Archive for the 'Gun Control' Category



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

BY Herschel Smith
2 weeks, 1 day 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.

 

David Petraeus And Stanley McChrystal Lead The Charge On Gun Control

BY Herschel Smith
2 weeks, 3 days ago

During my coverage and commentary on Operation Iraqi Freedom And Operation Enduring Freedom, I never liked David Petrarus or Stanley McChrystal.  As for the campaigns (because that invariably comes up), I didn’t agree with OIF1 or in other words the initial invasion of Iraq, I did agree with OIF2 and OIF3 because 80-100 jihadist fighters were coming across the Jordanian and Syrian borders per month to fight U.S. troops who might have crossed American borders instead if we didn’t finish the campaign, I agreed with the initial stages of the campaign in Afghanistan, but when I saw that we had busted the Northern Alliance with were courting the Pashtuns, I opposed the remainder of the campaign, and when I saw the complete debacle we made of both campaigns, I called for total, immediate withdrawal from both theaters.  Now that roadblock is out of the way, let’s proceed.

Aside from the campaigns, Petraeus and McChrystal are part of the class of generals who believe in COIN and waging “armed social work.”  Their rules of engagement were a function of that, and the rules got many good men killed and maimed.  You may drive or walk right by young men who are getting along with no legs or arms, but I don’t.  I stop, sometimes shed a tear, and beg forgiveness for not finding the son of a bitch who started all of this and cutting his balls off and feeding them to the dogs.

Petraeus and McChrystal won’t cease and desist showing us what kind of men they are either.  Just recently we learned that they don’t take their oath to the constitution seriously, or better yet, they lied when they took their oath.  They are leading the charge on gun control for the progressives.

Retired Gen. David Petraeus is teaming up with former astronaut Mark Kelly to form a gun-control advocacy group that “respects the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans.”

Kelly has made frequent appearances on the 2016 campaign trail with presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, as well as his wife, former Arizona Rep. Gabby Giffords, who sustained a serious brain injury after being shot in Tucson in 2011.

Petraeus and Kelly are joined by other military veterans, including retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal and retired Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden, in launching the “Veterans Coalition for Common Sense.” The group’s stated purpose is to urge lawmakers to do more to prevent mass gun tragedies.

Shamefully, there’s even a Marine in the mix.

“I believe that our Constitution affords responsible Americans the right to own guns, but we need to keep dangerous people from having easy access to guns. Felons, domestic abusers, even known terrorists can buy a gun here without something as simple as a criminal background check. This has to stop,” retired Marine Brig. Gen. Stephen Cheney said in a statement. “Our laws don’t support responsible gun ownership, and far too often guns fall into the hands of dangerous, irresponsible people.”

So let’s rehearse what I said about Stanley McChrystal when he first came out as a gun controller progressive.

But the irony is that McChrystal, who issued the most restrictive rules of engagement ever promulgated on American troops, waxes know-it-all on what it takes to keep our people safe.  He can micromanage the campaign, release a bunch of inept, bureaucratic, PowerPoint jockeys into highly protected mega-bases to command the troops under fire in the field, turn so-called general purpose troops into constabulary patrolmen, and become a laughingstock when his juvenile staff turned party-animal with Rolling Stone.  But he didn’t manage the campaign in such a manner as to keep our children in uniform safe in Afghanistan.  If he didn’t do that, why should I care what he has to say about anything else regarding my safety?

This is what happens when media stars think they know something about policy.  So here is a suggestion for Mr. McChrystal.  You go read the lamentations at this article from the families and widows of SFC Kenneth Westbrook, Gunnery Sgt Aaron M Kenefick, Corpsman James Ray “Doc” Layton, and others in the Ganjgal engagement.  You know the one I’m talking about, even if others have forgotten.  You and I will never forget.  The one where they left our men to perish without fire support because of your rules of engagement.  You sleep with this reality, if you can, you ponder on those men and their lives morning and night, and you lament with the widows and families.  And then you tell me why I should give a shit what you have to say about anything, much less what it takes to keep my children or loved ones safe?

