First, I apologize for using the words “Brady” and “Think” in the same sentence. I know these two words create a logical discourse.
The Brady Campaign has posted their 2012 scores for each of the 50 states (excluding DC) for “proper” gun laws for each state. The higher the score, the better for those who would subvert your rights under the US Constitution. For us the lower the score, the more we may observe our Constitutional Rights without fear of the heel of Big Brother’s Jack Boot kicking us in the head. I was honestly a little disappointed to see that Tennessee actually scored an 8. Yes, it’s a low number but it should be zero. Then again, that is also it’s own testament to our state’s politicians. We have a Republican controlled House AND Senate, along with a Republican Governor. Many of which ran with a conservative base. Did I mention they are politicians?
Something worth mentioning here is that California only scored an 81. That’s right, a high number, but think about how much the average California citizen’s Rights are subverted. Think about that for a minute…. Now that you’ve recovered from that cold chill running down your spine and that gut wrenching feeling similar to when your significant other told you “We need to talk”… The Brady folks think that level of subversion is only 81% from where they want it to be. What they want is total control via total dependency because they think they know what is best for you and they think you are too stupid to be burdened with making those decisions on your own. Looking at it from this logical perspective, the State of Tennessee is 92% away from total control and government dependency (whew). However, that perspective would also conclude that California is only 19% away from total control and government dependency.
This is all based on a scale which “works” as follows:
Curb Firearm Trafficking (Maximum 35 Points)
Gun Dealer Regulations (Maximum 12 Points)
- State license required 2
- Record keeping and retention 2
- Report records to the state, and state retains records 2
- Mandatory theft reporting of all firearms 2
- At least 1 store security precaution required 2
- Inspections by police allowed 2
Limit Bulk Purchases (Maximum 5 Points)
- One handgun per month, no exceptions 5
- OR One handgun per month, 1 or more exception 3
Record Retention (Maximum 5 Points)
- All Firearms 5
- OR Handguns Only 4
Crime Gun Identification (Maximum 10 Points)
- Ballistic Fingerprinting 5
- Require microstamping on semi-auto handguns 5
Report Lost/Stolen Guns (Maximum 3 Points)
- Mandatory reporting by firearm owners 3
Strengthen Brady Background Checks (Maximum 40 Points)
Background checks on all gun sales (Maximum 17 Points)
- All Firearms (includes gun shows) 17
- OR Handguns Only (includes gun shows) 10
- Closed Gun Show Loophole 7
- OR Background checks on long guns at gun shows 5
Permit to Purchase (Maximum 21 Points)
- All firearms 3
- Safety training/testing required 3
- License to possess 3
- Extend three-day limit for background checks 3
- Permit required for ammunition purposes 3
- Fingerprinting required 3
- Permit process involves law enforcement 3
Ammunition Regulations (Maximum 2 Points)
- Ammunition Purchaser Records Kept/Vendor License Required 2
Ban Assault Weapons (Maximum 10 Points)
Assault Weapons Ban (Maximum 5 Points)
- 1-feature test 5
- OR 2-feature test 3
- OR 2-feature test on assault pistols only 1
Large Capacity Magazine Ban (Maximum 5 Points)
- More than 10 rounds 5
- OR More than 15 rounds 3
Child Safety (Maximum 7 Points)
Child Safety Locks (Maximum 5 Points)
- Integrated locks sold on all handguns (Childproof) 5
- OR External locks sold with all handguns 3
- Standards on all external locks 1
Child Access Prevention (Maximum 2 Points)
- Ages 16/17 and under 2
- OR Ages 14/15 and under 1
Guns in Public Places and Local Control (Maximum 8 Points)
No Guns in Workplace (Maximum 2 Points)
- Employers not forced to allow firearms in parking lots 2
No Guns on College Campuses (Maximum 2 Points)
- Colleges are not forced to allow firearms on campus 2
Not A CCW Shall Issue State (Maximum 2 Points)
- Law enforcement discretion when issuing CCW permits 2
No State Preemption (Maximum 2 Points)
- Local control of firearm regulation 2
- OR Some local control of regulations 1
Extra Credit/Demerit
Extra Credit (2 Points)
- Disarm Prohibited Handgun Possessors 2
Demerit
- Gag Rule on Doctors (-2 Points) -2
- No permit required for CCW (-2 Points) -2
So they are perfectly willing to show us that they have their own personal interest in subverting the Constitutional Rights of citizens on a national scale. They are showing you a scoring system that indicates where and how they feel they have made progress in determining what is best for you without considering “you” in the process because you are too stupid to know what is good for you. It’s evident in their language (certainly not in their logic) how they wish to tilt the scales in favor of the criminal in order to prevent ever having to light a candle for one of them ever again because, of course, you are too stupid to matter. You don’t understand that protecting yourself, family, and others is just mean and wrong. You don’t know what’s good for you because the intellectual elite say so despite all of the facts that are contrary to what they know to be true. See for yourself:
