I have moved this blog to a new location here.
Have you ever been a fan of an actor or musician that has for some reason decided to go on some sort of rant or crusade that has just completely turned you off to their work?
I’m sure more than a few people were irritated when Jim Carrey decided to go off, basically calling anyone who supported the NRA evil.
I will freely admit, and I did so on Twitter the other day, that I was a fan of Jay’s. I thought he was pretty funny, had some good sports takes, and his impressions were very good. I always enjoyed his phone calls and appearances on The Opie & Anthony Show (Sirius XM).
Mohr went off (after the Boston Marathon bombing of course), stating that the 2nd Amendment lends itself to the CULTURE of violence. He also stated that violence has to stop, culture must change, and of course, the 2nd Amendment must go.
Mohr had me with violence and culture. Those need to stop and change.
But the 2nd Amendment lending itself to the culture of violence? It does enumerate a right that we do have, which is not given to us by government. And that right does allow us possession of a tool that could be used to kill or injure someone, but how does it lend itself to the culture of violence? Could we not then say that the 1st Amendment does as well? There has been quite a bit said over the years, either in word or print, that certainly lends itself to the culture of violence. Is Jay going to support the elimination of the 1st Amendment?
Doubtful. Since his response would be something along the lines of, “Well, a word or words themselves don’t cause harm.”
Right, they don’t. But they certainly can lend themselves to a culture of violence. I’ve damn well seen far more examples of people doing harm to others based on what they’ve seen or heard than because of the right to own a firearm (by the way, many of those who do harm to others have illegally obtained them, but that’s another post).
At this point, Jay Mohr has painted himself into a corner. On the one hand he believes that people should not have the right to own a gun. But he is clearly part of an industry that certainly enjoys a freedom in doing things that can easily be argued help lead certain people towards violence.
Even President Obama has been going around touting the “gun show loophole” and the “40%” figure regarding private sales.
Both are just wrong. This video explains it better than I ever could.
There is no gun show loophole.
People on the other side just like to throw this nonsense out there, hoping that it sticks, and sadly in many cases it does.
Now this question goes out to those of you who want more gun control.
Do you believe that 40% of all gun sales do not require a background check?
Before you answer that, I will clue you in on something that might finally convince you that it’s a BS number.
Since February 2009 (through March 2013), there have been 70,291,049 background checks per the FBI. That means that if 40% of all gun sales were done without background checks, that number just north of 70 million would only be 60% of guns purchased since February 2009. That’s 46,860,699 guns purchases without a background check in a little over four years.
I’m not even sure what led me to read about this – in 1974, a 19-year old woman from North Dakota named Arlis Perry (Dykema) from Bismarck was killed in ritualistic fashion in the Stanford University Memorial Church.
Nearly four decades have passed since a young woman from Bismarck was murdered in a satanic ritual inside a church in Palo Alto, Calif. The brutal killing of Arlis Perry even today remains unsolved, but the secret of the cult that many people believe was responsible for her death, The Process Church, lives on. And so do the rumors.
The horrific murder of the 19-year-old newlywed made headlines across the nation after Perry’s mutilated, nearly nude body was found Oct. 13, 1974, on the floor of the Stanford University Memorial Church in Palo Alto.
As I work very, very close to Stanford University, needless to say I felt very uneasy after reading this.
Even with the blue light system, Stanford University isn’t the brightest place when the sun goes down. In certain places it’s extremely dark.
Cancellations, being bumped from a seat, and crowded aircraft are the items that have people worked up. And trust me, the numbers are skewed to the low end because most people have lots of complaints about flying, they just don’t make any official complaints.
Here are my complaints, shown in conjunction with a typical trip.
Most of my airline travel involves flying back to the Midwest to see my family. I leave San Jose and transfer aircraft in Denver for the final leg of the flight to Fargo (my family lives in northwest Minnesota). I generally fly United Airlines because it has the most direct flight to Fargo from San Jose.
My biggest complaint is the lack of space on a plane. Unless you’re willing to spend extra to get what I call ‘normal leg room,’ you’re going to be stuck in an uncomfortably small seat with almost no leg room. The cost of that normal leg room for me ends up being somewhere around $80 total if I want it on the entire trip. Oh, but that only applies to the San Jose to Denver leg of the flight, which for the most part uses the larger jets. Forget any sort of comfort flying from Denver to Fargo and vice-versa because that uses the silly little regional jet.
I hate regional jets. As uncomfortable as a standard-sized jet is, the regional jets are many times worse. The planes look like they’ve been neglected for years. Your only hope is that you get one that has a side of the plane with single seats.