I don’t retreat one iota from what I said there.  McChrystal, with his ROE, is a murderer.  I don’t give a shit what he says about anything.  As for Petraeus, he is an adulterer and that during deployment when men under his charge were suffering and dying.

I’m glad those are the best two men this ungodly bunch could come up with.  Those two men should be embarrassments to the gun controller crowd.  It gives me amusement and pleasure to have them as enemies.  Sometimes good things do happen.

Early Thoughts On The Pulse Nightclub Shooting

BY Herschel Smith
2 weeks, 3 days ago

So at least 50 people are dead, and more than 50 wounded from a single shooter who aligned himself with Sharia law.  Who could have guessed it?

Expect calls for more gun control even as Obama floods the country with Sharia-compliant Muslims.  They are already calling one of his guns an “assault rifle.”  Most of all, expect more calls for controls on the evil “black guns” that enabled him to do this.  Never mind that he could have chosen an M1 and 1911 or multiple revolvers to do the same thing.

As for the person who did this, he was apparently a “security guard” who worked for a company called G4S Security.  Some security company.  Actually in all fairness, they are probably like most of the others, and therein lies the answer to the soccer mom reflexive answer to events like this to get more security.

Here it is soccer mom, are you ready?  Your security guard may be the terrorist, so that gun he’s toting around that makes you feel good and protected, and that makes you feel so uncomfortable when you see open carriers doing it, may just be the instrument of your demise.  You might have just wanted that open carrier after all.  He might just save your life one day.

“Security” means nothing, and the police merely responded to the event and wouldn’t have been able to stop it.  This event proves it.  Be your own security.

DNC Platform Committee Member Doesn’t Think Anyone Should Have A Gun

BY Herschel Smith
3 weeks ago

Dodging questions posed by George Stephanopoulos, Hillary Clinton left no doubt that she doesn’t believe in the individual right to bear arms as recognized by the second amendment.  In fact, the Brady Campaign is already boasting that gun control is a central plank of Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

But it’s one thing to boast, another to have Hillary’s duplicity on the record, but yet another to have the committee members of the DNC say out loud what they really think about guns.  And that’s just what we’ve got.

She’s lying, just like the commentary by this boy I ran across today where he claims that gun free zones save lives.  Note the absolute and unequivocal claims.  No lives can be saved by guns.  No one should have guns.  Only bad things happen when people have guns – never mind that World War II was ended by the power of guns.

But again I say, neither this DNC committee member nor the boy who wrote the commentary, Grayson Everett, believes what is claimed.  You know this because they aren’t advocating for the disarming of police.  They want someone to have guns, just not you.  Only the special people get to have them.  They believe, like all statists, in a monopoly of force.  They get to exercise it, and you don’t.  Because all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than other animals.

New York Times On The NFA For All Firearms

BY Herschel Smith
4 weeks, 1 day ago

Unbelievable.

FOR more than 80 years, the United States has enforced a tough and effective gun control law that most Americans have never heard of. It’s a 1934 measure called the National Firearms Act, and it stands as a stark rebuke to the most sacred precepts of the gun lobby and provides a model we should build on.

Leaders of the National Rifle Association rarely talk about the firearms act, and that’s probably because it imposes precisely the kinds of practical — and constitutional — limits on gun ownership, such as registration and background checks, that the N.R.A. regularly insists will lead to the demise of the Second Amendment.

In speeches, publications and a steady stream of fund-raising literature, the N.R.A. rails against gun registration and gun owner databases. In 2008, the organization’s chief executive, Wayne LaPierre, claimed that photographing and fingerprinting gun owners was “the key gun control scheme” of the candidate Barack Obama, who, Mr. LaPierre predicted, would confiscate every gun in America before the end of his first term as president. The N.R.A. now says that the “real goal” of “gun control supporters” like Hillary Clinton is “ gun confiscation.”

But the longstanding National Firearms Act not only already mandated the registration of all owners of machine guns, short-barreled rifles, silencers and other weapons deemed highly dangerous at the time, it created a national database of those gun owners with their mug shots and fingerprints, and a detailed description of each weapon purchased, including its serial number. Purchasers of “N.F.A. weapons,” as they are known, must pass an F.B.I. background check, be approved by the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms and pay a $200 tax. Stolen weapons must be reported to the A.T.F. immediately — the sort of requirement the N.R.A. opposes for other gun thefts.

