636088847380769362-mc5d0658_1

Springfield CrossCannon_2016 small

Palm Springs council votes 3-2 in favor of gun control ordinance – “Palm Springs City Council discussed a controversial firearms ordinance Wednesday night that has polarized residents and, if approved in its final form,  could result in a lawsuit from the National Rifle Association. The council voted 3-2 in favor of the measure, which will now come up for a second reading and final decision at the next council meeting.” Mandatory reporting of lost or stolen guns, mandatory use of locks in the home, and CCW holders required to keep guns in their cars. Does any of that even pass as “controversial” in California any more?

alan-gura

Alan Gura marches on: Can some people who have finished their felony sentences recover their Second Amendment rights? – “In D.C. v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment secures an individual right to keep and bear arms. But it described the right as belonging to ‘law-abiding’ citizens and mentioned that some restrictions were ‘presumptively lawful,’ including bans on gun possession by ‘felons.’ Federal law indeed bans gun possession by felons — people who have been convicted of any ‘crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year’ (with some exceptions for things such as antitrust violations), except for state crimes that the state calls ‘misdemeanor[s]’ that are ‘punishable by a term of imprisonment of two years or less.’ And this is so even when the actual sentence imposed on the person is very short, likely reflecting the court’s judgment that the actual circumstances of the crime made it not very serious.”

screen-shot-2016-09-08-at-2-04-09-pm

Does this gun make me look fat? Firearms spur fashion niche – “For decades, women have had few choices when it comes to the clothing they can wear to hide that they’re carrying a firearm. They could wear baggy T-shirts or coats, or put it in a purse and hope it didn’t get swiped or that they didn’t have trouble getting it out in an emergency. Enter holsters, corsets, camisoles and other clothing designed to be flattering, feminine – and functional – for the pistol-packin’ mama crowd.” CBS News…keeping you up to date on the latest trends from the turn of the century.

Washington state is one step closer to banning guns – “It always seemed disingenuous to me when politicians claim they’re not trying to take away your guns. They’re just trying to pass “common sense” gun legislation, they say, though what they think is common sense is subjective. We get another example of that as Washington Attorney General Bill Ferguson announced Wednesday that he’s going to do what liberal politicians say they’re not trying to do: ban guns. Only, Ferguson is not saying guns, he’s saying ‘assault weapons,’ which has become a near-meaningless term that actually now means ‘guns that we personally find to be scary and don’t think you should have because, well, we know better.'”

1460571061_10001861chicagopoliceshooting

Report: Foot pursuits factor in many Chicago police shootings – “A newspaper’s analysis of Chicago police shootings from 2010 through 2015 found that foot chases played a role in more than a third of the 235 cases that ended with someone wounded or killed. About half of the pursuits began as police attempted to stop or question people for curfew violations, public drinking, thefts, disturbance calls or other minor offenses, the Chicago Tribune reported. According to the analysis, nearly a quarter of those killed by police during foot chases were struck only in the back, a factor that is often cited later in civil rights lawsuits that question the threat actually posed to officers.” Another reason to avoid Chicago altogether.

b99748442z-1_20160622182152_000_g25g47g5-1-1

5 Reasons Gun Control In The United States Is A Lost Cause – “Gun control is a polarizing topic in the United States, and for damn good reason. Every year, tens of thousands of Americans die as a result of injuries caused by firearms. That coupled with the litany of mass shootings that have dominated headlines in recent years makes curbing gun violence a national priority. At the same time, an also sizable portion of the country seemingly fears nothing more than a tyrannical government swooping in and taking all the guns. As a result, the steps we take in the name of curbing gun violence often come off as ceremonial gestures at best.” Pro tip: don’t look to Cracked for penetrating insight or analysis of, well, anything.

Recommended For You

52 Responses to Springfield Armory Daily Digest: California’s Descent Continues, Another Gura Victory, and Another Lefty Acknowledges the Futility of Gun Control

  1. What can I say about CA that hasn’t already been said? The inmates are running the asylum. We need a Lincoln in the oval office to forcibly restore our civil rights.

        • . . . assert that they are all illegal aliens and build a wall and drop them on the sunny side of it.

          When it comes down to the next civil war (already in progress if such things can be considered to have an actual ‘start date’), then we can get our real estate back and treat the occupants like zombies. They definitely suck brains.

    • You mean the same Lincoln who got 500,000 Americans killed and destroyed the infrastructure of half the nation in an attempt to subvert the rights of the 99% of Southerners who never owned slaves and wanted to be left alone?

      He’s only a hero because of our mass indoctrination. It’s not like life got any better for the ex-slaves; every other nation that abandoned slavery did it without mass bloodshed. Lincoln was America’s worst president next to FDR.

      • The innocent 99%. Who was left to fight for slavery. Just like nazi germany. Couldn’t find a nazi in 1945. Hitler and a handful of cronies did all that fighting and murder.

        Rewrite history and sulk all you want. We need another Lincoln to restore rights to Americans.

        • We need another Lincoln to restore rights to Americans.
          You mean restoring such rights as suspension of Habeas Corpus and imposing Martial Law?

