The "New" Gun Control ...

[Jolie Rouge]

This is an excellent chart. Did some quick research. It is accurate and indicates homicides per 100,000. The chart came originally from an criminologist blogger by the tag of "stranger" and he backs up his data very thoroughly. Here's a blog with more complete data and charts:



http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-.../2962715/posts

The Promise Of Gun Control
24 November, 2012 | Stranger
RePosted on Saturday, November 24, 2012 8:25:06 PM by marktwain

Thanks to a link at The Gun Wire, I see the “New York Times” has an unsigned op-ed titled ‘Promises on Gun Control.’

I will not quote it, other to observe that it could have have been pulled from the Time’s 1968 editorial pages. Then as now, the Times is heavy on “the scourge of gun violence in this country,” and light on anything like research, investigation, or facts to back opinion.

So let’s light a candle to pierce the darkness of ignorance. The United States has had four, and apparently now we have a fifth, major gun control drives.

1.) An effort to stop concealed carry, circa 1905, resulting from labor violence.

2.) An effort to stop rumrunners and criminal gangs from killing each other, circa 1913, that was reinforced by post World War I fears “unemployed soldiers would turn to crime.”

3.) An effort to kill guns in revenge for the paid political assassination of President Kennedy, circa 1964, and subsequently.

4.) An effort to ban self-loading and slide action firearms, culminating in the passage of the “Brady Bill” in 1993.

5.) In the last 36 months anti-gun organizations have put up more than a million dollars a month to push gun control.

Let’s take a good hard look at how those gun control drives came out:



United States Homicide Rate, 1885 – 2010

Now, let’s review what we have:

1.) The first State gun laws sent the National homicide rate soaring from 1.2 to 4, and eventually to 5 per 100,000 population. Some relaxation of those laws in 1909 and 1910 resulted a small reduction in murder and violent crime rates. A reduction that was more than reversed by the additional crime resulting from New York’s Sullivan Law.

2General tightening of State and local gun laws during the Prohibition era sent homicide rates to above 10 per 100,000 just before the end of prohibition. The Depression resulted in far fewer police officers, some relaxation of gun laws, and an increase in persons carrying. By 1938 the sight of citizens carrying a gun under a suit coat on Chicago’s Loop was surprisingly common. And the violent crime and homicide rates responded as they always do when citizens appear better able to defend themselves – by declining.

3The gun control drive that began in late 1963 was ostensibly as revenge for the death of President John F. Kennedy at the hands of a gun. The upturn in homicide rates beginning in 1964 is distinct, and unmistakable. The spectacular rise in homicide rates, and of violent crime rates, is typical of that following restrictive gun laws.

4 From the early 1970′s until the mid 1980′s, the general trend was to soften existing gun laws. For one important factor, ammunition registration was eliminated, followed by a sharp decline in homicide rates. However, in the mid-1980′s the drive to ban repeating firearms of all sorts began, reaching a peak in 1991. The tabular results of that drive can be seen here with the official death toll a staggering 24,700 homicides.

The homicide and violent crime rates began to decline in 1992, as States began to institute Concealed Carry Weapons permit systems and other gun related laws were relaxed. Since the peak of gun control mania in 1991, Americans have purchased more than 150 million new guns – and the homicide rate has declined by 49 percent, from 758.1 per 100,000 to just 386.3 per 100,000.



United States Violent Crime Rate 1960-2012

Now, turning our attention to the slower to react violent crime rates, changes in methodology in the late 1940′s and 1950′s make a direct comparison of violent crime and property crime rates difficult. Just the change in the definition of grand larceny, from $50 to $500, creates a “changeless change” problem that would take several days to properly account for. As a result, the chart covering violent crime starts in 1960. (Please click on the violent crime chart for a clearer view.

That said, the results of the 1964 and subsequent gun control drives are obvious. At the beginning of 1964′s gun control drive in December, 1963, the violent crime rate was only 168.2. At the height of our national gun control mania in 1991, the violent crime rate was up to 758.1; a 450% increase. And since that peak Americans have purchased more than 150 million new guns, and the violent crime rate is down to 386.3; a 49% decrease.

