Sometimes, the best way to handle a potential problem is to avoid it altogether. Firearms should not be seen as a potential cause of distress; as long as proper care is taken to avoid an accident, a firearms will serve as a safe, reliable tool. Here at Firearms Fax, we know gun owners and we know gun safety. Read on to learn more… Read the rest of this entry »
Archive for category gun rights
Being a Good Example
Jun 26
If you are considering the carrying of a concealed handgun, be sure to understand that you are in a position to do one of two things: create a positive example of a law-abiding gun owner, or provide more fodder for the relentless attack on gun rights by the liberal media. The best way to be the former is to simply follow some common sense, and you should be good to go. Read the rest of this entry »
Do you know why the liberals tend to disregard any of the quotes regarding private gun ownership, even if they are made by famous leaders and thinkers? Because they hate the fact that they cannot change history even if they want too, and they are all to used to getting their own way. Well, I am personally thankful for the fact that these people existed and left a bit of common sense… even if it is a bit to much for our liberal buddies to handle.
It seems that the liberals have this idea that they can freely criticize anyone they want with no boundaries, but the second that they receive any type of negative comment they start crying left and right… well, left most of the time. Well, they need to quit their whining and step up and present their views. Here are my facts and stats, and I invite any liberal to comment or discuss the facts… I am going to guess I will not have any takers on the offer. Read the rest of this entry »
I know it sounds too crazy to be true, but do not take my word for it, take a look at the facts yourself. By the way, these are not necessarily the same facts you can expect to find by reading or watching the liberal media, ; ). The fact that gun rights lower the crime rate has been around for a long time, you just need to dig deep into the “facts” that the right-wingers publish to really see what is going on.
Read the rest of this entry »
Liberal Talk
Jun 16
No, I have not turned liberal… however there are a few things that have been irking me recently with regards to the clever “use of words” that right-wingers love to use to play unfairly. In any case, I cannot seem to understand why anyone would bother listening to someone go on and on about a cause that does not need to be addressed… but go figure right? Read the rest of this entry »
A very good video going over the new gun laws in Montana. I don’t ordinarily like much from Fox news, but Glenn Beck brought on the writers of the new gun law in Montana to explain their position.
Here’s part of the transcript:
BECK: OK. What would you say if I said to you, “I think a background check is not necessarily a bad idea”? You don’t want some guy and going — I was in a gun store in Pennsylvania. I’m not kidding you. Two people walked in, some, you know, 20-year-old dope and his girlfriend, and he is like, “Well, what do you want?” And she said, “I don’t know. That one’s kind of cute, the pink one. I like that one.”
I just looked at the guy behind the counter and I said, “Don’t sell them a firearm.” He did. I mean, I think we should have some standards. What do you say about standards - having some kind of standard?
MARBUT: We don’t have those kinds of people in Montana. Or at least —
(LAUGHTER AND APPLAUSE)
BECK: You don’t like (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Montana. You’re right. You’re right.
MARBUT: At least we have fewer of them than you do. We want to set our own standards and we should be allowed to have guns and we don’t want the federal standards. We’re not the same as New Jersey or California or somewhere else.
And if we want to put restrictions on who can possess firearms, they should be our restrictions and should fit our culture and our people.
BECK: But people will say — Kevin and judge, people will say, “We’re all part of a union. We all have to work together.” Kevin, you’re smiling like this and it doesn’t have a shot in hell of working.
KEVIN GUTZMAN, AUTHOR, “POLITICALLY INCORRECT GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION”: Well, there are two levels to approach this question. One is on the theoretical level. On the theoretical level, the gentlemen are exactly right. The federal government is grabbing power to regulate these things and anything else that comes to mind that it’s not supposed to have. And so I applaud them.
And trying to figure out a way to confront the federal government and get it to rein itself in is a good idea. On the other hand, practically, the first time this matter comes into a federal court, it’s tossed.
BECK: Judge?
JUDGE ANDREW NAPOLITANO, FOX NEWS SENIOR JUDICIAL ANALYST: Well, I think the more states that do it, the more pressure there will be on the Congress to realize that the states are serious about preventing the Congress from taking power away from it.
For example, if this were extended another step further, like the state of Montana forbids all police, local, regional and state, from enforcing federal laws in Montana. The federal government simply lacks the resources and the money to enforce all of its laws without the states helping them. So the more piling on there is, the more judges will realize, hey, something is going on here.
BECK: Leo, let me go to you, because you are a representative in the state of Texas. With Texas — you guys get it. And no offense, Montana, but Texans are going to come up and kick your butts. You guys are also — are you going to be taking Gary’s amendment? Is that what you are trying to do? What are you doing in Texas?
REP. LEO BERMAN, TEXAS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: We’ve already filed his bill in Texas. But he’ll have the court case in Montana. But Glenn, I’m a 9/12er. I served 22 years in the military because I love this country, just like you do. And we say that we fought against fascism, communism.
