Why are white males implicated in mass killings?

The answer is one word: Prejudice.

(Elliot Rodger was not against feminism.
He was not a Men's Rights Activist,
He killed four men and two women
and wrote a manifesto that
never had any problem with feminism at all)

(The group most disproportionately represented on the Mother Jones chart is Americans of Asian descent. While only 6 percent of the population, they have been 15 percent of the 31-year period’s last 20 mass killers, 13 percent of the last 30, and 9 percent of the last 66. This is quite interesting, too, since Americans of Asian descent have a very low crime rate in general.) Of the last 20 mass killings of that period, 9 were perpetrated by non-whites. That would be 45 percent, which exceeds non-whites’ 37 percent share of the population. Of the last 30 mass killings, 11 were committed by non-whites — right at the 37 percent mark. And what if we go all the way back to 1982? We then have 66 mass killings in which the races of the perpetrators were known, and 22 of them, or one-third, were at the hands of non-whites. Note here that America’s demographics have been changing, with non-whites comprising only about 20 percent of the population in 1982; thus, if we consider an approximate average non-white population of 28.5 percent during the 31-year period in question, it appears that, again, mass murderers are slightly disproportionately non-white. In other words, there is no evidence whatsoever that mass killings are a characteristically white phenomenon. 

New York attacks First Amendment

(Examiner)The Washington Examiner reports that a town in New York has forced the removal of the historic Gadsden Flag, which has been a symbol of American determination to fight for liberty ever since the American revolution.
According to Jim Hoft's Gateway Pundit, a group of U.S. veterans is fighting the local city council in New Rochelle, N.Y. for the right to display the flag at the local armory. The Navy and the Marine Corps have been flying the flag since 1775. The Gadsden Flag has long been considered a patriotic symbol.
But the New Rochelle City Council says that the Gadsden Flag is a symbol of the Tea Party and has right wing connotations.
No one in the veteran's group, however, is a member of the Tea Party.
Some of the members of the council itself appear to be carrying their own unjustified bias concerning the flag. One council member likened the Gadsden flag to a flag used by homosexuals on gay pride day. Another stated that the patriotic flag is like the Nazi flag, or graffiti, or a Mickey Mouse flag.
The display of symbols traditionally has been viewed as an aspect of free speech and is thus protected by the First Amendment. But apparently in New York State, not only is the private ownership of guns considered tantamount to an act of violence but free speech is viewed with disdain.(MORE)

Anti-Gun Mayor Arrested For Attempting To Force 20-Year-Old Into Gay Sex At Gunpoint

Hypocritical Dipstick Alert: Mayor Against Guns Shoots At 20yr. Old Male He Tried To Rape – ClashDaily

In a very strange and sad story developing out of Pennsylvania, one of Michael Bloomberg’s “Mayors Against Illegal Guns” members has found himself in jail. James Schiliro, mayor of Marcus Hook, Pennsylvania, was arrested this past Thursday for official oppression, reckless endangerment, unlawful restraint, false imprisonment, and furnishing a minor with alcohol.
.

Schiliro ordered a local policemen to bring him a 20-year-old male to his home. At which point Schiliro allegedly served the minor alcohol and tried to have sex with him. When the minor refused, Schiliro apparently retrieved multiple handguns, where he then proceeded to fire one of them in the minors direction as a form of intimidation.
.

.
Schiliro was released on bail and states he will be fighting the charges.
Let him know what you think: mayor_jds@marcushookboro.com
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

via thedaleygator.wordpress.com

#WashingtonState: Lawmakers “Accidentally” Legalize Warrantless Invasion Of #Gun Owners’ Homes.

Lawmakers “Accidentally” Legalize Warrantless Invasion Of Gun Owners’ Homes.
(WesternJournalism).

Lawmakers in Washington State have accidentally written a bill permitting police to invade private homes for the purpose of confiscating “illegal” guns and accessories, such as magazines that hold over 10 rounds.

