Actual 'Gun Safety'

The gun control cabal has attempted to stealthily morph their branding from gun control…to gun safety. Yet for all their misguided [and perfidious] efforts….they have been unsurprisingly focused solely on control….rather than safety. They have long eschewed the Eddie Eagle Program, designed to teach young children how to react to coming across a firearm [Stop, Don’t Touch, Run Away, Tell a Grown-up]….not on its merits [which I would defy the gun control camp to refute], but because of its genesis in the National Rifle Association. Illustrating the intellectual immaturity of both their argument and their sock puppets….the gun control camp cannot seem to proffer an argument without invoking laughable memes and buzz phrases about the ‘eeeevil NRA’ or odd homoerotic projections comparing firearms to the phallus.

AL.com columnist Cameron Smith proposes something the Constitutional rights camp has long endorsed; the implementation of firearm safety classes in the public school system.

To be clear, there are a number of reasonable restrictions that most gun owners accept. Minors shouldn't be able to buy firearms. Felons shouldn't have them. Neither should people suffering from severe mental illness that renders them a threat to themselves or others. In spite of gaps in enforcement, many such laws are already in place.

Here's a novel idea. Instead of letting Grand Theft Auto shape the next generation's attitude toward firearms, why not offer a thorough safety and training class as an elective for seniors in high school?

Evil men and women will figure out firearms on their own, without the benefit of wise counsel and instruction. We might want to make sure that we extend a superior opportunity to law-abiding citizens interested in self-defense and being able to engage firearms without being a danger to others.

Doing so would prevent immeasurable accidental gun deaths and foster a respect for firearms rather than fear.

It's past time to take back control of our guns by focusing on training, knowledge, and engagement rather than relegating firearms to a place of fear used solely by the worst among us. 

Our public schools have for many, many years….included all manner of safety classes within their curriculum [fire, water, electrical; weather, traffic, sports, etc, etc, etc]…….so why [if firearm accidents were such a national travesty’ would the “gun safety” camp want to educate our children to ward off these unfortunate events?

Because it goes to the strategy of demonization. The gun control camp pursues a campaign of mis-education and ignorance. Modern ‘studies’ and polls are rife with alleged correlations on gun ownership, gun laws, gun ‘culture’, etc……..but one paradigm we don’t see studied [by design], is the correlation of years past, when kids grew up shooting, hunting and being educated on gun safety

Hoplophobes and 'Swatting'

The "Coalition to Stop Gun Violence" or CSGV, has taken to their Facebook site encouraging their mouth breathing lemmings to call law enforcement any and every time they see someone carrying a firearm in public. They encourage their minions to tell law enforcement that they "don't feel safe".....though from the comments and CSGV responses, that the true intent is to [and I quote] hassle gun owners. They don't merely give a marching order to call the police...but to call 911. Good job guys....tying up the emergency line for frivolous and false reports really speaks highly of the intellect that we're dealing with here. /sarc


Swatting is the act of tricking an emergency service (via such means as hoaxing a 9-1-1 dispatcher) into dispatching an emergency response based on the false report of an ongoing critical incident.


What they likely don't realize, because let's face it, we're not dealing with the MENSA crowd here....is that aside from taking law enforcement away from working and/or repsonding to actual violations of the law, filing a false report [when there is no crime being committed] is a misdemeanor in many states. Some commenters advocate telling 911 that there is an 'active shooter', which of course, will result in a felony conviction for the caller. Others state that they will leave any establishment that permits open carry, and without paying. Nice.


The comments are rife with the usual menu of stale meme's and outright lies...but the underlying theme is that their perceived [and non-existent] right to harass a citizen acting in a lawful manner, is somehow more important than the laws of their state and locality, as well as the burden placed upon the emergency services for their area.


So, I suppose it makes sense that those who would so casually disregard the rights protected under the Constitution, would likewise disregard state and local laws. Why is the gun control cabal such a criminal element?


