The New York Times lays their cards on the table

It took a while for the authors to stop beating around the bush and get to the point but, to their credit, the New York Times is finally being honest…They want an all out ban on guns. Actually, they are only being half honest. They don’t go so far as to state a total ban on ALL guns but, “large categories” therein. Certainly, any modern firearm meant for serious defensive purposes. Let’s be honest…This really shouldn’t be “news.” Objectivity in the media has been a myth since before Walter Cronkite signed off for the last time from South Vietnam.

What is interesting is that in building up to the singular point of the editorial, they admit that all the bans and other legislation they desire has utterly failed to prevent tragedies like San Bernadino from happening throughout Europe. Whether it be the recent events in Paris, today’s stabbing in London, or suicide bombings, these incidents still happen. While I am not among those who would say, “Oh well, nothing we can do…” I am not willing to be vilified, made scapegoat, and stripped of the right to self-defense or the means I choose to effect said self-defense.

-GM

“…It is past time to stop talking about halting the spread of firearms, and instead to reduce their number drastically — eliminating some large categories of weapons and ammunition.

It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment. No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.

Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership. It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.

Source: End the Gun Epidemic in America – The New York Times

Uber bans guns for drivers and passengers

Uber-1024x519Remember that mass shooting an Uber driver cut short by engaging the bad guy with his own gun? Apparently Uber doesn’t. Or they do and have decided to ban drivers and passengers from carrying guns.

The policy shown above appears on Uber’s website. It stands in contrast with Uber’s statement following the Chicago incident. At the time, spokesperson Jen Mullin said the the company, “requires all its drivers to abide by local, state and federal laws pertaining to transporting firearms in vehicles.”

Now just in case you were thinking Lyft might be a better option, here’s their current policy:

To keep our entire community comfortable, Lyft has a strict “No Weapons” policy. This means that if any driver or passenger possesses a weapon in a Lyft vehicle, regardless of whether possession is legal where they are, they will be removed from the platform.

We approach this issue from a community perspective — it’s hard to know what someone else is or isn’t comfortable with. The mere presence of a weapon might make another community member distressed.

Lyft reserves sole judgement on what constitutes a “weapon”.

Personally, I try to avoid using cabs, Uber, Lyft, of even a bus if I can. But it seems to me that both Uber and Lyft are blowing business opportunities for the sake of being politically correct. Given the behavior of some drivers with these services, I’m not sure I’m willing to give up my self-defense options for a cheap ride.

-GM

Chicago abolishes gun registry in place since 1968…and the planet cracked.

Read that headline again…Chicago just abolished their gun registry. Seriously, that really just happened. In Obama’s “hometown”…Rahm Emanuel and all. Now the reality is, they really had no choice.  This was not an act done because they suddenly felt like doing the right thing. There was no sudden revelation in which they recognized the 2nd Amendment as an individual right of the people.  In fact, their hands were forced by successive court rulings and legislative changes over the past five years.

For Chicago, the cookie really began to crumble with the 2008 Heller V DC decision in which the Supreme Court of the United States finally ruled definitively that the 2nd Amendment guaranteed (not granted) an individual right to keep and bear arms.  With that, Chicago’s long standing ban on handguns was an obvious target.  Fast forward to 2010 and SCOTUS made it clear that every city and state must recognize the 2nd Amendment. And the hits just kept on rolling in from there as Illinois’ ban on concealed carry was ruled unconstitutional in 2012.  Today’s vote in Chicago is merely the final nail in the coffin.

As a result, Democrats and liberals are stinging from this latest defeat after last night’s unexpected recall victory against Democratic legislators in Colorado who’d supported the state’s latest gun “reforms.”  Interestingly enough, before being defeated last night, Angela Giron herself was quote saying, “For Mayors Against Illegal Guns, if they lose even one of these seats, they might as well fold it up. And they understand that…” Well, it seems they are batting .000 in last night’s recall vote. May the ball keep rolling to the right.

-Gary

Chicago City Councilman: “No legislation, no matter how strict, will keep weapons out of the wrong hands. We all know that…”

Chicago toughens ban on assault weapons amid violence – Yahoo! News.

Albert Einstein once said that that doing the same thing, over and over again while expecting different results was the definition of insanity. Apparently, insanity is running rampant in Chicago.  Chicago City Councilman Robert Fioretti voted to expand Chicago’s existing ban on modern firearms but, also said, “No legislation, no matter how strict, will keep weapons out of the wrong hands. We all know that…” If you know it doesn’t work…What is the point?”

-GM