According to Senate Bill 5737, introduced on February 13th by Democrat State Senators Murray, Kohl-Welles, and Kline, no one may possess an “assault weapon” or the combination of a semi-automatic pistol or rifle capable of using a detachable magazine AND any magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammo.
Happily, however, you ARE allowed to possess an UNLOADED assault weapon “…for the purpose of permanently relinquishing it to a law enforcement agency of the state.” (Pg. 6)
Naturally, the statute would NOT apply to police, members of law enforcement in the state, or to federal authorities; in short, the oft-referred to “only ones.” That is, the only ones, the political ruling class tells us, who can be trusted with firearms. However, if one happens to own an “assault weapon” prior to the effective date of the legislation, he may keep it IF he agrees to “safely and securely store the assault weapon.” And by the way, “THE SHERIFF OF THE COUNTY MAY, NO MORE THAN ONCE PER YEAR, CONDUCT AN INSPECTION TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE…” Not surprisingly, safe and secure storage is not defined in the bill. (Pg. 7) Also not surprisingly, this language was quickly deleted from the bill immediately upon lawmakers learning of the public outrage their little foray into dictatorship had spawned.
Yet, in order to provide cover for the bill’s sponsors and fellow liberals, duplicitous “journalist” Danny Westneat is hoping to sell Washington gun owners on the laughable story that the whole thing was just an unfortunate mistake! According to Westneat, one of the bill’s sponsors, Democrat Adam Kline “…did not know the bill authorized police searches because he had not read it closely before signing on.” Naturally, ALL prospective laws should be written without paying much attention to what’s in them! And the PRIME sponsor, Democrat Ed Murray, admitted that the language was “probably unconstitutional.” “I have to admit that shouldn’t be in there,” allowed the munificent liberal.
PROBABLY unconstitutional? Here is the 4th Amendment to the Constitution:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

And by the way, MR. Murray, how were your “only ones” to know which homes to enter and search? Could it be that mandatory, statewide gun registration was to become the next in your series of “common sense” gun laws?
But even with the Orwellian language now removed, SB 5737 is an affront to the God-given rights of the American people. After all, the bill still states that, should one inherit an “assault weapon,” he must either dispose of it by allowing law enforcement to confiscate it or permanently disable it. It is government literally authorizing the theft or destruction of personal property. Anyone who objects will be subject to one year in prison.
As for the claim by the bill’s authors that it was a mistake, a misstep? “It’s a “misstep” because they said what they want to do. They gave away what their plan is.” The truth is, “it’s not a misstep, it’s the next step.”Read the full story here.

via mfs-theothernews.com

Gandhi Championed Right to Bear Arms

(Kushagra Aniket)
At a time when President Obama has announced severe gun control proposals, it might come as a surprise to note that Mahatma Gandhi, one of the greatest champions of non-violence and someone whom the president counts among his personal inspirations, actively campaigned for the right to bear arms during the Indian freedom struggle.
Today it is often argued that a large part of the purpose behind the Second Amendment—protection against the prospect of government tyranny—is unjustified or irrelevant. But this argument is strikingly similar to the one advanced by the British colonialists who presented themselves as the redeemers of their colonial dominions and claimed that their rule was the best and most enlightened form of government in the world. History tells us that they were wrong.
It was then that Gandhi realized that the right to bear arms was a fundamental right of free people because despite constitutional provisions and non-violent methods of protest, it sometimes becomes necessary to resist tyranny with force. He made it a part of his program first in South Africa and later in India—both under British rule.
During World War I, Gandhi called for a repeal of the unpopular Indian Arms Act of 1878 that granted the government extensive powers to restrict the possession of arms. In his autobiography, Gandhi condemned this act in the strongest of words: “Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.”

...In the light of the Indian experience with guns, it is also important to note that the right to bear arms has been associated with struggles for independence from tyrannical rule around the world. This constitutional right not only has enormous practical significance for self-defense but it also performs a profoundly symbolic function of reflecting the tenacity and resilience that go into the formation of a strong and free citizenry.

#GunControl? 3D Printer Projects - #Gun Parts - AR Bullet Magazine

DefDist has created a 3D-printed 30-round AR magazine, ExtremeTech reported. The magazine was printed out on an Objet Connex26 using transparent VeroClear printing material in order to show the magazine’s round count and feeding action. DefDist noted that the final printed product wasn’t perfect, as “practically every component” had to be shaved at least once. The team managed one trial that shot about five rounds before failure — not so bad for a first run.(Image)(pcmag.com)
of course we will be told that gun control is something that will be enforceable... the bad guys wouldn't download anything from the internet... would they?