The National Firearms Act includes much of what the N.R.A. fights against, but the lobbying group hasn’t directly challenged it. That may be because the firearms database, which includes weapons owned by both private citizens and law enforcement agencies, accounts for only a small percentage of the 300 million firearms estimated to be in private hands. Perhaps it should fight against it, though, because the 1934 law makes a good case against the N.R.A. The more than four million weapons inventoried — including machine guns, missiles, hand grenades and mortars — are the best example we have of gun control that works.

The N.F.A. was designed to control what today’s Justice Department calls “dangerous weapons that empower a single individual to take many lives in a single incident.” Millions of firearms now in private hands, including assault rifles designed for use by the military, are just as lethal as weapons covered by the N.F.A. They should be brought under the act.

Jeff Folloder, the executive director of the N.F.A. Trade and Collectors Association, says his members have learned to live with gun registration and lose no sleep worrying about confiscation. “There are still an enormous number of people who think if they register and purchase an N.F.A. weapon, they’re giving A.T.F. permission to come knock on their door at any time, and that’s just not true,” Mr. Folloder told me. You’re not giving up any rights.”

The author, Alan Berlow, hocks this steaming pile of crap – or something analogous to it – everywhere he goes, from Salon to Politico.  Anyone who is anyone in the progressive community gives him a voice to push his incitement to civil war.

One can always find a tool of the government to bolster his ideas, and this Jeff Folloder character is just that.  I couldn’t be less interested in what he has to say.  But take note that Mr. Berlow doesn’t mention the massive civil disobedience in New York, Connecticut and Oregon from their recent registration and confiscatory schemes.  Neither will the New York Times conduct an investigatory series on that.

For those of us who say “not one more gun control law,” Mr. Berlow is clueless as to the resolve of the patriot community.  If the federal government actually tried to do this, there would be bloodshed and violence, or otherwise simple civil disobedience and refusal to enforce said laws by the law enforcement community because they want to go home to families at the end of the day and not have to look over their shoulder for potential threats at 2300 hours when they take their dog out for the last piss of the night.

It’s sad that the New York Times is so disconnected from the ordinary population that they would give Mr. Berlow yet another opportunity to hock his crap.  The LEOs aren’t going to enforce such a law, the Congress won’t pass such a law, and Mr. Berlow won’t do anything to enforce it himself.  This is just a progressive wet dream – nothing more.

The Australian Gun Control Narrative

BY Herschel Smith
2 months ago

The Sydney Morning Herald:

Australians now own more guns than before the 1996 Port Arthur massacre, according to new research that shows firearm imports hit a record high in 2014-15.

The surge in gun-buying over the past 16 years, which has seen 1.02 million guns brought into the country, has been largely a “gun swap”, according to Philip Alpers, a University of Sydney public health researcher, gun control expert and founding director of GunPolicy.org.

“The proud claim of some Australians that their country has ‘solved the gun problem’ might only be a temporary illusion,” Associate Professor Alpers will write in The Conversation on Thursday, the 20th anniversary of the massacre.

“The million guns destroyed after Port Arthur have been replaced with 1,026,000 new ones. And the surge only shows upward momentum.”

The chart above tracks the steady rise in legal private gun sales since 1999. (New firearms must be imported since firearms are not manufactured in Australia.)

The spike in 1996-97 represents the buying spree triggered by the firearm laws, as banned rapid-fire firearms were replaced with freshly-imported single-shot firearms.

Gun sales in 2014-15 were the highest on record, swelling six-fold compared with 1999, the GunPolicy.org research shows.

With 104,000 guns added last year, the national arsenal is, for the first time in 20 years, bigger than before the 1996 national buyback.

Population growth over the past 20 years means the rate of private gun ownership remains about 23 per cent lower than before the massacre.

Researchers struggle to explain who is buying all these guns and why.

Associate Professor Alpers believes the surge is most likely driven by gun owners increasing their collections, rather than more Australians buying guns.