        • “The Civil War did not even have slavery as a prime topic until after the battle of Antietam.”

          Er, no disrespect, but that’s crap. It was so much just about State’s rights (specifically about the state’s rights to have legal slavery), that the original declaration of secession by South Carolina actually lists slavery as a main reason.

          While I totally agree with State’s rights of self determination, the Confederate States hung their secession demands on possibly the worst reason in modern history.

        • No one was ever fighting for slavery, but Lincoln fooled the North into believing they were fighting *against* slavery. For good reason, too, up ’til that time the North was losing its ass, nobody even cared about dissatisfied states dissolving their bonds to the U.S., soldiers willing to kill and die to increase Federal power and control were very hard to find.

      • Exactly. Lincoln was a fine speech writer, but he was also the closest we’ve ever come to having been ruled by a dictator. He destroyed the idea of State’s Rights and is the origination of the Federal overreach we all complain about today.

        Not to mention he suspended habeus corpus, kidnapped Maryland state legislators, used an army to invade and occupy sovereign states without their permission, and imposed martial law. His dirty deeds were whitewashed in the history books after he was assassinated, but he was the turning point from the Jeffersonian-style limited Federal Government, to the strong authoritarian government we have today.

        • Actually, I’d be more inclined to blame the Roosevelt family for all that federal overreach we see today, than anyone else. New Deal, all that jazz.

        • So Lincoln did to the southern states what the southern states did to their own people and he’s the bad guy and they’re the victims? The southern states restricted voting to a privileged few and held human beings in slavery and somehow they’re the victims here?

          The federal .gov never has the right to step into a states business? Talk about tyranny. That’s a recipe to breed abuse and slavery. Oh wait……

        • Well…yes. According to the Insurrection Act of 1807, consent of the Governor must be obtained prior to the deployment of federal troops. This consent was not granted by any southern governor.

          What makes you think our betters in DC are more qualified than our betters in our state capitol? Our country was founded on self determination of individual states. Not a strong central government.

          Would you prefer the people in your state actually deciding what’s best for your state, or the people in California and NY? We are a very diverse country with different values. We should not be one-size-fits-all.

          I’m from the North. I’m not defending the practice of slavery, but Lincoln clearly overstepped his authority. Let me ask…if Hillary suspended Habeus Corpus and imposed martial law, what would your reaction be? It’s hard to get past 150 years of propaganda, but you can’t defend the legality of his actions.

          Now, if you’re arguing for an imperial presidency, that’s another story. But that was not the case before Lincoln and was not the design of our republic when it was founded.

        • Did those southern governors have the consent of the people in their states? what about the slaves opinion of consent? Did those southern states institute a draft from their non slave owning members?

          I’m sorry dude. But I live with the tyranny of states rights in CA. My rights should not be subject to the ballot iniatitives or the vote of the majority. And when the states cross that line we have a layer of .gov above them to seek redress.

          So if it will knock the proggies out of Sacramento and restore my illegally taken civil rights I’ll gladly welcome federal troops in here.

  2. Cracked used to be the funniest print site on the internet. They’ve fallen so hard and so fast I’m surprised they haven’t broken the sound barrier.

      • Vice used to be Vice , until they sold out to Bloomy for a pile of wampum. It’s like a PC Lampoon that would never dream of ‘Shooting This Dog Unless You Buy This Issue’.

        Shame, they were one of the few NYC-based pubs still left that weren’t tools of the mainstream.

  3. They want to ban assault rifles because they kill middle class white people. These people are racist and don’t care about the majority of crime in the inner city that kills Black Americans. Assault rifles are not used in inner city crime. If they really wanted to reduce gun crime they would focus on inner city violence and helping inner city people with education, full time decent paying jobs and hope.

      • I disagree. Black Americans really became free in the late 60’s. If you think that segregation and oppression that they endured during that time is not felt any longer nothing I say matters to you. We as a country have failed, especially establishment politicians that benefit from keeping inner city people poor and uneducated.

        • “If you think that segregation and oppression that they endured during that time is not felt any longer nothing I say matters to you.”

          If you think enabling people’s poor choices will help them, nothing you do matters. It’s society’s problem. It’s white folks problem. It’s systemic. It’s the police. Or whatever other boogieman you come up with, all you are doing is reinforcing more bad choices.

          I grew up poor in Mexican town. We had to sleep on cots in the back office of my mother’s job for several months because we were homeless.

          So, let’s say thing weren’t always peaches and creams. Now my sisters and I are all doing very well and have good jobs. And it was because of our parents being present in our lives and making smart choices, as a result. We could’ve all said, “well, it’s just the system’s fault” and been big POS’s.

          So, you are right, I refuse to enable poor choices. Therefore, nothing you say about continuing to enabling said bad choices matters.

    • ” If they really wanted to reduce gun crime they would focus on inner city violence…”

      If they did actually focus on guns in the ‘hood, there would be screams of ‘profiling’ and-or racism…

  4. As a result, the steps we take in the name of curbing gun violence often come off as ceremonial gestures at best

    No, the reason they come off as ceremonial at best is because the evidence of their effectiveness is scant to nonexistent, their proponents act scandalized that we should even demand such evidence, and insist instead that something be done (meaning exclusively stricter gun control) , even if it bears no relation to its stated purpose.