Using The Third Amendment In Defense Of The Second Amendment

(The Third Amendment) (Amendment III) to the United States Constitution is a part of the United States Bill of Rights. It was introduced on September 5, 1789, and then three quarters of the states ratified this as well as 9 other amendments on December 15, 1791. It prohibits, in peacetime or wartime, the quartering of soldiers in private homes without the owner's consent. The Third Amendment makes a great case for more guns, and more modern weapons. If a soldier demands to be quartered in your home, how do you respond?To uphold the Third Amendment requires enforcement. To enforce your private property rights you will need some firepower. That’s where your right to bear arms comes into play. For if a soldier demands to be quartered, your objection must have teeth. At such time, a semi-automatic or automatic weapon makes a good deterrent. It will be an unwise soldier who demands rather than requests quartering in that house. Even if you “can’t” win against a soldier, weaponry betters your odds. A soldier who won’t take “no” for an answer will likely respect the sound of a person who can hold the same gun as a soldier. The Third Amendment makes clear that “arms” equals “arms adequate to repel soldiers.”

the "our forefathers could not have possibly foreseen the destructive potential of future weapons" argument

(Thinker)At the time of the Revolutionary War, the American long rifle, one of the earliest guns to stabilize a projectile with a rifled bore, had really only come into its own a half century before, although its first use was in the very early 1700s.  Achieving a longer range than the usual infantry-issue musket of the day, the American long rifle was used to harass British troops during their retreat through New Jersey, assured more favorable conditions for the Continental Army during the Battle of Saratoga, and proved decisive during the Battle of Cowpens, when Morgan's Riflemen fired three volleys before the British muskets came within range.  Morgan and his sharpshooters then undertook a planned retreat to another position and fired another three volleys.  By the time Morgan's company joined the main force, the British were disheartened by their losses and inability to respond and quickly fell into retreat.

(But the Americans weren't the only ones inventing and adapting.)

This Time Warner TV show can not be advertised on a Time Warner channel

Time Warner is barring ads with guns in them in the middle of shows that it runs that have guns in them

(Time Warner Cable) has announced a ban on ads with guns in them. “We no longer accept ads showing semiautomatic weapons and guns pointed at people,” Time Warner Cable said in a statement. “We stand by this policy. If it’s essential to a business owner to show this kind of imagery in their commercials, there are other advertising options in the marketplace.”

Danny Glover: Second Amendment was Created to Prevent #Slave Revolts and Indian Uprisings (Video)

Far left actor Danny Glover told Texas A&M students Thursday that the Second Amendment was created to prevent slave revolts and Indian uprisings.

Campus Reform Gate reported:

The Constitution’s Second Amendment was created to bolster slavery and capture land from Native Americans, award winning actor Danny Glover told a group of students at a Texas A&M sponsored event on Thursday.
“I don’t know if you know the genesis of the right to bear arms,” he said. “The Second Amendment comes from the right to protect themselves from slave revolts, and from uprisings by Native Americans.”
“A revolt from people who were stolen from their land or revolt from people whose land was stolen from, that’s what the genesis of the second amendment is,” he continued.
Glover, best known for roles in the “Lethal Weapon” franchise and “Angels in the Outfield,” was addressing students at an event being held in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
Director of Texas A&M’s Memorial Student Center, Luke Altendorf, told Campus Reform on Friday that the university was unaware of Glover’ talking points prior to his speech.

Wouldn't that mean that the government would deny blacks and Indians guns? That would be gun control or avoiding gun violence as well.

Miss N.Y. opposes protecting schools with guns. Wins Miss America

(Miss New York Mallory Hytes Hagan reacts as she is announced the winner of the Miss America pageant on Saturday, Jan. 12, in Las Vegas. Photo Credit:AP)

she sounds like Janet Reno... no not the content... her voice.... These beauty contests have become political litmus tests. Opposition to gay marriage means you are ugly. Hezbollah connections is beauty... and opposition to the U.S. constitution wins the contest. She goes to FIT. say no more. got blocked by the whole school by my opinion on gay marriage. The last FIT girl I ran into was posting nude pictures of herself when she was 12 years old on my MySpace profile to frame me as a pederast.