To put it another way, before there was such a thing as a regularly enforced gun control law, our overall crime rate was just 0.4 percent – or 396 per 100,000 population.

At the beginning of the 1964 gun control drive, after 59 years of gun controls, our overall crime rate was 2.2 percent or 2,180.3 per 100,000 population.

In 1991, at the peak of gun control mania, our overall crime rate was 5.9 percent, or 5,897.8 per 100,000 population.

In 2011, after twenty years of gradually softening gun control laws, our overall crime rate was 3.3 percent, or 3,295.0 crimes reported to the police per 100,000 population.

Similar results in every variety of crime, including violent crime, are on the record.

Not only in the United States, where the crime victimization rate is 3.3 percent and the violent crime rate is 0.39 percent, but in England, where the crime victimization rate is 36.5 percent and the violent crime rate is 4.2 (4,156.6 per 100,000) percent. Poland, where the crime victimization rate is 12.5% and the violent crime rate is 1.26%. And on and on almost endlessly.

I have data demonstrating the failure of gun control to “control crime” on 22,420 gun control laws, and I have partial data on 17 more. All of these have had a single result. More crime, more violence, more murder. And equally importantly, more political repression.

So the promise of gun control is simple enough. Gun control promises far higher crime, violence, and murder numbers and rates. Along with political repression in the bargain.

There is nothing good in gun control. And there is nothing good in those who describe the United States as awash in gun violence. Because the relaxed gun laws the unnamed New York Times writer fears so much have cut our crime rates, our violent crime rates, and our murder rates in half in just twenty years.

Over the vehement and often violent opposition of gun control organizations, such as the New York Times. Organizations with blood on their hands.

[Advertisement]

[Jolie Rouge]

Tuesday, 05 March 2013 12:04
New York Courts May Kill Cuomo Assault on Gun Rights
Written by Alex Newman

In a move widely celebrated by activists, New York Supreme Court justices last week ordered Democrat Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s administration to prove by the end of next month that its recent assault on gun rights is actually constitutional — critics and experts say it clearly violates both the U.S. and state constitutions. The extraordinary speed used to adopt the controversial legislation, which appears to have violated a separate provision in the state constitution, is also facing scrutiny from the judicial branch.

If the state government fails to prove its case on both counts in the time frame provided, the unprecedented attack on gun rights may be struck down entirely, or at least temporarily rendered void. Gun rights activists have been pursuing multiple strategies to defeat the controversial infringements on the right to keep and bear arms adopted in New York. However, attacking them in the courts is seen by activists as among the most viable, at least at this point.

The statute in question, the so-called “NY SAFE Act,” purports to limit firearms to seven rounds and ban most semi-automatic weapons and standard-capacity magazines. Other unconstitutional and highly controversial provisions aim to, for example, mandate gun-owner registration with authorities while demanding government approval for virtually every firearm transfer.

Activists have already promised to defy the unconstitutional restrictions, and thousands of protesters recently converged on Albany calling on “King” Cuomo to resign or even be tried for treason owing to his blatant disregard for his oath of office and the lawless assault on the Constitution. The protests are getting bigger and louder even as the state faces an avalanche of lawsuits to overturn its lawless assault on the rights of law-abiding New Yorkers.

Amid the anti-gun rights hysteria whipped up by the increasingly discredited establishment media after the massacre of children in a Connecticut “gun-free zone,” the controversial “NY SAFE Act” was rammed through the legislature with arm-twisting from Gov. Cuomo on January 15. It passed just hours after being introduced — an apparent violation of the state Constitution, which generally requires three days before legislation can be passed unless there is an emergency.

In fact, the legislation’s approval was so rushed that lawmakers, most of whom apparently did not even read the bill, failed to exempt police officers from the draconian restrictions, sparking a mad dash to amend the statute before law-enforcement officials also become criminals. Across the state, sheriffs and other top law-enforcement officials have expressed serious concerns about the legislation, too — especially because of the brazen infringements on God-given rights of citizens and the violation of the U.S. and state constitutions they all took an oath to uphold.

