July 22, 2009, - 1:45 pm

Obama-Style Granola State Justice: Release 27,000 Criminals onto the Streets, Limit Bullets to 50/Per Civilian

By Debbie Schlussel
My friend, the brilliant Brett Winterble of Covert Radio, lives in the Obama granola state–California. Fruits, Nuts, and Flakes.
And in a conversation, today, he pointed out the interesting–and frightening–set of dynamics going on in the state of Left Coast Obamaland.
As you probably know, California is basically bankrupt. The state has no money and is issuing IOUs, which it has been doing for some time. Because the state is in such desperate financial straits, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and his Democrat cronies want to release 27,000 criminals–countless numbers of them violent–from its prisons in order to save money.

wackypacksarnold.jpgnoguns.jpgobamasmiling.jpg

Obama-Style Terminator: Wants to Release 27,000 Violent Criminals

Onto the Streets; Then Limit Bullets to Defend Against ‘Em

(Arnold Drawing from Schlussel Wacky Packs Collection)

That’s 27,000 criminals on the streets–the faux Terminator releasing criminals. And Schwarzenegger is lying about it, claming he doesn’t call it “early release,” even though by any other name that’s what it is. (And don’t be shocked if some of these 27,000 make their way elsewhere . . . to other states in the Union.)
That’s bad enough. But, wait, it gets worse. A bill, AB 962–which would limit the number of rounds (bullets) a person can purchase or transfer within a family to 50 rounds/bullets per month–is making its way through the California Legislature, without any objection by Schwarnegger. Talk about statism.
Put 27,000 violent criminals on the street, then limit innocent, law abiding civilians’ ability to defend themselves against them. It’s ridiculous. And it’s gun control. As we all know, bullets–not just guns–are an essential part of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Without a bullet, a gun is useless (unless it’s being used to pistol whip).
DebbieSchlussel.com Exercise in the Obvious of the Day: Bullet Control = Gun Control
50 bullets per month is nothing. Most people use about that much in one practice session at a gun range. This will not only limit citizens’ ability to defend themselves, but also discourage them from being good, practiced shots (and lack of shooting practice usually leads to unrelated targets being hit by accident). If you only get 50 bullets per month, are you gonna waste ’em practicing to shoot . . . or save them for the real thing, when one of those 27,000 criminals comes your way? It’s a safety issue, as much as it is a gun control issue.
Yes, that’s California for you. They want to release tens of thousands of criminals onto their streets, and then limit their residents’ abilities to defend against those criminals. That’s in addition to the fact that California already laid off plenty of police, and the illegal alien ranks there continue to grow. It makes for a scary recipe, a powder keg that could easily explode into a lot of unnecessary crime and bloodshed.
I knew there was a reason that those surgically enhanced beautiful people who don’t want us to have guns, live behind heavily secured gates in the Hollywood Hills and on the beaches of Malibu.
Huge releases of violent criminals and major bullet control–Today, California; Tomorrow, the whole nation.

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Print Friendly, PDF & Email






15 Responses

Tammy Bruce has talked about this too and is in agreement w/ you, Debbie. This is crazy.

C-Hay on July 22, 2009 at 2:49 pm

I was once asked by a lady visiting my home if I had a gun in the house. I said I did. She said “Well I certainly hope it isn’t loaded!” To which I said, ìOf course it is loaded. It doesnít work without bullets!” She then asked, “Are you afraid of some evil person coming into your house?” My reply was, “No, not at all. I am not afraid of the house catching fire either, but I have fire extinguishers around, and they are also loaded.” To which I’ll add, having a gun in the house that isn’t loaded is like having a car in your garage without gas in the tank. A gun without bullets is a club, and an expensive one at that.

OldScouter on July 22, 2009 at 3:27 pm

I’m in California and I drive past a gun store, Turner’s Outdoorsman, on my drive home from work. I call them on Thursday morning, that’s the day they get their new shipment each week, and ask if they have any .40 S&W. If the answer is yes I may even leave work early or shoot over there on my lunch to get some. They limit sales to 5 boxes per customer, per SKU, per day. This isn’t a gun control policy; they do it so more of their customers can buy ammo as it is scarce. I’ve been known to go back the next morning and get more. Forty cal is the sweet spot caliber for California since a magazine is limited to 10 rounds in this state. This erases any advantage a 9 mm may have (other than cheaper cartridges). A Model 1911 chambered in 45 ACP holds 7+1 (8+1 in some configurations) so I like the 40. I’ll still get a 1911 sooner or later, but for now I’m all about my SA XD40.
I’ve also discovered that Cabela’s will keep an order for backordered ammo active indefinitely it seems and they’re online. They also have pretty good prices on ammo. This just about the only way I know of to buy defensive ammo (hollow point) since the gun store virtually never has any.
I’m an NRA member and the NRA is obnoxiously frequent in soliciting its member for dontations to battle gun control legislation, but I still send them a check with just about every other mailing they send me. They are an effective lobbying organization.
There was an incident in my neighborhood early this year where the cops were chasing a parole violator who was also a wanted murder suspect. The suspect turned his car on a motor cop who had to jump off his bike to avoid being hit. The car crashed into the bike and over the curb. The cop fired at the suspects as they fled into the neighborhood, my neighborhood. The collision was about 2 blocks from my house. Since this was the termination of a chase there were numerous patrol cars in my neighborhood immediately. I spent the 7 1/2 hours with a series of various police and sheriff’s helicopters flying directly over my house plying my street, even my driveway and side yard, with their search lights. The police asked everyone to stay in their house and away from windows and doors. At a little after 1 a.m. police with assault rifles and K9 cleared my back yard and few minutes later one of the suspects was found hiding in a garden shed just accross the street. They found him using thermal imaging from one of the helicopters. It was after this episode I bought the pistol.
Given my experiences I’m not happy with the news of all of these early released inmates and even less happy about limiting ammo sales to one box. Hell, it would take me all week to get the five boxes I can buy in one sale currently. California does its level best to make it difficult to be a shooter in this state, but we do what we have to.