    I mean, what other conclusion are we to drawa, that’s better than the “ceremonial” angle?

  5. Hilarious talking about foot chases in Chicago. Anyone remember the fat azzed cops chasing the 18year old car thief from a few weeks ago? That’s why homeboy gets shot in the back…😃

  6. “… CCW holders required to keep guns in their cars.”

    Incorrect.

    The ordinance requires guns *left* in cars to be secured…

  7. There is a vast swath of the populace who hold comedians in high regard as truth sayers instead of… well comedians. Probably if your talking points are coming from that source, they are not real talking points.

    Do I even really need to say that!?

    • That varies a lot on a case-by-case basis. Since the dawn of civilization, the people who told the most objective truth have always been the comedians.

      • And what a condemnation of university ‘free speech’ when no self-respecting up-and-coming comic can play the university student union circuit…

        • When comedians as milquetoast as Seinfeld and Louis CK decry the PC, you know there’s a real problem…

  8. That Cracked article is laced from stem to stern with anti-gun buzz words, but the irony is that the premise of each argument is precisely what we’ve all been saying for years:

    1) The AR-15 is hardly ever used by criminals, yet garners the focus of the anti-gun movement.

    2) Most gun fatality statistics include gun suicides to drastically inflate their number.

    3) Background checks don’t work.

    4) It’s logistically impossible to confiscate all of the 300 million guns in the US.

    5) 2nd Amendment, dammit! It’s in the Constitution.

    There, now I’ve saved you the hassle of clicking on a link to Cracked.com. Funny, this is the second time I’ve read an article in the past few weeks on a left leaning blog that started off as an anti-gun argument but slowly morphed into a pro-gun one.

    • That ‘Cracked’ article was a brilliant bitch-slapping of the favorite anti talking points.

      Bookmarked for future reference…

    • “4) It’s logistically impossible to confiscate all of the 300 million guns in the US.”

      Particularly when a significant number of them will be firing at you as you approach.

  9. “Does any of that even pass as “controversial” in California any more?”

    Well, no. For one, the legislature passed a bill, vetoed by Gov. Brown, providing a misdemeanor penalty for filing to report lost or stolen firearms. Second, the keep it locked ordinance is not news at all, since it mirrors the one that San Francisco passed, and that more importantly was found valid by the Ninth Circus, irrespective of how close it got to contravening the Heller decision. A similar ordinance has already been enacted by LA. They escape scrutiny becsue you don’ have to lock up your guns as long as you maintain them on your person. And with all of the firearms being stolen out of police vehicles, the requirement to secure firearms left in a vehicle is a valid one.

    • So if so many firearms are stolen from police vehicles and that factors in to such a law…dare I ask if the requirement of locking firearms left in vehicles will apply to police vehicles, and if it will be enforced?

      • I have no idea. And yet, yes I do. Of course the primary offenders will have a carve-out, even though simply requiring the person involved to personally replace the lost or stolen firearm would end the problem instantly.

  10. Re: Chicago

    “About half of the pursuits began as police attempted to stop or question people for curfew violations, public drinking, thefts, disturbance calls or other minor offenses, the Chicago Tribune reported…”

    Un-huh, and how many of those people were either wanted or were actually engaged in more serious crimes, leading to them fleeing? Don’t worry, though, Chicago is now an experiment in what happens when the police resist making those minor stops. The experiment is so successful that the same people yelling about the police oppressing people are now shouting that the police need to ‘do something!!1!” about the violence.

  11. Living in Washington state keeps getting more and more depressing. Here’s my prediction for the assault weapons ban: it’ll get stalled out in the legislature, because the majority of areas in the state are pro gun. It will then get repackaged as an initiative, which will easily make the ballot, and will get millions from Bloomberg and Seattle elites. It will then pass, with the central Puget Sound counties overwhelming the rest of the state with their population voting en mass for it.

    • I’m afraid you’re right. We’ll have a Connecticut/Jersey/California “assault weapons” ban in three years or less.

      This year, the legislature will kill the idea because they know it’s stupid. Next year, it’ll be resubmitted as a direct-to-legislature initiative; the legislator will vote it down again, because it’s a stupid idea and most of our state legislators aren’t morons. The third year, that refusal will trigger an automatic statewide referendum; the Bloomberg/Gates/Allen/Hanauer cabal will convince the progressive zombies in the state’s urban centers to vote for it en masse, and voila! The people repudiate their own civil rights through the magic of direct democracy (aka demagoguery and mob rule).

  12. “For decades, women have had few choices when it comes to the clothing they can wear to hide that they’re carrying a firearm.
    Burkas have always been in high fashion for concealing all sorts of weapons.

  13. What the s**t is Roger Ebert wearing in that top photo? Why is it old, fat progressives who try to project an air of being traveled and inullectual by co-opting the the clothing of cultures they have nothing to do with, are usually the most unstable and dangerous form of anti-gunner?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *