Saturday, January 26, 2008
These men were to be used as a first defense against paratroops and saboteurs in their local areas and to provide a guerrilla force against a large scale invasion as snipers, scouts, and raiders. Many of them were expected to provide their own weapons and equipment.
Thousands heeded the call.
Armed and Safe reports that Cook County Commissioner Beaver has allegedly withdrawn his gun ban/registration proposal that includes all firearms.
IGOLD 2008 is set for March 11. Unfortunately I won't be able to attend due to family obligations.
SaysUncle found a report that Commissioner Larry Suffredin is a paid lobbyist for the Illinois Citizens for Handgun Control. He claims that there is no conflict yet at the same time he is proposing gun control ordinances and referring them to the committee he chairs.
In the Illinois legislature, a whole plethora of anti-gun bills has been thrown up against the wall hoping that some of it sticks as per PuSH'er SOP. Some of these bills are identical to eachother w/ bill numbers and sponsors being the only differences :
SB1007 Magazine Ban : Anything over 10 rounds. Grandfathered so completely useless.
SB1915 ONE GUN PER MONTH
SB1919 HANDGUN DEALER LICENSING ACT
HB0758 FOID CARD ACT- Bans Private Sales
HB4217 CRIM CD- Mandates programs for gun amnesty/turn-ins for all County Sheriff's offices.
HB4269 AMMUNITION ENCODING- Not Microstamping, but bullet and casing serialization. Includes a 5 cent/ round tax. defacto ban.
HB4349 AMMUNITION ENCODING -Same as above. Some different sponsors.
HB4258 & HB4259 AMMUNITION ACCOUNTABILITY- Two identical bills by the same sponsor. Effectively the same as the Ammo Encoding bills above but w/ some different wording and provisions.
HB4321 CRIM CD-UNLAWFUL USE-WEAPON Assisted Knife- Switchblade ban w/ "Only Ones" exceptions.
HB4357 ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN- The usual. Includes .50 cal and Hi cap magazine ban.
HB4393 ONE GUN PER MONTH
HB4541 HANDGUN DEALER LICENSING ACT
It's going to be an interesting year.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
General Social Survey (GSS), 1972-2006: The GSS is a full-probability sample of adults
living in households in the United States using in-person interviews. For more details, see
Davis, Smith, and Marsden, 2007. GSS gets its main funding from the National Science
Foundation. The added questions on the regulation of firearms in 2006 were supported by a grant from the Joyce Foundation.
National Gun Policy Survey (NGPS), 2001: The NGPS is a random digit dialing sample
of adults living in households with telephones. Sample size was 1,176 in 2001. For more
details, see Smith, 2001. The NGPS was funded by the Joyce Foundation.
Since the GSS is operated by NORC, guess what dumbass? It's funded by the Joyce Foundation.
He then goes on to claim that they "controlled" for differences in population. I'm sure I'll keep waiting for evidence of this when they state that it's based off of percentages of population. There's a reason they used percentages instead of total numbers. It's due to bias. I've shown mine, now we'll wait for JadeGuy to show his. So far all he's done is thrown out his usual insults w/o backing up his assertions.
Quote from CavTrooper:
It's not just that Joyce Fdn gave NORC money, it's that they authored gun-related questions used in collecting data in the survey.
Similar to how the Joyce Fdn authored an anti-gun policy statement published under the name of the National Association of Chiefs of Police last year...shortly after making a six-figure donation to pave the way.
That thud you hear is their credibility, as well as what little remains of yours, hitting the deck.
And what was this case about that he lied during you ask. Why it was in regards to him firing two officers that were looking into allegations against his security unit.
Such a fine following Mayor Bloomberg has.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
The funniest part is this:
"Do we really want judges making those decisions rather than democratically-elected legislative bodies?"
Can we say Weinstein?
Paul, if you're going to be a disingenuous, hypocritical prick, at least try not to be so obvious about it.
BTW. I notice you no longer have the "Sites linking to this page" function up. I wonder why:
Update: Oh, look, it's back. Good links to pro-gun sites.
Interestingly enough, he's honest enough to use a qualifier when discussing possible future intentions of CF NJ:
"Ceasefire NJ does not currently support a New Jersey state handgun ban"
Meaning to say that they are not opposed to supporting one in the future. They're just not calling for one right now.
So my "shrill, repetative, and purposely disingenuous" post was, infact, completely accurate. If it's "repetative", it's only because it's in response to the constantly regurgitated mis-information (ie. lies) endlessly repeated by groups like Ceasefire, VPC, and the Brady Campaign.
You're right Bryan, it is your bad. Don't worry, though, we'll be here to correct your mistakes.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
"~Second, as to thirdpower's increasingly shrill claims and attempts to smear with some bizarre and incoherent 'guilt by association' notion...whatever the personal views of individuals in various organizations with which I may or may not be acquainted, none of the following organizations, falsely cited by thirdpower, calls for "complete handgun bans" - Ceasefire NJ, CeaseFire PA, the PATH (Pennsylvanians Against Trafficking Handguns) Coalition, the Brady Campaign. Repetitive and purposeful disingenuousness on thirdpower's part will never make it so."
To bad the BC own website and briefs tell a different story as they are doing everything in their power to uphold the ban. Bryan convieniently words his post to imply that the BC are not associated w/ PATH. A quick look at thier website shows differently:
Update: Bryan has recognized his error on the views and standings of the Brady Campaign and has apologized. Now he just needs to recognize the views endorsed by at least one Board Member of CeaseFire PA.
His recent entry brings up (again) the Joyce Foundation funded NORC report emphasizing the Myth of Decreasing Gun Owners which I ( and pretty much every other thinking individual) has skewered as a mere dream of the PuSH'ers.
Obviously Bryan CAN make these things up.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Sunday, January 20, 2008
"Our mutual goal is to prevent false alarms"
What are their most likely real goals?
"He and his colleagues will try to accommodate all the concerns when they redraft the bill, he said, but one way or another, the cops are going to have this new power."
Why do they want to know where they are and regulate them? Because they're afraid that people might discover the truth:
"When the Environmental Protection Agency promised that the air surrounding Ground Zero was safe, Vallone said, independent testers proved that such assurances were utterly false."
They want people to be utterly dependent on the Gov't and to rely on "official" information for their safety. Nevermind the fact that the error rate of any Gov't agency is higher than anything people would tolerate from a civilian company or organization. Also, as is typical of legislators, he realized that his proposal would cause issues, yet he cared so much that he tried to fast-track the law even w/ the problems:
"When I was first given a briefing only weeks ago, the potential problems did occur to me,"
With this type of nanny-state mentality, I can almost guarantee what his voting record is on firearms.