Police Officer Poll Confirms that Anti-Gun Legislation in Congress Will Do Nothing to Prevent Gun Crime

The Police Officer Gun Control Survey posted at PoliceOne.com is an amazing confirmation that the Democrat-push gun control legislation will do little to no good in combating gun crime, starting with the Democrat demand of banning high capacity magazines.

Virtually all respondents (95 percent) say that a federal ban on manufacture and sale of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds would not reduce violent crime.

- PoliceOne.com

The high capacity ban that the Democrats are pushing is stupid for a number of reasons.

• There are literally millions of them in existence already.
• It takes but a second to change out magazines
• Banning high capacity magazines does nothing to prevent shootings. Are Democrats saying that it is not so bad if a shooter manages to shoot up to ten people as opposed to shooting more?

And let's not forget the idiotic and completely unenforceable law in New York State forbidding you to put more than 7 rounds in your magazine. Of course there is plenty of opportunity for police to catch law-abiding people breaking this law. They can also catch criminals breaking this law, but they will already have them for criminal use of a firearm. A crime they are likely to punish them lightly.

Of course, the cornerstone of current anti-gun legislation is the goal of banning 'assault weapons'. The police polled, logically noted that this is not very useful legislation. One reason of course is that rifles and handguns that are not classified as assault weapons function identically to the targetted weapons and are equally lethal.

2.) The majority of respondents — 71 percent — say a federal ban on the manufacture and sale of some semi-automatics would have no effect on reducing violent crime. However, more than 20 percent say any ban would actually have a negative effect on reducing violent crime. Just over 7 percent took the opposite stance, saying they believe a ban would have a moderate to significant effect.

- PoliceOne.com

The two issues above are the biggest gun control legislative goals of Congressional Democrats. As far as America's police are concerned, these measures are useless at best and worse potentially harmful.

--------------------

Canada Shipping Oil to US By Rail To Get Around Obama's Keystone XL Blockade

So it is two months since my last post on the Keystone XL pipeline (Keystone XL Pipeline - You Don't Get a Much Better Example of How Anti-Business (and Petty) This Administration is) and our petty President has still not gotten out of the way of construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline. 

His liberal followers are doing their best to silence criticism of the President in this matter. Take a look at a recent post on Business Insider, 'Why We'll Have To Keep Waiting For Obama's Decision On The Keystone XL Pipeline', where Liberals killed every comment by flagging them as offensive, including a comment by the author who eventually turned comments off for the post. They even flagged their own comments which is unfortunate as it is interesting to see their thinking, which included comments that since thie project will only product 5,000 jobs, that it was irreverent in terms of creating work. But as I have said before, the Democrats Hate Your Job, especially jobs like these.

But they cannot stop the flow of oil coming out of Canada. One recent story which validates my original post is the following noting the rising demand for tank cars for the transport of oil:

The number of tank cars ordered for shipping crude and expected to be delivered by the end of 2014 will be enough to move two million barrels of oil per day, almost three times what is currently extracted from the Bakken shale basin, Mr. Kolstad said.

That’s the size of two Keystone XLs and one Seaway pipeline.

As much as 40% of the orders are from Canadian entities desperate to get their crude out of Western Canada and into U.S. refineries in the East and on the Gulf Coast. - Financial Post (22 February 2013)

Read the rest of the story. So good job liberals. The oil you hoped to keep trapped in Canada is coming to the US, in a more expensive mode of transportation, which happens to also be less safe and less green.

--------------------

Idiot Politician of the Day - Democrat Congressman John Conyers

Here we have a member of Congress not only not upholding the law, but also advocating the destruction of the rule of law. This is simply inexcusable.

Opening the first immigration hearing of the new Congress, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee warned his colleagues not to use the term "illegal immigrant" as the debate goes on.

"I hope no one uses the term illegal immigrants here today. Our citizens are not — the people in this country are not illegal. They are are out of status. They are new Americans that are immigrants," said Rep. John Conyers Jr., Michigan Democrat. - Washington Times

If this is the position of Democrats, then can they please explain why the rest of us, actual documented American citizens and documented residents and immigrants have to be subjected to what used to be considered protecting our borders but now only seems to be harassment, unfair and unequal treatment before the law. We might as well get rid of immigration at the airports and save the expense and hassle.