If gun owners get their way and the state is forced to obey the U.S. and New York constitutions, however, it may all be a moot point. Last week, in two separate orders, state Supreme Court justices ordered the embattled Cuomo administration to explain itself and its unconstitutional infringements on the unalienable right to keep and bear arms enshrined in both the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the New York Constitution.

The first order, issued by State Supreme Justice Deborah Chimes on February 27, demands that the state government prove that its unprecedented infringements on gun rights are indeed constitutional by April 29. The lawsuit was initiated by gun dealer Edward Holtz, who argues that the unconstitutional statute, among other problems, put him out of business, left him with merchandise he cannot sell, and violates his rights. According to the order issued by Justice Chimes, if the state is unable to prove that its statute is constitutional by the deadline, she will temporarily enjoin it.

The other major lawsuit making its way through the courts resulted in an order issued on March 1 by State Supreme Court Justice Gerald Connolly. The justice granted a hearing to the more than 1,250 plaintiffs, who are arguing, among other points, that the state’s decision to waive the constitutionally mandated three-day review before voting on bills represents a blatant violation of the state constitution.

The gun owners, who are representing themselves in the case under the banner of “We the People of New York,” also say the dubious process used to adopt the unconstitutional law violates the rights to free speech, property ownership, and to petition the government — all of which are guaranteed in the U.S. and New York constitutions. If the Cuomo administration and lawmakers who supported the lawless infringements fail to “show cause” for the assault in court by March 11, the court would also enjoin the controversial statute.

“For starters, Gov. Cuomo violated Article III, Section 14 of the New York Constitution by misstating the facts in his message of necessity in order to ram the NY SAFE Act through the Senate and Assembly in a matter of hours. There was no legitimate need for speed,” lead plaintiff Robert Schulz said in a statement, adding that Cuomo had behaved like a “king” in ramming through the bill, using lies, deception, and lawlessness. “By doing what he did, he denied us our right of free speech and to petition the government. That is a First Amendment right. That is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution and also guaranteed by our state constitution.”

Gov. Cuomo, however, who became one of the most infamous anti-Constitution politicians in America after publicly suggesting that gun confiscation was an “option,” has forcefully defended his administration’s gambit. "We believe the law is, and the process was, valid and constitutional," Cuomo spokesman Rich Azzopardi was quoted as saying in a statement e-mailed to numerous reporters. His administration is expected to respond to the deluge of lawsuits by the deadlines, according to analysts. The cost to already-struggling taxpayers is predicted to be enormous.

If the courts decide to strike down the assault on gun rights, however, it may turn out to be a blessing in disguise for the embattled governor. Activists and even lawmakers have already announced what has been dubbed the “largest act of civil disobedience” in state history, with potentially tens of thousands of gun owners or more refusing to register their weapons or comply with other provisions in the controversial statute. A Republican lawmaker openly pledged to defy the statute as it was being debated, saying his wife's gun would continue to hold more than seven bullets while he was away.

Activists say the defiance will be unprecedented, and even the governor's office has acknowledged that it expects massive non-compliance. “They’re saying, ‘F--- the governor! F--- Cuomo! We’re not going to register our guns,’ and I think they’re serious. People are not going to do it. People are going to resist,” explained State Rifle and Pistol Association President Tom King, who also serves on the National Rifle Association board of directors. “They’re taking one of our guaranteed civil rights, and they’re taking it away.” Numerous other activist leaders and gun owners have pledged to defy the law as well, and more than a few top lawmen in the state are expected to support the effort.

Meanwhile, more than 115 companies, ranging from gun and ammunition manufacturers to firearm accessory providers, have decided to stop doing business with authorities in New York because of the assault on citizens’ rights. Among the major firms joining the boycott of New York authorities are LaRue Tactical, Olympic Arms, Extreme Firepower Inc., Templar Custom, York Arms, Cheaper Than Dirt, Barrett Firearms, and over 100 others so far, with the list growing larger by the day.