* Hoplophobia is a neologism, originally coined as a pejorative, to describe an "irrational aversion to weapons." It is sometimes used more generally to describe the "fear of firearms" or colloquially as the "fear of armed citizens."

Obama cites Australia's gun confiscation........

Without the most base understanding that their gun control cabal is just as fundamentally ignorant as ours is.

“My biggest frustration so far is the fact that this society has not been willing to take some basic steps to keep guns out of the hands of people who can do just unbelievable damage. We’re the only developed country on earth where this happens. And it happens now once a week. And it’s a one-day story. There’s no place else like this,” the president said. 

“A couple of decades ago Australia had a mass shooting similar to Columbine or Newtown, and Australia just said, ‘Well, that’s it. We’re not doing — we’re not seeing that again,’ and basically imposed very severe, tough gun laws, and they haven’t had a mass shooting since. I mean, our levels of gun violence are off the charts. There’s no other advanced, developed country on earth that would put up with this,” Obama added.

Of course, he doesn't mention the third rail of the gun control cabal......confiscation. But that's exactly what occurred in Australia.

The anti-liberty sycophants from down under suffer from the same fundamental ignorance about the issues that they're so petulantly vociferous about, as does our very own gun control cabal.

Not really sure if I should giggle at the stupid...or weep for humanity......

Long overdue upgrade to service sidearms

In a significant doctrinal shift, the U.S. military is relegating full metal jacketed (FMJ) pistol bullets to a training role, and will be adopting modern hollow point designs similar to those used by most domestic law enforcement agencies and citizens who carry handguns for self-defense.

The stunning announcement was made at the U.S Army’s Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey yesterday during the military’s two-day “industry day” for the Modular Handgun System (MHS), which will conclude today.

Link

Not only is the Army actively looking for the replacement to the underwhelming Beretta 9mm, DoD is finally looking to move from standard ball ammunition to the more effective hollow points. This has been a bone of contention at least since adopting the M9 and discarding the reliable standby, the M1911 .45. I remember that transition well.....and it's left the U.S. military under-gunned ever since.

Kudos for finally [though long overdue] taking care of our service members [SOF not included; they've had the HK45CT and MEUSOC .45's for quite some time now.

Some anti-gun meme's never die......

“You don’t need an assault weapon to go hunting, it certainly is not part of anybody’s family heritage or family tradition.” – White House Spokesman Josh Earnest


Of course, Josh is either ignorant of the fact that many people hunt with rifles that the gun control camp refers to as "assault weapons".....as well as the fact that they're not mechanically any different than any other semi-automatic rifle...or he is merely proliferating the stale, trite false narratives that his camp always does.


The gun control camps' fetish for willfully conflating semi-automatic rifles with automatic rifles....and emphasis on a 'military' appearance.....lacks integrity and reason that should be expected in discourse amongst adults.


But it's at least entertaining to see him posture as some arbiter of anyone's family heritage or tradition.


For extra credit, I present Sen. Harry Reid:


"The United States is the only advanced country where this type of mass violence occurs," [WRONG] Reid said from the Senate floor. "Let's do something. We can expand, for example, background checks....[DID NOT, AND WOULD NOT HAVE PREVENTED THE CHARLESTON SHOOTING] We should support not giving guns to people who are mentally ill and felons." [ALREADY AGAINST THE LAW]


Shouldn't we expect more from our elder statesmen? I'm a bit surprised that he didn't fall back on the meme, as POTUS hopeful O'Malley did, on calling for a ban on a type of rifle based on it's appearance.


It appears that Manchin and Toomey will resurrect their failed plot....so the circus continues.

Piers Morgan is still a dumbass

Embedded in another of his typical polemic [with the usual framing and hyperbole], following the tragic Charleston shooting, Piers Morgan utters the following absurdity:


I’m sick of hearing that the 2nd Amendment can’t be amended to drag it into modern life because the Constitution is such a sacred document. It’s already an AMENDMENT. Do the damn math.


Poor ignorant Piers.......this is exactly what the 2nd Amendment camp has been calling for. We ask that instead of cowardly end-runs...nibbling at the edges in order to mask the true agenda....why won't the gun control camp simply pursue an amendment or revocation of the 2A?

Well, no kidding....

The memo to Mr. Stephanopoulos, who was then a senior adviser to Mr. Clinton and is now an ABC News host who is currently under fire for $75,000 in contributions he made to the Clinton Foundation, warns of the potential electoral consequences an aggressive gun control push could bring.

“As much as I hate to say it, the NRA is effective primarily because it is largely right when it claims that most gun control laws inconvenience and threaten the law-abiding while having little or no impact on violent crime or criminals,” wrote Jody Powell, the former Carter press aide. 

“I support registration in principle,” the memo reads. “But two questions need to be asked. Are the people causing the problem going to comply voluntarily? If not, do you have a way to effectively enforce compliance? If the answer is ‘no’ in both cases, consider whether the benefits are worth making Bob Dole majority leader.”

Washington Times

Wait.....you mean gun control only legally affects the law abiding??? Who knew?

The gun control camp knows this....so what are they really after? We can see the shape of the strategy to come, if Hillary Clinton moves into 1600 Penn.

“We cannot let a minority of people — and that’s what it is, it is a minority of people — hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people,” she said at a CNN town hall event last year.

Translation: peoples ignorant fear of something they don't understand....should trump Constitutional and civil rights.....because it will make them feel better.

Bernie Sanders, 2nd Amendment Advocate?

An article penned at Slate, takes presidential candidate [and admitted Socialist] to task for supporting common sense 2nd Amendment protections. Yes, that’s right…..I used the same framing that the gun control camp uses: “common sense”. Since the term has no defined metric, no meaning beyond personal bias….it’s just as applicable if the gun rights camp were to employ it. I won’t be continuing to use it…..as it’s a lazy tactic lost on the gun control cabal, but the point is made.

What’s interesting beyond the fact that Sanders doesn’t buy into the empty gun control narrative, writ large anyway……is that Slate uses this article to rail against a 2005 piece of legislation that they would not support were it directed against any other lawful industry. That legislation is the “Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA)”. This bill protects firearm manufacturers against lawsuits and punitive damages stemming from the criminal use of its products.

The PLCAA was the No. 1 legislative priority of the National Rifle Association for years, because it shields gun makers and dealers from most liability when their firearms are used criminally. It is one of the most noxious pieces of pro-gun legislation ever passed. And Bernie Sanders voted for it.

This, apparently, is a bad thing. The author attempts to bolster his disdain for this protection by citing invented examples of other industries that he sees as analogous.

But the act’s primary purpose is as simple as it is cold-blooded. Every state imposes liability on manufacturers who are negligent in their production and sale of products. If I crash my Prius because its accelerator malfunctions, I can sue Toyota for negligently manufacturing a faulty pedal. If my child dismembers himself with a blender at Sears, I can sue Sears for negligently leaving that blender within a child’s reach.

The glaring hole in his assertion however, is that he cites negligent faults in the product themselves, or negligence on the part of the intermediary, the retailer. He thinks you, the reader, are too stupid to see the difference. Firearms manufactures are protected….as are other industries…..from tort liability in cases where a person takes a lawful, and lawfully procured item…and uses it in a criminal act. If the author were correct, or had journalistic integrity, he would assert that because Sears left a blender within reach of a child…one could sue the manufacturer of the blender. But since cannot, he concoct a fantasy where he would have you believe that the firearm industry has been granted special protections, because…….eeevill NRA.

To recap, gun control supporters such as this author, would advocate for punitive liability judgements against the manufacturer of a non-defective lawful item, lawfully distributed to a lawful retailer, [presumably] lawfully sold to an appropriate consumer........but only if the item is a firearm. A legal product. Wow.

