Archive for the 'Gun Control' Category



Quartz Magazine On The Second Amendment

BY Herschel Smith
1 month, 4 weeks ago

Meredith Bennett-Smith:

Now the Constitution, much like the Bible–another flawed text used for centuries as a tool of oppression and tyranny–has become a crutch for lazy leadership and moral ambiguity. It’s an excuse for cowards to masquerade as patriots. Today, the NRA treats personal gun ownership as an inviolable right, regardless of its function or purpose.

[ … ]

To be clear, I know plenty of responsible gun owners. I want hunters to be able to hunt—but not with semiautomatic weapons. And I would like people who enjoy a little target practice to be able to do so at to their local firing range—but not with semiautomatic weapons. If you want to fire 43 bullets a minute, join the military.

Just to be clear, ownership of weapons is indeed an inviolable right, but not because of the second amendment.  It is so because God says so in the very document you think was a tool of tyranny.  But the only tyrants here are you, Meredith, and those of your ilk who want to disarm others.  You are control freaks, every one of you.  The bible you criticize teaches me that any attempts I might make to control you are based in wickedness.  I don’t want to control you or anyone else.  I want you to have liberty.  But you have no liberty to remove mine.

Second, I understand that your acquiescence to bolt action rifles for hunting is merely baiting.  It’s ineffective baiting, to be sure, but it’s still baiting and you don’t really mean it.  I know that as soon as someone changes the calculus and does something a little different such as use a scoped bolt action rifle from a stand off distance as did Charles Whitman, you’ll come for the bolt action rifles too.

Third, I know that you’re a liar, and you know it too.  You don’t really want to disarm everyone, because you don’t advocate disarming the police.  You just believe in the same thing all communists do, i.e., a monopoly of force.

Finally, it gives me amusement and pleasure to point out the obvious.  You can never effect this outcome because we have the guns.  Understand?  You can’t take them from us because you eschew them and we don’t.  What?  You didn’t really think we’d give them up, did you?  And you didn’t really think those cops would want to be gunned down as they try to confiscate weapons, did you?

The 40-Clip Magazine

BY Herschel Smith
2 months ago

Yahoo:

When James Carville sat with Sarah Palin for a Politicon conversation on Sunday, he was polite. He praised her 2008 Republican National Convention speech. He even seemed to sympathize with her for being scapegoated in John McCain’s presidential campaign.

But then he challenged her on wanting to “take back the country,” a common Tea Party phrase that has morphed into Donald Trump’s “Make America Great Again,” and their conversation quickly turned into a debate over gun control.

Carville, the Democratic strategist, said to the former vice presidential nominee: “When you say you want to take back the country, what is it you want to take back?”

“I want to take back the interpretation of our constitution that is being wrongly interpreted today,” Palin said.

“Where are we going haywire on the Constitution?” he asked.

Palin’s response: the Second Amendment.

“It is black and white, and we have a right, of course, to bear arms,” she said. “People who can interpret that to, ‘Oh that means not everybody has that right.’ Or to take certain things like ammo, ‘Well that doesn’t apply.’ Or we can get rid of AR-15s because AR-15s weren’t invented for hunting. I say, ‘Yeah, the Second Amendment wasn’t written in the case the moose turn on us.’ Of course it wasn’t mean for hunting.”

Carville, though, pressed her further.

“Do I have a right to possess a bazooka? Do I have the right to have a surface to air missile and live close to the Los Angeles Airport?”

“Well, that is such a stupid question,” Palin responded.

The Palin-Carville conversation was among a number of marquee events at Politicon, a gathering of political junkies with panels, standup comedy, film screenings and art displays at the Pasadena Convention Center.

Carville went on. “I was in the Marine Corps. I have guns. I grew up rural. Why do I need a 40-clip magazine?”

I’ll concede Carville’s point.  I can say with certainty that I don’t need a 40-clip magazine.  Depending upon what that beast is, it might even make my rifle too heavy and out-of-balance to shoot accurately.

But I reserve the right to have one whether I need it or not.  I might buy one just to have it – just as soon as I figure out what it is.  As for Carville, even the US Marine Corps graduates a Gomer ever now and then.

Prior:

High Magazine Clips And The Shoulder Thing That Goes Up

High Ammo Clips

Automatic Bullets In Rapid Fire Magazine Clips

Duck Hunting With Bullets

The Fully Loaded Ammunition Cartridge

The “No-Gun” List

BY Herschel Smith
2 months ago

The Washington Times:

Responding to that report Saturday morning, Mr. Healy said authorities should consider creating a new list that would only be used to restrict access to weapons, separate from other similar databases, such as the “no-fly” list that contains the names of people banned from commercial air travel.

“I would even offer a solution that you create a separate list and have the no-gun list,” Mr. Healy said. “And on the no-gun list of the watchlist you require the agent to provide a probable cause statement and take it to a judge and say ‘This is why I don’t think this individual should have a gun or be able to buy a gun.’ That way i think you have a balanced approach.”

“Not everyone on the no-fly list is going to be on the no gun list because they’re not going to have enough information,” he added. “But there were situations of subjects on the no-fly list that I believe, based on what I knew about them, I could provide enough information to a judge and say ‘This is why i don’t think this individual should purchase a gun.’”

Or in other words, the collectivists don’t care about your rights.  He traffics in concepts of power, probability, forecasts of crime, and having just enough information to convince a single man that you shouldn’t be allowed to exercise your God-given rights, subject of course, to review by no one.

I think it’s probable that Mr. Healy had personal problems growing up that are manifesting themselves in this kind of behavior, but I won’t traffic in probabilities to the extent that Mr. Healy.

Here’s something I know with certainty.  The desire for this kind and degree of control over other men is wicked and sinful, and Mr. Healy is a dangerous man because rather than suppress and deal with that wickedness he acts upon it to assuage those wicked desires.  So do others of his ilk.  Gun owners aren’t the concern.  Men like Mr. Healy are the concern.

Lindsey Graham On Guns

BY Herschel Smith
2 months ago

NY Daily News:

Rifle-owning South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham and a handful of his fellow Republicans are standing up to the biggest bully in Washington — the National Rifle Association.

Graham and a growing group of GOPers are getting behind a burgeoning bipartisan effort to keep suspected terrorists from buying guns, and they’ve vowed they won’t bow to pressure from the powerful gun lobby.

“On every issue, Senator Graham does what he thinks is right and lets the chips fall where they may,” Kevin Bishop, a spokesman for Graham, told the Daily News in a statement Wednesday.

Hey Lindsey, you fossilized piece of shit.  Yea you.  You don’t belong in South Carolina.  Don’t go home.  Send the moving trucks to pick up your things and tote them to one of the communist states like New York, California or Connecticut.

If Lindsey doesn’t cooperate, the good folks of S.C. have some work to do.

The Second Amendment Grants Me Nothing

BY Herschel Smith
2 months ago

Monica Lindstrom:

This week Arizona Senator Jeff Flake introduced a bill to prohibit the sale of guns to persons on the No Fly list. This comes on the heels of the deadliest mass shooting in America that occurred June 12 at Pulse Nightclub in Orlando. It’s not surprising to see a flurry of proposals and argument regarding gun control and gun rights after a tragedy involving firearms and typically nothing changes.

The legal argument against Senator Flake’s proposal, and others before it, has to do with due process. Since the right to bear arms is given to us by the Second Amendment to our Constitution and has been affirmed in case law, a person must have due process before that right can be taken away. In other words, they must have their day in court. They must be made aware they are on the list and be afforded the opportunity to fight their presence on the list. Currently this is not done. Those on the list often do not know they are on the list and there are few opportunities, if any, that allow them to fight the designation.

This huge hurdle was recognized and suggestions are contained in the bill that would give some modicum of due process. However, the bill has a long way to go before it becomes a law and, even then, it will face many challenges in court and will likely make its way to the Supreme Court. So, mark your calendar, you could be reading about this anticipated case a couple years from now in #LegallySpeaking.

Let’s be clear about one thing Monica.  The second amendment grants me absolutely nothing.  The constitution is a covenant wherein parties agree to honor commitments made to each other.  A covenant has all the blessings and curses and consequences appertaining to said covenant.  The second amendment, like all other rights outlined in the bill of rights, merely codifies the recognition of an already-existing right.

God grants me the right (and even duty) to go armed and conduct myself in a manner consistent with self defense.  Not you, and not the constitution, and not black robed tyrants.  That means that whatever the outcome of this “day in court” to which you refer, the right to self defense is still present because God said so.

It would actually be a service for you to warn others of your ilk that your designs for control over others will run afoul of God’s commandments.  The consequences of this are too numerous to detail here, and include effect both now and in eternity.  And tell Jeff Flake we never forget.

Supreme Court Refuses To Hear Challenge To New York And Connecticut Weapons Ban

BY Herschel Smith
2 months ago

The Washington Post:

The Supreme Court declined Monday to review bans on a lengthy list of firearms that New York and Connecticut have classified as “assault weapons,” the latest example of the justices turning down an opportunity to elaborate on an individual’s right to gun ownership.

With an emotional debate about gun control reigniting across the street at the Capitol, the justices without comment said they would not review lower-court decisions upholding the laws.

Connecticut’s ban was expanded shortly after a gunman used one of the military-style semiautomatic weapons on the list to kill 20 students and six educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown in 2012.