“Olympic Arms will no longer be doing business with the State of New York or any governmental entity or employee of such governmental entity within the State of New York — henceforth and until such legislation is repealed, and an apology made to the good people of the State of New York and the American people,” explained company President Brian Schuetz, whose firm supplies all branches of the U.S. armed forces. Schuetz, one of dozens of major government suppliers to take a stand, also urged other companies to join the effort.

Several other lawsuits against the unconstitutional New York anti-gun rights statute are also pending or waiting to be filed. Experts and activists, meanwhile, say that if state courts fail to protect gun rights, they may be forced to seek relief in federal courts. The U.S. Supreme Court issued two landmark rulings in recent years against Washington, D.C., and Chicago — two cities with the most restrictive gun rules and among the highest murder rates in the nation. The verdicts simply clarified the obvious: The Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms that “shall not be infringed.”


http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews...-on-gun-rights

[Jolie Rouge]

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphot...53655470_n.jpg

[Jolie Rouge]

March 4, 2013 at 2:53 pm

Concealed Carry Life: Importance of Situational Awareness

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9KmQ...layer_embedded

Mr Colion Noir discusses the importance of situational awareness and how it’s impossible to keep your guard up 24/7.


Read more: http://conservativevideos.com/2013/0...#ixzz2MmUnMemH

[Jolie Rouge]

Another amazing video from the guys at Pro ject Ve ritas. This is an incredible way to make a concise point:
Police Nationwide Say "You're On Your Own" http://youtu.be/1AQ1WBb81BE

The Supreme Court ruled that the Police are not here to protect citizens; they are to investigate the crime and arrest the criminal....

http://gunssavelives.net/blog/suprem...neral-public/#

People who don’t understand taking responsibility for your own safety often ask me why I wouldn’t just call the police to stop a crime instead of drawing a gun. Well for one, a great police response time would be 1-2 minutes, but most crimes take place in a matter of seconds. Two, police have no duty to protect me, or you.

Based on the headline of this article you might think this is an important new ruling, but it’s not. The court has kept this stance for over 30 years.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that police officers at all levels of the government have no duty to protect the citizens of this country.

It is the job of police officers to investigate crimes and arrest criminals.

We are on our own for protection.

While we are quite sure most police officers will help someone in need when required, just remember the next time you feel you might need protection that police officers have no duty to provide that to you.

Sources:
- Warren v. District of Columbia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_...ct_of_Columbia
- Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone (NY Times) http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/po.../28scotus.html

[Jolie Rouge]

A South Florida mother says she thought her 6-year-old son's homework assignment was "unacceptable," and she's not alone ( video at link (2:20) )http://www.aol.com/video/florida-mom...share_facebook

A phonics worksheet : "_ un" with letters to complete the word and pictures for clues including Bun; Run; Sun; Gun; Fun ...

[Jolie Rouge]

Dianne Feinstein: “It’s legal to hunt humans”
Posted on March 9, 2013



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWZb4OSsyBc

The time has come, America, to step up and ban these weapons. The other very important part of this bill is to ban large capacity ammunition feeding devices, those that hold more than 10 rounds. We have federal regulations and state laws that prohibit hunting ducks with more than three rounds. And yet it’s legal to hunt humans with 15-round, 30-round, even 150-round magazines. Limiting magazine capacity is critical because it is when a criminal, a drug dealer, a deranged individual has to pause to change magazines and reload that the police or brave bystanders have the opportunity to take that individual down.”

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-T...urder-Is-Legal

Read more: http://conservativebyte.com/2013/03/...#ixzz2N3vNL6aP

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZfziHXoMBk

If a (R) had said anything like this the MSM would be broadcasting it 24/7 with justified mockery. Since it is (D) - pushing the gun control agenda - it will be ignored or excused... (" what she meant to say ....")