(Times24/7) Miss New York Mallory Hagan won the crown at Saturday night's Miss America pageant. The clincher? Her views on guns. She opposes armed guards in schools, stating we need more education, not more guns.
Miss Hagen answered the question — asked by Sam Champion, the weather reader for ABC’s "Good Morning America" — in classic Miss America fashion: “The answer is not to fight violence with violence.”
Surprisingly, she didn't mention world peace.
“I think the proper way is to educate people on guns and the ways that we can use them properly,” Miss Hagen continued. “We can lock them up, we can have gun safety classes, we can have a longer waiting period. The answer is not to fight violence with violence, however.”

That's right. We should be able to own guns, we just need to keep them locked up. Just what you want to worry about when you're face-to-face with a rapist.

The poofs that run these things have huge egos and they were losing the argument

MSNBC: People Against Gun Control Are Scared Of “Black And Brown People” Rising Up To Get Them…

Shockingly, this is the same UPenn professor who called for the filmmaker behind “Innocence of Muslims” to be locked up for making the movie.

HT: NY Post

via weaselzippers.us

Reducing Gun Violence By Legalizing Drugs

In the wake of the Newtown massacre, there has, understandably, been a new wave of advocacy of policy proposals aimed at preventing future incidents of the same kind. However, gun violence in schools is already extremely rare, with the average child far more at risk of dying in a car accident or backyard pool accident than in school. And we are unlikely to reduce the already low incidence of mass shootings by gun control or other policy changes. Fortunately, as Yale law professor Dan Kahan explains at the Cultural Cognition Project blog, we can achieve a significant reduction in violence by legalizing drugs:

[W]hile the empirical evidence on the relationship between gun control and homicide is (at this time at least) utterly inconclusive, there certainly are policies out there that we have very solid evidence to believe would reduce gun-related homicides very substantially.
The one at the top of the list, in my view, is to legalize recreational drugs such as marijuana and cocaine.
The theory behind this policy prescription is that illegal markets breed competition-driven violence among suppliers by offering the prospect of monopoly profits and by denying them lawful means for enforcing commercial obligations.
The evidence is ample. In addition to empirical studies of drug-law enforcement and crime rates, it includes the marked increase in homicide rates that attended alcohol prohibition and the subsequent, dramatic deline of it after repeal of the 18th Amendment.

Kahan makes a number of other good points in his post, and cites lots of additional evidence. As they say, read the whole thing.
As an extra bonus, this approach to reducing gun violence doesn’t threaten anyone’s civil liberties or Second Amendment rights. It would actually increase protection for civil liberties by cutting back on the many abuses associated with the War on Drugs, such as bogus asset forfeitures and paramilitary paramilitary police raids that often kill or injure innocent people, and the erosion of the Fourth Amendment. And, unlike stepped-up gun control or “zero tolerance” policies of the sort we got after Columbine, it would actually save the government a great deal of money by reducing expenditures on enforcement efforts and prisons. Drug legalization would also help promote family values in poor communities, which is both good in itself and might help reduce violence still further.
As President Obama said in Newtown, “we can do better than this” when it comes to curbing gun violence. Cutting back on the War on Drugs is a great place to start. Polls show that marijuana legalization, at least, is rapidly gaining in popularity. That might give the president and other politicians the chance to effect change we can believe in in this field.

via volokh.com

Why Bans on So-Called “Assault Weapons” Are Unlikely to Diminish the Deaths Caused by Mass Shootings

