Category Archives: Guns and Gun Control

Guns Everywhere and No Problems

Gun deer season opened Saturday in Georgia. If you were out before daylight you saw trucks and SUVs, many pulling trailers with 4-wheelers on them, headed south toward favorite hunting places. Every one of those vehicles had a high powered rifle or shotgun in it. Many were the dreaded “semiautomatic” type. There were guns everywhere and no problems.

There are about 320,000 deer hunters in Georgia. We have a gun season that lasts 85 days. Last year, with all those guns in the woods all those days, there were only 20 accidents involving firearms, and as far as I can tell no one was shot on purpose.

Compare that to Chicago, where guns are pretty much impossible to own legally. If Chicago could go 85 days with only 20 gun accidents, none of them intentional shootings, it would be a miracle.

Guns are not the problem.

As far as the hunting, whiteoak acorns have been falling like rain for the last week. I don’t like that, they started falling a week too soon for me. If they had started falling this weekend the deer would be moving, looking for a place where there were a lot of acorns. By now they have found the motherlode of their favorite food and won’t move far from it.

I have a hillside with a lot of whiteoak trees on it so that is where I hunt when the acorns are falling. Hopefully some deer decided it was a good place to feed and I now have some fresh meat in the freezer.

That is a little unlikely since doe days don’t start where I hunt until November. I prefer shooting does, they are easier to clean and seem to taste a little better, but I will have to wait a couple of weeks for that to be legal.

What Would An Australian Gun Law Do To Me?

My daddy always said “Never elect an honest man, holding an office will just make him a crook.” I guess that influenced me a lot. I often think that anyone wanting to run for office should be automatically disqualified. Why would anyone want to hold an elected office where every voter expects something in payment for their vote, and no matter what you do you are going to have about half the people mad at you all the time.

I am a one issue voter. I will never vote for anyone wanting to pass laws to restrict my 2nd Amendment rights. I have owned guns since I was six years old and got my first BB gun. My guns have provided me untold hours of fun shooting targets, have provided me food all my life and have given me the comfort of knowing I can take care of myself.

None of my guns have ever harmed another person, and they never will unless used to protect myself or someone else. So how does restricting my rights make a difference? If laws kept illegal things out of criminals’ hands, we would have no cocaine or heroin on our streets.

The election this year is a problem. Donald Trump has never been a gun rights person until recently. He says he has changed. Hillary Clinton has been anti-gun all her life. So do I vote for Trump and hope he does what he says about guns, or vote for Hillary and hope she does not do what she says she wants to do. To do that I would have to ignore everything else.

Recently Hillary said she wanted the same kinds of laws in the US that were passed in Australia. There, after a mass shooting in 1996, the government confiscated all semiautomatic rifles, pump and semiautomatic shotguns and almost all pistols. They said they would pay you if you turned in your banned gun by a certain time but after that they would just take it.

In 1988 25 percent of households in Australia had a gun, by 2005 only six percent had one. That is what Hillary wants for us.

Has it made a difference? The murder rate there dropped from 1.9 per 100,000 in 1993 to 1.3 in 2007, a tiny drop of six tenths of one percent. And it has not been a steady drop, in 2002 they had the highest number of murders there in 26 years. But in Australia, just like here, the murder rate had been dropping for years before they confiscated guns.

Some gun banners argue that confiscating guns will reduce mass shootings, like it did in Australia. But in this study – – the authors found there were so few mass shootings before gun confiscation that no before-and-after study could be done. They did compare New Zealand and Australia, two similar countries with very different gun laws, and found no difference because of the law. So, because of one mass shooting, a country confiscated over 600,000 guns, a high percentage of all guns in the country, and it has had no effect.

If Hillary got her way, the government would confiscate almost all my guns. Four they would take would be the Winchester Model 1893 pump 12 gauge my father inherited from his father and passed on to me, the Ithaca pump goose gun my father-in-law gave to me, the Browning semiautomatic long barreled 12 gauge my daddy shot doves with all his life and the Remington short barreled semiautomatic 12 gauge he shot quail with before passing them on to me. The government taking those guns away from me would really help with crime.

I will never support anyone wanting to follow Australia’s gun ban and confiscation law.

Stupid Claims Made while Blaming Guns for Violence

Here they go again.

It never fails – a gun is used in a high visibility shooting like in Orlando last week, and the democrats and others immediately want to ban guns. I would be more willing to listen to them if they didn’t make silly, inaccurate statements and tell plain flat out lies about guns.

If nothing else, the claims that the killer last week was anything but a terrorists makes those making that claim lose all credibility with me. When they further say something stupid along the lines that automatic weapons should be banned I know they are not rational.