The decision Monday was not a surprise, as the justices have previously declined to review other lower-court decisions that uphold bans passed by cities and states. Maryland, California, Hawaii, Massachusetts and New, Jersey as well as many cities and towns, have similar laws. None of the legal challenges to them have been successful in lower courts.

None of the challenges have been successful (and this wouldn’t be either) because jurists today don’t believe in the constitution, and because the Heller decision gave away too much.

David French does a nice job of upbraiding people who say that the second amendment doesn’t mean what it says.

First, the history. It is simply remarkable to see liberals flood the Internet and social media with allegations that the Second Amendment either does not protect an individual right to keep and bear arms or that — incredibly — that right is restricted to single-shot, flintlock muskets. All meaningful historical evidence points toward the conclusion that the Second Amendment merely recognized a pre-existing right to bear arms. This is plain from the text of the amendment, which protects the right of “the people,” and from its historical context. Indeed, writing in 1803, St. George Tucker updated Blackstone’s Commentaries to declare that the United States “may reasonably hope that the people will never cease to regard the right of keeping and bearing arms as the surest pledge of their liberty.”

This understanding is buttressed by dozens of state constitutional provisions, the vast majority of which clearly and unmistakably establish an individual right to gun ownership — not the mythical “collective” right so beloved by the Left. Alabama, for example, declares that “every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.” New Hampshire’s constitution states that “all persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property, and the state.” These provisions aren’t part of a right-wing plot; they reflect long-defended American liberties.

But in spite of the malfeasance of jurists who deny God-given rights, I confess that I have a difficult time getting worked up over this refusal of the Supreme Court to play nice.  I know this is easy to say and much more difficult to do, but if you live in a state like Connecticut or New York where the collectivists want to control you in this way, you need to move, change the laws, or disobey the laws to arm yourself as you see fit.

Don’t expect anyone in a black robe to look out for your interests.  Interests are local, and it’s probably best that way.  You can effect change locally easier than you can nationally.

Paul Waldman’s Illogic On Guns

BY Herschel Smith
2 months ago

The American Prospect:

As we have yet another round of our repeated and possibly fruitless arguments about the role of guns in American society, there’s one thing I desperately want to hear gun advocates say. It’s not complicated, it would have the benefit of honesty, and it might enable us to move this debate to ground where we could actually make choices about what kind of society we want to have.

What I want to hear gun advocates say is, “This is the price America has to pay for the right some of us cherish.”

The reason I want to hear this is that on no other basic debate over constitutional rights that I can think of does one side argue that there are no tradeoffs, that exercising a particular right, even in the most extreme way, doesn’t actually involve any cost whatsoever. Only gun advocates say that.

But it doesn’t work that way.  Paul has tried to force us into a formal logical fallacy, and you can think of it as a “Hobson’s Choice” (not a Hobbesian Trap, but Hobson’s Choice), where someone puts forward what he claims to be a free choice, but where only one option is really presented.

Don’t bite on things like this.  Here is the answer.  Criminals and terrorists will get their guns anyway because only peaceable people obey the laws.  Paul knows that, and so does everyone else.  It wouldn’t matter if every gun in America was confiscated (something that would lead to bloody civil war, and which I am only granting for the sake of argument).  Weapons will still flow from across the American border.  Or another way for criminals to get their guns is to attack police, kill them, and steal their weapons.  This happens frequently in South American countries.

Another way to get weapons is to buy fertilizer.  Or gasoline.  Or any of a number of fire accelerants, or acid to throw in the face of other people (this happens more than you care to know in far Eastern countries like Japan).  You see, Paul is in that category of people who want the state to have a monopoly of force, and dresses his designs for control up in all sorts of sympathy for victims.

Don’t believe him.  He isn’t being honest about things, and you know that because he isn’t advocating that the police be disarmed.  Because all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than other animals.

Amanda Marcotte On AR-15s

BY Herschel Smith
2 months, 1 week ago

Salon:

But while the ostensible pitch is self-defense, it’s also hard to escape the sense that they (sic) marketing pitch is building on the fact that the nation just got a full eyeball of what the AR-15 is capable of doing: Mowing down dozens of people in the space of minutes.

After all, they know full well that their customer base is people like Stokes, who doesn’t even really bother to hide that he includes “mass shooting capabilities” in  his assessment of what makes this gun so cool.

“The rifle’s popularity is almost certainly the main reason why mass shooters increasingly reach for it when they go on a rampage,” Stokes writes. “Think about it: if you’re planning to shoot up a room full of people, are you going to reach for a rare, exotic weapon that you have little experience with, or will you select the familiar option that’s easy to train with and that you have plenty of practice time behind? The answer, for anybody who shoots, is the latter.”

It speaks volumes about how all sense of reason has escaped the pro-gun lobby that they think that “capable of destroying a room full of people in minutes” is a defense of a gun, instead of an obvious reason why the damn thing should be banned immediately.