[Jolie Rouge]

Shameful Colo. Dem lawmaker: No veterans should have high-capacity mags because ‘some’ are mentally ill
Posted at 11:15 am on March 9, 2013 by Twitchy Staff

http://twitchy.com/2013/03/09/shamef...-mentally-ill/

Kelly Maher @okmaher

Wow, @SenHodge offended military vets saying "some have mental health problems" several people sitting around me in the gallery are upset.

2:58 AM - 09 Mar 13

During Friday’s marathon gun control hearing in the Colorado Senate, Republican Sen. Kent Lambert offered an amendment to exempt active military members, veterans and their families from the gun magazine ban. http://twitchy.com/2013/03/08/debate...nto-the-night/ Enter Sen. Mary Hodge, a disgraceful Dem who urged fellow lawmakers to oppose the exemption because “some of them come back with significant mental health problems.”

Dave Kopel @davekopel

SenLambert moves amdt to exempt military families&vets from #magban. SenHodge opposes bcz some have mental problems. #coleg

2:53 AM - 09 Mar 13

Responding to Hodge, Lambert noted that there are already laws to prevent mentally ill people from owning firearms. Here’s a rough transcript of the exchange between Lambert and Hodge.

HODGE: Thank you Mr. Chair, I ask for a no vote.

Yes, these are all great and wonderful people, but some of them come back with significant mental health problems and I think we need to check through that first.

CHAIR: Senator Lambert.

LAMBERT: Mr Chair, I really object to this stereotypical viewpoint that all military veterans, that all military returnees have mental health problems. Yes, there is ….

CHAIR: Senator Hodge

LAMBERT: Excuse me, I have the floor, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: It was a long pause, I apologize. Senator Lambert.

LAMBERT: Thank you Mr. Chair. Of course our active duty military people suffer from traumas of war. They have since the Civil war. They’ve gone through battle fatigue. They’ve gone through soldier’s disease, in the Civil War is what they called it.

But to stereotypically say that we’re just going to have a blanket policy in this state saying that military veterans, who if they have mentally deficient problems or if they have traumatic stress and they’ve been diagnosed they’re not eligible to get weapons anyway. It’s already part of the law.

It does raise a point: are we doing enough for our veterans? Maybe not, but that’s not part of this bill. But please don’t stereotypically identify military veterans and active duty members as being disqualified for arms ownership simply because they’ve served our country.

CHAIR; Senator Hodge

HODGE: Thank you Mr. Chair, and I did not say “all” had mental problems. I said “some.”

[Jolie Rouge]

Rhetoric from the Left Weakens Anti-Gun Rights Activists’ Positions
Posted 03.10.13 by Greg Campbell

In recent months, America has found itself embroiled in a national discussion concerning gun rights. In the wake of several high-profile shootings, such as the senseless murder of 20 children in Newtown, Connecticut, anti-gun rights advocates have labored to call attention to the issue of gun violence in America and have proposed a variety of new legislation to clamp down on access to firearms and gun rights in America.

One such anti-gun rights advocate is Mark Kelly, an astronaut and the husband of former Representative Gabrielle Giffords who, after being shot by a deranged gunman, has joined her husband to become a vocal anti-gun rights advocate.

Kelly and Giffords run a group called “Americans for Responsible Solutions” and have recently testified before Congress in favor of stricter gun laws.

However, in an ironic twist, it was reported on Saturday that Kelly purchased a 1911-style .45 caliber handgun, several “high-capacity” magazines and an AR-15 rifle- a rifle that many anti-gun rights activists call an “assault rifle.” http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...News-Leaks-Out

After receiving media inquiries concerning the apparent hypocrisy of him buying a weapon against which he has openly advocated, Kelly noted on his Facebook page,

“I just had a background check a few days ago when I went to my local gun store to buy a .45. As I was leaving, I noticed a used AR-15. Bought that too. Even to buy an assault weapon, the background check only takes a matter of minutes. I don’t have possession of it yet but I’ll be turning it over to the Tucson PD when I do. “

It is unclear if he has turned over the AR-15 to the Tucson Police Department. However, such a purchase is strange as the ability of a law-abiding citizen to purchase a rifle in Arizona has long been legal and demonstrating as such effectively proves nothing. The background check for Kelly likely took minutes and when it was concluded that he was in good standing with the law, he was allowed to purchase a firearm. How that affects the conversation of criminals obtaining firearms is not exactly clear.