He points to figures that show the proportion of Australian households with a gun fell by 75 per cent between 1988 and 2005.

“That suggests the people who are buying the guns are people who already have guns. And that fits into the global pattern … [of] a steady and substantial downward trend over the past 30-40 years,” Associate Professor Alpers said.

Psychologist and self-described gun control critic Samara McPhedran, from Griffith University’s Violence Research and Prevention Program, attributes the boom in firearm sales to the rising popularity of shooting sports among a younger demographic.

“I think what the figures show fundamentally is that people are interested in target shooting and hunting, and that interest seems to be growing over time,” she said.

However, others argue the evidence for this is questionable.

One unintended consequence of the post-Port Arthur gun laws was to boost the wealth and widen the influence of shooting clubs, according to Associate Professor Alpers.

The 1996 laws require gun owners to show they have a genuine reason to own a firearm. The easiest way for people in urban areas to do this is through membership in a gun club, Associate Professor Alpers said.

And not just membership but active participation. In NSW, for example, the firearm licensing regulations require members of target shooting clubs to participate at least four times a year. In Victoria, a licensed handgun owner is required to participate in at least 10 shoots a year. The requirements vary by jurisdiction.

“People who never normally went to gun clubs were now going to gun clubs and shooting ranges because the law obliged them to,” Associate Professor Alpers said.

“So the gun lobby has grown in size, political clout and, certainly, in money … as a side-effect of the post-Port Arthur gun laws.”

Such clubs also play a vital role in politicising gun owners and nurturing future ones, Associate Professor Alpers said.

For example, shooters clubs have called for age restrictions on minors firearm licences to be lifted, so children of all ages will be allowed to use weapons while supervised.

“They do that because they’re convinced … that the next generation should love guns as much as they do. It is one of their highest concerns,” Associate Professor Alpers said.

And it’s a strategy aimed at survival. “The single most reliable indicator of gun ownership is whether your father had a gun,” he said.

On the other hand, the link between Australia’s gun-buying surge and gun violence isn’t clear.

After all, rising gun sales are nothing new. “This isn’t a sudden increase. It’s a consistent pattern that we’ve seen over a number of years,” Dr McPhedran said.

“And despite those increases we’ve seen steady declines in firearm misuse.”

It doesn’t fit the narrative, does it?  In Australia, they tried ever so hard to stamp out gun ownership, crime fell, they falsely attributed it to lack of gun ownership, and we know that it is a false attribution because just as soon as they tried to stamp out guns, gun ownership began to rise again while crime fell.  It’s just a nightmare all around for the progressives.

But another very important note should be taken from this report.  In their efforts to stamp out guns, they accidentally aided gun owners in evangelizing and proselytizing non-gun owners.  This is the second – and perhaps most important – progressive failure.

Reader and commenter Fred is fond of saying this.

1. Find young, first time and new shooters. Make sure they have a good time at the range. Explain how hitler/mao/stalin/etc took the guns and killed millions. Offer to help them learn more about shooting and self defense. Rinse, repeat.
2. Make sure reps at all levels know that control/confiscation will not be
tolerated. I’m not afraid to engage my sheriff, local, state and fed reps. I
tell them exactly where I stand. Rinse, repeat.
3. Track, forward and reply to important legislative activities. (see step 2)
4. I personally do not engage the enemy directly. They are illegitimate. I stay on offense, always.

Just so.  Don’t back down one inch.  Work the people, and do it better than the progressives do.  The true gun confiscators are few and far between.  Few people want to enact meaningless bans of magazines, bans they know will bring massive non-compliance, and those monkeys who did the grabbing also don’t want to have to “watch their six” at night when they take their dog out to piss before bed.  They know we might be there in the dark.  But it may not come to this.  The great middle will ultimately decide whether we have to go to fisticuffs over the progressive wet dream of full-orbed statism.  They are leaning our direction.

This is fertile ground.  Plow it, seed it, fertilize it, water it, reap it.