Well, Amanda, let’s talk about this for a moment.  First of all, you don’t really believe what you’re saying, and you know it and we know it.  If you really believed your own propaganda, you’d advocate disarming the police.  But you don’t, and you won’t.  Because you believe in a monopoly of force, despite your undertones of pacifism.  You want the state to be armed as it sees fit, so you want some people to have access to the weapons of their choice, just not all people.  Because all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than other animals.

Second, your propaganda drips with hatred and sarcasm, as if you know all about when and why someone would need a certain kind of weapon.  But I’ll bet that you’ve never shot the weapon you criticize, have you?  If so, please tell us all about it.  Otherwise, get an education.  Start by searching on the words “home invasion” every day for a month on Google news or some other aggregator, and see how may home invasions are perpetrated with two, three, or four or more men at a time, and you’ll see why Mr. Stephen Bayezes needed his AR-15.

Finally, you focus on self defense, but we all know what the real issue is, don’t we Amanda?  You know the second amendment wasn’t written about hunting, or the shooting sports, or even individual self defense (although that would be included under the rubric of what it does include).  We all know, however uncomfortable it might be for you to admit, that the second amendment is all about amelioration of tyranny.

That’s right Amanda.  Are you shocked?  Are you stunned that I said it?  Weapons are the surest means of maintenance of our liberties.  But you don’t want people to have liberties, do you?  Like all good collectivists, you want the state to decide right from wrong, issue the necessary orders for social stability, and ensure cradle to grave sustenance and security.

Don’t you, Amanda?  That’s why only the state can have guns, isn’t it Amanda?

The Goal Is People Control, Not Gun Control

BY Herschel Smith
2 months, 1 week ago

The GOP is getting ready to do what the GOP always does – cave to the force of progressive bullies.

According to CBS News’s Steven Portnoy, McConnell has a meeting with FBI director James Comey and Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson on Wednesday. Portnoy Tweeted that McConnell has signaled he may be willing to consider new gun controls after that meeting.

Via SSI, it might be claimed that this is all being done for a purpose and by design, effecting no change except for raising money.

The Republicans have had the White House and the Senate and the House and they have never passed real pro-gun legislation. Bought a full auto lately?  Heck, have you priced a full auto lately?

The Democrats as recently as a few years ago had Obama and the Senate and the House. They didn’t pass gun confiscation legislation either.

It’s a game to keep us distracted.  The Republicans get to scare us with threats of Democrat gun control and we send them money and vote them into office.  For the Democrats, it keeps their rabid base energized to send the Democrats lots of money and get them voted into office.

Heck, even the famous NRA would go broke if real gun rights legislation ever passed into law.

So, how does this lead us to the shootings in Florida?

When things like this happen, I always implore the motto, “follow the money”. Who wins with a shooting of this type?

Obviously, the two political parties do. It’s unlikely that any real legislation will be introduced between now and the election.  Republicans want to be reelected.  Of course Republicans and the NRA are now pushing a “real” bill to keep guns out of the hands of the terrorists.  The Democrats will whine and cry that it isn’t enough but will go along.  Of course once it’s passed and folks want to exercise due process over being on the terrorist watch list, we’ll all be told that national security trumps any legal protections.

And both sides will continue their fund raising.

Well, this is a jaded view, and I’m not above being quite jaded, but this analysis seems to me to ignore several very important things.  First of all, many republicans come from the Northeast where they do want gun control, but they actually fear the loss of that percentage of voters who can put them out of office.  Second, the democrats haven’t passed gun control for one simple reason, i.e., lack of votes.  If they had the votes, you can be assured they would have most white, conservative Christians hooked up to mill wheels turning grain into flour and corn into grits.  The rest would be in concentration camps (Fusion centers).

Ideology trumps donations because enslavement of the working class produces wealth for the elitists.  They will always find a way to enrich themselves.  So if mere interest in campaign donations isn’t the impetus behind this, what is?

Before we get to that, take careful note of what Donald Trump said about this push for gun control.

In an abrupt shift in message, Donald Trump indicated Wednesday that he might be taking on a Republican tenet: the party’s long-standing opposition to gun control.

Trump said he would talk to the NRA about not allowing “people on the terrorist watch list, or the no fly list, to buy guns.” In typical fashion for the presumptive Republican nominee, the announcement came via Twitter:

The NRA, for its part, says there’s no conflict:

Happy to meet @realdonaldtrump. Our position is no guns for terrorists—period. Due process & right to self-defense for law-abiding Americans

In a statement, the NRA said it would be “happy to meet with Donald Trump.” But that:

“The NRA believes that terrorists should not be allowed to purchase or possess firearms, period. Anyone on a terror watchlist who tries to buy a gun should be thoroughly investigated by the FBI and the sale delayed while the investigation is ongoing. If an investigation uncovers evidence of terrorist activity or involvement, the government should be allowed to immediately go to court, block the sale, and arrest the terrorist. At the same time, due process protections should be put in place that allow law-abiding Americans who are wrongly put on a watchlist to be removed. That has been the position of Sen. John Cornyn (R.-Tex.) and a majority of the U.S. Senate. Sadly, President Obama and his allies would prefer to play politics with this issue.”