Private ownership of automatic guns has been almost completely banned in the US since June 26, 1934. The federal law that went into effect 82 years ago means, if you want to buy an automatic gun, you have to get a special federal firearms permit for each one you want. And those permits cost $2000 per gun! The law is so restrictive that, even after the FBI investigates you and approves you for a permit, you can not carry that gun across state lines without getting permission each time.

The “gun show loophole” is another myth pushed by the gun banners. It is common to hear something like “If you buy a gun at a gun show you should have to go through the background check.” You do, under current law.

To sell guns you have to possess a federal firearms license (FFL) and run a background check on every sale. Saying the gun show needs to run a background check is like saying a mall should sell you shoes. Just like at a mall, businesses rent spaces and sell their products. So you can buy shoes from a business that sells them in the mall just like you can buy a gun at a gun show from a business that sells them, and they have to run the background check.

How about those “private” sellers or “unlicensed gun dealers” many whine about? An individual can sell a personally owned firearm without a background check at a gun show or anywhere else.

How many guns can an individual sell before they must have an FFL? Federal law makes it a felony to buy even one gun to resell without an FFL. So its pretty hard to get inventory without becoming a felon if you want to become an unlicensed gun dealer.

Facebook as gotten into censorship over this in a big way. Several of my friends and I posted or shared something comparing so called “assault weapons” and hunting guns. It listed all the ways they are the same and the ways they are different. It pointed out the only difference is the way the gun looks. Nothing but a list of facts, but apparently the powers that be at Facebook disliked it and censored it from all our pages.

If you can’t provide facts to back up your opinion, censor the facts that go against your prejudices.

One brain dead congressman claimed the gun used in the killing in Florida could fire 700 rounds per minute. Even if you know nothing about guns you should be able to see how stupid that is. That amounts to almost 12 rounds per second. Any rational thought given to that number shows it is not possible, just another irrational claim to scare people about guns.

All the silly claims about banning guns to protect you and to keep terrorist and criminal from getting them is nothing but an effort to distract you from the real problem. Take the shooting in Orlando. The guy had been checked more than one time by the FBI and cleared and taken off the ‘no fly’ list. The FBi was notified a man was trying to buy level 3 body armor – the highest level “bullet proof” vest civilian can buy, but they didn’t follow up because they said they didn’t have enough information. It turned out to be the mass shooter.

Even if there was some way to stop selling guns some folks imagined to be “semiautomatic assault style weapons,” which means any gun some find objectionable because of their looks, and confiscate the millions already in private ownership, what effect would it have? Those kinds of guns are totally illegal in France. Yet 130 people were killed by terrorist using them last November. The got them into the country and to a concert and other public places in spite of the total ban.

Geraldo Rivera said on the news last Friday that we need to do something about “semi machine guns.” President Obama aaid the terrorists had “a Glock with a lot o clips in it.” With gun banners saying stupid things like that, it makes me totally ignore them since it is so obvious they do not know what they are talking about.

Stupid Common Sense Gun Laws

When I was six years old I had my tonsils taken out. As a present for being such a “big boy” during the surgery I got a BB gun, my first gun of many. I was extremely proud of that gun and it was my constant companion for the next two years, carrying it almost everywhere I went. It was a great way to learn gun safety and prove to my parents I could handle a gun responsibly.

During the next two years I got my second gun, a semiautomatic Remington .22. That rifle had a tubular magazine that held 16 high power Long Rifle bullets. The boxes those bullets came in had the warning “Danger, range one mile” printed on them.

I was not allowed to take that gun out of the house unless an adult was with me. Daddy took me out to shoot it fairly often, and I killed my first squirrel with it when, at eight years old, I saw one in the woods across the road from the house after school one day and got Gladys, our housekeeper, to go out with me since nobody else was at home.

My parents accepted that I had learned gun safety at that point and I was allowed to go out with my gun, only if alone or with an adult, for two more years. At ten years old I was finally allowed to go out with my friends. For years we hunted together during season and carried our rifles every where we went, even when no season was open.

No one gave a second look to three 12 year olds walking into town with our rifles, propping them by the door of Mr. John Harry’s store and going in to buy a coke and pack of crackers for a nickel each and a box of bullets for our rifles. A box of 50 Long Rifle bullets was 62 cents, if I remember right.

The summer I turned 18 I graduated from high school, was accepted at the University of Georgia for that fall, registered for the draft and got a job making roof trusses for a pre fab construction company. One day that summer a few weeks before my 18th birthday I went to buy some .22 bullets at Mr. John Harry’s store and he told me he could not sell them to me since I was not 18 yet.

