The petition points out that the video ad exploits victims of gun violence by using the photos of slain children to raise money without obtaining their families’ permission. And while the point of the Zero Minutes of Fame campaign is to obscure the photos and names of mass shooters, the promotional video actually does the opposite by roll calling mass shooters’ names while spotlighting their faces. In order to download the app, users have to sign a Brady petition which includes a solicitation for contributions.

Source: Why Did the Brady Campaign Cut 88 Percent of Its New ‘Zero Minutes of Fame’ Video?

Sometimes it does look like  we the Gun Rights gang have undercover agents working deep behind the lines and inside our Opposition, sabotaging their very carefully crafted, multi-million dollar campaigns. ut sadly, the reality is other:

PS: Any more doubts that the Gun Control organizations consists of  humanoid vultures?

Amy Schumer did a skit on Comedy Central about buying guns on a Home Shopping Network knockoff.  Before you watch it, try and imagine just how bad that skit might be.  Then double it.

What did I tell you?  First of all, it wasn’t funny.  More importantly, it was factually inaccurate.

“You can absolutely get a gun if you have several felonies, as long as you buy it on the Internet or at a gun show.”

Ummm… no.  That’s not what the law says.  Federal law is very clear that felons cannot own guns unless their rights have been restored by a judge.  It is also illegal for a private citizen to sell a gun to someone they know or suspect cannot own a gun.  The “I don’t know and I don’t want to know, just give me your money and here is a gun” approach is, at best, ethically dubious, and at worst, a crime.

A study from The University of Chicago Crime Lab confirmed what the FBI has said that criminals do not get guns at gun shows.   They overwhelmingly get them on the street from other criminals.  What was interesting to learn is that gangs maintain gun libraries and  criminals treat guns as disposable, buying and selling them frequently so that they reduce the risk of being caught with a gun that can be traced to a crime.

*Holding up a Glock pistol* “Just a reminder to all the parents at home, these make perfect stocking suffers for as young as… it doesn’t matter.”

While in most states, she is technically correct that is no minimum age necessary to be allowed to shoot a handgun, those laws – and common sense – have provisions that allow minors to shoot handguns only under proper adult supervision.  But of course that’s not what she was getting at.  The implication being that any kid of any age can just have whatever guy they want whenever they want it because… that is the same, worn out, straw man argument that the NRA wants to arm kids with Uzis.

“Even a blind person can see what a great deal this is, and can take advantage of this deal by buying a gun.  Totally legal.”

Yes it is.  Physical handicaps are not a justification for denying someone their  Constitutionality protected rights.  Amy Schumer is a SJW type, so perhaps I’ll throw an SJW word back at her, she’s an ableist, thinking that only able-bodied people have civil liberties.  Just to further rebuke her, here is a video of a guy with no arms shooting a pistol.

Caller: “I wanted to buy a lot of these but I’m a suspected terrorist on the no-fly list.”

Amy: “You’re fine, sweet potato fries.”

First of all, the No-Fly List is not a terrorist watch list.  It is a disaster than just about anybody can be put on for any reason.  In this country, your civil liberties cannot be taken away by a bureaucrat.  Just because some anonymous government stooge puts your name into a list, a list that they don’t have to tell you that your name is being put on and is impossibly difficult to get your name off of, does not mean that your Constitutionality protected civil liberties are forfeit.  There is a reason the Democrat campaign against “no-fly loophole” died fast.  Even liberals got uneasy about just how Orwellian the no-fly list has become.

Then the video ends with the male co-host shooting himself in the foot because of terrible trigger discipline, then with an ad for Everytown.

It was so bad, that even that notoriously left-wing slanted Politifact rated the video as “half true.”  If even Politifact can’t back up your anti-gun bull, you know your’re wrong.

The biggest tragedy of this video is that it is not funny.  If this turd was YouTube video for Everytown, that would be one thing.  But this was shown on Comedy Central, which is supposed to be funny.  South Park is funny.  Key & Peele was funny.  Amy Shumer has just become a nanny-state loving, Social Justice advocating, hypocritical scold who has turned her show into a weekly 30 min SJW PSA.

Update:

When I finished this post, I clicked back to the Comedy Central tab and the next Amy Schumer clip started playing.  It just went to prove my point that Amy Schumer is an SJW with a PSA fora TV show, so I decided to update my post to hammer that home with you.

The skit is called New Twitter Button, and is a mock tech news bit on a new Twitter shortcut that sends rape and death threats to women.  Do not for a second think that I am defending rape and death threats, or any other sort of threat of physical or sexual violence online.  But the reality of online harassment if very different than this SJW scolding on the issue.