Trump doesn’t tell the democrats on capital hill to go to hell because first he is a Northeast big government liberal, and second he doesn’t understand the predilection to evil in fallen mankind.  The goal is not now and has never been gun control.  The progressive goal has always been people control.

You know this because when they advocate the total disarmament of the population, they always exclude the police.  It isn’t that they don’t want people to have guns, it’s that they don’t want some people to have guns.  If they could be assured that you would never use your guns to upset their progressive social planners and their designs for society by killing others (even to defend your loved ones), or to prevent their tyrannical designs, they wouldn’t mind you having all the guns your heart desires.

But they cannot trust you with those boundary conditions, and so every machine of the state must be properly tuned to work at their disposal.  Thus, no one can ever get off of the no-fly list once they have made it on.  The decisions for the terrorist watch list and no-fly list are made in secret by the federal executive, and are subject only to the FISA court, which ends up being a rubber stamp for the federal executive.

The terrorist watch list and the no-fly list is different, and they leverage this difference and use it to their advantage when they discuss this in front of the cameras.  Furthermore, there is nothing to stop them from, say, adding all NRA members to the list, or adding you to the list, if you’re reading this article.  After all, they have said they believe that the “right wing terror threat” is the biggest threat facing America today.

No one in the MSM has the guts to ask why someone who is a “terrorist” is allowed to be in America to begin with.  It would force the executive to admit to all of his plans for social change, his open borders policy, the fact that none of these lists are subject to due process, no jury has decided on the fate of pitiful souls who have run afoul of the system, and all such souls are left to the devices of an out-of-control executive who doesn’t care, and sends their problems to judges who have been educated at Harvard, Yale and Emory.

Is anyone really surprised at this?  After all, a Syrian immigrant who said 9/11 changed the world for good is a homeland security advisor.  They will call light darkness and darkness light.  If you believe that the second amendment is in place to ameliorate tyranny, you must be eradicated because you’re the enemy, a right-wing terrorist.

Or so they seem to think.  And that’s the point, isn’t it?  Guns are good, and they know it.  They are wonderful machines, just like cars, stoves, and HVAC.  But in the “wrong” hands they can prevent the grand social designs of the ruling class.  Again, the goal isn’t to destroy the gun companies.  That would mean no one had guns, and no one includes them.

The goal is to control whether you have them, and to do that they won’t be so obvious as to pass a law against all gun ownership.  The Fuds in the hunting clubs will be left alone to purchase their shotguns for dove and quail hunting.  They don’t want to anger the gentlemanly class.

They will go after you by the terrorist watch list, the no-fly list, and any other assortment of executive powers and decisions and regulations and rulings.  They will never confiscate your guns.  They will prevent you from renewing your driver’s license, your hunting license, your fishing license, your professional license, your bank cards, your concealed handgun permits, and in short, all the framework you have built your entire life as a law abiding, peaceable citizen.  Then they will go after your wife and children and their ability to enroll in education.  They will go after what matters most to you.

If you’re focused on guns rather than people and their relationship to the ruling class, you need to be recalibrated.  Don’t ever give up your guns, but think smart and be strategic.  If they can’t take you guns directly, they will attempt to control you by other means.

If you’re disappointed in Donald Trump, be prepared for more to come.  This is only the beginning.  The GOP elitists cannot be trusted, and couldn’t care less for your ability to defend your family.  The democrats want your soul, but will settle for your servitude.  If they can’t come in through the front door, they will come in through the back door.  Conspiracy theories are sometimes correct, but sometimes they blind you to the real situation.  This is about more than campaign donations.  This is about controlling you, and therefore, controlling your guns by extension.

Collectivist Reaction To AR-15s In The Wake Of The Orlando Shooting

BY Herschel Smith
2 months, 1 week ago

The reaction is virtually ubiquitous across the progressive world, and it pays to know what’s going on.  I won’t have a long analysis of any one commentary, but I have brief comments on multiple commentaries.

First up is Bill Clinton, who is lying when he says that his AWB did anything to drive down any sort violence whatsoever, using any metric at all.  The trend on crime has been decreasing from since before his AWB and continues to decrease today.

On another front, Jeh Johnson says that gun violence is a matter of homeland security.  What he (and the administration) wants to do here is promulgate rules, directives and regulations separate from and unreviewed by Congress, accountable only to a FISA court (which is just a rubber stamp on the executive).