Although I knew automatic guns and sawed off shot guns were illegal, that was my first run in with so called “common sense gun control laws.” It took five years after President Kennedy was killed with a mail order rifle for congress to “do something” and pass a law that banned mail order sales of guns, as well as sale of rifle ammunition to anyone younger than 18.

That gun control law was supported by the NRA, because it was just the start of the long history of “doing something” that always ended up restricting gun owners rights while doing nothing to have any impact on crime. It sounded somewhat reasonable and didn’t restrict gun owners rights much so it was not opposed. The NRA and I have learned the camel in the tent proverb now and oppose such silly laws since we know if you let a camel get his nose in the tent you will soon be sleeping with a camel.

In the 48 years since that law was passed every time someone uses a gun illegally and makes the news the knee jerk reaction is to “do something” that involves restricting gun owners rights. So now I and many other gun owners oppose all such silly “do something” bills.

Right now the big push is to renew a 1994 law banning some guns because of the way they look. The “assault weapons” ban lasted ten years and was allowed to expire in 2004 because facts showed it had absolutely no effect on gun crime. But now gun banners are trying to bring back such a totally ineffective law.

Rifles of all kinds are hardly ever used in crime. And the way they look had no impact on the way they work. For example, the 1994 law banned the sale of a common gun called an AK 47. So the foreign manufacturers of the AK 47 took the working metal parts of the gun, put them on a different looking wooden stock, and sold it as a MAK 90.

I bought one, mostly out of protest for the stupidity of a law banning guns because of fear. It is fun to shoot, bullets are cheap, and even with a 30 round magazine it has never committed mass murder. I also own an AR 15. It sits quietly in my gun cabinet with its 30 round magazine loaded and attached, and has never jumped out to go shoot somebody. It only comes out to go out to the farm and the only thing it has shot is some paper and a couple of deer.

Another big push is to close a myth, the “gun show loophole.” Since it is a federal felony to sell guns without a FFL unless it is your personal firearm, and any FFL seller must run a background check, there is no loophole.

Expect to hear calls and see childish actions like a sit in shutting down the government because you don’t get your way. Just remember any new law will be as effective in lowering gun crime as the law that stopped me from buying .22 bullets, bullets I had been buying for six or seven years, when I was 17 years old.

Compromise With Gun Banners?

I read the cute little Joseph Cotton editorial on guns in the April 27 Griffin Daily News with bemusement. In it he tried to convince gun owners that those wanting to ban guns are really patriots, just with different views. He even goes so far as to say the 2nd Amendment must be preserved and he wants us to compromise with gun banners.

All he and the other “patriots” on his side want to do is ban a bunch of guns because they don’t like them. He sees no reason he and his fellow “reasonable” gun banners can’t use the power of the government to ban all guns they can classify as “assault weapons” because of the way they look. That’s like banning big soft drinks because you think others should not have them.

I might be more willing to listen to folks like him if they would just pay attention to facts. According to a Congressional Research Service report less than two percent of all crimes were committed by rifles, of which only a small subcategory could be classified as “assault weapons” by anyone’s definition. In 1994 there were an estimated 1.5 million “assault weapons” in civilian hands based on liberal Slate magazine. In the past seven years sales of semiautomatic rifles what the gun banners usually call “assault weapons” have increased dramatically.

In the first four years of the Obama administration there were an estimated 67 million gun sales. And almost every month for the past three years gun sales have set new records. Yet during that same time gun crime had fallen every year.

So if “assault weapons” are almost never used in crime and overall gun crime has decreased while gun sales, including “assault weapons” have increased dramatically, what sense does it make to ban any guns?

For the gun banners, compromise means do it my way. Their goal is incremental gun bans. Its like the old saying about once the camel gets its nose in the tent it won’t be long before you are sleeping with a camel. Banning guns will not affect crime in any way, so why let the camel in the tent?

Hillary Lying About Guns

Politicians don’t tell the truth. Its just the way of politics to tell people what you think they want to hear. Exaggerations, misleading statements and similar things are the rule. But sometimes politicians tell such blatant lies it is hard to understand how anyone can listen to them.

Hillary Clinton is constantly telling lies about gun laws, the gun business and why you and I own guns, all the time trying to make it harder for us to own a gun while she is hiding behind armed guards. The current lie of the day is that gun manufacturers and sellers are not liable for their product the same way other business are for their product.