Weapon Concealment In A Non-Permissive Environment

BY Herschel Smith
2 months, 1 week ago

Greg Ellifritz:

Last weekend I enjoyed the days off from my police and teaching jobs by going to a couple of concerts.  I really enjoy seeing live music, but I don’t enjoy the “security” ordeals at most live music venues.  One of the venues I attended did patdown searches.  The other used a wand metal detector.  No weapons allowed.  No exceptions…not even for sworn police officers.

That presented me with a dilemma.  While state law allows me to carry into both venues, I would be denied entrance if a weapon was found on my person during the searches.  I wasn’t breaking the law by entering with a firearm, but I would be violating the venue’s policies and would be kicked out of the show.

Locations like these, where one is legally able to carry a weapon, but is denied that right by a company policy are often referred to as being “Non-Permissive Environments.”  Some of you no doubt have experience with such locations.  Many times the non-permissive environment is the firearm owner’s workplace.  Workers in high paying careers don’t want to take the chance of losing their employment if they carry a weapon against company policy.

There is another option.  One can carry a weapon into these locations without consequences so long as he is not caught!  Alternate tactics and carry methods must be employed, but it is entirely possible to pull off with just a little effort and some good bluffing abilities.  I wasn’t about to attend a concert surrounded by 10,000 drunken fans without having the ability to protect myself and my girlfriend.  In order to be armed, I had to carry in such a way that my weapons wouldn’t be detected by security.  I’m happy to say that I attended both events armed with both a gun and a couple knives.

Here’s how I did it….

[ … ]

Don’t carry a weapon in any place where you are prohibited by law from doing so.  Use these techniques only in places where it is LEGAL, but against company policy, to carry a weapon.

I seriously doubt that the writer can name instances where it is legal but against policy and posting to carry weapons, whether an off duty LEO or a CHP holder.  And if it was legal for him to be there with a weapon, why did he have to hide it?  Oh, because they would have thrown him out.  Okay, why?  Because they posted and had corporate policy simply because they can, because it’s their property and not his.

The cop carried concealed, off duty, onto private property where it was against policy [and likely posted] for him to have a weapon.  And until proven to be legal, I assume that this is illegal.  I know of no exceptions that stipulate that it’s legal if you can get away with it.

Hey, I wonder whether this same cop, on duty, would turn his head and let someone go because they carried onto property where it was against policy and posted that no weapons were allowed?  Would this same cop turn a blind eye to the guy who just wanted to be able to protect himself like the cop wanted means of self defense at these concerts?  Or is he willing to risk this only because he is a LEO and gets special consideration?

And so even though he doesn’t specifically say so, he recommends breaking the law, but it’s all okay because he says he isn’t recommending that you break the law.  As for me, I am not weighing in on whether you should carry against policy and posting.  I’m saying that this dual standard turns me off.  It left a very bitter taste with me.  Comments are closed at his article.

You’re Not Qualified To Assess Your Right To Own A Gun Because You’re A Man

BY Herschel Smith
2 months, 1 week ago

Politico:

New York’s junior senator, a passionate Clinton backer and feminist, broke down during an emotional sit-down here for POLITICO’s “Off Message” podcast when I asked her about her own conversion from an upstate House member with a 100 percent NRA rating (who once stored a shotgun under her bed) to an upper-chamber anti-gun crusader.

“I was somebody who was not as focused on this, as I should have been, as a House member. Meeting these families devastated me, broke my heart,” said Gillibrand, when I suggested she switched positions as a matter of political expediency in a deep-blue state where most Democrats favor stringent gun restrictions.

Gillibrand, a 49-year-old mother of two young sons not prone to public expressions of emotion, began to cry in mid-sentence. “It’s so crippling — I mean, I sat down with a mother last week in Brooklyn, and she lost her 4-year-old baby … she took her kid to a park,” she said. “Every mom takes their kid to a park. And she took her kid to a park and the kid was killed, a baby, a 4-year-old. … [Sanders] doesn’t have the sensitivity he needs to the horror that is happening in these families. I just don’t think he’s fully getting how horrible it is for these families.”

[ … ]

Her critics (some of them envious members of the state’s uniformly liberal congressional delegation) suggested her wedding with the gun control movement was of the shotgun variety.

