Good question! Trust but verify.
http://michaelconnelly.jigsy.com/

added :

Dude, somebodies blog is not proof of a governmental conspiracy. Not that they wouldn't, but you have to have a more reliable source than that.

The best pro 2A video I've seen
 

GUNS (Virtual State of the Union 2013)

Please share!!

IMHO, Think pcfixer was referring to MR2's comment on a reference. Your comment is though spot on none the less, facts or evidence is always helpful when making accusations, especially if you're a JD!.

No personal umbrage intended to pcfixer or the writer of the blog and letter, as the intent was to help others, but the totality of the author's background and interests make his cause and possible effect theorem less creditable even without the accusation. Unless of course you have a strong belief in ghosts or don't believe attorneys should present clear evidence when making claims of improper behavoir.

Ok, here we go with the ghost fans and worshipers...you may email me at jimmycrackcorn@dontcare.com :D

Outstanding video!

Sounds like someone took a page from our letter.

re Virtual SOTU
 

Outstanding!

Bill Whittle for President!

Yes, Great Video. Makes sense to me.

NICS Background checks and protecting the 2A
 

January 2013...alone... = 2,495,440

Below is a chart illustrating NICS background checks. Of note, November and December 2012 as well as January 2013.

Total NICS Background Checks November 30, 1998 - January 31, 2013

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nic...rly_totals.pdf

And those numbers may in fact be a lot higher. Here in Arizona if you have a concealed carry permit (like me) you can walk into any gun store and purchase a pistol, rifle etc. with no background checks.

I don't know how many other states do this. Food for thought.

Interesting. And, if you look at each Form 4473 there is room for up to 5 firearms...thus, it seems possible for the purchase of up to 5 firearms per each NICS background check.

Of course, not many of us purchase 5 at a time and not all NICS checks result in a sale. But, the overwhelming majority of checks do result in a sale. The numbers are staggering - is DC listening?

I'll defer to our FFLs to confirm the 5 firearms per 4473 and one NICS background check.

In any event, the law abiding citizenry of this great nation appear to be embracing the 2A like never before.

Shocked this was written in the local newspaper
 

I thought some of you might enjoy reading a well written pro 2A article that sheds light on the tyranny we face here in Kalifornia.

Sac Bee Article

"California has some of the toughest – and arguably some of the most overbearing – gun laws in the nation. But you'd never know it to hear our legislators yammer.

Lawmakers give lip service to liberty, while concocting terrifying yet meaningless new terms to justify restrictions on lawful gun ownership.

When it comes to demagoguing guns, state Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg is one of the finer practitioners working today. Announcing the Legislature's gun control agenda a couple of weeks ago, Steinberg peddled all of the usual clichés about "safety" and "common sense." He even genuflected ever so slightly in the direction of the Bill of Rights.

"We respect the Second Amendment right of law-abiding citizens to have guns for hunting, for sport, for protecting their homes and families," the Sacramento Democrat solemnly intoned. Then he proceeded to explain how he and his colleagues intend to trammel upon that right.

The Second Amendment, of course, has nothing whatsoever to do with hunting or sport, and it's only tangentially about self-defense. Steinberg merely mouthed the words. He had to. Judging by his proposed legislation, he obviously doesn't believe them.

That politicians spread falsehoods to advance a political agenda is hardly a novel observation. But the facts are inescapable. Notwithstanding the spree shootings that have horrified the nation, gun violence on the whole has fallen steadily and substantially over the past 20 years.

The federal assault weapons ban, which expired in 2004 and Democrats ardently wish to resurrect, had practically no influence on that decline. Why not? Those weapons are used in only a tiny portion of crimes. But they sure look nasty, don't they?

Yet Steinberg went on to denounce "loopholes in California's tough gun laws" that "have been exploited long enough." What loopholes? Exploited by whom? To what end?

In reality, the senator was lamenting how well firearm manufacturers have complied with California's law, which banned certain cosmetic features on semiautomatic rifles, shotguns and handguns.

