The Anti-gun side is losing because they are mentally Insane

Screen Shot 2014-03-23 at 4.32.57 PM

Professor Leonard Steinhorn, Defense Again the Dark Arts teacher at American Hogwarts University

Just saw this article in the Huffington Post– American’s Completely fictional Liberal Mouthpiece.

It is written by Leonard Steinhorn, a mentally challenged Professor of Communication at American UniversityIn this article he claims the following:

It is legal in these states to bring loaded guns into gambling establishments, sporting events and restaurants that serve alcohol. It is legal in these states to carry weapons into stores and shopping malls, and in some cases even onto college campuses and into bars and houses of worship.

Oh my God. It is legal for people to do legal things with legal guns. I live in NH and I carry a gun everywhere except schools, courthouses, and the Post Office. Every where else guns are allowed.  Private businesses are not allowed to ban guns.  Guns have been allowed in Malls and Supermarkets and Bars and Places to Eat.  We haven’t had any incidents. I am upset. New Hampshire should have made your list.

In all of these states, it is legal to shoot first and claim self-defense much the way George Zimmerman did with Trayvon Martin and hundreds of others have done in less publicized cases.

I think shooting people before they do anything is against the law everywhere. Also Mr Steinhorn, I don’t know where you get your facts because George Zimmerman shot the Punk Martin while Martin was slamming Zimmerman’s head repeatedly into the pavement.  That’s not Stand Your Ground. That’s self defense.  Martin couldn’t retreat because he was in the process of being killed by Trayvon Martin.  Doesn’t matter how it started. What’s important was how it ended. Simple Self Defense legally everywhere.

And in all of these states, their background laws — if they even exist — are so full of loopholes that someone with a criminal record, a drug or drinking problem, or a history of mental illness can obtain a gun.

Federal laws require background checks for all gun sales sold by Federal Firearm’s Dealers. States can require all gun sales require a background check or they can allow private transfers of guns between gun owners. In my state, I am allowed to sell a long gun (rifle) to anyone in any state in a face to face transaction, as long as they are not a prohibited person.  I demand to sell driver’s licenses and some sort of gun permit or I won’t sell. For Handguns I can only sell to people that live in the same state as myself, who I either know personally or if they have a NH Concealed Carry Permit.  In any state, if you sell a gun to a criminal that is a Federal crime. In many states, if you sell a gun and that person commits a crime, then you may go to jail. Every gun owner I know refuses to sell to people to refuse to provide ID.

Most of the criminals that should not get guns get them from straw buyers. People who knowingly buy guns for criminals.  You can increase the penalties for straw buyers ( I have no problem with that!) but It is impossible to know someone’s intent when buying a gun.

It’s no consolation that before many of these shooters pulled the trigger, they were once law-abiding citizens. That’s irrelevant. What’s relevant is that they were allowed to carry around and wield a lethal weapon, and because of that someone’s life was cut short. as much as we fear common criminals, we may face an even larger threat from citizens who are allowed to carry guns almost anywhere and anytime.  

98% of the crimes committed with guns in this country are by people who have illegal guns. Law abiding citizens do not usually commit crimes.

The Sandy Hook Shooter and the Navy Yard shooter were individuals with mental illness in their past. Why then could the Navy Yard shooter buy a gun?  And how could any background checks prevented the Sandy Hook shooter from stealing his mothers guns? (obtained with background check).  Almost all gun owners don’t want mentally ill people from getting guns. We just don’t want the liberals to redefined mental illness to include:

  • All ex-military
  • People with ADHD or concentration issues
  • Anyone who believes that the government is unjust
  • Anyone who is prepping for the end of the world
  • Anyone who is opposition to the Barrack Obama

It is time to stand up to the gun lobby and tell the states most in their thrall exactly what you think: I don’t feel safe in your state. Sign this petition and make your voice heard.

It’s not the “GUN LOBBY”. It’s the millions of Americans who believe that they have a god given right to defend themselves inside and outside of their homes. That this right was not created by the 2nd Amendment, but confirmed an existing right of any man.

In my state, they have tried to pass several anti-gun laws in the NH House of Representatives, a Democratic controlled venue, this term, and in the end they were shot down by a majority of Democrats.  Democrats are running from Obamacare and they are running from Gun Control laws in most of the United States. Because they know, that in the next election, they will be losing everything as America solidly votes against their lies and slander with Healthcare and Guns the main topics.

And lastly, this Professor Steinhorn is living in a fantasy world. He hates guns so much, his diseased mind has created all of his talking points. None of them are true. I can’t believe this complete waste of a human being is allowed to teach kids.  He should be put away in some mental institution and the key thrown away.