The stated goal of the anti-gun groups is to put gun manufactures and retailers out of business by suing them when a gun is used in a crime. That is like Rosie O’Donnell suing spoon manufacturers because she is fat. Or it is like suing a gas station and Shell oil because someone buys a gallon of gas and uses it to burn down a house.

The law suits got so ridiculous a few years ago that our elected representatives passed a federal law that gun manufacturers and retailers were not liable if their product was misused. That is the way it is with every product made but liberal judges were singling out the gun industry. And they still are doing that, trying to put them out of business.

A state judge in New Jersey ruled last week a suit against Remington could proceed, even though there is federal law against such lawsuits. That lawsuit says Remington should not have made a gun for civilian sales that is a military weapon. Anyone knowing anything about guns knows the multiple fallacies of that claim.

Gun banners can’t get laws passed that they want because there are too many gun owners and other rational people opposing them. So they try to go through the courts to accomplish their goals. They can’t stand the thought of a law abiding citizen having something they personally don’t approve of so they try to ban it for everyone.

Restricting our rights does not protect the law-abiding

I had to “Laugh Out Loud” when I saw an editorial from the Atlanta Constitution reprinted in the Griffin Daily News on Friday, March 4 and saw it had to do with guns. The editorial board of that paper has never heard of any kind of gun ban or control law they didn’t support and they have opposed any kind of law that lessened any restriction of our 2nd Amendment rights.

The editorial was about the proposed law doing away with the restrictions of anyone over 21 years old who have passed a fingerprint background check and have a Georgia Firearms License to possess a gun on college campuses. I knew without reading it they opposed that law, and that they would make wild claims that have never come true anywhere the citizens have a right to carry on campus.

That editorial board ignores the fact you can’t get a Georgia Weapons License unless you are 21 years old and have to get a fingerprint background check. They ignore the fact that criminals see “gun free zones” as free fire crime zones where only they have guns. And they ignore the crime sprees caused by this on many Georgia college campuses.

It is not even safe to go to the library on the Georgia State campus because of all the robberies there. And why would the criminals worry – nobody is around to stop them and protect themselves or any other innocent folks.

Although they claim in the editorial to know the 2nd Amendment is a right, they support any effort to restrict it. I wonder if they would have the same attitude toward the 1st Amendment.

Laws do not affect criminals. Restricting our rights does not protect the law-abiding.

Gun Control Propaganda Fails To Come True

Not long ago the gun banners were crowing that gun deaths now outnumbered traffic accident deaths for the first time, proving guns should be banned. They ignored a lot of facts like that gun deaths are mostly suicides and car deaths had recently dropped due to higher cost of gas, and gun deaths were on a long term downward trend. They used this change to push their gun ban agenda.

Their gun control propaganda fails to come true just a few months later.

Some rational folks predicted that car deaths would increase again if gas prices dropped and people drove more. A news article in the Griffin Daily News on page A-7 on Friday, February 19 proved them right. The headline: “2015 Motor vehicle deaths increased by largest percent in 50 years.”

Do you think the gun control folks will admit to this change? I won’t hold my breath.

In Georgia one of the biggest gun controversies this legislative session has been making it legal to for citizens in our state with a “Georgia Firearms License” to carry their gun on college campuses. Campuses are a free fire zone, also known as a gun free zone, right now.

There have been many robberies on college campuses, especially Georgia State. The new law would allow people like me, who have gone through a fingerprint background check and have no criminal history or mental problems and are 21 years old or older, to carry their legal gun on campus.

Those against it come up with all kinds of weird excuse why it would be dangerous. They claim youth should not be able to carry guns, ignoring the fact the law only applies to those over 21. And they say college students are not mature enough to carry a gun, totally missing the fact that many 18 year olds are in the military and carry dreaded “assault” weapons daily.

When I was in college a long time ago I had my Marlin 30-30 lever action assault weapon in my dorm room from the time I started at 18 years old. It never shot anyone. I know times have changed, but gun free college campuses do nothing but keep law-abiding students from protecting themselves.

Anyone thinking the current law keeps thugs from carrying a gun on campus ignore the armed robberies regularly in the news. And they ignore the fact that some states already allow students to carry guns and there has never been a problem caused by them.

Dangerous Gun Control Laws

I would laugh if it wasn’t so dangerous. The gun ban flakes think they have used up the lie “gun show loophole” since President Obama said he is illegally taking action to put into effect a law the representatives of the people have refused to pass three different times. So now those gun banners are calling for action on the “Charleston loophole.” Their gun control laws are dangerous and silly.

I heard Hillary use that term a couple of times in the democrat debate this past week and another liberal use it on a talk show. What do they want? No time limit on an answer on the “Instant” background check. So the government can delay your purchase of a gun for an unlimited time.

Right now, if the government can not return an answer on a check on the instant background check within three days the sale can go through. The reason the law was worded that way was to prevent the government from stalling and preventing law-abiding citizens from getting guns. The check is supposed to be instant but they have three days to do it. Gun banners want unlimited, meaning never ending, time.

Think that won’t happen? Many places delay and delay issuing carry permits because they can delay, without giving any reason for the delay. The most famous case of this happening is Carol Brown in New Jersey. She had a restraining order against her violent ex-husband but applied for a gun permit since she knew she could not defend herself with a piece of paper. He stabbed her to death. Her having a gun could have saved her life.

The New Jersey law says the local police are supposed to rule on permits within 30 days, a ridiculously long time to wait to defend yourself. But Browne had applied for her permit on April 21 and was killed in June, well over the 30 day delay. And waiting over 30 days is the norm for police departments in New Jersey that have no legal reason for denying permits, so they just sit on them and illegally deny the permit.

Gun banners whine that I, and fellow NRA members like me, won’t compromise for “common sense” gun laws. But what they propose have nothing to do with common sense, and they are never satisfied, as the “Charleston loophole” mantra shows. Compromise to them means do what I want today so I can demand further ridiculous restriction tomorrow.

These same folks are still lying about the law on suing gun sellers and manufacturers and also on the law on gun research. These folks want to sue gun manufacturers and sellers if a gun is used in a crime. That is like suing Texaco and the local gas station because an arsonists bought gas from them to burn down a house.

It is legal to sue if a gun malfunctions – just like with any other product. But the gun haters want to be able to sue if the gun works but the user commits a crime with it. That is just not rational.

And gun research is legal. A law bans government funding of research that starts with the goal of banning guns. Anyone can prove anything with research if they start with a bias and control the things they look at in their research. The gun banners want you and me to pay folks like Arthur Kellerman to research with the goal of banning guns.

In 1986 Kellerman published a “study” showing you are 43 times more likely to die from your own gun than you are to use it to protect yourself. To show how stupid such studies can be, you can look at protecting yourself only if you kill your attacker. Never mind that most times a bad guy just seeing a gun will run. Kellerman thinks that is not protecting yourself. And he includes suicides on the opposite side.

Kellerman’s numbers have been shown to be ridiculously inaccurate time and time again but the gun haters still parrot them almost daily. Don’t bother them with facts.

Is Gun Control Insanity?

One definition of insanity is to keep doing what you have been doing and expect different results. The recent shootings in California and Colorado show that the gun control fanatics have only one mantra, and they don’t care how insane it is. Based on that definition, gun control insanity it common.

Within minutes of the news of the shooting in San Bernardino, California, President Obama was calling for “common sense” gun control laws to be passed nationwide. Those laws he wants include extended background checks, bans on so-called assault weapons, and bans on high capacity magazines. All those laws are now in effect in California and have been for a couple of years.

How insane is it to demand passing laws nationwide that had absolutely no effect on the terroristic actions of fanatics? President Obama wasn’t the only one demanding insane actions. Many talking heads on the news and celebrities with armed guards also were demanding them. Hillary Clinton was on the insane bandwagon, too.

Some folks were honest enough to admit what they wanted was the confiscation of all guns in the US. Odd how these folks think it is a good idea that the government somehow take away 300 million guns from law-abiding citizens while claiming it is impossible for the same government to identify, arrest and deport 11 million criminal illegal aliens.

I guess they only want to punish the law-abiding gun owner, not criminals in the US illegally.

When you push an agenda so hard you abandon all logic you often look foolish, as did President Obama when he said last week in Paris, soon after over 100 people were killed in a mass shooting there, that mass shootings happen only in the US, not in other countries. Even some of the liberal media had to look at that comment as silly.

It seems more and more rational citizens realize how insane the calls for more gun control really are. When our president and others say we should not blame a large group, like Muslims, for the action of a few extremists, but are perfectly happy to punish all law abiding gun owners for the actions of a few extremists criminals, it just makes him and the others look out of touch with reality.

The gun control Brady Bunch immediately sent out fun raising emails. And they got one of their gun control puppets in the US Senate to introduce a bill to make it a federal law that all gun sales have to go through a background check, their holy grail that has never worked anywhere. They bragged they got 10,000 gun control fanatics to contact the senators on this failed bill.

The Brady Bunch has somewhere around 30,000 members. Yet the NRA, with over 5,000,000 members like me, are called an arm of the gun industry. How stupid do they think the American people are?