After that, my next complaint goes out to fellow travelers who just have zero clue how to fly. They hold up the security line because they are unable to follow the rules and they overdress for the flight. These people will seemingly be wearing an entire wardrobe and bring as many carry-on items as they are allowed. When it comes to flying, less is more. Avoid wearing clothing that you’ll just have to remove when going through security. If I’m going somewhere that requires I bring a rather bulky jacket, I check it.
Thankfully, I fly during what you’d call off-peak dates. I don’t even bother doing holiday travel these days. I had more complaints back then, like the being bumped from a seat one.
Airlines overbook flights and you won’t know if you’re the lucky one chosen until you actually get to the airport. Back in the Northwest Airlines days, I was placed on stand-by for a flight. I had paid for my ticket and when I got to the airport and checked my luggage, I was told I would get my seat assignment at the gate. Uh-oh. So when I got to the gate, I was told that I was on stand-by and they would call me if a seat became available. Thankfully it did, but only after they started asking other passengers to give up their seats.
Sometime this fall I plan on getting a new vehicle. A year ago I was fully intent on getting a Ford Mustang, but over the past 3-4 months I’ve been leaning towards a Ford F-150 FX4. Now there’s a new entrant to the list:
This is the SVT Ford Raptor – the powerful version of the F-150. It’s a little more expensive than the FX4 (not a ton – I’ve priced it out at +$3,000 with options). It will cost a bit for fuel (12/19).
It has been introduced in California as SB 374 — it would ban the sale of semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines or fixed magazines that hold over 10 rounds.
Anyone who possesses a rifle that fits either category on January 1, 2014 would have to register it as an “assault weapon” (pay $19) and be fingerprinted.
This bill, if passed, would mean that my Ruger 10/22 would be banned for future sales and be considered an “assault weapon.”
They are planning to present some Newtown parents and family members in a push for gun control.
Let’s go through some of the highlights.
Scott Pelley: In terms of the things that are being considered in Washington, are any of them at the top of your priority list? If you could have one thing or you could have two, what would you choose?
Bill Sherlach: Personally, I would– I would think the ma– limiting magazine size and universal background check. If I had to pick two-
Me: Limiting magazine capacity would have done absolutely zero to stop this tragedy. All one then has to do is just have more magazines. Five or six 10-round magazines aren’t hard to carry, nor are they difficult to change. The background check would have done nothing as well. Did not Adam Lanza actually fail a check? He killed his mother and stole her guns. That’s what a criminal does, which completely bypasses everything you’d impose on law abiding citizens.
Nicole Hockley: And anything that helps reduce– gun trafficking as well, in the straw purchases, to know that you can’t buy a gun for someone else.
Scott Pelley: Straw purchases are those when a person who has a clean record buys a gun for a person who would not have been able to pass a background check?
Nicole Hockley: Correct. And that–
Scott Pelley: It happens all the time.
Me: Again, were the weapons used here purchased by someone with a clean record for someone without? No. They were STOLEN. And Scott, please provide the source of your “it happens all the time” comment.
There are thousands of laws in place already. Enforce them. Adding new laws will do nothing to deter this from happeneing. Hell, murder is against the law and the punishment for doing so is severe, so if that doesn’t stop someone like this, how will a couple of gun laws do so?
A few nonsensical bills made it out of committee in California this week. One of them is Assembly Bill 48, brought to us by Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley).
Here’s what the bill would do if passed (which it likely will):
- It requires the sale or transfer of ammunition to only be done by licensed dealers. This means that if you’re a friend of mine at the range with me and I give you ammo to use, I am breaking the law.
- It requires an ID to purchase ammo. Skinner complains that buying ammo is too easy, easier than buying alcohol, so by having to not only purchase it from a licensed dealer, but to also use ID, it will clearly keep it out of the wrong hands.
- Law enforcement will be notified if someone buys more than 3,000 rounds of ammunition within a five-day period. So if I want to really save money by buying in bulk, I can’t (unlike DHS, which said they bought so much ammo because buying in bulk saves money).
- Conversion kits to allow weapons to fire more bullets would be banned.
This will make internet purchases of ammunition illegal. So much for saving money.
What part of this bill will prevent tragedies? I’m not seeing it. Just more infringement on our rights.
The end result will be lots of trips to Arizona and Nevada for ammunition. And then you’ll see more bills introduced to police law abiding citizens who don’t appreciate their rights being trampled by crossing state lines to pick up ammunition.
Just take a look at this completely arrogant and clueless politician.
She has no idea what a magazine is. And she mocks a person who wants to defend himself.
This, my friends, is an idiot. These are the people who are circumventing the United States Constitution.