Jan 8, 2016
The other day, President Obama gave a speech outlining his proposals for gun control. Often ignoring the law and the Constitution, he plowed ahead to the point where he started to tear up and cry. He said that he got emotional when he thinks of all the people killed by gun violence. People have commented on this and frankly, we were disturbed by the optics of the tears.
It was darned near impossible for us to imagine George Bush crying after 3000 Americans lost their lives on 9/11. It it impossible to think of Johnson crying after the assignation of John F. Kennedy. It is difficult to imagine Kennedy himself crying in public. We certainly did not see Eisenhower cry during the Korean conflict. There was no wavering in FDR’s voice as he asked Congress to declare war on Japan. Even Abraham Lincoln, who seemed to allow the deaths of every soldier in the North and South to rip apart his heart and soul never shed a tear.
It is not something that we expect of our leaders.
That’s our opinion on how it looked, and you are free to disagree with that opinion.
AF Branco of Comically Incorrect, takes a more direct approach to lack of logic and critical thinking behind those tears. As usual, he does it with devastating effectiveness.
Mar 29, 2014
The story of Washington D.C. resident Mark Witaschek goes back to the summer of 2012. Emily Miller of the Washington Post gives a brief history:
Mr. Witaschek, a successful financial adviser with no criminal history, is the first known case of a citizen being prosecuted in D.C. for inoperable ammunition. Washington police and prosecutors have spent a year and a half trying to nail him for the possession of so-called unregistered ammunition.
A hunter and gun owner, Mr. Witaschek has always kept his firearms at his sister’s house in Virginia. If convicted, he
faces a year in jail and a $1,000 fine for having a single, inoperable shotgun shell in his home. The jury trial starts on Feb. 11.
The Metropolitan Police Department raided Mr. Witaschek’s rented Georgetown house twice in the summer of 2012 on the word of his angry ex-wife.
The first raid was done without a proper search warrant. The police found a box of rifle cartridges found in a closet but because the search was illegal, as evidence the box of cartridges was thrown out.
The police returned for a second search and this time, armed with a warrant, they found an antique Colt revolver (which is legal in the District of Columbia,) a holster (also legal), a shotgun shell that had misfired and was inoperable, and a box of muzzle loading sabots.
Sabots are plastic covers that make it easier to push the bullet into a muzzleloader gun. There is no propellent on the bullet or sabot — because the gunpowder is separated — so it is not clear that it can be categorized as ammunition and thus only registered gun owners can possess it.
The 12 gauge shotgun shell was a remnant of a hunt in which Witaschek had participated. At trial, Witaschek was put on the stand:
Defense attorney Howard X. McEachern asked his client to explain how he came to have a shotgun shell on his desk
at his home in Georgetown. Mr. Witaschek explained that he kept the shotgun shell as a “souvenir” from a hunting trip in southern Virginia with friends in 2006.
He said that as a deer approached, “I raised the shotgun, took aim, fired and nothing happened.” He looked up and saw the deer run straight into a tree.
Feb 11, 2014
Ah yes, the effective use of satire.
A resident of Ashland, Oregon has so perfectly mocked hastily written, knee jerk gun control laws that we just had to share this video.
In the video, a citizen of Ashland, who seems to be of English descent based on his accent, mocks knee jerk gun control laws to the point of absurdity. How he kept a straight face the entire time is beyond me.
The citizen was speaking in regards to proposed gun control laws being discussed by the city. Oregon does permit cities to pass their own gun control laws to a certain extent.
A citizen speaks to the City Council in opposition to a local “loaded carry” ban ordinance one of the Councilors has brought for consideration. No facts, figures, statistics, or other evidence of any existing problem has been presented by the sponsoring Councilor. She has however, made emotional pleas to “protect the children”, dropped the “Sandy Hook” tragedy as supporting gun regulation, and other such bullshit.
She actually said “I know there are statistics out there but I didn’t look them up”. WTF
Meanwhile, the Chief of Police has stated that the town has NEVER had an incident involving an open carrier. Hmmmmm no problem? Why an ordinance then? Oh yeah….to FEEL good.
This citizen uses satire to point out the idiocy of the proposed ordinance.
And then there is this video that appeared on FoxNews several years ago:
Jun 25, 2013
You may remember the case of Josh Welch, a second grader attending Park Elementary School near Baltimore, Maryland. Josh was suspended last year for allegedly biting parts off a pastry (a Pop Tart or generic brand) leaving the remaining pastry in the shape of a gun.
The pastry “gun” was a rectangular, strawberry-filled bar, akin to a Pop-Tart, that the second-grader had tried to nibble into the shape of a mountain Friday morning, but then found it looked more like a gun, [father] B.J. Welch said.
