Happiness is a warm…

Senator Dave Bloomfield, NFOA President and firearms expert Rod Moeller and Senator Tommy Garrett (via Sen. Kintner)
Senator Dave Bloomfield, NFOA President and firearms expert Rod Moeller and Senator Tommy Garrett (via Sen. Kintner)

Guns, guns and more guns.

You want to see some guns?
Here’s a photo of some guys with guns:

I mean jeezy-creeps! Look at the gunS on that guy!
Senator “Tommy-Gun” Garrett looks like he spends 3 hours a day in the weight room!

Oh, yeah. The OTHER guns.

Well, interesting in that too is State Senator Bill Kintner with a sidearm.
This pic was taken at the Nebraska Firearms Owners Association Political Action Fund fundraiser.

And you know who else was there?
Governor Pete Ricketts.
And here he is off stage, as heat-packing Senator Kintner is introducing him.

Kintner and Ricketts01

All I’m saying is that this is a group all about firearms. And the State Patrol is comfortable enough around them that they don’t have a problem with G-U-N-S around the Governor.


City by City

So as long as we are on the topic, an interesting debate from the local angle brought up by the OWH:

Who should have final say on gun laws? The state or the locality?
If Omaha has a ban on carrying a gun, but Bellevue doesn’t and you drive through Omaha to get home, you may be breaking the law.

So some say the state should be the one who rules the roost on this issue. Omaha Mayor Jean Stothert says the rules SHOULD be uniform across the state for something like this. Omaha City Council President Ben Gray says the rules should be cattywampus and the cities should get to do whatever they want.

Gray says the city should be able to address “gun violence” as they please.

Completely wild guess, but it is probably not off the mark to say that any “gun violence” that Omaha is dealing with is generally not because of those who legally possess guns. They probably aren’t the ones going around, firing them indiscriminately into houses, and such.

 

If it saves only one life…

And the President has a tough gig, and I don’t really have a problem with him getting emotional. He thought of dead children, and he got welled up. That happens.

But I hope that he didn’t get welled up thinking that what he is doing would have prevented the Sandy Hook massacre. The President says that he hopes his executive action could at least stop “one act of violence”.

OK then. What if every teacher in that school was armed like Senator Kintner up there? I’m not suggesting that — but it seems that the President should be. THAT could have prevented the murders of the children at Sandy Hook. COULD have. Just like the President is suggesting that his plan to prevent legal gun purchases — as opposed to all the illegal ones — COULD prevent some shootings.

It is an interesting path this President and others go down on this issue.

And it is also interesting that the President’s actions are creating MORE gun owners. Probably just what he was expecting, right?

 

The cool kids

Thanks to all of you who have been Liking Leavenworth St. on The Facebook! If you haven’t already, please do it!

And I’m just telling you, get yourself an account on the Twitter as well and follow along. If you want to get THE breaking news ANY time, the Twitter is where it’s at. Just tellin’ ya.

And thanks for telling your friends about Leavenworth St! They always suspected you were the cool one. Now they know…

19 comments

  1. Rod says:

    Why does Ben Gray say cities should get to do whatever they want and yet is going to the legislature to ask permission to extend the Omaha wheel tax to neighboring communities? Hey know cities only have the authorities granted to them by the state. Regulating firearms ownership is not one of those authorities.

  2. Sparkles says:

    For a little historical perspective to demonstrate how extreme the stranglehold and how subservient the Republican party is to the NRA..

    On March 29, 1991, Ronald Reagan penned a New York Times Editorial titled: “Why I’m for the Brady Bill”. A bill calling for a national 7-day waiting period before a gun purchaser could take delivery.

    On May 3, 1995, decorated WW II veteran and Torpedo Bomber Pilot, George HW Bush publicly denounced Wayne LaPierre and prominently resigned, in disgust, his lifetime membership with the NRA.

    By the standard of today’s gun rights extremists, both Reagan and HW would be viewed as enemies of the 2nd amendment and anti-patriotic, leftist liberals.

    Yesterday’s speech and actions by President will serve as a historical marker in the efforts toward the implementation of common sense gun controls and gun safety measures.
    A defeat for the NRA and yet another victory for the Obama administration. who continues to hammer at a directionless, solutions-free GOP with their own lame duck.

    And while this is occurring, what’s the House GOP doing?
    Voting to repeal ObamaCare (what is it the 58th time?) and defund Planned Parenthood.
    Another steaming pie of GOP Kabuki Theater. More blatant pandering to an ill-informed base.
    More wasting time and effectively BLOCKING otherwise common sense legislation to address the real issues facing our country.

    • The Grundle King says:

      So previous GOP presidents aren’t perfect when it comes to their record on gun rights…they’re still a damn sight better than the current POTUS.

