Authorities: Hofstra student killed by police →

laliberty:

A New York college student being held in a headlock at gunpoint by an intruder was accidentally shot and killed by a police officer who had responded to a report of the home invasion at an off-campus home, police said Saturday.

Andrea Rebello was shot once in the head Friday morning by an officer who opened fire after the masked intruder pointed a gun at the officer while holding the 21-year-old Hofstra University student in a headlock, Nassau County homicide squad Lt. John Azzata said.

In a tense confrontation with the officer, gunman Dalton Smith “menaces our police officer, points his gun at the police officer,” Azzata said. The officer opened fire, killing Smith and his hostage.

Officer safety is the highest priority. Warren v. District of Columbia already established that police are under no obligation to protect us. As I’ve noted: “The police’s priority is officer safety, not public safety. They protect and serve themselves first, and sometimes exclusively, at any cost.” Occasionally innocents are shot. This is just the price we pay for a free society.

So even in the unlikely event that a cop can arrive in time to save a life, they still might not - or worse. This is why it is ignorant and naïve to disarm potential victims (who are the real first responders).

And the subservient media really can’t help themselves - look at USA Today’s original headline:

The cop can’t be blamed, that bullet was totally working alone.

Guns, Gear & Gallantry: sugashane: freebroccoli: living-liberty: “….after learning of the... →

sugashane:

freebroccoli:

living-liberty:

“….after learning of the Obama administration’s involvement in the IRS’ targeting of conservative groups and its secret seizure of Associated Press phone records…I’ve had some of the pro-gun lobbyists on here, saying to me, ‘Well, the reason we need to be armed is because of tyranny from our own government,’ and I’ve always laughed at them,” Morgan said. “I said, ‘Don’t be ridiculous! Your government won’t turn itself on you…but, actually, this is vaguely tyrannical behavior by the American government.”

— Piers Morgan
the CNN host admitted to guest Penn Jillette that perhaps gun advocates were right about creeping tyranny after all (via thinksquad)

It’s the end of the world. Get to the shelter.

Piers Morgan finally sees the light…

eltigrechico:

Homemade Guns

“Gun-control advocates tell us that removing guns from society makes us safer. But that is simply an impossibility. The fact is that firearm technology exists. It cannot be uninvented. As long as there is metalworking and welding capability, it matters not what gun laws are imposed upon law-abiding people. Those who wish to have guns, and disregard the law, will have guns. Paradoxically, gun control clears a path for violence and makes aggression more likely, whether the aggressor is a terrorist or a government. I don’t really believe “gun-free” zones make any difference. If they did, why would the worst shootings consistently happen in gun-free zones such as schools? And while accidents do happen, aggressive, terroristic shootings like this are unheard of at gun and knife shows, the antithesis of a gun-free zone. It bears repeating that an armed society truly is a polite society. Even if you don’t like guns and don’t want to own them, you benefit from those who do.”

-Ron Paul

factsandchicks:

Tupac Shakur shot two off duty police officers who were assaulting a  young man.

source (video)

gunsgeargallantry:

priceofliberty:

Hey look, it’s another Liberator.

It had begun. 

laliberty:

kateoplis:

Bulletproof Whiteboards and the Marketing of School Safety | NPR

Because an individual 18-by-20-inch ‘shield’ is better protection than revised gun safety laws.

Because American ‘solutions’ must always involve commerce.

Because our national persona is a superhero. 

Because guns won’t disappear.

Because bad guys will always exist.

Because criminals who are willing to murder don’t care very much about gun laws (and consequently only the peaceful and responsible will be disarmed).

Because being a helpless clod leads to dead innocents, and as silly as this idea may seem (to be sure, it is quite silly since it will do nothing to stop gunmen and very little to protect victims), it is certainly better than the false security of wishful thinking.

Because “commerce” (as opposed to government coercion) caters to what people want in the most efficient and economical way possible.

Related: The Ignorance and Naïveté of “Gun Control.”

STUDY: Gun crime has plunged, but Americans think it's up →

laliberty:

Such is the outcome when most politicians and their subservient media engage in a campaign to centralize more control over peaceful people.

Also interesting is this poll at the LA Times (to grossly understate, it is hardly a bastion of gun-toting right-wingers):

eltigrechico:

do any of you “OH NOES ASSULT WEPPONS!” people even realize that you can turn a rifle into an “assault rifle” by adding a bayonet?

This is fucking ignorant silliness.

People really need to stop letting themselves be lead around by the nose by the media and politicians.

Hey, ‘Gun Control’ Advocates: Colonel Mustard called. He said, “Get a clue.”

*EDIT*

sqvad replied to your post: do any of you “OH NOES ASSULT WEPPONS!” people…

Technically you just need a bayonet lug

two of my friends have mosin nagants and both have bayonet lugs and both are (obviously) bolt action, are they an assault weapon?