Everyone arriving by air and sea is pre-checked by immigration prior to starting travel to the US. So why do we have to be poked and prodded once we get here? Illegal aliens are not. Along with that, why are we subjected to a customs inspection? Do you think illegal aliens have to put up with this crap? Hell, legal immigrants are forgiven at the airport for all sorts of violations because they may not understand the law, while Americans are whacked with fines in the hundreds of dollars for simple violations of having with them sandwiches, made in Europe by their mom (As documented on one of the border reality shows. See another example here). You could say that the US Government is discriminating against US Citizens and legal residents compared to how they treat illegal aliens.

Idiot politicians like John Conyers are our immigration problem.

Idiot Politician of the Day - New York Assemblywoman Michelle Schimel (D-Great Neck)

Today New York State pass new laws against lawful gun owners, pretending that they will prevent some kind of mass shooting. Idiot Politician of the Day, New York Assemblywoman Michelle Schimel (D-Great Neck) made this bold statement:

“Make no mistake about it, everyone. I repeat, make no mistake about it, the number of gun deaths in New York State will decrease because of the bold actions we take today," - CBS News

Lets see about that. It's not like New York State outlawed murder with this law. The last time I checked, it was already illegal for criminals to even touch a gun. But as I noted before, the Government has been looking the other way when they actually have evidence of a criminal violating existing gun laws, leaving them out loose on the streets, until they get caught committing other crimes. It seems that Assemblywoman Schimel has nothing to say about that unfortunate statistic. 

Assemblywoman Schimel however, had no problem in voting into law something that will turn tens of thousands of up to now law abiding New York State residents into criminals. Among other things, this law bans all magazines capable of holding more than 7 rounds of ammunition. That is basically all of them outside of those for the 1911 45 pistol.Personally I'm shocked they didn't pick 6 to F them as well. That will probably come next year after they pick up a criminal with one.

Restrict ammunition magazines to seven bullets, from the current national standard of 10. Current owners of higher-capacity magazines would have a year to sell them out of state. Someone caught with eight or more bullets in a magazine could face a misdemeanor charge. - CBS News

I suspect that this single part of the law will be the most widely ignored. Unfortunately, if the police want to get you for anything, they now have an easy excuse to arrest you.It is pretty convenient really to have all of the citizens criminals. Anyone can be arrested for anything.

Thank goodness that the Democrats taught us how to ignore laws. Laws against illegal drugs. Immigration laws. Tax evasion, campaign funding laws, and even enforcement of existing gun laws.

Too bad it is not supposed to work this way. And it is all thanks to crap politicians like New York Assemblywoman Michelle Schimel (D-Great Neck). Don't expect her to eat her words when her statement is proven wrong. It is not her fault. It's never their fault. Just like communism. There was nothing wrong with communism itself a supporter once told me. It was the people who failed to make it work...

congratulations to New York Assemblywoman Michelle Schimel (D-Great Neck) on earning her useful idiot points for today.

P.S.

I am all for reforming our laws to improve them to keep weapons out of the hands of those who should not have them as well as punishing criminals who break our gun laws. This law will actually hurt the chances of any real reform as it is being pushed as such. As I covered in a previous post, Democrats are our Gun Crime Problem, Democrats in the New York Assembly actually opposed increasing penalties for real gun criminals.

Assembly Democrats back the most severe restrictions but, sources said, have repeatedly refused to agree to sharp increases in penalties for illegal gun possession or for the use of guns in violent crimes. - NY Post

Proscecution of Gun Crime Goes Down Under Democrat Presidents

It is interesting to note that Democrats are calling for new gun laws but at the same time they are refusing to enforce existing gun laws. Take the national background check for purchasing a firearm. Thousands of people who are not allowed to purchase a firearm are stopped each year during the background check process. Many of these people caught lying on their applications in an attempt to illegally purchase a firearm. Almost none of these cases are prosecuted. This was highlighted in a recent post. Even the (mostly) distasteful Mayor of New York, Mayor Bloomberg, finds this a truly inexcusable act of neglegence o behalf of the Government.

Some, including New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, are also pressing the Justice Department (DOJ) to get more aggressive in going after those convicted of trying to buy firearms by filing fraudulent background information. Citing 2009 figures, Bloomberg hammered the DOJ recently for prosecuting only 77 of 71,000 cases where people were found to have lied on their background checks. "These are gun criminals trying to buy guns illegally – and the federal government is just letting them walk," Bloomberg said during a speech in December. - The Hill

The Sandy Hook shooter tried to buy a gun a couple days before his attack. How many other dangerous people have tried and simply been turned away with no follow-up by the Federal Government? Do we have to wait until they too start shooting people? 

This kind of inaction is nothing new. Under President Clinton, there were complaints that his Administration was not serious in going after gun criminals. Worse, the then Administration actually hailed the law as working simply because they stopped and turned away criminal gun purchases. This would be like catching a bank robber, taking the money that he stole and then sending him on his way and calling it a success. this is sheer insanity.