As it turns out, men are more often the victims of harassment online.  Men receive more threats of death and physical harm.  Men get called names more than women online.  It is true however, that women do receive the brunt of sexually themed threats.  This last point makes sense, in a weird way, since most trolls are straight males that sexual threats would be directed at women.

We’ve known for a while that the internet turns some people into psychopaths.  They act out online because they are protected by anonymity and distance, causing hurt that they couldn’t do in person face-to-face.

The problem with the discussion about online trolling is that it is almost entirely couched as how to stop trolling against women because women take trolling harder  and women are not welcome on the internet.  If you want to deal with trolls, let’s deal with trolls.  There are difficulties in doing that.  In the US there are protections on freedom of speech and privacy that make it hard to define some forms of harassment criminal and to identify the real identity of trolls.  Trolls may live in a different state or even a different country which makes enforcing the law against them even harder. Technology also makes it difficult, every time someone comes up with a piece of anti-troll software, there comes along a better troll to get around it.

But if you are going to take the attitude of “send death threats to 10 men and nobody gives a shit, but threaten to rape one woman and now we have to end trolling.”  That seems a bit unfair.

I downloaded the report and could not go past the introduction without having a good laugh. I decided I had to share it with my readers.

Numerous industries have found ways to integrate modern electronics into older mechanical systems without undermining the quality of the product. In automobiles, for example, owners rely on a range of computerized systems—from anti-lock brakes to airbags—that operate instantly and provide far greater protection to drivers than earlier, less sophisticated systems. Such advancements have been possible due to sustained investment by private companies—and, at times, support and direction from government actors

I guess the White House has never heard about the concept of recalls because the technology was not quite operating as promised? Just yesterday Nissan is recalling 3 million vehicles due to problems with the airbags. And this is for a technology first patented in 1951 and operational in US Vehicles since the 1970s. 

Firearms manufacturers will need to decide whether to make similar investments here. To achieve the innovations that the President seeks, one or more companies must 2 decide that the benefits of enhanced gun safety technology exceed the costs of researching, developing, and marketing such technology.

No, Firearm Manufacturers will decide their production on what Gun Owners want, not a veiled threat from the Executive. Free market and all that.

Federal, state, and local governments can support this effort in two ways: by lowering the cost of bringing new technology to market, and by exercising their collective purchasing power, where appropriate, to spur development.

Oh sweet baby Jesus. After 7+ years in power, they still do not get how business work. You as government don’t have the purchasing power leverage to influence new design. You can only do that by imposing a legal mandate. 

Over the next six months, the Administration will partner with state, county, and municipal law enforcement agencies to establish the specific conditions under which they would consider purchasing firearms with advanced gun safety technology.

They tried this during the Clinton Administration and failed. So unless they manage to change the laws about bidding and Washington decides to waste taxpayer’s money on subsidizing the purchase of very expensive smart weapons, I don’t see this going very far.

This partnership will result in the drafting of voluntary “baseline specifications” that will outline—for the first time—a clear description of what law enforcement expects from smart gun technology, particularly with regards to reliability, durability, and accuracy. These baseline specifications will serve several purposes. First, they will provide clear guidance to potential manufacturers about what government purchasers require in their firearms. Second, these specifications will serve as a standard against which existing technology can be measured, making it possible to identify what research and development gaps remain. And finally, this process will allow federal, state, and local governments to demonstrate that demand for these weapons may exist—if certain operational requirements are met.

So, the government is gonna tell you how they want the guns to work and give you the standards on how they will be built… because governments are so good designing and building quality small arms in an inexpensive manner, right? And after we have the design of the seven pound, ten shot, .32 acp smart Glock, we will tell you this is the gun you must buy for your cops. 

We expect that these specifications will be demanding. Law enforcement agencies cannot and should not equip their officers with firearms that make them, or the communities they serve, less safe.But by inviting law enforcement professionals to develop specifications, the Administration can lay the groundwork for expanded use of gun safety technology in the near future. 

Anybody else got a good laugh out of this? Every single mechanical or electronic gun safety has been thoroughly rejected on principle by law enforcement at all levels. If this is what the administration is counting on as a way to pressure manufacturers and gun owners, they are indeed deluded. 

To be clear, this report calls for the development of new technology—and not a mandate that any particular individual or law enforcement agency adopt the technology once developed.

Not that you could mandated it anyway without having a full-blown epidemic of Blue Flu.