‪‪

‬‬ ‪‪ ‬‬ ‪‪

‬‬ ‪‪

‬‬ ‪‪

Eugene Volokh • December 18, 2012 3:33 pm

‬‬ ‪‪

‬‬ ‪‪

‬‬ ‪‪
I’m on the record as saying that bans on so-called “assault weapons” are likely constitutional (see pp. 1483-87 of this article), and several state courts have held the same under state constitutional individual right-to-bear-arms provisions before Heller. Such bans leave law-abiding citizens with ample access to other guns that are equally effective, and therefore don’t substantially burden the constitutional right. There are plausible arguments that the laws are so unlikely to do any good that they should fail “intermediate scrutiny,” even if they don’t substantially burden the right, but I’m inclined to say that courts should probably apply heightened scrutiny only to laws that do impose such a substantial burden. (For more on this general constitutional question, see also pp. 1454-61 of the article.)
‬‬ ‪‪
But for the very same reasons, the bans seem likely to have no effect on fighting crime, because they leave criminals with ample access to other guns that are equally effective for their criminal purposes. So-called “assault weapons” are no deadlier than other weapons.
‬‬ ‪‪
To begin with, note that assault weapons are not fully automatic weapons (which is to say machine guns). Fully automatic weapons have long been heavily regulated, and lawfully owned fully automatics are very rare, very expensive, and almost never used in crimes. Rather, assault weapons are a subset of semiautomatic weapons, generally semiautomatic handguns and rifles
‬‬ ‪‪
Semiautomatic handguns and rifles — of which there are probably at least about 100 million in the country, and likely more — are undoubtedly extremely deadly; but the subset that is labeled “assault weapons” is not materially deadlier than the others. One way of recognizing that is looking at the definition in the 1994-2004 federal assault weapons ban; the ban lists several types of guns by name, and then provides these generic definitions:
‬‬ ‪‪

(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of–
‬‬ ‪‪(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
‬‬ ‪‪(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
‬‬ ‪‪(iii) a bayonet mount;
‬‬ ‪‪(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and
‬‬ ‪‪(v) a grenade launcher;
‬‬ ‪‪(C) a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of–
‬‬ ‪‪(i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;
‬‬ ‪‪(ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer;
‬‬ ‪‪(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned;
‬‬ ‪‪(iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and
‬‬ ‪‪(v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm ....

‬‬ ‪‪
As you might gather, bayonet mounts, barrel shrouds, and the like don’t make guns materially more lethal. A grenade launcher might, but grenades themselves are already extremely heavily regulated, and in any event rifles with grenade launchers aren’t relevant to mass shootings or, to my knowledge, crime generally. Guns that fit these categories may look more dangerous; but they aren’t more dangerous.
‬‬ ‪‪
What makes a gun deadlier? Longer barrels do, since they give the bullet more time to accelerate; that’s why rifles are deadlier than handguns, all else being equal. Accuracy does, but (for obvious reasons) no-one is trying to ban guns that are especially accurate, at least setting aside possible arguments related to high-end sniper rifles. Caliber does, because wider bullets are generally heavier bullets, but assault weapons aren’t defined by caliber size. The amount of gunpowder (and possibly some other attributes of the gunpowder) in a bullet does, because that too affects muzzle velocity, but assault weapons aren’t defined by this. The ability to fire relatively quickly used to matter, centuries ago when early weapons took many seconds to reload, but these days pretty much all semiautomatics and revolvers (and even other guns) fire quickly enough for any criminal’s needs. (Indeed, if you’re trying to hit what you’re aiming at, you need to take time to aim again after every shot, since the recoil will have moved the barrel.) Magazine size might matter, but probably matters very little given the ease of replacing a magazine (true for all semiautomatics, and to a lesser extent even for many revolvers); more on magazine size limits in this post from August.
‬‬ ‪‪
For more on all this, see Hindelang Award in 1993 for being the “book, published within three (3) calendar years preceding the year in which the award is made, that makes the most outstanding contribution to research in criminology.”
‬‬ ‪‪
If I’m right on this, then banning assault weapons would have as little effect on mass shootings as banning whiskey would have on drunk driving. Even if we concluded that drunk drivers were disproportionately drunk on whiskey, banning whiskey would just mean that the drunk drivers will shift to vodka, gin, tequila, or other alcoholic beverages that are just as dangerous as whiskey. The same is true for the so-called “assault weapons.”

via volokh.com

‬‬

President Obama’s hometown of Chicago shows decline is the “Chicago Way”

President Obama’s hometown of Chicago shows decline is the “Chicago Way” (investors)Chicago lost 7.1% of its jobs. Chicago’s famous Loop, the second-largest business district in the nation, lost 18.6% of its private-sector jobs.

the nation’s toughest gun laws: Chicago has become the murder capital of America with a 50% increase in violence for the past year.

Chicago lost 200,000 people from 2000 to 2009. The only one of the nation’s 15 largest cities to lose people.

We can expect the rest of America to follow in another four years if Obama is elected

An old side of the Chicago Theater [Featured as one of the most interesting photos taken with the Leica X1] by ChiILLeica on Flickr.

The NYTimes wants your guns so BAD! Makes it easy to make another Holocaust, especially in Washington State

(nytimes.com) In February 2005, Erik Zettergren came home from a party after midnight with his girlfriend and another couple. They had all been drinking heavily, and soon the other man and Mr. Zettergren’s girlfriend passed out on his bed. When Mr. Zettergren went to check on them later, he found his girlfriend naked from the waist down and the other man, Jason Robinson, with his pants around his ankles.
Enraged, Mr. Zettergren ordered Mr. Robinson to leave. After a brief confrontation, Mr. Zettergren shot him in the temple at point-blank range with a Glock-17 semiautomatic handgun. He then forced Mr. Robinson’s hysterical fiancée, at gunpoint, to help him dispose of the body in a nearby river. It was the first homicide in more than 30 years in the small town of Endicott, in eastern Washington. But for a judge’s ruling two months before, it would probably never have happened.

...wait stop! The NYTimes wants to take away the rights of people to protect themselves from government because some guy was threatened in his own home after another guy cuckolded him? So essentially the NYTimes is asking America to become like Adolf Hitler's Germany (where the Jews could not own a gun... like anyone else who wasn't a soldier)... all because some Alpha Male decided to talk shit after f#(%ing some guy's slut girl? and get this... it is a story from none other then Washington State... where any person with testicles is a threat to human decency! The Paper of FEMINISM is now completely on crack. It is pretty obvious that no one is even paying attention to the paper anymore. I found a copy and looked it over just for laughs and I could not believe the logic of this. It is too bad no one takes the NYTimes seriously... because no one bothers anymore to keep writers like this in check

.....The federal firearms prohibition for felons dates to the late 1960s, when the assassinations of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Senator Robert F. Kennedy, along with rioting across the country, set off a clamor for stricter gun control laws. Congress enacted sweeping legislation that included a provision extending the firearms ban for convicted criminals beyond those who had committed “crimes of violence,” a standard adopted in the 1930s.
“All of our people who are deeply concerned about law and order should hail this day,” President Lyndon B. Johnson said upon signing the Gun Control Act in October 1968.
Even the N.R.A. backed the bill. But by the late 1970s, a more hard-line faction, committed to an expansive view of the Second Amendment, had taken control of the group. A crowning achievement was the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, which significantly loosened federal gun laws. When it came to felons’ gun rights, the legislation essentially left the matter up to states. The federal gun restrictions would no longer apply if a state had restored a felon’s civil rights — to vote, sit on a jury and hold public office — and the individual faced no other firearms prohibitions.
...Criminologists studying recidivism have found that felons usually have to stay out of trouble for about a decade before their risk of committing a crime equals that of people with no records. According to Alfred Blumstein, a professor at Carnegie Mellon University, for violent offenders, that period is 11 to 15 years; for drug offenders, 10 to 14 years; and for those who have committed property crimes, 8 to 11 years. An important caveat: Professor Blumstein did not look at what happens when felons are given guns.

(the NYTimes clarifies that the accused asked his alleged victim to leave) bottom line: If some guy were screwing my girl in my own home without my knowledge... and then started arguing with me in a threatening way ... in my own home.... I'd probably shoot him in the head as well... and I'm not a felon... or not yet... because the standards of what is a felon are getting very strange.

The state of Washington is like BIG BROTHER... extraditing people from their homes because they don't like their opinions on the internet.  Yeah... I have first hand experience. They make arrests for saying things they don't want to hear... without a previous arrest... and then intimidate you in jail. Once Washington State declares someone a felon... and they are so aggressive on the term... then they want to take your right to protect yourself away. You can see where Washington State is going with this.

As Crime Skyrockets in NYC, Bloomberg Focuses on Gun Control ... in Virginia

Hey wasn't the Holocaust nice? would of been nice if the Jews were for gun rights... then they might of had a chance. yeah that's right... they don't teach this in schools because it is offensive to Mommy and Daddy Socialist Yenta Jews, but the fact is that most of us were dumb asses and thought the state would protect us.