We watched socialist countries throughout the world just languish while we prospered based on free enterprise and individual freedoms. We see this president and this administration taking us not to the far-left, but beyond that to socialism. We don’t want to go there.
So Rep. Brandon Creighton and I filed two bills in Texas. The bills don’t really need to pass because 30 other states did essentially the same thing. But what these bills do is reassert our sovereignty under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
And we tell the federal government that if they mandate anything on us which is not fully authorized by the U.S. Constitution, we’re going to challenge it and not do it. That’s the only thing we can possibly do right now.
We don’t want to become a socialist state. We want to challenge the federal government and I think we can do it. If we get all the state governors together to pull their resources, and anytime the federal government comes out with a mandate that’s not authorized by the Constitution, we take it right into federal court, all of us at the same time.
Amen and Amen. It’s not about being right or wrong, it’s about state control vs. government rule. States rights people!
Lady liberty wins again this week when the U.S. court of appeals in San Francisco sent the victims of a 1999 gun crime packing (no pun intended) when they tried to sue the actual manufacturer.
Amen and Amen! It’s like fat people suing McDonalds or smokers suing Phillip Morris. It’s become the ‘in’ thing to sue everyone and everything you can. Not important if the company was acting legally and only made the weapon. They wanted them to be held accountable. For something they didn’t do.
Here’s some more from the article:
The case stemmed from a rampage in which white supremacist Buford Furrow wounded five people, including three children, at a Jewish Community Center in Granada Hills and then killed a Filipino-American postal worker, Joseph Ileto, in Chatsworth on Aug. 10, 1999.
Furrow later pleaded guilty to 16 federal charges including committing a hate crime and was sentenced to life in prison without parole.
Meanwhile, the surviving victims and Ileto’s mother sought to sue Georgia-based Glock Inc., RSR Wholesale Guns Seattle Inc. and Norinco for allegedly marketing the guns in a way that encouraged illegal purchasers to buy them.
In an earlier ruling in 2003, the appeals court said the plaintiffs could sue the companies on the common-law claims of creation of a public nuisance and marketing negligence.
I’m sorry boys and girls, and you can correct me if I’m wrong here, but this smells an awful lot like “victims” looking for deep pockets rather than out and out justice. It looks an awful lot like some people want to to turn a tragedy into a payday.
Sorry if that ticks you off, I just call em’ like I see em’.
Discuss.
Jailing honest citizens
May 8
I have to tell you, I’m still reeling pissed from yesterday. I spent some time doing some research after I made yesterday’s post, only to find out that there are MANY states that want to turn law abiding citizens into criminals.
Just for being gun owners.
Understand, it’s not legal gun owners causing gang violence in L.A. nor is it registered gun owners in most of the gun related crime in America.
Nope, it’s people that have obtained them ILLEGALLY. So what’s the best approach? I don’t know, but it sure as hell isn’t a good approach to make owning a gun wrong. It sure isn’t a good approach to punish someone that buys more than one weapon a month. Can somebody explain that logic to me?
Give me a break please.
The real deal is going to have to center on responsible gun ownership. Not limiting the amount of guns, but securing whatever guns you might own. It’s why we do what we do here at firearmsfax.com , we offer a safe deposit box that allows you to store all of your weapons serial numbers in a safe place, should they ever be stolen. (sounds like responsible ownership to me….)
Anyway, back to the topic. What do you think boys and girls? Should a person go to prison because they LEGALLY purchased a couple of handguns in the same month?
‘Splain it to me Lucy…. Put your comments in the box below!
Well, the Patrick Administration is back at it again. Calling for tougher laws in Beantown, wanting to send people to PRISON if they buy more than one firearm in a thirty day period.
Here’s a cut from Boston.com:
Backed by Mayor Thomas M. Menino and Suffolk District Attorney Daniel F. Conley, the Patrick administration asked lawmakers yesterday to allow prosecutors to hold suspects in gun cases without bail and to bar gun owners from buying more than one firearm within 30 days or face 2 1/2 years in prison.
Those proposals were offered as part of a broader attack on gun-related violence in the state and were made after the Supreme Judicial Court on Monday banned prosecutors from seeking dangerousness hearings in illegal gun possession cases.
The court, in a 4-1 ruling, said that illegal gun possession is a “passive and victimless crime.”
The proposal filed by the governor would rewrite state law to make it clear that prosecutors have legal authority to try to keep someone in custody for up to 90 days while awaiting trial, an idea that Bristol County District Attorney C. Samuel Sutter has aggressively used in his jurisdiction.
It is not a victimless and passive crime, because owning a gun is NOT a crime! It irritates me gun control advocates like to brand honest, law abiding people as criminals in order to further their beliefs. It’s not right.