When: Tuesday, May 14th, 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: Confederate Corner with George Neat on Blog Talk Radio

What: Yes there are Confederates north of the Mason-Dixon line, and George Neat is one of them. And we’re happy to bring his views to you in the “Confederate Corner” radio show.

For more information on George and his political views, please drop by the Confederate Corner at GoldwaterGal.com. (http://goldwatergal.com/goldwater-gal-media/confederate-corner/)

Tonight: George will be talking about Benghazi and Watergate, because you know… And as usual, there will be a few words about guns, or it just wouldn’t seem like a real show. Of course there will also be a Soldier Salute, and a “nearly-infamous” Crack Pipe Moment.

Special thanks to TJ Thompson for putting my thoughts into video format.

Colorado’s Secretary of state has approved language for petitions to recall Senate President John Morse and state Rep. Mike McLachian. Both democrats are from hotly contested districts and their anti-gun votes will likely cost them their seats.

Voters are also pursuing recalls for Sen Evie Hudak and state Rep. Rhonda Fields and considering filing a petition to recall governor John Hickenlooper.

Rep. Fields sponsored the very unpopular 15 round magazine limit legislation. She is notorious for her outright gun-grabbing stance on the second amendment. During the push for the anti-gun bills, Fields remarked, ”The objective is to get the guns out of the home.”

Sen. Hudak had an equally troubling public event during the democrat-pushed anti-gun effort. During a hearing on concealed carry on college campuses, Hudak told a rape victim that her attack would likely have been worse if she had tried to defend herself by carrying a concealed firearm. Then stating a now proven false statistic, Hudak argued with the rape victim “I just want to say that actually statistics are not on your side…the Colorado Coalition Against Gun Violence says that for every one woman who used a handgun to kill someone in self-defense, 83 were murdered by them.”

Of course, the way Hudak expressed the statistic, she makes it sound as though the victims own guns were turned on them. As several news agencies have reported, Hudak contorted 1998 FBI statistics to say something they actually didn’t say at all.

Colorado voters have come together to form the Basic Freedom Defense Fund to coordinate the recall effort. Headquartered in Grand Junction, CO, the group’s website says, “The Basic Freedom Defense Fund is a non-profit dedicated to holding our elected representatives here in the state of Colorado RESPONSIBLE and ACCOUNTABLE for the things they do in office, and to ensure the defense of our freedoms and civil rights.”

Colorado voters aren’t the only ones organizing. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has been spending millions during the 2013 anti-gun effort and is likely to fund groups like “A Whole Lot of People for John Morse” which is hoping to defend Sen. Morse during the recall.

When: Tuesday, May 7th, 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: Confederate Corner with George Neat on Blog Talk Radio

What: Yes there are Confederates north of the Mason-Dixon line, and George Neat is one of them. And we’re happy to bring his views to you in the “Confederate Corner” radio show.

For more information on George and his political views, please drop by the Confederate Corner at GoldwaterGal.com. (http://goldwatergal.com/goldwater-gal-media/confederate-corner/)

Tonight: George will be talking about Cole Withrow (the Eagle Scout that got arrested for being responsible), terrorist teachers, and the military’s war on religion. Of course there will also be a Soldier Salute, and a “nearly-infamous” Crack Pipe Moment.

(H/T MarkDice.com)

The bill, which will limit the manufacture or sale of 11+ round magazines,  was voted out of the committee by a narrow 3-2 vote, but is widely expected to pass the full House in a vote this Wednesday. Governor Jack Markell is also in full support of the measure.

Delaware citizens will still be allowed to own the banned magazines and use them in private settings such as ranges or at home.

Bans such as the one Delaware is considering do not only limit the magazines. The ban also prevents citizens from purchasing many guns that normally come with magazines holding 12 or more rounds. The bill will severely limit the availability of firearms for those wanting one for home defense, personal protection or competition.

Active and retired police officers will still have the ability to purchase the magazines and guns with higher capacities although many firearms manufacturers and retailers no longer sell items to government agencies that the state prevents their citizens from owning. The firearms companies share the common sentiment that if the citizens of a state have had their second amendment rights infringed, then the state agencies should live with the same restrictions.

The suspects were informed were informed by Yuma Justice of the Peace Greg Stewart that there were each being held on in allegations of attempted murder, armed robbery and aggravated assault. The victim has so far been held harmless in for defending himself.

Prosecutor William Katz told the court that “The victim was in town visiting a family member and was standing outside a residence when he was approached by two males. They demanded his wallet, when he didn’t comply, they demanded his wallet again. It was at that point that they brandished a weapon and [the victim] took out his own .45-caliber weapon. Refusing to be a victim, he fired and struck one of the assailants in the neck.”

