Archive for the 'Firearms' Category

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:

I will be meeting with the NRA, who has endorsed me, about not allowing people on the terrorist watch list, or the no fly list, to buy guns.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The Atlantic:

After a shooting, once the dust has settled, and the initial shock and panic has abated somewhat, fearful minds begin to cast about for explanations. Given the frequency with which gun deaths occur in the United States, “Why did this happen?” and “Who could do something like this?” are questions the country faces with grim regularity.

Unfortunately, a consistent and dangerous narrative has emerged—an explanation all-too-readily at hand when a mass shooting or other violent tragedy occurs: The perpetrator must have been mentally ill.

“We have a strong responsibility as researchers who study mental illness to try to debunk that myth,” says Jeffrey Swanson, a professor of psychiatry at Duke University. “I say as loudly and as strongly and as frequently as I can, that mental illness is not a very big part of the problem of gun violence in the United States.”

The overwhelming majority of people with mental illnesses are not violent, just like the overwhelming majority of all people are not violent. Only 4 percent of the violence—not just gun violence, but any kind—in the United States is attributable to schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or depression (the three most-cited mental illnesses in conjunction with violence). In other words, 96 percent of the violence in America has nothing to do with mental illness.

A study from 1998 that followed patients released from psychiatric hospitals found that they were no more prone to violence than other people in their communities—unless they also had a substance abuse problem. So mental illness alone was not a risk factor for violence in this study.

Those are the facts. But cultural narratives are often more powerful than facts, and that 4 percent gets overblown in people’s minds.

It’s all as I have pointed out before (see the extensive links provided).

I don’t think it has anything whatsoever to do with statistics being overblown.  People are generally smarter than that.  The problem is always world and life view, or presuppositions.  If you reject the Biblical account of the origins of evil and the state of mankind, you have to have another explanation.  Psychiatry serves that role, with the mental health physician playing the village witch doctor for the CLEO to decide who gets to have concealed handgun permits. and recommending what kind of laws we have on the books.

To be sure, Mr. Swanson doesn’t have one iota of concern for gun rights.  His concern is for the rights of people who have been diagnosed with mental illness.  There’s nothing wrong with that.  It is a legitimate project.  And it’s just as legitimate to speak out protecting gun rights.

But what I want to emphasize is that it’s about more than speaking out for gun rights.  If you have no coherent and compelling world and life view, you’ll be thrown about by the wind.  It’s just as legitimate to say that “the fly on the wall appears to me greenly and that justifies shooting everyone with the last name of Jones every other Thursday” as it is to say that a mental illness had to do with my violence.  If you have no framework for interpretation, you may as well accept the pronouncements of the village witch doctor.

If you believe the Scriptural account of why man does evil, you have an explanation and remedy (temporal and eternal) that isn’t a corollary to any illness mental health professionals may or may not diagnose.  Here I’m trying to treat the root philosophical malady rather than merely trying stomp on people who are confused.  For the statists and collectivists, it’s never about guns.  It’s always and forever about control.  For the soccer mom, it’s about trying to live in a world she doesn’t understand.

If you believe in the duty of self defense, don’t ever make your rights a function of statists or confused soccer moms.  There is enough of both to destroy your liberty.

Mass Transit:

During the 2016 American Public Transportation Association (APTA) Bus & Paratransit Conference there was an open discussion hosted on concealed and open carry firearm laws. Firearm carry laws differ from state to state, but the biggest highlight was educating operators on those laws — to ensure that they properly address the situation.

Sgt. Charles Rappleyea, the police liaison for Charlotte Area Transit System (CATS) said that Charlotte has a no carry law for all public transit. When they do get a call about someone with a weapon he said that they rarely have a problem.

“When we do, they’re often criminals,” said Rappleyea. “Everyone that we’ve encountered with a concealed permit, we haven’t had a problem.”

Whereas in Dallas, Texas, they have an open carry law. James Spiller, the chief of police and emergency management for Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART), explained for people with open carry licenses — their gun must be in a holster. With the law it was important to educate the public on the rules.

“In Texas, if they are open carry, as a police officer I can’t just walk up and ask them if they have a licence without probable cause,” explained Spiller.

Which raises the question, how do transit operators determine if the person boarding their bus or train with a firearm is legally authorized to do so?

“They have a button, if they’re uncomfortable they can press the button to show ‘hey someone has boarded with a gun’.”

Sorry folks, but feeling “uncomfortable” isn’t a good enough reason.  And contrary to the cited article, it’s not only the police in Texas that cannot just walk up to someone without probable cause.  All stops must be valid “Terry stops.”

As we’ve noted before, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a rebuke to the Charlotte Mecklenburg Police Department in the case of United States Versus Black.