According to NBC, the shooter was racist, belligerent and toxic.  Not Muslim, mind you, but something else.  Because this certainly couldn’t come down to Islam.

Heather Digby Parton at Salon, with whom we’ve interacted before, thinks we don’t need an AR-15.  No one needs an AR-15. Because she says so.

Would a ban on semi-automatic rifles end Islamic extremism? No. But it won’t make it worse, the way that religious bans and calls for torture and killing of suspects family members will. And it would sure make it a lot harder for any of these twisted souls, Muslim or otherwise,  to spray bullets at a room full of first graders or movie goers or gay guys dancing the night away. You can’t fix what’s in these people’s hearts. That is beyond anyone’s ken. But you can make it harder for them to act on their hate. Nobody needs an AR-15.

So bans won’t end the problem, but it won’t make it any worse.  That’s a pretty low threshold for passing laws.  But wait.  She modifies the assessment.  It sure would make it a lot harder, she says.  But how does she know?  How does she know that someone couldn’t bring multiple handguns to the shooting and perpetrate the same carnage?  She doesn’t.  She just made that up.

Amanda Marcotte, writing at Salon, tells us that we are a bunch of puckered old farts except when it comes to guns.

Conservatives might be opposed to “politically correct” ideas like same-sex marriage, religious tolerance, due process for all, efforts to end race and gender discrimination, and even a freedom so basic as the right to choose when you give birth, but hey, you get to spend a cool grand on an AR-15 and all its trimmings, and isn’t that the only thing that really matters?

Amanda doesn’t hang with enough of us to know.  Hey, we support low or almost no taxes, minimal government regulation, oppose the war on drugs, and believe in small government.  I’m not sure who Amanda is referring to, but she needs to expand her horizons a little.  I think we’re more gun – um, excuse me, fun – to be with than she does.  Care to hang out, Amanda?

Mark Follman at Motherless Jones doesn’t remember his history.  As I read his histrionics I couldn’t help but think of Charles Whitman and scoped bolt action rifles wielded by someone in a sniper’s hide.  For hours and hours and hours.

Josh Earnest doesn’t know what an assault weapon is.  It’s okay, Josh.  It doesn’t matter to me what you call it.  It’s just a machine, like any other machine.  It can be used for good or not, just like a car, or a hammer.  It’s a shame when they send a ventriloquist dummy out to perform without the ventriloquist, huh?

Justin Peters with Slate has issues with what we call the black gun.

The term modern sporting rifle, evoking outdoorsy competition and good, clean fun, sounds incongruous when applied to weapons like these …

Well, it can be used for hunting, or 3-gun competition, or target shooting, or self defense, but since Justin is having difficulty with this, let’s just be clear.  To dispel the myth surrounding the gun, some folks don’t like it at all and prefer an AR-10 or some other weapon (M1A, etc.).  Tall tales about how this gun can inflict carnage on a scale like no other weapon in history are usually written by ignorant boobs who are just pushing an agenda.  It’s just a rifle firing an intermediate cartridge.

But I like it and always will because of a number of reasons I’ve rehearsed before (e.g., the modularity, the fact that the recoil is on-axis rather than being coupled about a point, etc.).  And one reason not mentioned is that we have guns as a remedy for tyranny.  That’s right, Justin.  Got it?  That’s the close quarters battle thing you mentioned and didn’t really flesh out.  As for a field rifle, it may not be the best option if you’re talking over 500 yards.  One may decide not to use the “black gun” for that.  Is this too much detail, Justin?  All the talk about remedies for tyranny?

David S. Cohen, professor at Drexel University, thinks it’s time to repeal the second amendment.  He spends a lot of time talking about how deeply flawed the constitution is.  In fact, I think Cohen is deeply flawed and the constitution pretty good.  But his prose is cute.

The Second Amendment needs to be repealed because it is outdated, a threat to liberty and a suicide pact. When the Second Amendment was adopted in 1791, there were no weapons remotely like the AR-15 assault rifle and many of the advances of modern weaponry were long from being invented or popularized.

Oh horse shit.  The founders wrote the second amendment specifically as a remedy for tyranny.  If they had been able to craft the AR-15, they would have used it and ended the war of independence much more quickly.  Guns, rather than a threat to liberty, are the practical surety of liberty.  But the disconnected professor should give it a go if he thinks he can repeal the second amendment.  Any time he feels froggy.

Finally, writer Charles Pierce at Esquire writes about Stanley McChrystal on guns.

If an Army general says this is a weapon that should not be in civilian hands, like a grenade launcher or an F-16, then we should be able to agree as a nation that this is a weapon than should not be in civilian hands. I wonder why “both parties” can’t “talk about it in a rational fashion to dial it down.”