According to reports, the intended victim had a legally concealed firearm and is likely to be uncharged in the case.

The victim was neither shot nor otherwise injured in the attempted robbery. He is also in full possession of his wallet and its contents.

The suspect who was shot is being treated for a life-threatening gunshot wound.

When: Tuesday, April 30th, 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: Confederate Corner with George Neat on Blog Talk Radio

What: Yes there are Confederates north of the Mason-Dixon line, and George Neat is one of them. And we’re happy to bring his views to you in the “Confederate Corner” radio show.

For more information on George and his political views, please drop by the Confederate Corner at GoldwaterGal.com. (http://goldwatergal.com/goldwater-gal-media/confederate-corner/)

Tonight: It’s been a crazy week, and George is on the warpath. More gun talk, of course. Plus, some talk about the ATF, military, the Boston Bombing suspects’ family, and wait for it…. PORN. So, be sure to join us for an interesting ride, and of course, there will be the Soldier Salute, and the infamous “Crack Pipe Moment”!

Mark Kelly enjoys shooting his Glock 9mm handgun, the same firearm used to injure his wife in 2012.

While Mr. Kelly’s firearm only has a 17 round magazine at the time the video was shot, it would still have been banned under the Democratic party’s proposed legislation. The same ban Gabrielle Gifford hypocritically expressed anger at not having been passed.

The ban that failed the Senate would have limited Gifford’s husband to 10 rounds. For some reason, Gabby doesn’t seem to mind her own family possessing magazines she feels the average citizen should not own.

If eleven rounds is too many, then why is her family entitled to use magazines that hold seventeen?

The hypocrisy is too much to bear. If the only way gun owners are to buy the guns the way the manufacturer makes them is to be related to a Congressional member, elitism is our near future.

If it is good enough for thee, it is good enough for me.

“All in all, this was a pretty shameful day for Washington,” Obama blasted in a temper tantrum against gun rights supporters, republicans, conservative democrats and others that prevented the legislation from passing.

Ultimately, American voters held the most sway. Democrats in gun-friendly states could not be on record as gun-grabbers which led them to vote against measures their party supported. The fear of not being re-elected forced them to vote the will of their constituencies – as the system is intended.

Gun control groups were sure of an emotional victory. Logic had little to do with any of the amendments and would have done nothing to prevent Columbine, Aurora, Sandy Hook or the Lone Star College knife attacks. Even John McCain, who is willing to appease gun control activists by supporting some of the legislation said. “Would it have prevented the most recent acts of gun violence? In all likelihood, no.”

Yesterday, The New York Times even published an ill-informed attempt to use internet purchases to demonstrate why expanded checks are needed – a failure at best.

Confusion, emotion and rhetoric have consumed the second amendment rights debate in America.

The President has used the imagery of the Newtown tragedy parents and Gabrielle Giffords to push for laws that even their supporters admit would have done nothing to prevent those tragedies.

Vice President Biden started a Google Hangout during which he made strong, but untrue claims that “There is no – zero – no infringement on the Second Amendment, not one single thing being proposed.” As the Washington Post reported “A controversial Democratic plan to ban dozens of military-style assault weapons [sic] was also defeated by a vote of 40 to 60.” Picking and choosing which firearms Americans may own solely on their appearance is clearly infringement.

Now that Congress’ attention will be focused on immigration reform, another vote on gun control legislation is unlikely in the short term. After 2014, the Democrats will likely be focused on the Presidential and Congressional elections and just as nervous about pushing any legislation limiting the rights of Americans to own firearms.

Photo credit: Marc Langsam

An article posted on NYTimes.com attempts to convince readers of the reasons that universal background checks should pass. Instead, it demonstrates what the NRA and gun rights activists have said all along – criminals don’t follow the law.

Yesterday, The New York Times website posted an investigation into an internet firearms classifieds site in order to make the case that universal background checks are a necessity. Using several conversations with a felon, the reporter shows just how criminals get guns and then makes the case that, by some miracle, universal background checks would fix it.

The intentions and background of the prospective buyer were hidden, as is customary on such sites. The person posting these ads, however, left a phone number, enabling The New York Times to trace them to their source: Omar Roman-Martinez, 29, of Colorado Springs, who has a pair of felony convictions for burglary and another for motor vehicle theft, as well as a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction — all of which bar him from having guns

..