Nathaniel Black was part of a group of men in Charlotte, North Carolina who local police officers suspected might be engaged in criminal activity.  In particular, Officers suspected that after seeing one of the men openly carrying a firearm – which was legal in North Carolina – that there was most likely another firearm present.  When police began frisking the men one by one, Mr. Black wished to leave, but was told he was not free to leave.  Officers chased Mr. Black and discovered that he possessed a firearm; it was later discovered that he was a previously convicted felon.  Mr. Black was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm.  Before the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Mr. Black moved to suppress the evidence against him.  His suppression motion was denied, he entered a guilty plea preserving a right to appeal the denial of the suppression motion, and he was sentenced to fifteen (15) years imprisonment.  The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, however, determined that the officers had improperly seized Mr. Black, suppressed the evidence against him, and vacated his sentence.

The upshot of this ruling means that the conduct of an action that is perfectly legal doesn’t and can never constitute reasonable suspicion that a crime has been or is being committed.  And yet apparently the Charlotte Mecklenburg police are still stopping people who are in the process of open carry and asking for concealed handgun permits, contrary to both established law (since N.C. is a traditional open carry state) and court decision.

Why is this happening?  What possible excuse can CMPD have for this behavior?  Moreover, I think Sgt. Charles Rappleyea isn’t being forthcoming.  I think he’s mistaken, or not telling the truth.  I think the CMPD has no data on how many stops they have made on mass transit for open carry (stops which are contrary to or not in accordance with the law) and how many of those stops involved concealed handgun permit holders (besides, one doesn’t need a CHP to legally openly carry in N.C.).  And I think he’s not being honest about the judgment that while CHP holders aren’t a problem, there are actual criminals who are openly carrying firearms in mass transit situations.  In fact, I doubt that the CMPD has had any documented stops of criminals openly carrying on board bus or rail.  Is the CMPD “fabulating” for the benefit of the conference?

If so, the CMPD can correct me here, but in the absence of such correction, I’ll stick to my guns – pardon the pun.

KVUE.com:

Nearly six months ago, licensed open carry-gun owners in Texas were granted the privilege to carry their guns on their hip. Before the legislation’s passing, gun opponents feared it would cause problems for law enforcement.

So, has the public flooded law enforcement with complaints?

“As it turned out, we didn’t get any,” said Roger Wade, the spokesperson for the Travis County Sheriff’s Office.

In preparation of open carry, the Travis County created a special code to track complaints, but hasn’t had any calls to start using it.

Oooo!  A special code for open carriers.  Because it’s so special and everything.

“People were scared of people walking up carrying guns. What they don’t realize is, is that there are a lot of people carry guns, you have no idea are carrying guns,” said Wade.

The KVUE Defenders checked with some of the largest law enforcement agencies in Texas: Austin and Dallas Police Departments, and sheriff’s offices in Hays County, Williamson County, Bastrop County, Bexar County and Harris County. All of the agencies report little to no complaints from the public.

“When the Texas legislature was getting ready to pass open carry last year, we heard a lot of claims from the gun control crowd saying it was going to turn into the wild, wild west, and that just hasn’t happened here,” said Lars Dalseide, spokesperson for the National Rifle Association.

It’s too early to determine if open carry has influenced violent crime in Texas. According to crime reports though, Oklahoma (-3.97 percent) and Tennessee (-3.92 percent) both saw violent crime slightly decrease after open carry became legal.

“These people are safe, responsible gun owners and they go through a lot of trouble to make sure they get the proper licensing from the state,” said Dalseide.

Gun rights groups say they’re not done. They plan to push lawmakers to pass legislation making gun ownership a constitutional right, which would allow owners to own a gun without a license.

Yes, constitutional carry.  This is a good next step.  As for the notion that the wild, wild West hasn’t obtained, I think someone said exactly that and predicted exactly what has come to pass.

Again, as a citizen of a traditional open carry state, I’m going to tell you what’s going to happen here.  Nothing.  That’s right, nothing.  Life will continue in the lone star state unabated, and the doomsday predictions of law enforcement and the progressives will go down as a monument to their hatred of the common man.

I’ll send the bill for my consultative services tomorrow.

First of all, we all know that the major networks are all controlled by communists.  HBO is no exception, and as best as I can tell, is nothing but trash.  I would have never agreed to speak to them.  Courtesy of The Firearm Blog, here is Jim Sullivan on the AR-15.

JIM SULLIVAN: “The hits on the enemy, were just fatal– almost anywhere. One guy had been hit in the ankle, and it killed him.”

DAVID SCOTT: “Why?”

JIM SULLIVAN: “They couldn’t stop the bleeding. I mean, there was just so much damage.”
DAVID SCOTT: “No matter where you hit the enemy, you’d take him off the battlefield.”

