Thanks to Mother Jones

This is a handy reference to show just how far we’ve come in two short years. I always love it when our opponents build great tools to helps us show how much progress we’re really making. 99 Laws rolling back gun control? Sounds like we could make a song out of that:

99 gun control acts in the law, 99 gun control acts
Take one down, pass it around, 98 gun control acts in the law …

Yeah, and we’re gonna keep going. Thanks Mother Jones.

14 thoughts on “Thanks to Mother Jones”

  1. Well, let’s make that 98 and 1/2 Laws that were rolled back. In Ohio, one can now Carry Concealed in places that serve Alcohol. If the Owner allows it. And the CHP Holder doesn’t have a Drop. And one has a CHP in the First place.

    It was more of a way to allow a CHP Holder to go to a Restaurant with his Family and not have to Disarm just because the Restaurant served Alcohol, like TGIFridays. But I have heard of a trend where some Firearms Enthusiasts are now having a “Designated Shooter” after a day at the Range.

    But hey! If it P.O.s Mother Jones, then it must be a Good Law!

  2. Shocking! KS permit-holders can carry on K-12 campuses and at events now? Think of the Children!!!

    But wait: OR has always allowed license-holders to carry on K-12 campuses and at events? And there have been zero incidents caused by license-holders? Say it ain’t so, Mother Jones! (or on their site, sometimes referred to as “MoJo”. Who’s compensating for something now?)

  3. I like the lyrics, but I think we should change them:

    “We pick one out, knock it down, 98 gun control acts in the law…”

  4. I’m a little confused. They list Illinois as being easier to carry a firearm. You cannot carry a firearm in Illinois. No open or concealed carry except for cops, politicians or crooks.

    1. I’m a little skeptical too, they lead with:

      Bullets and booze: In Missouri, law-abiding citizens can carry a gun while intoxicated and even fire it if “acting in self-defense.”

      I sure don’t remember any such law passing, although since I can’t drink (drug interactions) I wouldn’t have payed close attention to such a law, but one would think it would have gotten major publicity, the former provision at least. They might be playing games with “intoxicated”….

      1. As a transplanted Show Me shooter, I can confirm that that wording is somewhere between erroneous and a lie. It actually states “Has a firearm or projectile weapon readily capable of lethal use on his or her person, while he or she is intoxicated, and handles or otherwise uses such firearm or projectile weapon in either a negligent or unlawful manner or discharges such firearm or projectile weapon unless acting in self-defense.”

        That has been interpreted by the AG and LEOs to mean that the ONLY reason you can have a firearm in your possession while you’re intoxicated is in self-defense.

        So, that’s at least three state errors in the MoJo report. Here’s my shocked face.

  5. One of the first things that jumped out at me in that article was, crediting it all to “the NRA and its allies.” That is part of our enemies’ continuing propaganda effort to make everything pro-gun that happens the work of a bogeyman whose name they need only mention to get anti-gun people foaming at the mouth. It doesn’t allow for the work of ordinary people who push good legislation or resist bad legislation on their own initiative, acting on their own intellect — sometimes while in conflict with the NRA.

    That may not sound like such a bad thing if you are an NRA fan, with no qualifications. But I can imagine scenarios where the NRA could severely discredit itself in some way (e.g., if it veered too sharply into other issues or questionable affiliations) and thereby damaged the whole RKBA movement. If our enemies are working at putting all our eggs in one basket, it must be because they see its potential for someday being spilled.

    Forgive me for always veering into Old Stories, but when I was taking our (Republican) County Sheriff to court over a CHL issue back in 1995, he styled himself in the media as “standing up to the NRA,” when in fact the NRA was not within 120 miles of here and never spoke to me. He saw some utility in blaming a citizens initiative on the bogeyman so many people had already been conditioned to believe in. The fact that an everyday citizen could read the law and choose to act upon it was not to be considered.

  6. This one goes up my ass sideways:

    ” Sweet Jesus! In Louisiana, permit holders can carry concealed weapons inside houses of worship.”

    They actually believe that government has a legitimate reason to regulate what happens on the property of religious institutions. Why on earth shouldn’t that decision be left to the people of each church?

    1. Man, they’d shit bricks in my church. Not only are half of them retired military and, more likely than not, carrying concealed at any service, but our pastor is also a chaplain in the Army Reserve and is in the process of getting his CWP.

      Strangely, no one has had the urge to start shooting up the place….

    2. That one got me too but for a different reason. Does it not imply that this is a Christian thing thereby neatly providing 1/3 of the gungrabber’s nightmare trifecta of “guntoting Christian Conservative”? I mean, Yahweh/Buddha/Wotan/Flying Spaghetti Monster forbid that shooters of other faiths carry where they worship. That, in my case, being the land of beer volcanoes and hooker factories… may his noodly appendage touch you all.

Comments are closed.