Steinberg and his Democratic colleagues gave the game away with their proposal to ban all semiautomatic rifles with detachable magazines. In other words, they want to ban just about every semiautomatic rifle on the market today. Are those guns popular? Oh, yes. Are they used in crimes? Again, almost never. No matter. Ban 'em anyway – with all due "respect" to the Second Amendment, naturally. We'll see if that holds up in court.

California already bans the manufacture, sale and import of those much-discussed "high-capacity" magazines – another misleading term that apparently isn't terrifying enough. So lately we've heard the phrase "assault magazine" enter the discourse. Somebody must have poll-tested it, because House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, a host of Congress members, San Francisco District Attorney George Gascón and the left-liberal think tank Think Progress all picked up the term recently. I'm sorry to report the phrase even crept into the editorial column of this exemplary newspaper.

Do you want to know what a real "assault magazine" is? A rolled up copy of Vanity Fair used to bonk an obtuse lawmaker on the top of his thick head. Otherwise, a magazine is a magazine. Some hold seven bullets, some hold 10, and some hold 20 or 30. By itself, however, a metal box with a spring can "assault" no one.

Closely related to the "assault magazine" is the "assault bullet." You're probably thinking: Aren't all bullets "assault bullets"? Given the right circumstances, an "assault bullet" could also be a "defense bullet." But in general, a bullet is a bullet – and not to be confused with a shotgun shell, which usually sprays pellets.

Bullets come in different shapes and sizes. In this case, an "assault bullet" refers to one that expands on impact. A more accurate, less inflammatory, generally accepted term for this type of ammunition is "hollow point." Police use hollow point ammo for good reason: Expanding bullets don't penetrate walls, which means they're less likely to injure innocent bystanders or neighbors. They also have more stopping power.

In other words, "assault bullets" are safer and more effective than most bullets. Just ask your friendly neighborhood cop.

All of these preposterous neologisms matter, of course, because he who controls the language controls the debate.

Two decades ago, a clear majority of Americans supported some form of gun control. Today, it's barely a plurality. The question remains: What kind of gun control?

Bans are easy – and useless. Universal background checks may have potential. But the California proposals, which also include mandatory liability insurance and a ban on gun loans, would turn many otherwise law-abiding gun owners into criminals simply by virtue of their likely noncompliance.

Steinberg and his colleagues have made a fetish of what they consider evil objects. They shun the far more difficult task of identifying and separating truly dangerous people from dangerous weapons. Far easier to slap the "assault" label on everything they hold wicked, and tell themselves they've done the world some good. They're deluding themselves – and the public. Don't believe the hype."

that is probable they worst thing i have seen in promotion for gun control. Being close to someone who was raped it literally makes me sick to my stomach.

An interesting read -- scroll to comment #8 for additional interesting reading.

A Culture of Entrenched Cowardice
22jan13
Chris Hernandez

"I don’t claim to know the true motivations of everyone who opposes armed citizens’ response to mass shooters. But I do know that this mindset certainly can be a cynical, self-serving way to disguise blatant fear of taking action as “good sense”. I fear that this mindset is changing us from a brave culture, a culture where people are expected to defend the defenseless, to a culture of deeply entrenched cowardice. A culture where outright refusal to defend even one’s own family is celebrated as a mark of high intelligence."

<snip>

link to blog article and comments below:

http://chrishernandezauthor.com/2013...hed-cowardice/

Holy smokes. This, this was beautiful. It is being sent by email, and I can 99 percent guarantee it is spread. "Sociological issue" Hit the fucking nail on the head. Absence of inner peace is the problem - not the existence of guns, knives, heavy things, fists, bats, and dangerous places to fall and hit your head. :p

This was full of actual thought! It was great reading something about this topic that had thought applied to it. Emotion always gets in the way of the gun-control people and I can never tell what they are actually thinking, if they are thinking at all. Same thing happens to both sides, really, but emotional arguments are much more common with liberals.

Very grateful for the effort. Thank you.