JIM SULLIVAN: “That’s right. It was more lethal than any cartridge that was fired by any army in, in history.”

[ … ]

DAVID SCOTT: “Did you ever imagine—“

JIM SULLIVAN: “No. Never even considered that—it had any civilian application.”

DAVID SCOTT: “Concern you at all?”

JIM SULLIVAN: “Of course, everybody gets concerned when there’s one of these school issues where children are killed by an AR-15. I mean, that’s sickening. But that was never the intended purpose. Civilian sales was never the intended purpose.

He responded to HBO’s editing here.  He claims himself (and is claimed by others) to be “designer” of the AR-15.  He (and others) took a Eugene Stoner design and adapted it for the 0.223.

So as to his claim, whatever.

Again I say, whatever.  Yawn.  And as for whatever response he would make of the HBO show, I would never have even said that I was “concerned” about any particular gun or cartridge being used in some crime or other.  It doesn’t matter, because another gun or cartridge could have been used, and another will be used somewhere, and that, very soon.

And I would have never said that I saw no “civilian” application to the 5.56 mm NATO cartridge, because hunting, and self defense, and the second amendment remedy for tyrants who would harm us and our families.  That’s why.  Because.

So you see, I would never have been so gullible and stupid to say such things.  They’re wrong.  And I would never have been so gullible and stupid to speak to HBO without total control over the editing, by contract witnessed and drawn up by the best legal minds money could buy.

And I would always do my utmost to speak of Eugene Stoner with hushed reverence.  And John Moses Browning.  And Eugene Stoner.  But I said Eugene’s name already.

So there.  I’m not impressed with Jim’s qualifications about the HBO editing process.  And you know Jim, you just may have contributed to more gun control in the future, and you may have given the lawyers for the Sandy Hook parents more to work with in their lawsuit against Remington.  How sad.

As for The Firearm Blog, they make hay out of the fact that it’s about firearms only.  No politics, nothing to muddle the beauty of the gun.  And then this.  Where Jim Sullivan craps on the AR-15 and TFB talks about the HBO show.  And thus the beauty of the gun is broken by politics, and so TFB broke down and did something other than what they claim.

I’ve seen other instances as well.  And it’s okay with me, since I always thought that the claim NOT to dabble in politics was mistaken and theatrical anyway.  Good grief.  Politics is another name for ethics in the categories of philosophy (if you’ve ever read any legitimate texts in philosophy like Frederick Copleston).  Let’s just not pretend that TFB is better than everyone else or “above the fray” for not addressing the pressing issues of our time.

Via reporter Mack, opinion from Virginia:

The comments are a hoot.  Well Kimberly, it ain’t no skin off of my back.  I’ve said before many times that I would prefer to open carry simply because of the level of comfort having to do with carrying OWB versus IWB.  It is my understanding that two centuries ago it was considered dishonorable to conceal a weapon anyway.  Honorable men displayed weapons for all to see.

But the problem is this.  Suppose we stipulate that such a law wouldn’t infringe upon a right (a point I do not grant, by the way, but stipulate for the sake of argument).  Making this law doesn’t lead to observance of that law, the deadly weakness of all such progressive social planning.  Setting the regulation in place does nothing to effect compliance, because … ahem … the weapon would be concealed, not openly displayed.

In other words, such a law would only affect peaceable, law abiding men, not criminals who were never going to obey the law regardless of what it says.  So you see Kimberly, your proposed law does no more than the opposite proposal does for the folks who fear the public carrying of weapons.  Yes, that’s right, Kimberly.  Some people want to prohibit what you want to encourage.

They want to prohibit open carry because the law forces hiding the weapon, and since it is out of sight they can pretend that it doesn’t exist.  You want to force open carry by law so that you can pretend that concealed weapons don’t exist.  In either case, this is a psychological problem, one which you ought to take up with your pastor or church counselor rather than the state legislature.

Via Uncle, this:

A wheelchair-bound Vietnam veteran fatally shot a man who forced his way into the veteran’s residence, authorities said.

Eddie Frank Smith, 69, was at home in Monticello on Thursday about 9 p.m. when Andre Smith, 22, (no known relation), forced his way into Eddie Frank Smith’s home through a rear door, according to a media release from the Georgia Bureau of Investigation.

When Eddie Frank Smith went to investigate, Andre Smith lunged toward the resident, who shot the intruder once in the chest, according to the GBI.

The intruder ran away and collapsed about 100 yards from the residence. Both Eddie Frank Smith and neighbors called 911. Andre Smith later died at Jasper Memorial Hospital.

There are some less than thoughtful “Christians” who think maybe Mr. Smith should have just sat there and perished, sort of like women who are being raped should just spread their legs and take it rather than defend themselves.  To them, God apparently wants it that way.