New Poll Proves Gun Banner Polls were False

Freddy’s Note: This is an important article that disputes the Bloomberg/anti-guns claims about 90% of Americans support expanded background checks

Originally posted here

Earlier this year Nate Silver assured people that there were solid polls showing “Overwhelming majorities of 80 to 90 percent of the public say they favor background checks.”  On Monday, soon to be former Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Shannon Watts (with Moms Demand Action) repeated the claim and make the related point that even among NRA members “74 percent support background checks for all gun sales” (this last poll number was paid for by Bloomberg).  Indeed the notion that the NRA isn’t representing members of the NRA has become a common claim made by gun control organizations.  But there were a couple major problems with these poll numbers: 1) People were really just being asked about whether they wanted to keep criminals from getting guns, not about a particular piece of legislation.  2) The surveys asked a vague question with no information on how the current system works.

There was a poll in April by the PEW Research Center that gets at the first issue and I think is much more accurate.  It asks people whether they are happy that the Senate gun control bill was stopped in April.  Apparently, both Republicans and Independents are generally happy that it was stopped by 51-to-34 and 48-to-41 margins.  My guess is that Republican Senators are paying a lot more attention to what Independents and Republicans wanted than Democrats who would never have voted for the Republicans anyway.  It looks to me that Republicans voted the way that their constituents wanted.  So Republicans shouldn’t really care that among all voters the poll showed support of 47 to 39 percent.  If you want to explain why Republican Senators voted against the measure, you should look at the results by political affiliation.


Many, such as the New York Times, paint a picture of Senators who both simultaneously opposed the will of 90 percent of their voters and at the same time quake in fear of the NRA. Here is a piece by Joe Nocera at the New York Times on April 19th:

The four Democrats — along with many Republicans — quake in fear of the National Rifle Association. In 1994, Baucus voted in favor of the assault rifle ban — and then nearly lost his re-election bid. He never again stood up to the N.R.A. Yes, his phones were undoubtedly jammed this week. Still, it seemed to me that his unanswered phone was a potent symbol. I could almost picture him cowering in his office, waiting for us to stop asking why he sold the country down the river. . . .

Note in Baucus’ case, he is retiring and yet he still voted against the so-called “universal background check” bill, so it really isn’t clear what the NRA could do to him at this point in his career.

Relatedly, people simply don’t care strongly about gun control.  Gallup’s survey regularly asks people: “What do you think is the most important problem facing this country today?”  Note that this included gun control issues beyond background checks and it includes people on both sides of the issue (those who think either more or less gun control is extremely important), but even so very few people put gun control as a top issue.  Just take the numbers from earlier this year: January 2013 4%, February 2013 6%, March 2013 4%, September 2013  1%, October 2013 1%, November 2013 <1%, and December 2013  <1%.

The second problem with these polls is that the news media has done a horrible job describing what the current rules are and what the changes would accomplish.  Part of this fits in with President Obama’s and the media’s numerous false statement “as many as 40 percent of all gun purchases take place without a background check” (even the Washington Post eventually noted that this state was clearly false).  When Americans are given some details about the current system polls give dramatically different results.  For example, when they are told that “A vast majority of guns sold at gun shows are sold by licensed dealers who are required by federal law to conduct background checks before guns are sold,” a National Shooting Sports Foundation poll had to do what other surveys refused to do and found a clear majority of Americans don’t think that additional federal laws are required.  It would be nice if other surveys tried to provide some similar information.


Another survey from April found that few Americans actually thought that background checks would be beneficial.  A Rasmussen survey found: “Only 41% believe more background checks will reduce gun violence.”

New Town Mother states “Background Checks” would not have Prevented the school shooting.



This mother of a victim of the NewTown shooting stated this week while on MSNBC that “Background Checks” would not have prevented the New Town Shooting. Nicole Hockley, whose child was tragically murdered at Sandy Hook last year, said that background checks would not have prevented shooter Adam Lanza from getting the guns he used to carry out the atrocities. She also stated that the 911 tapes from that day should not be released.

Appearing on MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell Reports on Tuesday, Hockley and Mitchell both conceded that background checks would not have prevented Lanza’s mother from purchasing the guns Lanza eventually used at Sandy Hook. Hockley said Lanza’s mother should have been more responsible with her guns and noted that Lanza’s mental illness made the situation a “perfect storm” for the tragedy.
Hockley, who lobbied for more gun control legislation after the Sandy Hook tragedy, said it was “disappointing” that Congress could not pass gun control legislation that called for more background checks and said gun control advocates are now committed “to make further changes happen” by “changing the hearts and minds” of those in their communities. She said legislation is not the only answer to making “further changes” happen regarding gun control.

I am sorry that Nicole Hockley lost her child. This would have never happened if Nancy Lanza wasn’t a complete failure at being a mother.  I also applaud her for taking reality into consideration. Many of the other New Town family members have let the anti-gun crowd take advantage of them and have been used as pawns in Obama’s war on gun-owners.