President Clinton, Al Gore and their Congressional anti-gun allies continue to hold up the Brady Act as an effective crime-fighting tool, but they can`t explain why the 500,000 felons, drug dealers, stalkers and fugitives who walked into federally licensed dealers to purchase guns illegally were simply turned away. They committed multiple federal felonies, crimes punishable with 10-year prison terms. But these felons, drug dealers, stalkers and fugitives were not arrested. They were not prosecuted. They didn`t go to prison, and no community was made safer. - NRA ILA (17 October 2000!)

How many other crimes did these half million criminals who were left on the streets commit during the time that they could have been behind bars. How many people did they kill as a result of failure of the Government to put them in jail? I am going to make a guess that it was more than one. As our current Vice President notes, action should be taken if it can save even just one life. So how about enforcing our existing laws. That should save many more than one life...

Biden talked also about taking responsible action. "As the president said, if you're actions result in only saving one life, they're worth taking. But I'm convinced we can affect the well-being of millions of Americans and take thousands of people out of harm's way if we act responsibly."

Biden, as he himself noted, helped write the Brady bill. - The Weekly Standard

Well Mr. Vice President, how about pushing for the Brady Bill to be enforced...

Federal Prosecutions of Criminal Use of Guns
FY 1992-1998

You know that this is bad when even the NRA is complaining that the Government needs to do more to put gun criminals behind bars....

As I have said before, Democrats want gun criminals on the streets. Otherwise they loose a campaign issue. Gun crime victims mean little to Democrats other than votes on election day. If they really cared about the people they would push for putting gun criminals behind bars.

Mayor Bloomberg - 'Let Them Eat Pain!'

Now lets keep in mind that State and Federal Governments have already been putting restrictions on these types of medicines, some of which need to be accounted for pill-by-pill. But since drug addicts are still finding ways to obtain these drugs, the Mayor's next plan to fight this kind of drug abuse is to take the drugs away from those who will legitimately benefit from them. This is not really a surprise given that this is the same solution he has for combating gun crime, basically targeting those who legally own and would like to legally own weapons.

Mayor Bloomberg's latest rant is that he is going to restrict the availability of painkillers to people who need them at NY area hospitals. His reasoning is that there are people in New York City who are addicted to them. This however will do nothing but punish responsible people who do not abuse these medications, leaving some in pain.

“Number one, there’s no evidence of that. Number two, supposing it is really true, so you didn’t get enough painkillers and you did have to suffer a little bit. The other side of the coin is people are dying and there’s nothing perfect … There’s nothing that you can possibly do where somebody isn’t going to suffer, and it’s always the same group [claiming], ‘Everybody is heartless.’ Come on, this is a very big problem.” - Politicker

So because people are dying from prescription medicine abuse, abuse that I have no control over, the Mayor's logic is that I must have less or even no pain killers because people who don't need it, are consuming too much. 

As for Mayor Bloomberg's comment that some people are just going to have to suffer a little bit, this is the same guy who can't suffer for a minute and wait for his car to cool down on a hot summer day and has his car cooled down by a custom-made air conditioner system. All this from the same guy who puts strict anti-idling laws in place and then breaks them.

Enough with the politicians who think they are better than the rest of us. If we are going to start openly treating people as part of distinct social classes, then lets do it all the way. This way we can stop treating the majority of the population like crap because of a tiny minority. Lets single out this tiny minority and give them the fair treatment that they have earned.

Crazy - "40 percent of deadly Illinois crashes involve drivers who don't have a license"

This is what happens when you do not fairly enforce the laws of our country. First you ignore the immigration laws. They you are forced to abandon enforcing driver licensing laws as well as drunk driving checkpoints, as special interest groups will accuse you of 'unfairly' targeting illegal aliens.

Lawmakers believe there are as many as 250,000 undocumented immigrants on Illinois roads and that more than 40 percent of deadly Illinois crashes involve drivers who don't have a license. - NBC Chicago

You can surely bet that a majority of those drivers did not have insurance either, not that is going to help any dead people. However, just how many accidents overall involve illegal aliens? 

Keep in mind that this is a group that generally has 'broken no laws' except our immigration laws, and driver laws,  and employment laws and taxation laws, and identity theft laws. It's not their fault, really. If you stupid Americans would just give them a little more..... they'll demand something else.

In the case of Illinois, they are going to give illegals drivers licenses. So that that the illegal aliens can be just like you and me, and the 9/11 hijackers.