Well, we’ve already talked about what a complete ass clown and worm Stanley McChrystal is, or really to be more honest, a murderer with his ROE (see many engagements in Afghanistan, and I used Ganjgal as one stark example).  But beyond having to use an adulterer (Petraeus) and a murderer (McChrystal) as your touchstone for gun control, what kind of analyst asserts that being a general has anything whatsoever to do with public policy?

Seriously.  Staff and flag officers spend time in TRADOC, strategy, logistics, and so on.  Why would anyone conclude that a general had to have any knowledge of operation of weapons or any special insight into public policy at all?  What kind of juvenile did Esquire hire with Pierce?  Here’s a bet.  The gunsmiths down at Hyatt Gun Shop can out-gunsmith McChrystal or anyone he knows every time, and I’d lay good money on that.  And a random selection of people in the phone directory (and testing those people) would yield better policy results more focused on the maintenance of liberty than Stanley McChrystal at his very best and most studied.

 


26th MEU (10)
Abu Muqawama (12)
ACOG (2)
ACOGs (1)
Afghan National Army (36)
Afghan National Police (17)
Afghanistan (677)
Afghanistan SOFA (4)
Agriculture in COIN (3)
AGW (1)
Air Force (31)
Air Power (9)
al Qaeda (83)
Ali al-Sistani (1)
America (7)
Ammunition (22)
Animals in War (4)
Ansar al Sunna (15)
Anthropology (3)
Antonin Scalia (1)
AR-15s (67)
Arghandab River Valley (1)
Arlington Cemetery (2)
Army (43)
Assassinations (2)
Assault Weapon Ban (26)
Australian Army (5)
Azerbaijan (4)
Backpacking (2)
Badr Organization (8)
Baitullah Mehsud (21)
Basra (17)
BATFE (50)
Battle of Bari Alai (2)
Battle of Wanat (17)
Battle Space Weight (3)
Bin Laden (7)
Blogroll (2)
Blogs (5)
Body Armor (17)
Books (2)
Border War (7)
Brady Campaign (1)
Britain (27)
British Army (35)
Camping (4)
Canada (2)
Castle Doctrine (1)
Caucasus (6)
CENTCOM (7)
Center For a New American Security (8)
Charity (3)
China (10)
Christmas (8)
CIA (12)
Civilian National Security Force (3)
Col. Gian Gentile (9)
Combat Outposts (3)
Combat Video (2)
Concerned Citizens (6)
Constabulary Actions (3)
Coolness Factor (2)
COP Keating (4)
Corruption in COIN (4)
Council on Foreign Relations (1)
Counterinsurgency (215)
DADT (2)
David Rohde (1)
Defense Contractors (2)
Department of Defense (122)
Department of Homeland Security (13)
Disaster Preparedness (2)
Distributed Operations (5)
Dogs (6)
Drone Campaign (3)
EFV (3)
Egypt (12)
El Salvador (1)
Embassy Security (1)
Enemy Spotters (1)
Expeditionary Warfare (17)
F-22 (2)
F-35 (1)
Fallujah (17)
Far East (3)
Fathers and Sons (1)
Favorite (1)
Fazlullah (3)
FBI (3)
Featured (176)
Federal Firearms Laws (17)
Financing the Taliban (2)
Firearms (457)
Football (1)
Force Projection (35)
Force Protection (4)
Force Transformation (1)
Foreign Policy (27)
Fukushima Reactor Accident (6)
Ganjgal (1)
Garmsir (1)
general (14)
General Amos (1)
General James Mattis (1)
General McChrystal (40)
General McKiernan (6)
General Rodriguez (3)
General Suleimani (7)
Georgia (19)
GITMO (2)
Google (1)
Gulbuddin Hekmatyar (1)
Gun Control (402)
Guns (943)
Guns In National Parks (3)
Haditha Roundup (10)
Haiti (2)
HAMAS (7)
Haqqani Network (9)
Hate Mail (7)
Hekmatyar (1)
Heroism (4)
Hezbollah (12)
High Capacity Magazines (11)
High Value Targets (9)
Homecoming (1)
Homeland Security (1)
Horses (1)
Humor (13)
ICOS (1)
IEDs (7)
Immigration (45)
India (10)
Infantry (3)
Information Warfare (2)
Infrastructure (2)
Intelligence (22)
Intelligence Bulletin (6)
Iran (169)
Iraq (378)
Iraq SOFA (23)
Islamic Facism (38)
Islamists (60)
Israel (18)
Jaish al Mahdi (21)