That idiocy aside…..I might actually watch a debate between Sanders and Clinton, if gun control is on the agenda. No, Sanders is not a champion for individual liberty, writ large….he’s a collectivist….but he’s an interesting cat.

Gun Rights and "Compromise"?

There's an oft repeated line that comes from the gun control camp....aside from the emotional framing and illogical narratives. The gun control camp asks "why won't the gun rights camp just 'compromise' on this issue?" This is typically accompanied by immeasurable euphemisms such as "reasonable" and "common sense", but those are designed to appeal to the uninformed.

My issue is with the core question of "compromise". Every time I have asked what is to follow below, I either haven't received any answer, or have received simply more of the same issued script.

The 2nd Amendment [to highlight the context, one of the enumerated Constitutional rights guaranteed to the People] is, and has historically been the most infringed upon, restricted and regulated Constitutional right of the bunch. The 2nd Amendment has had limitations imposed upon the People, to an extent unfathomable to the very same critics were they to be likewise imposed upon any other Constitutional right.

So, let's remember the purpose and intent on the 2nd Amendment, that the right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Yes, I know someone will invariably come along [again] and proffer the Militia = National Guard = collective right canard; they can't help it, its part of the script. But let's dispense for a moment with the history of such infringement to date and use the Amendment as it is realistically protected and restricted currently.

Now, let's consider the gun control position. It does vary, publicly. I have my doubts that anyone who employs the gun control narrative really supports the 2nd Amendment, though many make a point of saying so. It typically goes like this: "I support the 2nd Amendment, but.....". To be generous, let's presume that there are those who would disarm the citizen body wholly and completely; and there are those who would see the citizen able to own a fowling piece, or perhaps a target rifle locked at a State sanctioned shooting club. Perhaps there are even a few who merely think that licensing and taxing private transactions between citizens [again incompatible with any other right], and the registration of firearms is a good idea...though we've seen the result of that happening in other nations.

So...taking both positions into consideration...my question is two-part but simple: 1. What is the "compromise" sought by the gun control camp? Not the nickel and dime legislation designed to merely set precedence for further restriction, but the end state?

And 2. What "compromise has the gun control camp shown to date? Remember where the positions started and are currently, along the philosophical X Axis.

All rational and mature comments are welcome, but I've been waiting for so long, for anyone from the gun control camp to offer up a cogent answer.

Another week.....another laughable gun control proposal

Gun control proponents couldn't buy a clue if the NRA gave them a stipend to do so. The Hill reports that noted firearms and hunting expert*, Rep. Rosa DeLauro proposed the following legislation:

Gun owners would receive tax breaks for voluntarily turning in high-powered assault rifles under new legislation proposed Monday. 

The Support Assault Firearm Elimination and Education of our (SAFER) Streets Act expected to be reintroduced next week by Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) would provide gun owners with an incentive to turn in their firearms to local police departments. 

“Assault weapons are not about hunting, or even self-defense,” DeLauro said. “There is no reason on earth, other than to kill as many people as possible in as short a time as possible, that anyone needs a gun designed for a battlefield.” 

Though DeLauro is in favor of stronger guns laws that would completely ban assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition, she emphasized this bill would not force gun owners to turn in their firearms. 

The legislation would provide up to $2,000 in tax credits for gun owners who voluntarily hand over assault weapons to their local police departments.

* Obvious sarcasm at the expense of a rather clueless politician. 

This proposal is so rife with absurdity, I'm not really sure where to begin. Why is the gun control camp comprised of not a single member who has a clue about firearms? Sadly, every politician should be an expert on the Constitution, but we know that few of them are.

Aside from the obvious and enduring fact, that the gun control camp cannot define what they feel an "assault weapon" is....at least beyond some apparently scary looking cosmetic features.....the rifles that they refer to are commonly used in both hunting and self defense. She lies. Worse, she knows she lies.

