it. If you pass this, we will leave, and you will own it. We’ve already got plans in place to get PMAG manufacturing moved rapidly, and the rest of the company will follow. We will make sure to at least have a small remain-behind operation through the 2014 elections so that we can remind folks why we are gone.

Excellent.

Now I’m Not Alone…In Wondering About DHS Stockpiling Ammo.

Back on Februry 7th I speculated…

If you are the government, and you want to hamstring gun owners whom you object to, why not buy massive quantities of ammunition to both drive up the price and corner the supply?  If no one else can get it or afford it, you–by default–not only have more of it, but command a level of policy control without the need for the public pursuit of actual policy.

And with that in mind, is that why the Department of Homeland Security just ordered another 21.6 million rounds of ammunition?

Three days later, on Breitbart, AWR Hawkins is wondering something very similar…

However, I do believe they know these massive ammo purchases are driving supply down and prices up, and that’s generally a good thing for an administration that doesn’t think people ought to be able to own guns to begin with. 

Think about it this way–although reports indicate DHS had 1.6 billion rounds stockpiled as of spring 2012, they recently ordered over 20 million more.

If I’m stretching the story at least the company will be good.

Sober Talk From New Hampshire Democrats on Assault Weapons?

The Union Leader has an editorial out this morning that quotes some members of New Hampshire Democrat leadership as tip-toeing around the current wave of rhetoric and discussion on what to do about guns.

Instead, they are asking what are probably important questions about mental health services but I suspect that their interest here is more about using Newtown as a way to grow the state budget…for mental health.  Rolling back the right to self defense is not necessarily the quickest route to more government and it is important to keep your eyes on the prize.

State Senate Democrat Sylvia Larsen, however, is reported as wanting to take a more aggressive approach on guns.  She is all in on an assault on assault weapon and would like to roll back stand your ground laws, and restrict carry rights in the State House.  So perhaps this would be a good time to ask?  Do you wait for the assailant to change clips before you draw your weapon (assuming you are permitted to have it with you) or are you just supposed to run away and hope their aim stinks?

Update: The NH House rules committee, now run by Democrats, predictably banned guns from the House controlled portions of the State House yesterday by a vote of 6-4.   The measure must now go to a floor vote.

You are reading  "Sober Talk From New Hampshire Democrats on Assault Weapons?"   by  Steve Mac Donald originally posted at GraniteGrok.com (Home)

Steve has been recognized as the Americans For Prosperity Blogger of the month for December 2012

Jeanne Shaheen Wants to Ban Guns

Tragedy always attracts a parade of progressive mountebanks, anxious to peddle their faulty wares as cures for what ails us, and US Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D- Utopia) is no different.  In response to the heinous criminal acts perpetrated in Newtown, Connecticut she observed that…

“We need a comprehensive approach that includes improving access to mental health services, better enforcement of our current laws, and we need to get deadly assault weapons off our streets.”

Whatever you do, do not ask Senator Shaheen to describe an ‘Assault weapon’ because I am reasonably certain her talking points palm card did not include that.

The term “Assault weapon” is a lot like the term ‘Social Justice.’   It gets tossed around all the time, flowing seamlessly and with conviction from the mouths of  progressives.  And utopia looks damn good through those talking points glasses as long as you don’t ask them to define “Social Justice” or “Assault Weapons” for you.

If Webster were to transcribe what follows, directly into the pages of the dictionary, there would be more than a few ‘uh’ ‘um’ ‘like’ ‘err’s’ cluttering up the column inches.  And that’s the way the agenda-driven flying narrative monkeys like it.  It’s all about feelings.  “I’ll know love when I find it” is a lot like “I’ll know an assault weapon when I hear it,” or more accurately–what they really mean is that they’ll ban as many as they can until they can ban more.  That’s just how they roll.

So when “No-Maching-Gun” Jeanne Shaheen says get deadly assault weapons off the streets, we know that what she is really after is all the guns because lets be honest…a criminal with any weapon who is engaging in assault is using an assault weapon, and when a deranged coward enters an elementary school intent on killing, almost any firearm will do the job if they are deranged enough and no one is permitted access to equal or greater force in defense of themselves or others.

Jeanne Shaheen can phrase it however she wants but what she wants is to ban guns.  We know she does, even coming from New Hampshire,  because she is all-in on every other left wing, ding-bat, tin-foil-hat idea the left has ever come up with (except corn-ethanol but that is only because she wants to redirect that subsidy-infused-political-power into Jeanne-Shaheen-Shazam-Isis-Power-Hour” BAM! look at all the federal money I got Y’all for wood-chip ethanol” subsidies instead) so we know she wants to get all the guns off the streets.

Who cares if these guns (used in Newtown) did not come from “the streets” (another clue about what Jeanne really wants).  And ‘assault weapons,’ like social justice, (or ‘streets) means whatever it needs to mean to accomplish whatever goal it is the speaker intends.

Here’s another not so secret truth.  A murderous lunatic, who wants to kill and is willing to steal firearms, can and will steal almost any firearm.  And they will then use that force advantage in a place where they are least likely to meet resistance.   You don’t need the word ‘assault’ to ruin the lives of families when the object of your rage is an elementary school.  Or a unarmed university campus.  One with a sign.

Yes, Liberals put up signs.  They advertise.  Hey–no guns allowed, which means people who abide by the law will not enter the area armed.  Murders, mass murders in particular, are not always as inclined to follow the law to begin with and hey, thanks for advertising the best places to exercise a lethal force advantage of legislated proportion.

So unless your goal is to disarm everyone, leaving the murderous lunatics with the overwhelming force advantage everywhere, and anywhere they choose to exercise it, with whatever weapons they can find–because law breakers don’t give a damn what you ban or why–nothing you say is either honest or beneficial to the society you claim to steward.  Such is the mystery that is Jeanne Shaheen, US Senator from New Hampshire.

New Hampshire.  Yes let’s talk about that for a moment.

New Hampshire is consistently one of the safest states in the nation.  We have a great quality of life, low crime, low poverty, very healthy citizens, and a large number of them are walking around armed with what Jeanne Shaheen might call assault weapons.  Concealed “assault weapons.” And that is why we are consistently one of the safest places to live in the nation.  At any given moment there may be one or dozens of law abiding citizens who are armed, trained, and prepared to defend life and property, even when it is not their own.

Despite that Jeanne Shaheen would like to use the power of the police state to limit self-defense everywhere her bony progressive hands can reach.  So it behooves us to inquire on such matters now that she has told us her intentions.   So ask the Senator, “what do you mean by assault weapons?”

“What firearms would not be covered by your restriction, and therefore be deemed–by you–as more suitable for the public to defend themselves?”    (As an aside: Should this class of weapons from this day forward be referred to sub-shaheen guns?) 

Or if you prefer… “Do you think law abiding citizens should be able to defend themselves with firearms at all, and if yes, which ones?”

“If someone broke in and stole those ‘Senator Shaheen Approved’ weapons (the sub-shaheen Guns), then used them to commit a murder or mass murder, how would that reflect on your position, or your qualifications to make such judgements?  Would the next step be to ban sub-shaheen guns as well?”

And there are plenty more questions we could or should ask but I’ll end with this: ‘After you’ve disarmed us, if someone should happen to walk into a room and start illegally discharging an approved or unapproved fire-arm at the people there, what would you suggest we do before or until we are shot or killed?”

You are reading  "Jeanne Shaheen Wants to Ban Guns?"   by  Steve Mac Donald originally posted at GraniteGrok.com (Home)