But Gillibrand says her whipsaw transformation was genuine. Her mostly white, semi-rural district outside the state capital closely resembles Sanders’ Vermont, and Gillibrand says she’d simply never seen the impact of guns in big cities. She took her first step away from the NRA by introducing a gun-trafficking bill at the behest of former Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s police commissioner, Ray Kelly.

Whatever her initial motivations, Gillibrand possesses the zeal of the converted and sees guns as the issue that will allow Clinton to generate the kind of enthusiasm for her candidacy — especially among women — that has thus far been missing from her candidacy. “This debate is relegated to the men. It’s about hunting? It has nothing to do with hunting,” she said. “Nothing in this debate has to do with hunting, and nothing in this debate has to do with the Second Amendment rights. Nothing. … I think — I see the world in the lens of women’s issues. I’m making everything a woman’s issue. I want guns to be a woman’s issue.”

Clinton, who has been campaigning with African-American mothers whose kids were killed in gun crimes, isn’t going quite far enough, Gillibrand says. She wants a “women’s crusade” on the issue, adding that Clinton “might not have made that connection in her own mind. I’ve made that connection.”

The gun control debate has nothing to do with the second amendment.  Nothing.  Because she says so.  It has to do with being a woman, because only if you’re a woman can you appropriately feel the pain of others and understand what needs to be done to bring motherly control into people’s lives.  She says so.  She’s making it that way.  So don’t confuse the issue for her or anyone else.  Don’t bring up that this motherly control doesn’t have any affect on criminals.  It’s simple, and if you can’t understand that it’s simple, then you’re a man and you just don’t care about women’s issues.

That this is self referentially incoherent doesn’t matter.  If you’re a man, shut up, she argues, just because – and anyway she is a woman and you’re not.  It’s that simple.  This is a woman’s issue.  How does the NRA feel about that A rating now?

Gun Control Explained

BY Herschel Smith
2 months, 1 week ago

Judge Barbara Bellis Says Sandy Hook Families’ Lawsuit Against Remington Goes Forward

BY Herschel Smith
2 months, 2 weeks ago

Hartford Courant:

Superior Court judge has denied a motion to dismiss a lawsuit accusing gun makers and sellers of liability in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, saying the broad immunity granted to the firearms industry does not strip the court of jurisdiction to hear the claim.

While the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act generally insulates gun companies from liability, Judge Barbara Bellis said the law could be used to attack the legal sufficiency of the plaintiffs’ claims, but not to have the case thrown out at this early stage.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs – nine victims’ families and an administrator who was shot and survived – declared the ruling a major win, as victories against firearms companies are extremely rare. But the ruling does not preclude the defendants from reasserting their claims of immunity under federal law in a future motion.

The lawsuit accuses the Remington Arms Co. and other defendants of negligently selling to civilians a weapon the plaintiffs claim is suitable only for the military and law enforcement. At a hearing in February, Bridgeport lawyer Josh Koskoff argued against dismissing the case, saying the lawsuit’s claim of “negligent entrustment” is an exception to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

But Bellis ruled on a narrower issue, agreeing with the plaintiffs that she has jurisdiction to continue with the case, but not ruling on whether the federal law blocks the plaintiffs from pursuing their claim.

“At this juncture,” Bellis wrote, “the court need not and will not consider the merits of the plaintiffs’ negligent entrustment theory.”

Well, there may be a little more to what the judge concluded than that.  According to the AP, she concluded that the law “does not prevent lawyers for the families of Sandy Hook victims from arguing that the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle is a military weapon and should not have been sold to civilians.”  Selling an AR-15 to civilians is their equivalent of “negligent entrustment.”  The judge found that the lawyers may indeed argue that, and that she shouldn’t rule at the present on the appropriateness of said argument.  But since this is all covered by a law, let’s see what the law says.

(5) Businesses in the United States that are engaged in interstate and foreign commerce through the lawful design, manufacture, marketing, distribution, importation, or sale to the public of firearms or ammunition products that have been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce are not, and should not, be liable for the harm caused by those who criminally or unlawfully misuse firearm products or ammunition products that function as designed and intended.