Curb Firearm Trafficking (Maximum 35 Points) does not say “Curb CRIMINAL Firearm trafficking”. The “Gun Dealer Regulations” category implies that a dealer should be required to obtain a license to sell a gun to someone. However, no license is required for other objects which are as likely to harm or kill someone when used illegally or with negligence. Unconstitutional. Reporting records to the state? Why? The state government or federal government has no grounds here. This is merely a way for them to subvert anyones Rights to be “secure in their papers” under the 6th Amendment. No one should be required to turn over ANY documentation involved in their business or personal lives for ANY reason without probable cause that they are committing a crime. Unconstitutional. Mandatory reporting of theft of a firearm? If you don’t like it, and you don’t care if someone else took it then you should have discretion about reporting it. Police have discretion about prosecuting a crime and so does the district attorney’s office, so why should a citizen be any different? Like them, only better. Unconstitutional. Requiring at least one security precaution? Yeah, simple, if they’re acting weird or give some indication that they’re gonna do something bad… then don’t sell them a firearm, or a car, or a knife, or a baseball bat, or a cookie. You get the point. Unconstitutional. Inspections by police??!!?? Are you nuts! Firstly let’s go back to the 6th Amendment. It’s none of their damn business unless I am breaking the law or I have given sufficient probable cause. The police can inspect my gun after I have had the unfortunate occasion to use it to protect myself, family, or someone else. Otherwise… Unconstitutional. Limiting bulk purchases… because two is bulk in a month, right? It’s no ones business but mine if I wish to buy one firearm or 100 firearms in a month unless there is probable cause as defined in the 6th Amendment. Again, unconstitutional. Crime gun identification such as ballistic fingerprinting and microstamping…. doesn’t work, is very expensive to all parties involved, and isn’t necessary. While it isn’t unconstitutional as I see it, it IS ineffective and inefficient.
The Section “Strengthen Brady Background Checks (Maximum 40 Points)“ has one small hint of merit. Before you go and get your stuff all bunched up finish reading. I like background checks for all firearms sales excluding person to person sales. It is a way to do our part to keep firearms out of the hands of felons. That is to say it prevents felons from acquiring a firearm in any additional way than the illegal means in which they currently obtain them. That’s the only merit. If you want to buy a firearm, then you do a background check to make sure you’re not a felon. If you are, you can go to jail for the attempt. If not, then great AND THEN THE PAPERWORK IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE MAINTAINED IN THE INTEREST OF GOVERNMENT SNOOPING. Regarding person to person sales. I, personally, require a background check be conducted if I sell a gun to someone I don’t know. It’s for my piece of mind. I don’t, however, think that the government should regulate piece of mind. That is a moral obligation. Having said that, it still debunks the “loophole” crap that the anti-rights folks are all up in arms about. Otherwise, for the government to require it would be unconstitutional.
In the “Permit to Purchase (Maximum 21 Points)” portion of the Brady Thought control process they simply require you to get a permit (I’m sure it would be a “May Issue” permit) in order to observe your God-given Right to keep and bear arms. This is in every way, with no exception, unconstitutional. Again, there are some things here that make sence on a moral level, but not something that would support unconstitutional legislation. I would always hope that people who observe their Constitutional Rights under the 2A would be respectful enough of themselves and others by training in the safe practices of using, maintaining, and respecting firearms, but to regulate it with laws would be unconstitutional. A license to possess a firearm… we’ve covered that. I don’t need one for other Rights given to me by God himself, so this one should be no different. I don’t need a 3+ day waiting period for my 2A rights either. This accomplishes nothing but to successfully waste gas, time, and other resources in an effort to use this as a slippery slope to subvert our rights. Permits for ammunition are no better and equally unconstitutional. Ammunition is an integral part of a firearm. To regulate one is to regulate the other. neither is acceptable as they are both unconstitutional. Fingerprinting is unconstitutional also unless you’ve broken the law to an extent that requires such a thing. My fingerprints belong to me and you can not have them for your records because I am purchasing and/or legally using something you don’t like. It is unconstitutional because you are forcing me to give you part of my person for something that is legal to do when you have no probable cause under the 6A. That would be… wait for it… unconstitutional. Involving law enforcement. As I have stated before, I am not doing anything illegal, so it’s none of their business. I am not committing a crime and therefore it is not within their area of expertise. To require this implies that I “Might” do something illegal and the last time I checked we do not live within the script of the Minority Report and that makes it, say it with me friends… unconstitutional.