Richard on July 22, 2009 at 3:52 pm

There is an enumerated right to keep and bear arms in the Constitution. What part of “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” do these people not understand.
IMHO all the over 10,000 gun laws on the books are unconstitutional. The problem is they pass them as fast as they can and it takes millions to sue these bastards in court.
The latest tactic by the gun grabbers is to go after the ammo as they have failed in the courts in banning guns.The Chief at LAPD,William J. Bratton, has been trying to ban ammo sales in LA County but has lost in the courts.He also tried to ban gun shows. He is nothing but a traitor and refuses to abide by the Constitution.
The second amendment is a God given right as enumerated in the Bill of Rights and they have no authority to amend or INFRINGE the second amendment.
BTW Richard I too stop by Turners every chance I get. I have been shopping there for a long time.

ScottyDog on July 22, 2009 at 4:27 pm

Just close all the prisons, and do away with the justice system. Ask any libtard and they will tell you that there are no criminals, just misunderstood individuals who were exercising their freedoms to do what feels good under their civil liberties.
California can save a s-itload of money by first closing down these racist institutions that just keep putting down the MAN, then they can alleviate the bothersome racist police force. By doing these two things they will be in the black (monetarily speaking)in no time at all. Lets just hope that they release those pesky stalkers to the stars along with everyone else.

wolf2012 on July 22, 2009 at 4:31 pm

Obama Pushing to BAN the Reloading of YOUR Own Ammo!
Submitted by SadInAmerica on Wed, 04/22/2009 – 11:45pm.
President Obama, who supported the handgun ban in Washington, D.C., before it was tossed by the Supreme Court, since his election has watched various proposals to ban “assault” weapons, require handgun owners to submit to mental health evaluations.
This sparked a rush on ammunition purchases that caused some retailers to name him their ‘salesman of the year’. Now he apparently is going after citzens who reload their ammunition.
It was during an official visit earlier this month to Mexico that he affirmed his support for a proposed international treaty that addresses “firearms trafficking.”
According to a blogger who follows the issue, the treaty was adopted by President Clinton years ago but never ratified by the U.S. Senate, a goal Obama now has adopted.
The answer is finally here to the real reason why guns and church must mix!
The writer, B.A. Lawson, says, “If you reload your own ammo you may find yourself engaged in ‘Illicit Manufacturing’ of ammunition under an arms control treaty that President Obama started pushing last week in Mexico.”
it is only the beginning, read and be aware:
http://arkansasgopwing.blogspot.com/2009/04/obama-pushing-treaty-to-ban-reloading.html

ender on July 22, 2009 at 8:48 pm

so they think they will save some money.
really?
what about the parole officers hours to keep track of these guys? his case load is going to get pretty big really fast.
what about the time spent rearresting them when they commit another crime? What about the victims of their new crimes? I think any person or family injured by one of these released criminals should sue the state and arnold personally.
You want to get rid of 27,000 inmates, simple, deport all the illegal aliens in your prison system, hell you might get rid of 50,000.
Then they wont be on our streets for at least a day or two before they sneak back in.

ender on July 22, 2009 at 8:55 pm

Debbbie, since a lot of the convicts were just the victims of a racist criminal justice system, I’m sure San Francisco, L.A. and other progressive communities will be happy to take them in. Also, I don’t think these civilian gun owners are good for society. While it may enhance the safety of a handful of gun owners, they are much more likely to shoot themselves, their family members or other law abiding people that they are to shoot a criminal. And I never heard any criminal say they would obey the law if more people had guns and ammo. And the Second Amendment referred to individuals owning guns in the context of a regulated miltia, not in the context of a bunch of morons buying M-16’s to act out their death fantasies at my expense.