Mark Kelly wasn’t the only anti-gun rights activist making news this week with rhetoric. Democratic Senator, Dianne Feinstein, made waves after she claimed that since there are some magazine restrictions in hunting requirements but no such broader federal magazine requirements, it is legal to “hunt humans.” She claimed, (emphasis added) http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-T...urder-Is-Legal

“The time has come, America, to step up and ban these weapons. The other very important part of this bill is to ban large capacity ammunition feeding devices, those that hold more than 10 rounds. We have federal regulations and state laws that prohibit hunting ducks with more than three rounds. And yet it’s legal to hunt humans with 15-round, 30-round, even 150-round magazines. Limiting magazine capacity is critical because it is when a criminal, a drug dealer, a deranged individual has to pause to change magazines and reload that the police or brave bystanders have the opportunity to take that individual down.”

Of course, the Senator is mistaken; in all fifty states and in all U.S. territories it is, of course, illegal to hunt humans.

The original architect of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, Feinstein has proposed a renewal of an even stricter Assault Weapons Ban that specifically outlaws nearly 160 commonly-owned firearms that include rifles, shotguns and handguns.

Her bill is one of several bills being considered for a vote in the Senate after it passes the Senate Judiciary Committee. The Judiciary Committee is set to consider four anti-gun rights bills that have created quite a rift between Republicans and Democrats in the Senate. The bills are the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 (Feinstein), the Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act of 2013 (Leahy), the Protecting Responsible Gun Sellers Act of 2013 (Schumer), and the School Safety Enhancements Act of 2013 (Boxer).

However, it has widely been noted that even if Feinstein’s bill passes committee to go on to a Senate vote, its passage is far from likely. The USA Today noted, http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...enate/1947233/

“The future of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013, which would ban 157 kinds of ‘military-style’ assault weapons, is gloomy at best in the Democratic-controlled Senate and worse in the Republican-dominated House of Representatives. Neither the House nor the Senate versions of the assault weapons ban have Republican co-sponsors.”

http://www.tpnn.com/rhetoric-from-th...sts-positions/

comments

Are you more afraid of a Veteran with PTSD having a gun? Or a politician displaying signs of sociopathic malignant personality disorder that somehow managed to get her hands on a CCW? This is the same nutbag trying to take guns away from those of us that served to protect your rights to own one. No Veteran with PTSD has been involved in a mass shooting that I am aware of. They are usually spoiled brat liberal kids on anti-depressants.

..

To the best of my knowledge none of my guns have ever shot anybody. I have not used a gun to shoot anybody since Viet Nam in the sixties, when ordered to by some of the same breed of politicraptions who now say I am to dangerous to have a gun.
Just one question. I have a black AR-7 simi auto, 22 cal.rifel with a pistal grip, and two 7 and one 15 round clips. Is that an assult weapon?

..

According to the "Free Dictionary": An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm. Anything can be defined as a weapon, even a rolled up newspaper. So, just don't point it at anybody and your rifle is NOT, by definition, an "assault weapon". The term "assault weapon" was invented by liberals to confuse the issue in the minds of the uninformed.

..

Meanwhile Napolitano has bids out for 7000 AR-15s and the 1.6 billion rounds of 9mm and.40 cal, she has bought with tax-payer funds are hollow point, which are illegal for the US military to possess. Napolitano's reasoning is obvious. She considers every gun owner, legal or otherwise, the enemy !!!

...

What a bunch of hypocrites. It should be against the law for you "John Q. Public" to own that weapon even though you're a law abiding citizen. I'm allowed because I'm a politician...

...