The mere fact that Mr. Roman-Martinez was seeking to buy and sell guns on Armslist underscores why extending background checks to the growing world of online sales has become a centerpiece of new gun legislation being taken up in the Senate this week.

First, if the New York reporter were to engage in selling a gun to the Colorado Springs felon, the transfer is already required to go through a licensed gun dealer (FFL) which would, in all cases, result in a background check. Federal law requires that gun transfers across state lines require a background check and transfer through a licensed dealer. The problem demonstrated by the Times article is that oddly, criminals don’t follow laws – SHOCK!

Assuming both parties lived in the same state, federal law does not require a background check. Even if it did, it is a fair assumption that Mr. Roman-Martinez would find someone else either ignorant or irreverent of existing law. The only ones that would be left following the law are law-abiding citizens engaged in the exchange of personal property or the handing-down of family treasures.

The naivety presented in the article is typical of politicians and journalists more interested in confiscating guns than protecting the public. The author goes on to incorrectly state how the current gun laws work:

Notably, 94 percent of the ads were posted by “private parties,” who, unlike licensed dealers, are not required to conduct background checks.

Only if the trade is conducted within their own state, and then only if their state has no additional laws requiring permits or checks, is this true. In many cases, background checks are already required, but are not being performed. By omitting these caveats until much later in the article, the author makes it seem like these transactions are taking place only because universal background checks aren’t in place. Requiring more situations in which a background is supposed to be performed will most certainly not prevent those bent on skirting the law from doing so.

As if to further accentuate the point that more laws don’t make better citizens, the article shows that many people are already illegally engaged in the gun trade.

The examination of Armslist raised questions about whether many sellers are essentially functioning as unlicensed firearms dealers, in contravention of federal law. The law says that people who “engage in the business” of selling firearms need to obtain a license and conduct background checks on customers. While the definition of engaging in business is vague, The Times found that more than two dozen people had posted more than 20 different guns for sale in a several-month span.

By law, buying and selling this many guns already requires a Federal Firearms License (FFL). It doesn’t appear that the subjects of the Times investigation are following that law either.

If somewhat direct proof that liberal  gun control won’t do anything – how about direct proof?

A 2011 undercover investigation by the City of New York examined private party gun sellers on a range of Web sites, including Armslist, to see if they would sell guns to someone who said that they probably could not pass a background check. (Federal law bars sales to any person the seller has reason to believe is prohibited from purchasing firearms). Investigators found seventy-seven of 125 online sellers agreed to sell the weapons anyway.

Almost 80% are willing to sell a gun to someone who they believe would not pass a background check – against federal law. That means, already illegal… So making it illegal to sell a gun without a universal background check will have the same law-abiding citizens performing the same checks they already are and criminals skirting the system the same way they do today.

A major argument against gun buybacks has been that they are too expensive. Arizona may have solved that problem in a most controversial way.

The Arizona state Senate voted to prohibit the destruction of firearms gathered by cities and counties. Instead, municipalities will be required to sell the firearms to recoup buyback costs.

The only thing that could prevent the bill from becoming law is gun rights proponent Governor Jan Brewer. While no comment has come from the Governor’s office, a veto is unlikely.

Democrats are feverishly attempting to sway public opinion against the bill. Democratic State Senator Steve Gillardo argued that Arizona already has “the most liberal gun laws in the nation and that has to stop.” Clearly no friend to gun rights, Sen. Gillardo had proposed numerous amendments to the gun buy back bill including one limiting magazine sizes. All of which failed.

Nationally, the gun debate has taken odd turns as liberals have even sought to make the Boston Massacre into a second amendment issue. Actor Jay Mohr tweeted on Wednesday that the bombing at the finish line of the Boston Marathon is reason to remove American’s rights to protect themselves.

What bothers me most about today is that we’re getting used 2 it. ENOUGH. 2nd amendment must go. Violence has 2 stop. Culture MUST change.

— Jay Mohr (@jaymohr37) April 15, 2013

Since explosives are already illegal, the logic of Mr. Mohr’s statement is difficult to defend.

Ignorance about the repercussions of gun control is becoming more evident. News reports have shown that people will move to confiscate guns even when told that criminals would still have them.

Even when authorities decide to confiscate guns, they are unable to. In California, while spending way too much time deciding which guns law-abiding citizens should have, they’ve been unable to get guns out of the hands of those clearly identified (by law) as unable to possess firearms as the state has “a backlog of nearly 20,000 people to disarm”, says Stephen Lindley, chief of the Bureau of Firearms for the state Department of Justice.