Democrats are our Gun Crime Problem

Democrats are very quick to call for more gun control. But these calls are always aimed at reducing the availability of guns to law-abiding Americans. Personally, I think that Democrat politicians intentionally resist going after actual gun crime and criminals simply because without gun crime they lose one of their campaign rallying cries.

Take this example as highlighted at the Ace of Spades blog, noting that out of the 4,000 firearm purchase background checks per year that are deemed a violation of Federal and/or state law and referred for prosecution, that under 200 of them are actually prosecuted. These are the very people who the Government has decided should not have a gun and one would think that 'gun control' Democrats would be in favor of ensuring don't get a gun. But for some reason, the Government has no interest in punishing for violating existing gun laws. From a 2009 Government-funded Brady Gun Law report:

ATF and U.S. Attorneys have developed referral criteria for all 94 judicial districts that reflect the types of cases most likely to merit prosecution. Cases involving restraining orders, domestic violence misdemeanors, non-immigrant aliens, violent felonies, warrants, and indictments are most often included in referral criteria. - Report link in PDF 2009 report here

So here we have actual gun crime where the main response from the US Government is to look the other way. (And just how many illegal aliens do you think the Government goes after for trying to purchase a gun.....)

And what about those Democrat calls for increasing gun control? Just as long as you don't try to punish the actual gun criminals. Take for instance the New York Democrat politician calls to simply confiscate guns from New York. Take them from the law-abiding citizens, but don't you dare increase sentences for actual gun criminals:

Efforts by Cuomo to reach an agreement with the Legislature on a package of gun-control laws has, so far, gone nowhere.

Senate Republicans, who will retain enormous power in January, have made it clear they don’t support confiscation of assault weapons or any new severe restrictions on their ownership.

Assembly Democrats back the most severe restrictions but, sources said, have repeatedly refused to agree to sharp increases in penalties for illegal gun possession or for the use of guns in violent crimes. - NY Post

Democrats do not want tougher penalties for gun crime and criminals simply because they depend on this as a wedge issue. After all, if they let the Republicans put the criminals behind bars, then what use are they? Take Senator Diane Feinstein's new attempt to bring back the assault weapon ban. The original ban was so useless that is did nothing to remove assault weapons or even high capacity magazines from the market. Not for anything, but it is still legal to purchase and own currently registered fully automatic weapons. A new assault weapons ban will not change availability either. Although I have to admit that the threat of regulations has managed to enact one form of gun control, by selling out the market as a result of panic buying.

Back to the proposed assault weapons ban, here are some comments via Forbes's article titled ''Assault Weapon' Is Just A PR Stunt Meant To Fool The Gullible':

Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) has announced that she will be introducing legislation to reenact the ban on so-called assault weapons that she authored in 1994. The evidence is in on the effect of her previous assault weapons ban: zero, zilch, nada, as the saying goes. The ban made no perceptible difference in the gun violence statistics when it went into effect, and no perceptible difference when it was allowed to expire 10 years later, in 2003.

That is because the term “assault weapon” is just a PR stunt that fools the gullible and easily deluded. It is defined in legislation by cosmetic features that frighten white bread suburbanites, but do not involve any functionality of any gun. We tried it, conservatives said it wouldn’t work, and it didn’t work. Yet, it is the liberal answer to the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in Newtown, Conn.

Why do the hard work of actually making a difference, when with no work at all you can perform a meaningless and irrelevant gesture that won’t make any difference? A Connecticut state law already banned assault weapons. The difference that made in stopping the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary: zero, zilch, nada, as the saying goes. - Forbes

Deciding that some guns are more dangerous than others is ridiculous. Take the Walther P22. It is a 22 target pistol and as far as I know would not be effected under any sort of assault weapons ban, unless some variations get banned simply due to how they are colored. The gun comes with a 10 round magazine, which is not considered a high capacity magazine. Despite this, a Finnish mass murderer used one of these pistols to kill ten people, in the process shooting over 200 rounds, 10 at a time.

The trick here is to deny access to guns from those who would misuse them, prosecute those who illegally try to purchase them, jail those who use them in a crime, regardless of whether legally obtained of not. If you do these things, you should still be able to guarantee access to those who legally are entitled to them as recognized in our Bill of Rights.

Ace - 'What Does Let It Burn Mean?'

Ace over at Ace of Spades blog masterfully explains the strategy/philosophy of 'What Does Let It Burn Mean?'