Welch said an assistant principal at Park Elementary School told him that his son pointed the pastry at a classmate — though the child maintains he pointed it at the ceiling.
“In my eyes, it’s irrelevant; I don’t care who he pointed it at,” Welch said. “It was harmless. It was a Danish.”
Teachers and administrators freaked out, and suspended Josh, who was 7 years old at the time, for two days.
In the eyes of many, the incident shows the folly of so called “zero tolerance” rules in schools. Such rules equate a pastry or a drawing of a gun with the real thing. The school administrators were also accused of a lack of common sense. After all, if you want children to learn, then simply say to the child, “we don’t do that here.” Instead, the child is sent home and suspended for a pastry.
We aren’t too thrilled with the NRA either, who gave Josh a lifetime membership. To us, that doesn’t solve the problem of the people at the school who made the decision to suspend Josh to begin with and tries to make a 7 year old a poster child against gun control.
There are times when you just need to let kids be kids, an idea that Josh himself understands.
“Everyone keeps asking me why I did it,” Josh said. “I don’t know why I did it … I wish people would stop asking me about it. It’ll probably go on for 45 years or something.”
One would think after all the rhetoric and all the back and forth, cooler heads would prevail and the incident would be wiped from the records of this 7 year old.
One would be wrong.
May 16, 2013
To the left is the face of one of New York’s latest people charged with a crime.
Gregory Dean, Jr., is 31 years old and from Hopewell Junction in New Lebanon N.Y. On March 12, 2013, Dean was stopped by the police for having the light over his license plate out. While being interviewed by the police, the officer noticed there was a handgun on the seat which was partially covered by a sweatshirt.
The officer took the gun, which was legally owned and possessed by Dean, and then examined the magazine which contained nine rounds of ammunition – two more than allowed by New York’s SAFE Act (Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act of 2013), signed Governor Andrew M. Cuomo within an hour after it was passed by the New York legislature.
Dean was arrested and charged.
Police charged Dean with unlawful possession of certain ammunition feeding devices, third-degree aggravated unlicensed operation,both misdemeanors, plus vehicle infractions, police said.
He was released without bail and ordered to appear May 23 in New Lebanon Justice Court.
Another criminal off the street.
Of course, the problem is that Dean did not do anything wrong Constitutionally. The seven round limit on the magazine size has lawyers chomping at the bit for a Constitutional challenge as it made far too many weapons illegal (thereby violating the “reasonable” standard when restricting rights) and also that the law is “ex post facto,” meaning it made legal acts prior to the law’s passage illegal.
May 2, 2013
Representative Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) appeared on MSNBC’s “Jansing and Co.” Monday and proved that a true vacuum can exist – between her ears.
When discussing the Boston Bombers, Maloney said:
“(The bomber,) as we know now, was on the terrorist watch list, so we know a gun check would stop him, if there was a background check,” she said. “As it stands now, (the bomber) … or the next terrorist can go to any gun show and buy a hundred round magazine, they can buy all of the assault weapons they want, no questions asked.” (as per our policy of not advertising the names of terrorists and mass murders here at ROH, we have substituted “the bomber” for the person’s name
The problem is that Maloney is wrong. She doesn’t know what she is talking about.
“The mere fact you are on a terrorist watch list alone would not prevent you from purchasing firearm,” said Dale Roberts, local lawyer who teaches firearms law for the Missouri Bar.
The 2nd Amendment right can only be denied for certain reasons such as being convicted of a crime or having a mental health record. “So if you are on the terrorist watch list and you have one of those disqualifications, certainly that would stop you,” said Roberts.
According to NPR, 90 percent of the people on the list between 2004-2010 were able to buy guns and explosives. Currently the federal government doesn’t share the watch list with the gun application list. Should the process be changed?
“I have mixed feelings about it. If you have been investigated and you are on the watch list for good reason, then I kind of think they should scrutinize that. But, there’s the possibility you are on the watch list accidentally or incorrectly,” said Roberts.
Being on the terroist “watchlist” doesn’t mean you have been convicted of a crime. In fact, there are people on the list that do not deserve to be on the list because the name has been added in error. One such person was the late Senator Ted Kennedy:
Apr 30, 2013
The New York Times is reporting that members of the Senate are working “quietly” to bring back a new gun control measure to the floor of the Congress after the defeat of the Manchin-Toomey Amendment.
There are a couple of things we wish point out in how the Times spins this issue and how there are some real, uninformed clowns in Congress.
Drawing on the lessons from battles in the 1980s and ’90s over the Brady Bill, which failed in Congress several times before ultimately passing, gun control supporters believe they can prevail by working on a two-pronged strategy. First, they are identifying senators who might be willing to change their votes and support a background check system with fewer loopholes.