Jalalabad (1)
Japan (2)
Jihadists (80)
John Nagl (5)
Joint Intelligence Centers (1)
JRTN (1)
Kabul (1)
Kajaki Dam (1)
Kamdesh (9)
Kandahar (12)
Karachi (7)
Kashmir (2)
Khost Province (1)
Khyber (11)
Knife Blogging (2)
Korea (4)
Korengal Valley (3)
Kunar Province (20)
Kurdistan (3)
Language in COIN (5)
Language in Statecraft (1)
Language Interpreters (2)
Lashkar-e-Taiba (2)
Law Enforcement (2)
Lawfare (6)
Leadership (5)
Lebanon (6)
Leon Panetta (2)
Let Them Fight (2)
Libya (14)
Lines of Effort (3)
Littoral Combat (8)
Logistics (49)
Long Guns (1)
Lt. Col. Allen West (2)
Marine Corps (240)
Marines in Bakwa (1)
Marines in Helmand (67)
Marjah (4)
MEDEVAC (2)
Media (23)
Memorial Day (2)
Mexican Cartels (23)
Mexico (30)
Michael Yon (5)
Micromanaging the Military (7)
Middle East (1)
Military Blogging (26)
Military Contractors (3)
Military Equipment (24)
Militia (3)
Mitt Romney (3)
Monetary Policy (1)
Moqtada al Sadr (2)
Mosul (4)
Mountains (13)
MRAPs (1)
Mullah Baradar (1)
Mullah Fazlullah (1)
Mullah Omar (3)
Musa Qala (4)
Music (16)
Muslim Brotherhood (6)
Nation Building (2)
National Internet IDs (1)
National Rifle Association (17)
NATO (15)
Navy (20)
Navy Corpsman (1)
NCOs (3)
News (1)
NGOs (2)
Nicholas Schmidle (2)
Now Zad (19)
NSA (1)
NSA James L. Jones (6)
Nuclear (53)
Nuristan (8)
Obama Administration (216)
Offshore Balancing (1)
Operation Alljah (7)
Operation Khanjar (14)
Ossetia (7)
Pakistan (165)
Paktya Province (1)
Palestine (5)
Patriotism (6)
Patrolling (1)
Pech River Valley (11)
Personal (30)
Petraeus (14)
Pictures (1)
Piracy (13)
Pistol (2)
Police (205)
Police in COIN (3)
Policy (15)
Politics (240)
Poppy (2)
PPEs (1)
Prisons in Counterinsurgency (12)
Project Gunrunner (20)
PRTs (1)
Qatar (1)
Quadrennial Defense Review (2)
Quds Force (13)
Quetta Shura (1)
RAND (3)
Recommended Reading (14)
Refueling Tanker (1)
Religion (106)
Religion and Insurgency (19)
Reuters (1)
Rick Perry (4)
Rifles (1)
Roads (4)
Rolling Stone (1)
Ron Paul (1)
ROTC (1)
Rules of Engagement (74)
Rumsfeld (1)
Russia (28)
Sabbatical (1)
Sangin (1)
Saqlawiyah (1)
Satellite Patrols (2)
Saudi Arabia (4)
Scenes from Iraq (1)
Second Amendment (159)
Second Amendment Quick Hits (2)
Secretary Gates (9)
Sharia Law (3)
Shura Ittehad-ul-Mujahiden (1)
SIIC (2)
Sirajuddin Haqqani (1)
Small Wars (72)
Snipers (9)
Sniveling Lackeys (2)
Soft Power (4)
Somalia (8)
Sons of Afghanistan (1)
Sons of Iraq (2)
Special Forces (24)
Squad Rushes (1)
State Department (17)
Statistics (1)
Sunni Insurgency (10)
Support to Infantry Ratio (1)
Supreme Court (2)
Survival (12)
SWAT Raids (53)
Syria (38)
Tactical Drills (1)
Tactical Gear (1)
Taliban (167)
Taliban Massing of Forces (4)
Tarmiyah (1)
TBI (1)
Technology (16)
Tehrik-i-Taliban (78)
Terrain in Combat (1)
Terrorism (92)
Thanksgiving (5)
The Anbar Narrative (23)
The Art of War (5)
The Fallen (1)
The Long War (20)
The Surge (3)
The Wounded (13)
Thomas Barnett (1)
Transnational Insurgencies (5)
Tribes (5)
TSA (12)
TSA Ineptitude (10)
TTPs (1)
U.S. Border Patrol (5)
U.S. Border Security (13)
U.S. Sovereignty (14)
UAVs (2)
UBL (4)
Ukraine (3)
Uncategorized (42)
Universal Background Check (3)
Unrestricted Warfare (4)
USS Iwo Jima (2)
USS San Antonio (1)
Uzbekistan (1)
V-22 Osprey (4)
Veterans (2)
Vietnam (1)
War & Warfare (210)
War & Warfare (40)
War Movies (3)
War Reporting (18)
Wardak Province (1)
Warriors (6)
Waziristan (1)
Weapons and Tactics (57)
West Point (1)
Winter Operations (1)
Women in Combat (17)
WTF? (1)
Yemen (1)

August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006

about · archives · contact · register

Copyright © 2006-2016 Captain's Journal. All rights reserved.