She then claims that these rifles in question were "designed for the battlefield", and that nobody needs this type of rifle. Again, aside from the fact that the 2nd Amendment resides within the Bill of Rights, not a 'Bill of Needs', she is either perfidious or ignorant that every class of firearm was 'designed for the battlefield' [that is where firearm innovation occurs] - and - that our law enforcement officers at all levels [who are NOT military nor on a battlefield] are routinely equipped with this class of rifles.

I really have no idea what "high capacity ammunition" is, beyond a string of words she relied on as an appeal to emotion.

As for the tax credit scheme, she is apparently unaware of dismal track record of "gun buy-backs", where law enforcement usually nets a crateful of inoperable or low grade 'junk guns', at a rather hefty bill for the taxpayer - and - the fact that she is again setting up LEO's to be taken advantage of, at the expense of tax payers. I'd seriously consider trading in a low end Colt or DPMS in return for the $2000 tax credit. It would allow me to obtain the items needed to build my own, or purchase a better quality rifle [or optics and furniture for my current.]

As usual, I'm left believing that there are only two viable options here.....either Rep DeLauro is stupid, or she thinks that gun control proponents are. I'd actually have more respect for them if they simply came out publicly and proposed a repeal of the 2nd Amendment. That's what they really want; but they haven't the courage nor the integrity to do so.

Gun Safety and children.....OMG think of the children!

It's been a long week, and this made me laugh. So I'll just leave this right here.

The stunning hypocrisy of the Gun Control Cabal

A woman who has made a career out of publicly attacking the democratically-enacted gun laws of the District of Columbia and Maryland has no business serving as the “chief investigative reporter” of a television station covering the region’s affairs. That’s the message of more than 6,300 supporters of a petition campaign led by the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV), an organization that works to prevent gun violence at the local, state and federal level.

Ladd Everitt, communications director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, said, “By the standards of her profession, Emily Miller has no business calling herself a journalist. Miller’s crusade against popular gun laws has been a professional one since the beginning. At this point, area residents can have no reasonable expectation that she will provide objective, impartial coverage on matters of concern to them. If Miller wishes to behave like a pundit and activist, then WTTG should replace her with an actual reporter.”

CSGV

We already know that in some political camps, some rights are more equal than others. But in an era where the media largely fellates government power, this group of intellectual midgets calls for a reporter to be excommunicated from the field of journalism.....because she dares publicly advocate for the protection of Constitutional rights.

She dares to attend 2nd Amendment events, just as so many others in her field attend similar events regarding the freedoms of speech, due process and privacy. CSGV is a group who should applaud journalistic integrity...but like the rest of their brethren....that's not really what they want.

Smells like desperation.

Even the WaPo calls out Obama on his gun lies

The president was playing fast and loose with his language here—to a group of college students no less. There’s little excuse for the claim that in some neighborhoods, it is easier to buy a gun than vegetable (see update above) — or to say he’s “not exaggerating” when he claims that some people have proposed laws that would allow machine guns in bars. 

As for the U.S. ranking on homicides among industrialized nations, the president certainly would have had a stronger case if he said the United States was above average, or that it was in the top ranks. But instead he claimed the United States had rates that were higher “by like a mile.” 

The gun debate is serious enough that it should not be poisoned by exaggerated claims and faux statistics. The president earns Three Pinocchios.

WaPo

Why can't gun control folks stop lying? Surely if their position had any merit, they would simply tell the truth and see their goal come to fruition.

Common sense (almost) always prevails in the end

Two years after the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut's governor said he doubts the state legislature has the "appetite" to take up many of the additional gun control recommendations included in a final report released Friday by a state commission.

ABC News 

Say it isn't so. Draconian restrictions based on falsehoods and myths failed to whet the appetitive of the public-at-large?

Propagated lies about "assault weapons" and the natural right of self defense have failed to energize the public to support disarmament?

Heh.......

Bolt action rifles.....the new scary black "assault weapons"?