Anonymous1 on July 22, 2009 at 9:36 pm

Gun Ownership Mandatory In Kennesaw, Georgia — Crime Rate Plummets
tysk news ^ | 1997 | Baldwin
Posted on Tuesday, April 17, 2007 12:29:03 PM by doug from upland
Gun Ownership Mandatory In Kennesaw, Georgia
Crime Rate Plummets
by Chuck Baldwin
The New American magazine reminds us that March 25th marked the 16th anniversary of Kennesaw, Georgia’s ordinance requiring heads of households (with certain exceptions) to keep at least one firearm in their homes.
The city’s population grew from around 5,000 in 1980 to 13,000 by 1996 (latest available estimate). Yet there have been only three murders: two with knives (1984 and 1987) and one with a firearm (1997). After the law went into effect in 1982, crime against persons plummeted 74 percent compared to 1981, and fell another 45 percent in 1983 compared to 1982.
And it has stayed impressively low. In addition to nearly non-existent homicide (murders have averaged a mere 0.19 per year), the annual number of armed robberies, residential burglaries, commercial burglaries, and rapes have averaged, respectively, 1.69, 31.63, 19.75, and 2.00 through 1998.
With all the attention that has been heaped upon the lawful possession of firearms lately, you would think that a city that requires gun ownership would be the center of a media feeding frenzy. It isn’t. The fact is I can’t remember a major media outlet even mentioning Kennesaw. Can you?
The reason is obvious. Kennesaw proves that the presence of firearms actually improves safety and security. This is not the message that the media want us to hear. They want us to believe that guns are evil and are the cause of violence.
The facts tell a different story. What is even more interesting about Kennesaw is that the city’s crime rate decreased with the simple knowledge that the entire community was armed. The bad guys didn’t force the residents to prove it. Just knowing that residents were armed prompted them to move on to easier targets. Most criminals don’t have a death wish.
There have been two occasions in my own family when the presence of a handgun averted potential disaster. In both instances the gun was never aimed at a person and no shot was fired.

08hayabusa on July 22, 2009 at 10:44 pm

Ah, the menacing hordes [of Nigroes and wetbacks i’d assume] is gonna OVERWHELM you law-abiding Aryans…give me a break.
i can’t cite any specific statistics, but from what i read in the papers it’s probably one in a million people who use a gun in self-defense…and unless they’re NYPD, THEY don’t NEED fifty shot!!!

EminemsRevenge on July 23, 2009 at 8:06 am

Anonymous1:
If you are serious, you must have some really huge mental issues to think that prison inmates are simply victims of oppression. I would suggest talking to some of their victims, which in many cases are of the same race. Also, your stereotype of gun owners is laughable. But, since you like using insulting language, I will leave you with this. Try taking fewer bong hits, since this will enhance your employment prospects and get more neurons firing at full capacity.

Worry01 on July 23, 2009 at 8:47 am

Eminems Revenge:
What is a Nigroe? Also, you may want to ask someone to read the newspaper to you, since literacy does not seem to be your strong point. Yes, and people do to need to practice using firearms to ensure safety and accuracy. The legislation before the California State Assembly is little more than a thinly disguised firearm restriction bill. It will in no way impact street crime, since the people who purchase such weapons tend not to buy their arms and ammunition legally anyway. Convicted felons are banned from firearm ownership, but do such rules ever prevent them from getting a “piece”?

Worry01 on July 23, 2009 at 8:58 am

Anonymous1 spewed the following big lie:
“Second Amendment referred to individuals owning guns in the context of a regulated militia, not in the context of a bunch of morons buying M-16’s to act out their death fantasies at my expense”
Actually no where in the second amendment does it say only militia members can own guns. This is the propaganda that is spewed by the ban guns crowd all the time.When you can not win the argument on facts you “interpret the Law” in a way to support your arguments.This is the same kind of thinking that activist Judges use to implement their ideology in the courts.
What part do you not understand:
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
In fact, the second amendment does not limit ownership of guns to a particular type. M-16 fully automatic rifles would be the kind of weapon that a militia member would own to defend his country or necessary for a free state. IMHO
I own a couple of similar rifles that are semi auto that functionally do the same thing but require that I pull the trigger once for every shot.
Just what death fantasies are you talking about that are at your expense?

ScottyDog on July 23, 2009 at 6:24 pm

Just testing to see if this will post.

illiberal on July 24, 2009 at 2:31 am

I don’t disagree with you that AB 962 is bad, but did you even read any of it? You included the link, so you should at least look at the summary digest at the beginning of the bill. You got upset about this bill without even knowing anything about what it proposes. It doesn’t restrict you from buying more than 50 rounds of ammo per month.

It does something completely different and even more complicated and potentially “evil” than that. It will require licensed gun dealers to get an additional license to sell ammo and that those without that license are the ones restricted to selling only 50 rounds per month. Besides that, AB 962 proposes that all sales from these licensed sellers of ammunition will have to be face-to-face sales (effectively “over-the-counter”), collecting all of your personal info, a signature, a thumbprint, and what and how much you purchased and to keep this on file for 5 years. It’s likely an attempt to catch the sellers making mistakes so that their dealer licenses are revoked, further limiting access to handguns and ammunition in California, as this will effectively outlaw internet and mail order sales into California, as the dealers won’t be able to get your thumbprint (can they?).

So… you look dumb for ranting over “50 bullets a month?!?” when that’s not what the bill is about. At least know what you’re complaining about… 🙂

Chris on July 25, 2009 at 7:11 am

Leave a Reply for Worry01

Click here to cancel reply.

* denotes required field