      And I also appreciated your tacit admission that the President’s PR move was just one more step in the incremental march towards disarmament. Oh, sure…you and every other hoplophobic jack-ball have no interest in coming to take our guns. That is, until all your other measures fail and disarmament is the only option left.

      If politicians in the GOP weren’t on our side…we’d have practically nobody on our side.

      • Sparkles says:

        You surprise me a bit GK, I hadn’t imagined you to be a conspiracy theorist.
        Nobody’s coming to disarm anyone. That’s delusional.

        I assure you I’m not a hoplophobe.
        I grew up on gun/trap ranges.. steeped in the hillbilly husker culture. Although I’m no longer avid about hunting or shooting sports, I’d be willing to wager I still own more guns than you. I’m well into the double figures.
        I’ve harvested deer with scoped handguns and dropped antelope with a single shot at more than 300 yards.
        I guarantee I’ve handed loaded a few thousand more rounds, rifle and shotgun, than 98% of my fellow Nebraskans

        You realize that fewer than 10% of gun owners belong to the NRA and the overwhelming majority of gun owners disagree with the NRA’s extremist orthodoxy.
        Even fewer gun imagine Obama has a secret plot to deploy jackbooted thugs to confiscate your guns.
        That’s a rarefied club to which you belong.

      • The Grundle King says:

        Thank you for sharing your completely un-verifiable bona fides…though I’m not sure if I’m supposed to be impressed, er what.

        I understand how incrementalism works. This law didn’t work, so we have to do something. Then that law didn’t work, so we have to do something else. Crap, that law didn’t work either…but surely the next law will do the trick!

        Of course, all along the way, nobody ever takes the time to go back and repeal all the other shit that didn’t work to begin with. The rationale being that, if we repeal all those other laws that didn’t work, it will surely doom any new laws to failure. It is nothing short of being completely irrational.

        And I think one can hardly call it a ‘conspiracy theory’ (though, as a matter of science, a theory is something that is an explanation based on observations and evidence…so calling something a ‘conspiracy theory’ actually lends it legitimacy). I have observed, countless times over, gun control nuts proclaiming desire for “common sense” gun laws quickly move from ‘background checks’ to ‘ban the sale AND ownership of all semi-automatic rifles and handguns’…even down to banning ownership of everything but single shot firearms of any kind. And the general trend among those gun control nuts is NOT towards being more reasonable and seeking a more mutual solution…but towards becoming more demanding and less understanding. So perhaps you can understand why I find the leading spokesman for gun control, with his teary-eyed pleas, a bit untrustworthy.

        As far as the NRA goes, I’d love to know the basis for your assertion that the “overwhelming majority” of gun owners disagree with the NRA’s beliefs.

      • Sparkles says:

        GK,
        Your question –
        “I’d love to know the basis for your assertion that the “overwhelming majority” of gun owners disagree with the NRA’s beliefs.”

        Glad you asked, here’s your answer –
        Public Policy Polling – proven the most accurate of all polling firms in the 2012 elections.
        Survey of 816 -gun owners- conducted November 11 – 12, 2015
        Q: Do you support of oppose a criminal background check of every person who wants to buy a firearm?
        Support – 83%
        Oppose – 14%

        Q: Would you be more or less likely to support a candidate who backs background checks for all gun purchases, or would it not make a difference?
        More likely – 66%
        Less likely – 19%
        Somewhat oppose – 10%
        Strongly oppose – 9%

        Q: The NRA opposes requiring a criminal background check for every person who want to buy a firearm. Do you think the NRA represents your thinking when it comes to background checks or not?
        The NRA represents your thinking – 29%
        The NRA does not represent your thinking – 62%

        Q: Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree or strongly disagree with the following statement: The NRA used to be an organization dedicated to gun safety, but it’s been overtaken by lobbyists and the interests of gun manufacturers and lost the original purpose and mission.
        Strongly agree – 45%
        Somewhat agree – 14%
        Somewhat disagree – 13%
        Strongly disagree – 19%

        Q: Do you strongly support, somewhat support or strongly oppose policy makers taking action to more strictly enforce already existing laws by requiring high-volume sellers to conduct criminal background checks before they sell guns?
        Strongly support – 65%
        Somewhat support – 14%
        Somewhat oppose – 10%
        Strongly oppose – 9%

      • The Grundle King says:

        First off, it seems like a poll of 800 people is far too small a sample size to be representative of over 100,000,000 people. You’re talking about less than 1/1000th of a percent of gun owners.

        A criminal background check for every person who wants to BUY a firearm does not equate to “universal” background checks. Universal background checks are just that…universal. Meaning that, in order to even give a gun to your own minor child, you’d need a background check performed on that child, even though you (the parent) would be fully aware of said child’s criminal history (or lack thereof). It’s also been posed that to allow another person to “take possession” of a firearm…which would mean just to hold it in their hands…you’d need to perform a background check on that person.