Media myths on ‘assault weapons’ and ‘semiautomatic firearms’ →

eltigrechico:

If gun-control advocates and our media want to have a conversation about government restrictions on gun ownership, I think that’s fine. Debating more issues, rather than fewer, is probably good for our politics. 
But the conversation about guns needs to be a bit more factually precise. Today’s New York Times story on the AR-15 has a lot of good information and aims to be balanced, but the story still manages to perpetuate many of the most stubborn myths about rifles. 

Some points I would like to make in response:

Civilian-available AR-15s aren’t automatic weapons

First, the Times calls the AR-15 “the civilian version of the military’s M-16.” The M-16 is a machine gun, that throughout most of its history – and certainly in popular understanding – has been a fully-automatic weapon. When you squeeze the trigger on an automatic weapon, bullets keep firing out of it until you stop squeezing. The U.S. military has shied away from automatic firing, and the newest M-16s have other settings – three-shot burst (which, relative to the automatic setting, preserves ammo and inculcates more discipline among soldiers in combat) and semi-automatic.

AR-15s that are legal to buy do not have the three-shot burst that the military’s current M-16s have. They also don’t have the automatic-fire option that most people associate with the M-16. [Update: I should have made it clearer that the M-16s the U.S. military buys today do not have the automatic option.]

If you’re going to use a famous gun as a point of reference, it seems responsible to mention that unlike the famous machine gun you’re comparing it to, the AR-15 is incapable of automatic or burst fire.

It’s only eight paragraphs later that the Times acknowledges this difference, but it makes it sound like it’s an opinion:

Defenders of the firearm… argue that unlike the AR-15’s military counterparts, the civilian models are almost all semiautomatic, not fully automatic….

Typical media he-said-she-said, when there are actual facts to report.

‘Semiautomatic’ isn’t really a useful descriptor

The Times writes:

AR-15s are not the only weapons used by rampaging shooters. Semiautomatic handguns are also frequently employed.

Again, “semiautomatic” mostly means “not automatic.” You pull the trigger on a semiauto gun like an AR-15, and one bullet comes out. You pull it again, and another bullet comes out. Unlike a single-shot gun, you don’t need to cock it or load it after each shot.

And semiauto is the norm. As Al Tompkins at Poynter puts it:

The use of the phrase semi-automatic when talking about guns is like using the phrase “gasoline cars.”

Using this term is almost useless, unless you’re talking about to outlawing most handguns that are used today.

Then the Times has this odd paragraph:

Mr. Diaz said semiautomatic weapons, including the AR-15, are increasingly being used in the killings of police officers, whose vests often provide little protection against such firearms.

Questions:

1)   Does this mean a higher proportion of police killings are done with semiauto weapons as opposed to single-action rifles and revolvers?

2)   What is it about being semiautomatic – again, a descriptor of the loading mechanism – that makes a gun more able to overcome the protection of a bullet-proof vest?

‘Assault weapon’ is not a very helpful descriptor

The Times piece twice uses the term “assault weapon” to describe the AR-15. But there’s no real definition of the term.

First, all guns can be used to assault someone – even a muzzle-loading black-powder rifle.

Second, Congressional attempts to define this term were laughably ad hoc.

A rifle could cease being an assault weapon if you sawed off the flash suppressor. It could become an assault weapon if you added a bayonet.

-Timothy P. Carney

laliberty:

eltigrechico:

Putting Things in Perspective.

*note to the reader*: remember that “assault rifles” are a sub-category of “rifles”.

(Thanks to LALiberty for help with this post)

Per Dianne Feinstein, so-called “assault weapons” like those under consideration for banning account for approximately 48 deaths per year.

Biden: "Obama to Use Executive Order to Ban Gun Ownership" →

capitalismconcarne:

disobey:

Biden has gaffed in front of the press before, but this latest statement references meetings currently taking place between Obama and Eric Holder at the White House to determine extent of executive action that may be taken against gun ownership.

Follow the link for video of the press conference.

Fuck no.

antigovernmentextremist:

operator-as-fuck:

rap-game-famas:

pandaswearprada:

Yes I fucking did this

#listenupsheeple

10/10 op

you know whats up

This is a work if art.

Well, it should go without saying, [Obama] has gone way too far. It should also go without saying, he’s acting with the use of illegal violence. I’ve always assumed the line in the sand will be drawn, if the federal agent marches in, unannounced and they say, well give me your gun and give me your gold. I don’t think we’ll do that, calmly. I think the American people will highly resent it and resist.

— Ron Paul on the talk of an executive order to restrict gun ownership. (via antigovernmentextremist)

antigovernmentextremist:

laliberty:

Assault Rifle vs. Sporting Rifle, and Magazine capacity limits

Everyone should watch this video.

(Source: youtube.com)