(Jammie wearing fool) With the NYPD tied up babysitting the Wall Street "occupiers" and crime spiraling out of control, the pipsqueak mayor of New York has decided to focus on the issue most important to New Yorkers. Gun control in Virginia. Is this guy for real?

Mayor Bloomberg is crossing state lines - and opening his wallet - in his latest salvo in his war to keep guns off city streets.
Bloomberg has donated $25,000 apiece to the campaigns of six Democratic candidates for the Virginia state Senate who share his strict beliefs on gun control, officials told the Daily News Friday.
The deep-pocketed mayor, who drew the ire of the Virginia attorney general when he ran gun stings there five years ago, will travel to Old Dominion to campaign for the candidates next week, the officials said.

It might be better if Bloomberg focused on rapist control in Zuccotti Park. One Virginia resident summed it up nicely.
"He's an arrogant bastard who shouldn't be meddling."

(image: Colossus of New York (1958))

Crime plummets in Chicago and DC after handguns re-legalized

The McDonald v. Chicago amicus brief for the International Law Enforcements Educators & Trainers Association (and other law enforcement organizations, and criminologists) showed that after Chicago enacted its handgun ban, its violent crime rate rose sharply. Pre-ban, Chicago had a violent crime rate 1.12 times greater than the violent crime rate of the 24 other largest cities. (That is, Chicago’s violent crime rate was 12% higher than that of the 24 other cities.) Post-ban, Chicago’s crime rate soared immediately, and remained 67% higher than the other large cities. The possibility that Chicago’s sudden and long-standing deterioration compared to other large cities is less than 1 in 100,000. Details are presented at pages 17–22 of the brief, and the appendices. John Lott, in an opinion column ....PS The wording above is tricky... not sure I got it.... Gun crimes also fell more than non-gun crimes. Robberies with guns fell by 25%, while robberies without guns have fallen by eight percent. Assaults with guns fell by 37%, while assaults without guns fell by 12%.

Criminal behavior continues... I don’t see that as a point. The point is that we allow criminal behavior into the system and acknowledge it is a reality and do our best to take the most detrimental element out of the act. Knowing that law abiding citizens will also carry guns will force criminals to not take the risk of facing life and death. Beating up old ladies will continue until the old ladies clarify their intent to use arms. Once the old ladies arm themselves then the criminal’s best bet is to catch one off guard and run before a gun is acquired. The idea is to make crime a situation where perhaps property can be taken, but property is taken from those who don’t protect themselves. The problem is still there, it just is less devastating... and that is a good thing. I used to be against gun control because it became apparent that there was a proportion a person could protect himself with. Does the average person need a warhead let alone a grenade launcher? The person to protect himself from tyranny needs to have the ability to immediately respond with a punitive act. A need for ballistics becomes questionable due to it’s immediacy limits. Cameras as evidence... (sadly not evidence in all states and frankly a crime in some states if one records the police) then does the rest to protect from tyranny and record the reason for the punitive response.

Oregon Medical Marijuana Users Are Entitled to Oregon Licenses to Carry Concealed Guns (Notwithstanding Federal Ban on Gun Possession by Illegal Drug Users)

So holds today’s Oregon Supreme Court decision in Willis v. Winters.
Under federal law, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), unlawful users of marijuana are generally barred from possessing guns, and this includes medical users (since federal law has no medical marijuana exemption). Does this preempt a state concealed carry licensing law that has no exception for medical marijuana users? No, said the Oregon Supreme Court: The licensing law doesn’t create an affirmative obstacle to the federal marijuana ban, but simply means that Oregon isn’t going to help enforce that ban. Oregon set up the general ban on concealed carry; it is now free to relax that ban by allowing licensing, and it doesn’t matter that some of the licenseholders are barred by federal law from possessing guns — let the federal government enforce its own gun ban if it wishes, but Oregon has no obligation to assist with that. via volokh.com and image via Medical marijuana and Guns @ cannabissativa.com

Bang Bang Bang... Puff Puff Puff... the FEDS can't stop Oregon. AND THEY SHOULDN'T!

My New Girl Friend