        PPP is drawing a false equivalency between “universal background checks” and background checks for firearm purchases. Much of the reason people oppose such a universal check system is that, in order for it to truly be universal, there would have to be a national gun registry showing who possesses what. Without that national registry, there’s no better way to prosecute someone for transferring a weapon to a prohibited person than what we have now. If you catch a felon with a gun, but you don’t know where it came from, then inevitably you can’t prosecute the person who gave them the gun. But a gun registry means the government knows about every gun you own…a disturbing proposition for folks like me, who simply want to be left alone, and treated like the law-abiding man that I am.

        Regarding the fourth question, I tend to somewhat agree with that statement as well…but that doesn’t mean I’m in complete disagreement with the NRA’s views and objectives. I’m sure that, on some level, you’re a fairly reasonable person…though I’ve yet to see any evidence that would support such a notion. Reasonable people will often find themselves disagreeing with certain viewpoints held by an organization they support…but that shouldn’t be construed as lack of support for the organization. All it means is that they’re not programmed automatons, and that they can think for themselves.

        As far as having ‘lost the original purpose and mission’, it’s easy to understand how that happened. When you’re dealing with unreasonable opposition like the Brady Campaign and former Hizzoner Bloomberg, the mission HAS to change.

        The last question is completely irrelevant, because “high-volume” sellers are already required to have an FFL license, and to perform criminal background checks…and have been for quite some time. ATF guidance states that, “As a general rule, you will need a license if you repetitively buy and sell firearms with the principal motive of making a profit. In contrast, if you only make occasional sales of firearms from your personal collection, you do not need to be licensed.”

      • Sparkles says:

        The deer was harvested with a scoped TC Contender with a 7-30 Waters barrel.

        The antelope with a 25-06 Douglas barrel shooting 117 grain Sierra boat tail soft points pushed but 54.5 grains of Hornady 4831 powder and a Remington Mag primers.
        That stock of that 25-06 has 27 gold pins (deer) and 4 silver (antelope).

        It’s not meant to be bragging, none of those animals made Boone and Crocket, but they all made it to the dinner table.

    • bynd says:

      Sparkles: Your consistency is astounding The house is not voting to get rid of Obama, they are voting to replace it. Being the failure that it is, insuring only a few of those who need insurance in three years you might back proposals to insure them all. Like, have the Feds enroll all now uninsured into Medicaid and just pay for it and skip the states. But uninsured are not your issue. Politics is. So what if you sacrifice a few of the poor on the way. They where bound to die soon any how.

      • bynd says:

        What a sad day it is. Where it I saw it reported, the Repubs stated they had an ACA replacement bill ready to go. Well, that’s what you get when you trust a politician. Especially a national one. OOUCH

  3. glow worm says:

    Trump was right about N. Korea. If the truth doesn’t bother you, try this on.

    A thermonuclear weapon is a technical problem of implosion precision; big megaton yield but overkill. A standard weapon is much easier to make and its KTs are fine for wrecking cities. But frankly, the easiest is a dirty salter that throws out radioactive debris with a half-life of hundreds of years. That kills your great-grandchildren yet unborn. And you think your biggest problem is being vaporized in one big flash? You wish. Your home can be made uninhabitable for eons. And that is only the N of NBC warfare. Focus people.

    You had a Republican Bush who was so stupid he didn’t know Democracy is antithetical to Islam. You have a Democrat Obama who thinks if we are weak enough people won’t want to kill us.

    We may not survive even with Trump. But I guarantee you the USA is 100% dead meat without someone more like him and less like weepy “my vagina hurts” Obama. Your .357 GP100 will be piss poor against ICBM delivery. Focus people.

  4. glow worm says:

    Biden sure got over his son’s death quick. He says Bernie and Hillary are good candidates. Sure, whatever crimes Hillary commits Bernie says “it’s okay”. Now Joe is all “But I wanna be President”. My dead son wanted me to be President. Oh Jesus please make people forget I was Barry’s butt boy for two terms.

    The only thing better than Trump hammering Barry’s Secretary of State is Trump hammering Joey until his hair plugs fall out.

    Obama is a brainless twit and yet he beat the hell out of Joe and Hillary. And the only idiots dumb enough not to know this today are GOP Chairmen. They still think McCain and Romney were good candidates.

  5. Mark Andrews says:

    Take time today to read MLK’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail.” Every time I read it I feel like I just received a well-deserved kick in the fanny.

  6. Hosting says:

    I think it’s pretty clearly about sex overall. The gun analogy to a woman’s anatomy is pretty clever actually. The trigger is at one end of the gun, and the barrel gets warm when the trigger is pulled repeatedly. The part about needing a fix is probably a drug reference.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.