Maybe Arizona’s Republican Senators are on to something. If citizens want to turn in their guns for a tiny payout, the return on investment could be great for municipalities. It’s kind of a second hand store for guns where the original owner is willing to take next to nothing for the firearm and maybe those wanting to hang on to their second amendment rights can get a good deal. Unfortunately, criminals don’t tend to turn in guns the rest of America actually wants to buy.

Ron Cogswell (CC)

Alexander (R-TN)*Re-election in 2014
Ayotte (R-NH)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)*Retiring 2014
Coburn (R-OK)
Collins (R-ME)*Re-election in 2014
Corker (R-TN)
Flake (R-AZ)
Graham (R-SC)*Re-election in 2014
Heller (R-NV)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Isakson (R-GA)
McCain (R-AZ)
Toomey (R-PA)
Wicker (R-MS)

While there is a bill text, it’s already been posited at least by Hot Air’s Allahpundit that this is essentially meaningless. The bill introduced by Senator Harry Reid wasn’t really read by anyone, and likely will not be the bill that is voted on in the end, if the Senators do not take the warning from the NRA. The whole letter offered by the organization on this bill:

Dear Senator,

I am writing regarding the National Rifle Association’s position on several firearms-related proposals under consideration in the Senate.

S. 649, the “Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013”, introduced on March 21, contains a number of provisions that would unfairly infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners. This legislation would criminalize the private transfer of firearms by honest citizens, requiring friends, neighbors and many family members to get government permission to exercise a fundamental right or face prosecution. The NRA is unequivocally opposed to S. 649.

In addition, the NRA will oppose any amendments offered to S. 649 that restrict fundamental Second Amendment freedoms; including, but not limited to, proposals that would ban commonly and lawfully owned firearms and magazines or criminalize the private transfer of firearms through an expansion of background checks. This includes the misguided “compromise” proposal drafted by Senators Joe Manchin, Pat Toomey and Chuck Schumer. As we have noted previously, expanding background checks, at gun shows or elsewhere, will not reduce violent crime or keep our kids safe in their schools. Given the importance of these issues, votes on all anti-gun amendments or proposals will be considered in NRA’s future candidate evaluations.

Rather than focus its efforts on restricting the rights of America’s 100 million law-abiding gun owners, there are things Congress can do to fix our broken mental health system; increase prosecutions of violent criminals; and make our schools safer. During consideration of S. 649, should one or more amendments be offered that adequately address these important issues while protecting the fundamental rights of law-abiding gun owners, the NRA will offer our enthusiastic support and consider those votes in our future candidate evaluations as well.

We hope the Senate will replace the current provisions of S. 649 with language that is properly focused on addressing mental health inadequacies; prosecuting violent criminals; and keeping our kids safe in their schools. Should it fail to do so, the NRA will make an exception to our standard policy of not “scoring” procedural votes and strongly oppose a cloture motion to move to final passage of S. 649.

Debate on the bill is scheduled to start immediately after the mid-day recess. As for fallout over Republicans crossing the aisle on this issue, it appears so far that they are willing to gamble with their NRA support. As for a Toomey and Manchin bill, as stated at HotAir, most likely that will come in the form of amendments to the Reid bill.

The nationwide scientific survey showed the public’s approval of hunting rose five points in the past year, up from 74 percent in 2011. The survey, conducted in February 2013 using random digit dialing and supplemental cellular telephone sampling, was the fifth in a series of similar surveys by Responsive Management to track trends in public approval of hunting since 1995.

Support for hunting has remained generally consistent during this time–73 percent in 1995; 75 percent in 2003; 78 percent in 2006; 74 percent in 2011; and a peak of 79 percent in 2013.

Mark Damian Duda, executive director of Responsive Management, is still looking at survey results to better understand why approval has increased. Said Duda, “Approval of hunting among Americans is fairly stable and bounces between 73 and 79 percent. The reasons for this increase are still unclear, but it is probably related to the increase in hunting and shooting participation.

Added Duda, “Since 2006, hunting participation has increased by 9 percent while shooting participation has increased 18 percent since 2009. Other studies we have conducted on public opinion on hunting show that the strongest correlation for approval of hunting is knowing a hunter–over and above demographic variables or anything else. With the increased number of hunters in the field and sport shooters at the range, it is possible that this is being reflected in this uptick in support for hunting.”

One thousand Americans 18 years old and older were surveyed to achieve a sampling error of plus or minus 3.00 percentage points. More than half (52%) of those surveyed strongly approved of hunting. At the other end of the spectrum, 12 percent of Americans disapprove of hunting. Another 8 percent neither approve nor disapprove (total does not equal 100% due to rounding).