“Let It Burn” is about inaction. There’s no point in trying do anything that avoids going over the fiscal cliff/sequestration. Remember, the deal that got us to this point was agreed to by House Republicans, Senate Democrats and signed by Obama. That’s as bi-partisan as it gets. I’ve heard from squishy low information voters, Obama and the media that “bi-partisan problem solving” is the Holy Grail of politics. Well, here it is. Will it lead to massive disruptions? Yes. That’s the point. The current system is rigged against conservative. We should play no part in its perpetuation. If you can’t win the game, concede and start new one. That’s the heart of Let It Burn. This isn't some petty "I lost so I'm taking my ball and going home" tirade. This is what people want. It's simply not sustainable. If we can't stop them, we don't have to continue to enable them either. - Ace of Spades

Go read the whole thing.

The first weekend after the election I was talking with a friend who knew I wished that the results would have been different. I explained that it is OK as in time my position will be proven correct once the Government runs out of ways to borrow and take an unsustainable amount of money for ever increasing spending. Her comment back was that it sounded like my plan was to let it all burn down. I corrected her by stating that my plan was to elect a President willing to try and fix the country's spending problem. It was my expectation that the country was going to burn down under the weight of uncontrolled spending.

As Ace's piece argues, the sooner the better. The population needs a harder lesson. Thinking that other people can pay your way is fine, until you run out of other people. We have hit that point.

Illegal Kinder Eggs and Illegal Aliens Learning to Fly...

Originally posted on Fred Fry International on 20 July 2012.

 

You know, one thing that keeps Americans faith in their legal system is the belief that everyone is treated fairly. That said, the Obama Administration has been busy picking favorites. Americans are being harassed more and more, while at the same time our supposed leaders have been turning a blind eye when it comes to the offenses committed by their supporters and other interest groups, especially illegal aliens. Take the following two stories: Americans threatened with huge fines for daring to import chocolate eggs, available most everywhere else.

Chris Sweeney and his husband were driving home to Seattle after a recent trip to Vancouver when they were stopped at the border for more than two hours and threatened with thousands of dollars in fines for dangerous contraband in the trunk of their car. Their suspicious cargo? Half a dozen Kinder Surprise chocolate eggs, each filled with a tiny plastic toy - a childhood favourite in Canada but an illegal choking hazard in the United States. "I thought (the American border guard) had done his search and hadn't found anything, and he was joking with us," Sweeney, 35, told The Canadian Press in an interview Wednesday. "He wasn't joking." The popular German chocolate eggs are not sold in the U.S. because they are considered a choking hazard. They are also banned because the treats are considered adulterated food by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Sweeney said a border guard told him and his husband that they could be fined $2,500 per egg, and then ordered them to head to the port of entry, where they waited for more than two hours. "We really didn't know what was going to happen," he said. "I didn't know if maybe this was some really important thing that I just wasn't aware of and they were going to actually give us the fine of $15,000." But once inside, Sweeney said border staff later brushed off the offence and merely told them never to bring the Kinder Surprise eggs across the border again. - Canada.com

Illegal aliens learning to fly commercial Airplanes. No, not the 9/11 hijackers. This is going on today!

A loophole in U.S. Transportation Security Administration (TSA) regulations allowed the agency to approve flight training for 25 illegal aliens at a Boston-area flight school owned by yet another illegal alien, according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO). Eight of the attendees had entered the United States illegally, while 17 had overstayed their visas, according to a GAO audit, CNSNews.com reports. Six of the illegals obtained pilot’s licenses. The discovery of the flight school issues began when local police — not federal authorities — stopped the school’s owner on a traffic violation and then were able to determine that he was an illegal alien, according to CNSNews. - Newsmax

Are you kidding me? Teaching and issuing pilot certificates to illegal aliens. I thought this lesson was learned after we taught the 9/11 hijackers how to fly. Clearly not. Because after all, heaven forbid we do anything like enforce US immigration law.Maybe the illegal aliens can bring some Kinder Eggs with them.

CNS News - "6,125 Proposed Regulations and Notifications Posted in Last 90 Days--Average 68 per Day"

Nothing says 'pro-business' like 6,125 Proposed Regulations and Notifications Posted in Last 90 Days with an average of 68 proposed new regulation per Day coming out of the Obama Administration.

(CNSNews.com) – It’s Friday morning, and so far today, the Obama administration has posted 165 new regulations and notifications on its reguations.gov website.

In the past 90 days, it has posted 6,125 regulations and notices – an average of 68 a day. - CNS News

That is about 2,000 a month. the only thing this level of rule-making is for is pro-bureaucrat. It certainly is not in favor of businesses. Remember, this Administration considers most businesses the enemy. At least any businesses that make a profit.