(6) The possibility of imposing liability on an entire industry for harm that is solely caused by others is an abuse of the legal system, erodes public confidence in our Nation’s laws, threatens the diminution of a basic constitutional right and civil liberty, invites the disassembly and destabilization of other industries and economic sectors lawfully competing in the free enterprise system of the United States, and constitutes an unreasonable burden on interstate and foreign commerce of the United States.

(7) The liability actions commenced or contemplated by the Federal Government, States, municipalities, and private interest groups and others are based on theories without foundation in hundreds of years of the common law and jurisprudence of the United States and do not represent a bona fide expansion of the common law. The possible sustaining of these actions by a maverick judicial officer or petit jury would expand civil liability in a manner never contemplated by the framers of the Constitution, by Congress, or by the legislatures of the several States. Such an expansion of liability would constitute a deprivation of the rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to a citizen of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

(8) The liability actions commenced or contemplated by the Federal Government, States, municipalities, private interest groups and others attempt to use the judicial branch to circumvent the Legislative branch of government to regulate interstate and foreign commerce through judgments and judicial decrees thereby threatening the Separation of Powers doctrine and weakening and undermining important principles of federalism, State sovereignty and comity between the sister States.

It’s difficult to imagine a clearer statement than that.  The Congress intended for all judicial actions against firearms manufacturers to fail, excepting what they called “negligent entrustment.”  Further into the law, one reads just what that means, and it is obviously intended only to apply to known cases of sales to criminals who intended to perpetrate crimes with those weapons, instances where the seller knew or should have known the intent (presumably because he heard it directly from the buyer).

It doesn’t include all sales of certain categories of firearms to certain categories of the population, such as AR-15s sold to civilians.  Additionally, the notion that because one wants to purchase an AR-15 means that he wants to perpetrate some sort of crime is prima facie absurd.  We’ve discussed the fact that there is virtually no distinction between civilian and military firearms.  AR-15s are currently ubiquitous in America, and rarely are they used to perpetrate crimes.  Pistols on the battlefield and in the homes of America look the same because they are the same, unless one wants to point out that most of the time civilians own better weapons.

The U.S. Marine Corps took Benelli shotguns into Now Zad for house clearing, and the same Marine Corps took Remington 700s and Winchester bolt action guns into Iraq as designated marksman and sniper rifles.  Excluding fully automatic crew served weapons (along with the fact that M4s are selective fire), the only firearms I can find still in considerable use among the civilian population that isn’t in use in the military is the revolver, which is a shame given the beautiful wheel guns being made at the Smith & Wesson performance center.

The case is absurd, and the judge should certainly have dismissed it with prejudice.  And take note of one of the very reasons stated by the Congress for protection of firearms manufacturers, i.e., maverick judicial officer[s].  Judge Barbara Bellis is a maverick judicial officer (which I take to include both prosecutors and judges).  She is allowing her political views to cloud her judgment.

Uncle thinks this argument is a losing argument.  I guess I have to disagree.  In a dysfunctional judicial system, anything can happen.  It should be a losing argument.  David French thinks we should watch this one carefully.  I agree.  Right along with impeaching the judge (or if you wish, tar and feathers is a good approach too).


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 (30)
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 (65)
Arghandab River Valley (1)
Arlington Cemetery (2)
Army (41)
Assassinations (2)
Assault Weapon Ban (26)
Australian Army (5)
Azerbaijan (4)
Backpacking (2)
Badr Organization (8)
Baitullah Mehsud (21)
Basra (17)
BATFE (49)
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 (2)
Featured (176)
Federal Firearms Laws (16)
Financing the Taliban (2)
Firearms (434)
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 (393)
Guns (916)
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 (58)
Israel (18)
Jaish al Mahdi (21)
Jalalabad (1)
Japan (2)
Jihadists (76)
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 (10)
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 (28)
Petraeus (14)
Pictures (1)
Piracy (13)
Pistol (2)
Police (195)
Police in COIN (3)
Policy (15)
Politics (237)
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 (105)
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 (155)
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)

about · archives · contact · register

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