Obama doesn't seem to think it's illegal to kill humans. Otherwise why does he need drones?

[Jolie Rouge]

Husband of Gabrielle Giffords buys an AR-15
By Doug Powers • March 10, 2013 01:23 PM

While reading this keep in mind that Kelly has been saying that the purpose of an “assault weapon” (definitions vary http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...-is-demonized/ ) is to “kill a lot of people, very quickly.”

From Breitbart News: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...News-Leaks-Out

Mark E. Kelly, gun-control proponent and husband to former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, recently purchased an AR-15 (an “assault weapon,” he called it) — which he now says he intended as an illustration of the need for more stringent gun laws.

Kelly reportedly bought the AR-15 and a 1911-style semi-automatic pistol at Diamondback Police Supply in Tucson, Arizona.

Various sources contacted Breitbart News once Kelly made the purchase, and after we began investigating the details surrounding the purchase, Kelly announced on his Facebook that he was not going to keep the AR-15, which he has yet to pick up from the store.

Days after the purchase and after the news became public, Kelly said he bought the AR-15 to prove that it’s too easy and the background check process is insufficient. However, Kelly’s background was checked (which is also presumably why he couldn’t take the gun home that day), so it’s difficult to understand how his point was made. All Kelly did was prove that an American no criminal record can pass a background check. It seems as if a person intent on exposing any deficiencies in the existing background check system would have found somebody with a record and had that person go through the purchase process to see what happened.

Kelly is now saying that when he takes possession of the AR-15 he’ll be turning it over to the Tucson police, which was his plan ever since… well, at least ever since he found out he was spotted buying an AR-15.

So — hypocrisy, or a really ill-conceived one-man sting operation? You be the judge.

Why didn’t Kelly just follow the advice of Joe Biden? Probably because Kelly is an astronaut, and Joe’s no rocket scientist. http://michellemalkin.com/2013/02/20/joe-biden-shotgun/


**Written by Doug Powers http://michellemalkin.com/2013/03/10...iffords-ar-15/

[Jolie Rouge]

‘Toaster Pastry Gun Freedom Act’ proposed in Maryland
4:58 AM 03/10/2013

A Maryland state senator has crafted a bill to curb the zeal of public school officials who are tempted to suspend students as young as kindergarten for having things — or talking about things, or eating things — that represent guns, but aren’t actually anything like real guns.

Sen. J. B. Jennings, a Republican who represents Baltimore Harford Counties, introduced “The Reasonable School Discipline Act of 2013″ on Thursday, reports The Star Democrat. “We really need to re-evaluate how kids are punished,” Jennings told The Star Democrat. “These kids can’t comprehend what they are doing or the ramifications of their actions.”

“These suspensions are going on their permanent records and could have lasting effects on their educations,” he added.

A nationwide flurry of suspensions seemed to reach an absurd level recently when Josh Welch, a second-grader at Park Elementary School in Baltimore, Maryland, was suspended for two days because his teacher thought he shaped a strawberry, pre-baked toaster pastry into something resembling a gun. “I just kept on biting it and biting it and tore off the top of it and kind of looked like a gun,” the seven-year-old told Fox News. “But it wasn’t,” he astutely added.

As Reason’s Hit & Run blog noted, Park Elementary School officials later offered counseling to other students who may have been traumatized by the pastry. http://reason.com/blog/2013/03/05/sc...o-kids-trouble

Senate Bill 1058 restricts the disciplinary options Maryland public school officials can use for any student who “brings to school or possesses” an image of a gun or an object that might look like a gun but isn’t one. http://jbjennings.com/wp-content/upl...B1058_Text.pdf

Students could also form their fingers in the shape of a gun without fear of reprisal.

The bill also includes a section mandating counseling for school officials who fail to distinguish between guns and things that resemble guns. School officials who fail to make such a distinction more than once would face discipline themselves.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/10/to...#ixzz2NAZYvlGb

(RELATED: Second-grader suspended for breakfast pastry http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/02/se...ed-like-a-gun/)