Virginia Background Checks

The Washington Post reports that in Virginia background checks for gun purchases can take several hours or longer.

Background checks for firearm purchases in Virginia are taking longer because of state police staff cuts and strong demand for guns.

Virginia State Police spokeswoman Corinne Geller says the agency's Virginia Firearms Transaction Center has lost 11 employees since May 2009.

Meanwhile, demand is rising. Between 2000 and 2009, firearms transactions in Virginia increased from 182,170 to 287,462.

During peak periods, Geller says background checks can now take to four to six hours to complete. Some that require research into out-of-state records take overnight.

Virginia Citizens Defense League President Philip Van Cleave says the delays are costing dealers money and putting at risk people who need firearms for protection.

Now, I realize no one likes to be inconvenienced, and that goes especially for gun buyers, but don't you think it's a bit much to say this is "putting at risk people who need firearms for protection?" I mean, if the urgency is so great, they could just pop into the local gun show or arrange for a private sale through a newspaper ad or over the internet. Then there's no waiting and as an additional bonus, they wouldn't even have to have a clean record.

What's you opinion? Please leave a comment.

Gun Confiscation is Coming

Desert Conservative published a fascinating article warning of the imminent gun confiscations which are being organized by the Obama administration.

On Wednesday Obama Took the First Major Step in a Plan to Ban All Firearms in the United States. The Obama administration intends to force gun control and a complete ban on all weapons for US citizens through the signing of international treaties with foreign nations. By signing international treaties on gun control, the Obama administration can use the US State Department to bypass the normal legislative process in Congress. Once the US Government signs these international treaties, all US citizens will be subject to those gun laws created by foreign governments. These are laws that have been developed and promoted by organizations such as the United Nations and individuals such as George Soros and Michael Bloomberg. The laws are designed and intended to lead to the complete ban and confiscation of all firearms.

At first glance I thought this was paranoid nonsense. Then when I read it through I was sure it was paranoid nonsense. What do you think? Are these guys serious.

First of all, didn't it come out a couple months ago that Hilary agreed to this international agreement as long as they had a consensus? That's what I remember. Secondly, if this means "US citizens will be subject to those gun laws created by foreign governments," how do Bloomberg and Soros enter into it? What foreign governments are they with?

To me this sounds like more paranoid Obama bashing. I wonder if the folks putting this stuff out really believe it or if they're just acting like shills for the gun manufacturers who are hoping for another surge in sales, greedy businessmen that they are.

What's your opinion? Is there another way to understand this kind of hysteria? Do you think it's true?

Please leave a comment.

Meteorite Insurance

Thanks again to FishyJay.

Doubly Divisive

FishyJay sent us another good one.

UPI.com reported on the story.

U.S. state attorneys general challenging the new healthcare law will use a 1995 Supreme Court decision in a gun case as a central argument, experts say.

In a lawsuit challenging the law's mandate that everyone must have health insurance, the 13 state attorneys general, including Gregg Abbot of Texas, cite the court's ruling in a Texas gun possession case in their arguments, The Houston Chronicle reported Sunday.

A Texas high school student was convicted for bringing a gun onto campus in 1992, but the U.S. Supreme Court overturned his conviction in 1995, saying Congress exceeded its constitutional regulatory authority when it approved the 1990 law banning firearms in a school zone, the newspaper said.

The Constitution's commerce clause limits the regulatory powers of Congress to matters involving interstate commerce. In the Texas case, the Supreme Court ruled that the 1990 gun law was unconstitutional because it had nothing to do with commerce between states.

The attorneys general argue healthcare does not meet the legal definition of interstate commerce, so the congressional mandate that all Americans must purchase health insurance is unconstitutional.

"In the past 15 years the Supreme Court has scaled back Congress when they've tried to inject themselves into purely state matters," Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox said.

Those critical of the lawsuit say the U.S. healthcare system is national in its scale, and rises above state lines.

That's a pretty funny story, in that sad way the sore losers have of not giving up. FishyJay's title is exactly right, this is divisive. For me though, the final line of the article says it all. We've been calling this thing NATIONAL Health Care reform because it "rises above state lines."

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Incredibly Fast Reloading

I saw this incredible video on Xavier Thoughts. I find his site extremely fascinating.

Quick, smooth tactical reloads are impressive, especially when performed running and gunning.

A while back, I showed a series of photos on how to perform a 1911 reload in this post, and I am fairly proficient at getting the job done. My preference for a handgun reload though, is the shotgun I fought myself to. If I am still in need of ammunition with the smoking shotgun in my hands, I hope there will be another shotgun nearby, or a half empty firearm on the floor.

Does that sound a little paranoid to you? It certainly does to me. Where is the line between reasonable precaution which constitute preparedness and over-the-top paranoid delusion? Can planning for every contingency to this degree become a trap for some people which itself diminishes freedom? Or, does it make sense to plan meticulously for the extremely rare event of armed home invasion and the even rarer event of home invasion by a team of commandos?

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Pot Smoker Killed by Meteorite

DrugWarRant published a fascinating report which brings together two of our favorite topics, meteorite strikes and marijuana reform.

San Hoyo, California: A coroner’s report released yesterday by police confirmed the presence of marijuana compounds in the system of Jonah Ellis, a 23-year-old man who was killed last Thursday just outside the town limits when struck by a meteorite.

Police Chief Dirk Jackson refused to speculate whether this news would have an impact on the upcoming referendum on the legalization of marijuana in California this November, but noted that, “In the 10 years I’ve been in San Hoyo, 100% of meteorite fatalities have been marijuana-related, demonstrating a clear link. It’s certainly got to make you think.”

Calvina Califano, spokesperson for Citizens Resisting Against Pot, had harsher words to say about the referendum. “If legalization passes,” she said, “you can absolutely count on an increase in meteorite strikes. And we won’t be as lucky the next time. People will be smoking pot outside day-care centers, and when that meteorite strikes, the collateral damage will be measured in mothers sifting through the rubble for the mangled corpses of their infant children. Marijuana: harmless? Let those legalizers tell that to the grieving mothers.”

A representative of the Coalition to Legalize and Regulate Marijuana in California claimed that the meteorite strike was unrelated to marijuana use, but was unable to precisely explain why Jonah Ellis was hit.

Scientists note that meteorites are formed from the debris of asteroids, and that there are literally millions upon millions of asteroids. If marijuana is legalized, it could take many years to exhaust the supply, and some say the damage to society could be permanent.

What Republicans Do

OpEdNews.com published a wonderful article by Alex Howard describing the Republican party.

Republicans are baiting people into believing their lies so much, that they are now sending swastikas and threats in the mail to Democratic politicians, who voted for the Health Care Bill. But in a way, this is good. It will end up backfiring on them. This will show everyone in the country exactly how negative the Republicans really are. If the Right-wingers don't get their way, they threaten bodily harm to those who have voted against them.

But now, our honest politicians have to start using bodyguards, have to wear bullet resistant vests, and do everything to prevent bodily harm, just for standing up for their views.

If "We, the People" of these United States, learn the truth, they will vote Republicans out of office in droves. If you want to be a Republican, you must threaten bodily harm to Democrat politicians. (And you must learn how to walk without tripping over your white sheet!)

Republicans have no ideas how to make this country better, so they find ways to lie to People, and threaten those who disagree with them.

Is it fair to say this is what "Republicans" do? Or is this activity really limited to a fringe group of fanatics? This is the question we keep coming back to. Is the fringe group of offenders tolerated and even encouraged by the main body so as to make the entire movement guilty?

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.