Ammunition Regulations (Maximum 2 Points)
have been covered here also. They are part of a firearm and are subject to the same requirements under the 2A, which is to say the government and the anti-rights crowd should be required only to back off and leave our rights alone. To do anything else would be, and has been, unconstitutional.
Ban Assault Weapons (Maximum 10 Points)
Assault Weapons Ban (Maximum 5 Points)
Large Capacity Magazine Ban (Maximum 5 Points)
Do I really need to go into how the so-called assault weapons formula has no realistic, accurate, or functional bearing on any firearms argument what-so-ever? Do I need to post the “barrel shroud” video? Do we need to discuss how there is no difference in the ammunition capacity of a magazine when being used lawfully and how restricting it only further victimizing the law abiding citizen? I didn’t think so.
Child Safety (Maximum 7 Points)
Child Safety Locks (Maximum 5 Points)
Child Access Prevention (Maximum 2 Points)
Again, this has been covered in the moral obligation for the safety and use of firearms. Moral, not legal. Do we really need to discuss how this would be otherwise unconstitutional?
Guns in Public Places and Local Control (Maximum 8 Points)
No Guns in Workplace (Maximum 2 Points)
No Guns on College Campuses (Maximum 2 Points)
A business does not have the right, and neither does the government, to infringe upon my constitutional rights because they don’t want me to have a gun on what is publicly accessible, yet privately owned property unless they are willing to accept complete responsibility for my safety and well being while traveling to their property, the duration that I am on their property, and the trip back home. Even then, they can not give me back my life should I lose it, so any other argument is pointless in the face of the Constitution. The same can be said about a college campus.
Not A CCW Shall Issue State (Maximum 2 Points)
Law enforcement discretion when issuing CCW permits is again, outside of their realm, and further a slippery slope designed to subvert our rights. Not wanting a “Shall Issue” law simply implies that “May Issue” is the liberal attempt to secretly subvert your rights because the discretion would be up to the police and the liberal left, which means you won’t get one unless you were a campaign contributor. Even then those idiots that made a substantial contribution are buying into subverting their own rights under the constitution when if they supported the conservative, then they could do the same thing for free. The definition of idiocy and… unconstitutional.
No State Preemption (Maximum 2 Points)
Local control of gun regulations creates inconsistency which results in uneven application of the law in the state and federal government. That, by definition is pure and simple racism that is reflective of the Jim Crow laws, which by the way, were declared unconstitutional.
Extra Credit/Demerit
Extra Credit (2 Points)
Extra credit for subverting our Constitutional Rights? Are you really that stupid that you would broadcast that on the interwebs? If you didn’t notice, the police are charged with disarming those who are not allowed to have firearms because they are felons. If you think that your laws would cause a felon to register a gun so the law could come pick it up, then I can stop now and change “we are winning” to “we have won” because you logic is quite the opposite, which makes you a complete and blithering moron.
Demerit
So we lose points (and become lesser in the eyes of the Anti… which I like) for not allowing doctors to ask about gun ownership and for not requiring a permit to carry and observe the 2A. Now those are two laws that I would encourage my representative to vote for. Why? Because those laws are CONSTITUTIONAL. They don’t violate anyone’s Rights. Imagine that.
On a separate issue, my post seems to have a bit of a mind of its own. There are some areas within this post that insist on being typed in Bold and I can’t convince it to do otherwise. Please accept my apologies for the strain on your eyes this may have caused.
I hope you have enjoyed the long read. It should compensate for my lack of recent posting.
Stay safe, carry your guns, use a holster, remember the four rules, never quit,
Disavowed With Honor
Like this:
Like Loading...
7 Responses »
. I have a problem though. I have all of the advice in the world in what to do for my loving wife which simply translates to, “What ever she wants”. I know I need to have thick skin in dealing with hormones. I was a medic in the Army and I understand the physical and mental changes which can come about during pregnancy and that it is different for each woman and each time for that matter. That said… I am looking for a book. One that addresses pregnancy from a Christian Male perspective. A Constitutional perspective would be nice. A Conservative perspective would be helpful as well. I’ve read books on pregnancy from (some) women’s perspective and, quite frankly, they seem quite biased. A whole book that says suck it up, you are male, it’s your fault, be a slave, wah wah wah, give her what she wants, take crap from her forever, you penis-slinging dream killer.