Those of us who are educated on firearms and the 2nd Amendment, have been both entertained and disgusted by the gun control cabal's antics regarding the modern sporting rifle.......erroneously labeled by the aforementioned groups of intellectual midgets as "assault rifles". How long until they realize that MSRs are not the "high powered", "killing machines" that they've tried to sell to an ignorant public?

Or will it even matter, since MSRs are still the "scary looking black rifles"?

While American movie-goers are making “American Sniper” a box office record-breaker, critics are sniping back, taking all manner of shots at the film, and one might wonder whether some of this distaste is perhaps due to a subconscious reaction to the central core of the film: the story of a man who was remarkably proficient with a rifle. 

How long before anti-gunners start pushing to regulate “sniper rifles,” which might be that bolt-action deer hunting rifle in the gun cabinet, the one with the black or camouflage composite synthetic stock and a scope sight? Such rifles fire cartridges that are far more powerful, and certainly more lethal to big game animals, at greater distances than the so-called “high power assault rifles” panned at every opportunity by the mainstream press. 

The film has already drawn heat from anti-gunner Michael Moore, and other critics have been weighing in as well. There was a piece in the Washington Post about the film’s “missing element: The man behind the gun.” The Guardian ran a piece that asserted the film “illustrates the west’s morality blind spots.” 

Even in the trailer, one gets to look at people through the crosshairs. It’s an unnerving view for some people who dislike firearms and “the gun culture.”

Examiner

At the very least, I hope the movie educates the public on what it takes to become, and be a Sniper; A public that until now, usually only hears the term when the lazy, drive-by media is reporting on some idiot criminal with a rifle.

Brought to you by a former, and humble Army Sniper.

The CDC and Guns

It's an oft-quoted meme from the gun control cabal....."why oh why, does the GOP and the eeevil NRA, refuse to allow the Centers for Disease Control study gun violence in America?!"

Please, oh please.....somebody from the gun control side of the house, show me where the charter or mission statement of the CDC allows it the altitude to study gun use and deaths occurring from firearms?

The future body shape of Pennsylvania perps?

We who are, or strive to be, proficient in the safe and effective use of firearms, know that training must be regular and realistic; shooting as often as possible, practicing drawing from on-body carry, dry-fire drills, etc...


Apparently, for a Pennsylvania State Representative [Democrat of course], the private citizen should only need to defend oneself against white-tailed deer, black bear, wild turkey, and elk......or presumably, a bull's-eye shaped assailant. Because being prepared to defend oneself, family or home against a human perpetrator [when was the last time a wild turkey assaulted you?]....it "perpetuate violence". I don't see why he pursues these half measures......why doesn't he simply outlaw violent crime?


Idiot.


MEMORANDUM

Posted: January 8, 2015 04:11 PM
From:  Representative Thaddeus Kirkland  
To: All House members 
Subject: Shooting Range Legislation

 In the near future, I will introduce legislation amending Title 18 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, which will address the use of human silhouette targets at shooting ranges.


 Rather than perpetuate violence by continuing to allow individuals to practice their target shooting by shooting at human silhouette targets at shooting ranges, my legislation will prohibit the use of targets that depict human silhouettes at shooting ranges across the Commonwealth. Instead, silhouette targets could include, but are not limited to the following: white-tailed deer, black bear, wild turkey, and elk.


 My legislation creates a new section under Title 18 Chapter 61 regarding firearms and other dangerous articles. Specifically, the bill prohibits the use of human silhouette targets at shooting ranges across the Commonwealth except by law enforcement officers, military personnel or other public safety personnel in line with their official duties. If a person violates the provisions of the new section, he or she will commit a summary offense.

The cognitive dissonance of the gun control cabal

“You have a mayor who hates guns; If it was up to me, we wouldn’t have any handguns in the District of Columbia. I swear to protect the Constitution and what the courts say, but I will do it in the most restrictive way as possible.” - Muriel E. Bowser - Mayor, Washington D.C.

