As Dave Hardy points out the Brady Campaign cannot be truthful and yet simultaneously claim they do not wish to make firearm ownership difficult just for the sake of making it difficult and claim it is good news there are reports that firearms ownership is declining. Their pleasure at the claims of lower firearms ownership must be interpreted as reduced ownership rates as a desirable goal. If they desire that goal then all their actions must be viewed as something they consider might further that goal.

I find their views on reports of reduced gun ownership rates like someone cheering a reduction in the number of people who vote, write letters to the editor, or people voluntarily becoming slaves.

Yesterday I received an email from Josh Horwitz at Coalition to Stop Gun Violence:

Recognize VA Tech Anniversary by Saying “NO GUNS ON CAMPUS!”

As many of you know, April 16 will mark the fourth anniversary of the mass shooting at Virginia Tech. This weekend will be a time for survivors to remember their lost loved ones and pay tribute to their lives, and for America to reflect on the causes and meaning behind this horrific tragedy.

While the Virginia Tech families have emerged as some of the strongest proponents of tougher gun control laws, the gun lobby has exploited the massacre to push extreme legislation that would force colleges and universities to allowing the carrying of loaded firearms on their campuses.  Such NRA-drafted bills are now being considered in 18 different states.

Today, Friday, April 15, the Campaign to Keep Guns Off Campus is recognizing the fourth anniversary of the Virginia Tech shootings by conducting a National Call-In Day.

Please call your governor today and ask him/her to oppose guns on campus legislation in your state. If you are in a state with no pending guns on campus legislation, please call and ask your governor to oppose any future attempts to force colleges and universities to allows guns on campus. To find the phone number for your governor, just click here.

Thank you in advance for participating in this important action. If we are to build a safer future for our children, keeping guns out of the classroom is a must.

What Horwitz doesn’t say is that Virginia Tech had rules against guns on campus and it didn’t stop the shooter. There were also laws against murder which didn’t stop the shooter either. The only thing that would have stopped the shooter was another person with a gun. This was, in fact, the response of the police dispatch when they got the call about an active shooter on campus. They sent people with guns to confront the shooter. But they took a few minutes to arrive and of course they were much too late to stop the carnage.

Yet Horwitz want to “build a safer future” by ensuring that all campuses have the same policy in place that enable the shooter at Virginia Tech to be “successful”. Had Virginia Tech not had such a policy and the shooting took place it would almost make sense (there would still have been the law against murder in force) for his call to action. But that wasn’t the case. He is advocating for the proliferation of a policy proven to fail and uses an instance of failure as a reason for a call to action. Huh?

I shouldn’t be surprised. Again (and again just today!) the anti-gun people demonstrate they have nothing but crap for brains.

The Brady Campaign has a new video and web site about “assault clips” (yes, I put the “nofollow” tag on that link). In addition to the obvious ignorant use of the words “assault” and “clip” the shooter has a  very poor grip on the gun. His left thumb is in danger of needing a bandage and/or stitches. And his left index finger is doing nothing.

Furthermore the narrator and text of the website talk of 32 shots in 16 seconds. But I only count 16 (or maybe 17) shots in 4 seconds. And of course the claim is that “A magazine that allows a gun to fire 32 rounds in 16 seconds is only good for one thing. Killing a lot of people–fast.” Is totally bogus.

In the following video I shot 17 rounds in 7.5 seconds including a magazine reload and a malfunction clearance. I then go on to shoot a total of 36 rounds in 16.02 seconds—still with 10 rounds in my magazines.

If one were to accept the Brady Campaign claim that “a magazine that allows a gun to fire 32 rounds in 16 seconds is only good for one thing” then 10 round magazines must be only good for killing a lot of people fast too. Hence, I must inevitably must conclude one of three things about the magazines in my guns which hold more 10 or more rounds:

1. I have killed many thousands of people with the 60,000 or so rounds I have fired through these guns and no one has noticed—including myself.
2. The magazines have continuously malfunctioned to the point of being useless for their intended purpose.
3. The Brady Campaign is lying.

The use of Occam’s Razor should reveal the correct answer.

If it weren’t so deadly serious I would find it quite amusing that anti-gun activists get all bent out of shape and claim they feel threatened when millions of people peaceably carry concealed firearms in public every day. Yet they advocate passing laws that would mandate those same peaceable people give up their defensive tools at the point of a policeman’s gun and claim we are the ones threatening violence.

Sometimes you just have to shake your head at the lack of a rational thought process. This particular instance is brought to you by Elizabeth Guernsey, 26, a graduate of Trinity College who is pursuing a master’s degree in “urban studies”. “Urban studies” probably explains everything:

In fact, the federal government has passed only three major pieces of gun legislation over the past century. Two of these bills followed the assassination and attempted assassination of public officials. The National Firearms Act of 1934 made it illegal to carry hand grenades and machine guns. The Firearms Act of 1968, passed after the assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy, regulates the firearm industry and prevents interstate firearm transfers. The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, named for James Brady, who was shot during the attempted assassination of President Ronald Reagan, requires background checks for those purchasing firearms.

These pieces of federal law are critical to keeping illegal guns out of our communities. Perhaps we should applaud politicians for using the moment after a president or congresswoman is shot to push for improved gun regulations. But why have public officials been unable to pass laws in light of the 9,484 ordinary people killed each year by gun violence?

First off, these three laws are far from all the Federal laws on the books. Alan Korwin has an entire book on just Federal Gun Laws—all 271 of them.

Next, the laws she describes as “critical to keeping illegal guns out of our communities” actually created “illegal guns”. Machine guns, short barreled shotguns, and suppressors weren’t “illegal” until it was required that an exorbitant tax (at the time) was placed on them with NFA 1934. Without registering the gun and paying the tax the guns were illegal to be privately owned. Again, GCA 1968 prohibiting the private transfers of firearms across state lines created “illegal guns”. And finally the background check mandated by the Brady Act in 1993 has nothing to do with guns. It only has to do with people. Her statement about the criticality of the laws in “keeping illegal guns out of our community” is a total disconnect from reality.

Finally, as pointed out by the CDC and others there is no evidence that any of the gun laws on the books has made communities safer. I find it very telling that neither the issue of effectiveness of laws infringing upon a specific enumerated right, or the issue that such a right even exists was mentioned by Ms. Guernsey. But what do you expect from someone who has crap for brains and the best they can do to establish self-esteem is attempt to acquire a degree in “urban studies”?

Sometimes I would almost agree there should be common sense limits, including background checks and licensing, on the First Amendment. This is one the reasons:

For an American, that means the person working beside you or sitting beside you on the bus or at the bar or the stadium or the movies or in class, or in the same traffic jam ready to explode with road rage, could well be carrying one of those formidable multiple-firing Glocks, the kind Mr. Loughner wielded.

But this guy is from Canada where censorship is already part of the political landscape. Maybe they should implement mandatory training and testing on a topic by topic basis for all journalists. The number of distortions and amount of ignorance and bigotry this guy spews is truly impressive.