To be clear, this report calls for the development of new technology—and not a mandate that any particular individual or law enforcement agency adopt the technology once developed. By spurring the growth of enhanced gun safety technology, the federal government seeks to expand, not constrict, consumers’ choices when deciding what firearm to purchase.

“If you like your gun, you can keep it.”

So be ready for the Administration to spend a crap-load of taxpayers money on another study on something that will not go anywhere.

TALLADEGA, Ala. —Home school student Chris Gaither, 11, was alone Wednesday morning when he heard a noise.
Someone had broken into his house and walked upstairs. Gaither said he was scared, but wanted to be prepared so he grabbed a nine-millimeter hand gun.
“When he was coming down the stairs, that’s when he told me he was going to kill me, f-you and all that,” Gaither said.
The intruder made it out the front door with a hamper in hand.
That’s when Gaither started firing off bullets. As the intruder was about to jump a fence in the front yard, Gaither’s 12th and final shot hit the suspect in the leg.
“I shot through the hamper he was carrying,” Gaither said. “It was a full metal jacket bullet. It went straight through the back of his leg. He started crying like a little baby.”
A baby that learned his lesson.

Source: 11-year-old protects Talladega home against intruder | Local News – WVTM

Somebody give this kid a medal and a trip to Gunsite!

Did you hear that? That is the Moms Demand Collective gasping in horror at the fact that a kid had access to a gun, knew how to use it and protected his home.

No puddle of blood available so they can raise funds.

Hat Tip to Alex D.

Moms Demand Action (MDA) has a way of using fear in most of its posts.

On an article over Oklahoma’s three new gun bills in legislation is pretty straightforward and the article suggests these bills will make us be at a greater risk of guns becoming violent. (Shout out to Colion Noir’s #SteelWaiting movement where gun owners wait for their guns to suddenly attack someone).

The three bills MDA lists and describes:

H.J.R. 1009, which would call into question almost every gun law in the state;

This bill literally changes the state constitution to say “The right of each individual to keep and to bear arms . . . shall not be infringed. Any regulation of this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny”. So, this bill reinforces Shall Not Be Infringed. So when THE constitution, THE Bill of Rights says it, people feel free to infringe. But when a state constitution says it, people finally understand what it means? It is infuriating that the sentence about any regulations will be subject to strict scrutiny. Shall not be infringed should mean exactly what it says. However, that separate sentence will make it absolutely clear that this right is to be taken seriously. It would be great for schools to not be gun free zones, as this article suggests HJR 1009 would lead to. But there will still be a process to go through to undo that.

This bill, which will be up to a public vote in November, does not abolish the permit system as some media outlets have said. It is possible that the bill will lend a hand in that outcome, but the bill itself simply rewords the state constitution in a clear manner for those who question the great documents from the 1700’s.

Also, I shortened out all of the technicalities of what weapons are included. Feel free to read it yourself.

S.B. 1185, which would allow visitors to Oklahoma to openly carry firearms in the state without so much as a permit or training;

This is a great reciprocity bill. With an out-of-state driver’s license for a state where permitless carry is allowed, someone is allowed to carry here under the same constraints. That’s a win. It’s great for out-of-state visitors who have not purchased licenses just to go out of state often or only once a year.

H.B. 3098, which would eliminate the state’s requirement that Oklahoma residents have a permit before openly carrying a handgun in public.

True statement there. No falsifying going on here, actually. Just a bit of them saying that permitless carry is bad. That’s their opinion. I have no problem with them saying their piece.

Now, how do they suggest action? There is a “Join Us”, “Donate”, and “Become a gun sense voter” button. That last one takes you to a page to sign up and whatnot. The article ends with saying the legislation is too dangerous to pass by silently. Silently? I have seen a lot of news coverage on these bills, and have been following HB 3098 since Feburary 11. More fear tactics I suppose.

Later in the article is this nugget “S.B. 1185 would grant more freedom to openly carry handguns in public to out-of-state residents than Oklahoma currently grants to its own citizens.” Yes, someone from a less intrusive state would technically have more freedom. Yes, that’s a problem- because I would love the same freedoms of mine to not be tread on.

I mentioned fear tactics a little bit here. This article uses it in the title, and at the end. Reading past that, I found the article enlightening and made me love these bills more. It had slightly notions of the bills being bad, but no more than regular news reports. They remained [mostly] factual on the bills, and explained what each one would do and what it could lead to- more FREEDOM.

Thanks for reading, and thanks MDA for the off-hand support.