Godwin's Law for Gun Control - UPDATED -

After reading the entire [and asinine] complaint against Bushmaster, regarding the Sandy Hook shootings....I think it's high time we develop a companion to Godwin's Law [if you mention Adolf Hitler or Nazis within a discussion, you’ve automatically lost, and ended whatever discussion you were taking part in] for the debate over gun control v. gun rights.


"If you mention the NRA-as-a-boogeyman within a discussion thread, you’ve automatically ended whatever discussion you were taking part in"


Just need a catchy name now.....

- UPDATED -

I had to share the absurd asininity [yes, that's a bit repetitive, but remember who we're dealing with...] that the gun control cabal is capable of:

Gun control advocate and independent filmmaker Rejina Sincic has created what she calls a PSA aimed at “reducing gun violence in schools and communities.” 

The video depicts a teenage boy sneaking into his mother’s room, taking a gun out of her dresser drawer (who knows if it’s loaded or unloaded), putting it in his backpack and then taking it to school. After class, he waits for the other students to leave then puts the gun on the teacher’s desk and says, “Can you take this away? I don’t feel safe with a gun in my house.” 

Certainly nothing could go wrong in that scenario, right? 

Bearing Arms points out: 

In the real world, such an act would result in the boy facing numerous felony charges (exact charges depend on state laws) possibly including weapons theft, unlawful possession of a weapon by a minor, illegal concealed carry of a weapon, carrying a weapon onto school property, assault, and brandishing. 

There’s also the very real chance that someone could be hurt or killed by an accidental discharge of the gun. 

Imagine if teenagers really did follow Sincic’s advice en masse? We would have hundreds of guns showing up, potentially loaded, on school property. The students would face expulsion from school. 

If your goal as an activist is to create a cultural shift, encouraging children to steal their parents’ property, endanger themselves and others, and break multiple laws is not the way to do it.

Link

Suddenly, since gun control loons are encouraging SS and STASI like behavior....Godwin's Law seems appropriate.

Sandy Hook families sue Bushmaster - Updated -

The families of nine people murdered at Sandy Hook Elementary School in December 2012, plus a survivor of the massacre, are  suing Bushmaster, the North Carolina company that made the semiautomatic rifle Adam Lanza used in the attack. The lawsuit also names as defendants the weapon's distributor and the East Windsor, Connecticut, gun store that sold it to Nancy Lanza, the killer's mother. Although none of these businesses broke any laws, the plaintiffs argue that they are guilty of "negligent entrustment" because they made a gun with no legitimate civilian uses available to the general public. Joshua Koskoff, an attorney representing the plaintiffs, told The Wall Street Journal "there is so much ample evidence of the inability of the civilian world to control these weapons that [it] is no longer reasonable to entrust them to [civilians]."
Reason


And here we go. Demonization of the firearm. Never mind that this firearm in question was legal to purchase and own at the time of the shooting......never mind that this firearm in question functions no differently than any [generally speaking] other semi-automatic rifle. It looks scary so it must be banned. I don't blame the lawyers here...they're just looking to make money off of tragedy...it's what they do. I don't even blame the victims families, because they are seemingly simply ignorant of the basic functions of firearms and the lawful nature of the product.


I blame the gun control cabal, who instead of focusing their attention on the root causes of why one resorts to violence.....they pursue the lazy avenue of trying to demonize the tool used in said violence. They do this fully knowledgeable to the lawful nature of these tools and the Constitutional protections guaranteed for their ownership by the citizen. They rely on invented labels and rhetoric and the relative ignorance of the public at large. They preach "gun safety" only because the truthful term of "gun control" has not panned out in their favor...but don't actually support teaching gun safety. Education is not their goal, but rather a utopian vision that will ultimately leave more victims in it's wake...as well as the fundamental and Constitutional right to defend oneself with a tool commensurate with the median threat.


- Updated - Eugene Volokhs astute summation of the merits of this case here.