Loopholes? The issue with the Manchin-Toomey Amendment was not so called “loopholes” but the fact that the bill was too restrictive and onerous. If the bill had simply stuck to the idea that if one buys a gun at a gun show, they need to complete a background check, very few people would have complained. Instead, the Amendment tried to overreach into every transaction, even those between private parties within a state, and people said “we don’t want that.”
But we’ll let the Times speak for itself as to what the “loopholes” are:
“We’re going to work it hard,” Mr. Manchin said Thursday, adding that he was looking at tweaking the language of his bill in a way that he believed would satisfy senators who, for example, felt that background checks on person-to-person gun sales would be too onerous for people who live in rural areas far from a sporting goods store.
Those concerns were an issue for Alaska’s senators, Lisa Murkowski, a Republican, and Mark Begich, a Democrat.
The Times article never states a “loophole,” but yet to demonize those who voted against the bill, they turn the reasons around. Instead of accurately saying right out of the gate that people voted against the bill because it was too restrictive, they say they voted against it because “loopholes” weren’t addressed.
Jan 16, 2013
EDITOR’S NOTE: This is the sixth of our posts on the shootings that occurred in Newtown, Connecticut.
On Friday, December 14, 2012, the small town of Newtown, Connecticut was the epicenter of a horrible, unspeakable act ending in the deaths of 28 people. Shortly after 9 AM, a 20 year old entered Sandy Point Elementary school and proceeded to shoot 26 individuals, including 20 children.
The names of the victims and their date of birth are as follows:
– Charlotte Bacon, 2/22/06, female
– Daniel Barden, 9/25/05, male
– Rachel Davino, 7/17/83, female.
– Olivia Engel, 7/18/06, female
– Josephine Gay, 12/11/05, female
– Ana M. Marquez-Greene, 04/04/06, female
– Dylan Hockley, 3/8/06, male
– Dawn Hochsprung, 06/28/65, female
– Madeleine F. Hsu, 7/10/06, female
– Catherine V. Hubbard, 6/08/06, female
– Chase Kowalski, 10/31/05, male
– Jesse Lewis, 6/30/06, male
– James Mattioli , 3/22/06, male
– Grace McDonnell, 12/04/05, female
– Anne Marie Murphy, 07/25/60, female
– Emilie Parker, 5/12/06, female
– Jack Pinto, 5/06/06, male
– Noah Pozner, 11/20/06, male
– Caroline Previdi, 9/07/06, female
– Jessica Rekos, 5/10/06, female
– Avielle Richman, 10/17/06, female
– Lauren Rousseau, 6/1982, female (full date of birth not specified)
– Mary Sherlach, 2/11/56, female
– Victoria Soto, 11/04/85, female
– Benjamin Wheeler, 9/12/06, male
– Allison N. Wyatt, 7/03/06, female
The shooter himself was found dead in the school.
Also killed was the 52 year old mother of the shooter who was found in her home.
We never want to forget the victims in this incident. That is why we listed them first. You will see these first couple of paragraphs every day we write about this because we never want to forget the victims.
We want to go over some of the reasons we have heard and to which we have been exposed on the issue of weapons, gun control and Newtown.
“Why does anyone need a gun?”
This has always baffled us. What other right does a person have to “prove” a need for? For example, NBC, ABC, CNN, etc all have freedom of the press and freedom of speech. Do they have to “prove” that a website for their company is “needed?” Do we have to “prove” a right not to be searched without cause or a warrant? No one has to prove a “need” to exercise a right. The government has to prove a “need” to override that right.
“We need to ban automatic weapons.”
We have done that. The 1934 Firearms Act bans automatic weapons.
“What about nuclear weapons? Cannons? Does the Second Amendment allow for that?”
We already have bans and restrictions not only on nuclear weapons, but on the material to make such a weapon.
As for something like a cannon, it should be remembered that at the time of the Constitution, cannons were private property. They were owned by individuals – not the government. But no one is demanding that people be allowed a cannon or a howitzer. Both arguments are specious at best.
(True story…… years ago we were coming home from work on a weekend and pulled up behind a pickup truck with a bed topper on it. We looked at the bumper upon which was a sticker that said “MY OTHER GUN IS A CANNON.” Thinking that was somewhat humorous, we glanced up into the back of the truck and saw a cannon pointing at us. We kid you not. A big cannon. Turned out the guy was a Civil War re-inactor and was part of a artillery unit.)
“Who needs a AR-15 for defense?”
First, in many cases a rifle is better in a situation where accuracy is paramount. People forget that a handgun can be wildly inaccurate. If you have someone in your house, an AR-15 is a good, accurate weapon that will dissuade someone without putting other people in the house in as much risk as handgun with a higher powered round.
Secondly, who needs a AR-15 for defense?
This 15 year old kid protecting his 12 year old sister: