Archive for the 'Firearms' Category

I had previously said “Universal background checks have nothing whatsoever to do with keeping weapons out of the hands of criminals, or a reduction in violence of any sort.  The system, if set up, is a predecessor and necessary prerequisite to a national gun registry.”

Feinstein’s proposals:

The bill will exempt firearms used for hunting and will grandfather in guns and magazines owned before the law’s potential enactment. However, the grandfathered weapons will be logged in a national registry.

A national gun registry – it’s one of the touchstones of success for the statists.  And universal background checks and a national gun registry go together like a hand in a glove.  When they make laws they are looking long term.  In fact, take note of one part of her legislation.

The legislation being pushed by Feinstein — who has long history of calling for gun bans — would prohibit the sale, transfer, importation and manufacture of certain firearms.

Neocon Charles Krauthammer (no friend to the second amendment) theorized the approach for them.

It is simply crazy for a country as modern, industrial, advanced and now crowded as the United States to carry on its frontier infatuation with guns. Yes, we are a young country but the frontier has been closed for 100 years.

Ultimately, a civilized society must disarm its citizenry if it is to have a modicum of domestic tranquility of the kind enjoyed in sister democracies like Canada and Britain. Given the frontier history and individualist ideology of the United States, however, this will not come easily. It certainly cannot be done radically.

It will probably take one, maybe two generations. It might be 50 years before the United States gets to where Britain is today.

Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic – purely symbolic – move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation. Its purpose is to spark debate, highlight the issue, make the case that the arms race between criminals and citizens is as dangerous as it is pointless.

De-escalation begins with a change in mentality. And that change in mentality starts with the symbolic yielding of certain types of weapons. The real steps, like the banning of handguns, will never occur unless this one is taken first, and even then not for decades.

What needs to happen before this change in mentality can occur? What must occur first – and this is where liberals are fighting the gun control issue from the wrong end – is a decrease in crime. So long as crime is ubiquitous, so long as Americans cannot entrust their personal safety to the authorities, they will never agree to disarm. There will be no gun control before there is real crime control.

Universal background checks and assault weapon bans are mere window dressing.  The goal is to desensitize the public and cause this to occur over one or two generations.  You can keep the rifle you just purchased.  But you must register it with the federal government and you cannot bequeath it to your children or grandchildren.  Thus do they wish to accomplish confiscation by means other than sending SWAT teams into your home.  The question is, will you let them?

In order to demonstrate my good-natured and cooperative spirit concerning new firearms regulations, with Jay Carney and Mr. Obama I’ve come out strongly against High Capacity Magazine Clips, like this:

From National Journal, here is yet another potentially problematic feature of firearms that needs to be regulated.

It will also be tricky to determine just how many automatic bullets should be allowed in a rapid-fire magazine clip. Three? Ten? Twenty? Democrats in favor of restricting high-capacity magazines say that three bullets is enough to kill a duck or a quail. Fair enough, but gun enthusiasts say that 10 or 20 rounds makes more sense for people who possess firearms for self-defense purposes. How do negotiators strike a deal on that one?

I’ll tell you how.  We firearms owners stipulate that automatic bullets in rapid-fire magazine clips won’t be tolerated.  Now that I’ve compromised and met my detractors in the middle, be warned and walk with caution.

I won’t tolerate any more challenges to or infringements upon my second amendment rights and God-given duty of self defense.  And just to let you know that I’m serious, remember that I have guns and I’m willing to use them.  No, seriously.  I’m willing to use them to make sure this doesn’t happen.

Prior: High Magazine Clips And The Shoulder Thing That Goes Up

Texas may soon get some company in its resistance to tyranny.  First, to Alaska.

President Barack Obama yesterday signed off on nearly two dozen executive orders meant to curb gun violence. These orders launch a gun ownership safety campaign, require the Centers for Disease Control to examine the causes of gun violence, and call for law enforcement officials to receive better training for active shooter scenarios.

He also called on Congress to pass a ban on assault weapons. But Alaska lawmakers have introduced a bill that would circumvent any stronger gun control measures.

The Alaska Firearms Freedom Act would make it a crime to enforce any federal prohibitions on things like assault rifles and high-capacity gun magazines. A previous version of the bill already passed the House in 2010, and similar legislation is being introduced in states like Texas and Wyoming.

Then to Missouri.

Introduced by Missouri State Representative Casey Guernsey, with 61 co-sponsors, is the Missouri 2nd Amendment Preservation Act. House Bill 170 (HB170) would nullify any and all federal acts, orders, laws, statutes, rules, or regulations of the federal government on personal firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition.

The bill states, in part:

“Any official, agent, or employee of the federal government who enforces or attempts to enforce any act, order, law, statute, rule, or regulation of the federal government upon a personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is owned or manufactured commercially or privately in the state of Missouri and that remains exclusively within the borders of the state of Missouri shall be guilty of a class D felony.”

A class D felony in Missouri carries a prison sentence of up to 4 years.

While a number of states, including Wyoming, South Carolina, Indiana, and others – are looking to go head to head with the feds on specific issues under the 2nd amendment, the Missouri legislation is the strongest introduced anywhere in the country so far.

Good.  Then Texas, Alaska and Missouri can share operating experience in their opposition to tyranny.

Gun owners could soon find themselves paying a penalty for their weapons.  Witness the following thought experiment at San Francisco Chronicle:

Mandatory insurance needs to enter the post-Newtown debate about guns. Requiring gun owners to carry liability insurance, as many states require vehicle owners to do, is not a magic bullet to solve the problem that leads to 30,000 dead Americans every year. But it is a tactic that, for a number of reasons, could have significant beneficial impact.

First, a well-drafted state law requiring gun owners to show proof of insurance will raise the cost of gun ownership. But insurance companies will offer rates that take into account the risk posed by each gun and gun owner, just as there are differential premiums for young drivers and sports cars. Thus gun owners will have a financial incentive to think about and implement safety measures, some of which would surely be developed in response to insurance-cost-driven demand.

See a similar commentary by Isa-Lee Wolf.  It sounds like Marsha Cohen is all proud of herself, even though I’ve seen this idea floated several times in the last couple of weeks.  But there’s only one problem with this approach.  It runs squarely into the constitution.  Let’s rehearse recent history for a moment.  Right on the heels of the Supreme Court Heller ruling, the city of Chicago, still recalcitrant, forbade firearms ownership within its jurisdiction unless the applicant practiced and qualified at a range also within its jurisdiction, and then simultaneously regulated ranges within its jurisdiction out of business.  The Seventh Circuit didn’t like this very much, and Glenn Reynolds observes of this particular ruling, “The right to practice at a firing range, then, is at the very least one of the aspects of the Second Amendment right to arms that reinforces its core purpose.”  Glenn further observes that:

… punitive controls on ammunition, designed to make gun ownership or shooting prohibitively expensive or difficult, would be unlikely to pass constitutional muster. If firing-range regulations that impose burdens on target practice violate the Second Amendment, then restrictions with a similar effect—such as the dollar-per-bullet tax proposed by a Baltimore mayoral candidate—would also constitute violations, it seems. Making it “difficult to buy bullets in the city”—the avowed purpose of the tax—would seem to be precisely the sort of purposeful discrimination that would violate the Second Amendment. It might even be analogized to discriminatory taxes on newsprint, or the licensing of newsracks, both of which have been found to constitute excessive burdens on First Amendment rights.

And if this is so, then “punitive” regulations or discriminatory taxes or burdens (or insurance) would seem to fall under the same prohibition.  At the very least, it isn’t obvious that this would be acceptable to the courts, and it hasn’t been directly adjudicated.

Finally, State Farm has voluntarily considered such proposals.

Gun safety in the home hasn’t been discussed much in the recent national conversation on gun violence, but the head of the nation’s largest homeowners and auto insurance company acknowledges that it could be.

Edward B. Rust Jr., CEO and chairman of the board of State Farm Mutual Insurance Co., said this week that gun ownership “could be among a multitude of things” considered among the risk factors used by insurance companies to determine the cost of homeowners insurance policies. “But,” he added, “whether someone owns a gun doesn’t necessarily make them a risk. . . . The bigger debate is, Are people competent in gun ownership?”

This strikes me as silly as charging customers higher premiums if they happen to have a Doberman or German Shepherd in their home.  Actuarial mathematicians have more important things to worry with, and penalizing firearms owners also seems to be a bad way to start a boycott against your company.

Gun owners’ insurance.  An idea whose time has come – and gone – and never really was sensible to begin with.

I see that use of the search words “Hitler Gun Control” has recently become popular.  Of course it has.  And this is an easy question to answer.  The former assault weapons ban and the proposed assault weapons ban find their roots in Nazi Germany, as I have pointed out before.

This comprehensive study shows that Hitler’s Nazi Germany prohibited at least the following things: silencers, tactical lights on weapons, high capacity magazines (more than five rounds) and telescoping stocks.

The Obama administration.  Following the lead of Nazi Germany since January 20, 2009.

UPDATE #1: This is rich.  Alex Seitz-Wald writing with Salon has penned a piece entitled The Hitler Gun Control Lie.  Let’s examine just a bit of it.

This week, people were shocked when the Drudge Report posted a giant picture of Hitler over a headline speculating that the White House will proceed with executive orders to limit access to firearms. The proposed orders are exceedingly tame, but Drudge’s reaction is actually a common conservative response to any invocation of gun control.

The NRA, Fox News, Fox News (again), Alex Jones, email chains, Joe “the Plumber” Wurzelbacher, Gun Owners of America, etc., all agree that gun control was critical to Hitler’s rise to power. Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (“America’s most aggressive defender of firearms ownership”) is built almost exclusively around this notion, popularizing posters of Hitler giving the Nazi salute next to the text: “All in favor of ‘gun control’ raise your right hand.”

In his 1994 book, NRA head Wayne LaPierre dwelled on the Hitler meme at length, writing: “In Germany, Jewish extermination began with the Nazi Weapon Law of 1938, signed by Adolf Hitler.”

And it makes a certain amount of intuitive sense: If you’re going to impose a brutal authoritarian regime on your populace, better to disarm them first so they can’t fight back.

Unfortunately for LaPierre et al., the notion that Hitler confiscated everyone’s guns is mostly bogus. And the ancillary claim that Jews could have stopped the Holocaust with more guns doesn’t make any sense at all if you think about it for more than a minute.

University of Chicago law professor Bernard Harcourt explored this myth in depth in a 2004 article published in the Fordham Law Review. As it turns out, the Weimar Republic, the German government that immediately preceded Hitler’s, actually had tougher gun laws than the Nazi regime. After its defeat in World War I, and agreeing to the harsh surrender terms laid out in the Treaty of Versailles, the German legislature in 1919 passed a law that effectively banned all private firearm possession, leading the government to confiscate guns already in circulation. In 1928, the Reichstag relaxed the regulation a bit, but put in place a strict registration regime that required citizens to acquire separate permits to own guns, sell them or carry them.

The 1938 law signed by Hitler that LaPierre mentions in his book basically does the opposite of what he says it did. “The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition,” Harcourt wrote.

What happens next would be amusing if it wasn’t such a horrible train wreck.

Meanwhile, many more categories of people, including Nazi party members, were exempted from gun ownership regulations altogether, while the legal age of purchase was lowered from 20 to 18, and permit lengths were extended from one year to three years.  The law did prohibit Jews and other persecuted classes from owning guns, but this should not be an indictment of gun control in general.

Alex acknowledges that his interpretation might be a bit problematic, and then in the span of two sentences, he demolishes his own argument.  More to the point, and again referring to the paper I cited above (Stephen P. Halbrook, Nazi Firearms Laws And The Disarming Of The German Jews):

… the Nazi seizure of power in 1933 was consolidated by massive searches and seizures of firearms from political opponents, who were invariably described as “communists.” After five years of repression and eradication of dissidents, Hitler signed a new gun control law in 1938, which benefitted Nazi party members and entities, but denied firearm ownership to enemies of the state.

Alex treats the disarming of “enemies of the state” as worthy of honorable mention as a stipulation to his argument just so that you know he is really scholarly and hasn’t completely ignored the real facts.  We know it to be the primary and fundamental point of the argument.  It’s the hinge upon which the entire conversation turns.  Leave it to a Fascist to overlook that point.

UPDATE #2: Thoughts from Michael Bane.

The strong possibility of executive action to regulate firearms was initially discussed by Jim Kouri with Examiner in November 2012.

An anti-gun owner initiative considered in Washington could lead to massive civil disobedience and a severe domestic crisis, gun law expert John M. Snyder warned on Friday.

“According to confidential information,” he said, “forces linked with the administration suggest the government classify semiautomatic firearms and multiple capacity ammunition feeding devices as Title 2 National Firearms Act items under the Gun Control Act of 1968.

Americans familiar with federal gun laws understand that under this scenario, semiautomatics and high capacity magazines could be acquired only with great difficulty and at great expense by America’s estimated 100 million law-abiding firearms owners, notes Snyder.

Additionally, after observing the Obama administration for four years now, I and a number of gun rights experts and journalists (such as David Codrea) had discussed this via e-mail.  The possibility that Congress wouldn’t go along with the unconstitutional laws and regulations being proposed is non-trivial, and Obama’s history demonstrates that he would have a work-around planned.

I decided to run with this report in What To Expect On Gun Control In The Coming Months, using a report at World Net Daily.  I feel rather exonerated that crazy uncle Joe has now spoken for the administration and informed us exactly that Obama intends to do.

“The president is going to act,” vowed Mr. Biden, whom Mr. Obama tapped to head the task force on the issue. “There are executive orders, executive action that can be taken. We haven’t decided what that is yet. But we’re compiling it all with the help [of] the attorney general and all the rest of the Cabinet members as well as legislative action we believe is required.”

But it’s more than just being right, although it pays to be right.  This is about the constitution, and whether America will allow the dictator to get away with this.  Will the republic be saved, or will we just acquiesce to totalitarianism?  Our future is at stake.

In his own words.

Former Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who led the war in Afghanistan, endorsed strong gun control laws Tuesday on Morning Joe.

“I spent a career carrying typically either an M16 or an M4 Carbine. An M4 Carbine fires a .223 caliber round which is 5.56 mm at about 3000 feet per second. When it hits a human body, the effects are devastating. It’s designed for that,” McChrystal explained. “That’s what our soldiers ought to carry. I personally don’t think there’s any need for that kind of weaponry on the streets and particularly around the schools in America.”

“We’ve got to take a serious look—I understand everyone’s desire to have whatever they want—but we’ve got to protect our children, we’ve got to protect our police, we’ve got to protect our population,” McChrystal said. “Serious action is necessary. Sometimes we talk about very limited actions on the edges and I just don’t think that’s enough.”

“The number of people in America killed by firearms is extraordinary compared to other nations, and I don’t think we’re a bloodthirsty country,” he said. “We need to look at everything we can do to safeguard our people.”

First of all, when McChrystal carried a weapon it had selective fire capability, unlike my own rifles, but I don’t want to press that difference too far because I think it should be legal for mine to have selective fire capability too.

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, bureacratic, 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 somethng 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?

UPDATE: Hot Air also weighs in.

Reprimands in the Marine Deaths in the Ganjgal Engagement

Problems with the Applied Rules of Engagement

Why Marines in Afghanistan Want The Taliban To Open Fire

More Rules Of Engagement Examples From Afghanistan II

More Rules Of Engagement Examples From Afghanistan

Afghanistan Policy In Disarray

The Side Effects Of Afghanistan Rules Of Engagement

Rules Of Engagement Too Prohibitive To Achieve Sustained Tactical Success

AR 15-6 Investigation Of Marine Deaths In Kunar Province

Rules Of Engagement Slow Progress In Marjah

Marine Force Protection In Garmsir?

Micromanaging The Campaign In Afghanistan

We’ve discussed it many times, this proposed extended and expanded assault weapons ban proposed by Senator Dianne Feinstein.  The new legislation may fail, but the White House has it’s own front in this war on firearms.  But their own propaganda betrays a serious weakness in their approach.

The White House is also developing strategies to navigate the rocky and emotionally fraught terrain of gun politics once final policy decisions are made. The administration is quietly talking with a diverse array of interest groups, including religious leaders, mental-health professionals and hunters, to build as broad a coalition as possible, those involved in the discussions said.

The president is expected to face fierce opposition from the NRA and its allies in Congress, including most Republicans and some Democrats.

But Biden signaled to those involved in the policy discussions that the White House is not afraid of taking on the NRA, the nation’s largest gun rights group. At the Dec. 20 meeting, according to Stanek, when one law enforcement leader suggested focusing on only the most popular proposals, Biden responded: “Look, what I’m asking you for is your candid opinion and ideas about extreme gun violence. Leave the politics to the president. That’s our job with Congress.”

They want to turn hunters against the NRA and modern sporting rifles.  Fat chance.  That didn’t work out so well for David Petzal or Jerry Tsai.  Their plans to divide and conquer the NRA will meet with disastrous results.  Every minute spent on such a tactic is wasted, and thus we have to hope that they expend a lot of energy on it.

But the later part of the strategy, i.e., politics, is far more fearsome and they have proven very adept at that approach.  Gun Owners of American (h/t Mike Vanderboegh) gives us an inside baseball look at the current tactics.  In summary, John McCain is working against gun owners by pressing (along with the Democrats) for a rule change that would essentially be a work-around of the filibuster rule.  Lindsey Graham has vowed to vote against new gun control measures, but since he is McCain’s lap dog, he may be looking for cover as he works silently behind the scenes to assist in Feinstein’s plans.  Joe Manchin has backed off of his public calls for new gun control measures, but he may be playing the same game as McCain and Graham.

Currently in the Senate, Rand Paul is the only immovable champion of second amendment rights.  If new laws pass the Senate, they must also pass the House before going to the President’s desk.  It isn’t clear what the House will do.  If history is any indication, they are in a weakened state, and lack any backbone anyway.

However, the Republicans stand warned.  If – controlling the House of Representatives – they allow new gun control measures to pass to the President’s desk, the GOP will cease to exists as a viable political party.  Voters are having difficulty finding differences between them and the Democrats anyway.  Caving on gun control would seal the fate of the GOP as a historical relic rather than a future possibility.

If new gun control measures don’t pass the Senate and House, the game is far from over.  The Obama administration is investigating the possibility of executive orders reclassifying semi-automatic firearms as title 2 weapons, thus doing by fiat what the legislative branch rejected.  The fight will continue, just in a different locale than the Senate and House.

Finally, if new gun control measures pass to the President’s desk (in which case he will surely sign the measures into law), it means more than just new background checks.  All semi-automatic firearms will be taxed, required to be submitted to the ATF for approval, controlled from crossing state lines, and prohibited from being bequeathed to your children or grandchildren in your wills.  Violation of any of these rules will turn you into an instant felon.  Of course, this would mean a resistance for which America isn’t prepared.

Karl Denninger writes:

It is time for We The People to take a stand, as did John Hancock, Richard Stockton, Samuel Adams, Thomas Jefferson, John Penn, Arthur Middleton and others.

Your right to life is not bestowed by government. Your right to liberty is not bestowed by government. Government never possessed those rights and you cannot bestow what you do not first lawfully possess.

You right to life and liberty were bestowed by your creator. Those rights inure to each and every one of us by virtue of being human. And here’s the point which many of you wish not to discuss:

A right without the ability and willingness to defend it is no right at all.”

Bob Owens writes:

“The Second Amendment of the United States was never written to protect hunting or target shooting. It was written by men who had just fought a successful armed revolution against the most advanced military of their day, and who wanted to ensure that future generations would be armed with weapons of contemporary military utility in order to stand against the day that once more, tyrants would attempt to consolidate power and lord over the people as their betters.

“Any attempt to take the contemporary arms of military utility our Founders wanted us to have, which includes the standard magazines and clips used in these firearms, is an act of tyranny that the Founders would recognize as an event justifying the use of force to retain our freedoms.”

“Tread carefully.”

Brandon Smith writes:

“There is no ambiguous or muddled separation between the citizenry and the government anymore. The separation is absolute. It is undeniable. It is vast. It is only a matter of time and momentum, and eventually there will be unbridled oppression, dissent, and conflict. All that is required is a trigger, and I believe that trigger has arrived…”

Mike Hendrix writes:

“This is a society preparing for war,” writes Bob Owens.

“Reluctantly, almost unwillingly, it should be noted. But the sad truth is, war is already being made upon it, and has been for a long time now. Said society has been more than patient, more than tolerant. But eventually, enough is enough. Everyone has their limit; freedom-loving Americans’ has very nearly been reached. A few more steps over the line, and the kettle is going to boil over.”

“Any liberal-fascists who think we’re all going to go gently into that good night really, really need to reconsider. We all have to hope they do. But we all have to be prepared for the possibility, the likelihood, that they mightn’t. “This far, no further” is more than just an empty slogan.”

“Gird your loins.”

Alan Halbert writes:

“We are in far more danger from these actions of our own government than from another Sandy Hook atrocity by a crazed killer.”

“The Second Amendment’s purpose is to provide for the citizens’ defense from all who would deny their natural God- given right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” against a criminal, a foreign or domestic enemy, or our own government. We will witness the end of the Republic if this proposed legislation is passed, since all of our rights flow from the citizen’s ability to defend them.”

“As for this citizen, I will never disarm or surrender my Second Amendment rights, much less willingly comply with such a traitorous act of Congress if enacted… it is actions like these that light revolutionary fervor in a nation and its citizens. It did so in 1776 and it will do so again.”

John Jay writes:

“…when it is done, and the regime defeated, no one will talk about what he did in the war. It shall have been terrible, and brutal. Executions, murders, assassinations and the inevitable collateral damage shall be the issue of the day. This is the price that those who attempt to impose a totalitarian regime in the America’s shall face. Many of us will die, and some shall become iconic photos hanging from lamp posts, stripped naked and hoisted by their ankles, as final witness and testimony to their arrogance.”

“Those who seek to take our weapons trifle with history, heritage and firmly held belief. It should be remembered, those of us who believe this way are god fearing, and shall invoke and beseech our God for support. We have a religious underpinning and faith that shall carry us through this, as opposed to those who seek to suppress us. They have nothing but naked ambition to sustain them.”

“Do Obama, Pelosi, and Feinstein have the stomach for this sort of conflict? Are they willing to initiate, in order to try and gain the rule they aspire to? We shall find out.”

Western Rifle Shooter’s Association writes:

“Understand that once the ball opens, there will be no stopping the righteous fury of viciously-indignant Americans, especially once the 2013 versions of Waco and Ruby Ridge are re-enacted by Regime loyalists across the nation.”

“No one associated with the Federal government or its mutant-twin ruling parties will be safe.”

“Especially once the guys with the scoped hunting rifles come in.”

Mike Vanderboegh writes that there would be a revolution if the government confiscates weapons, and Herschel Smith warns that there will be resistance and writes that the resistance won’t be “the peaceful kind.”  If it goes to the point of forcible implementation of the proposed legislation, it will be awful, bloody, violent and extreme.  Right now we don’t know for certain what will happen in Washington.  But depending upon that outcome, what will happen all across America has been written.  1.6 billion rounds of handgun ammunition won’t be nearly enough for the government.

You’ve been warned.

UPDATE: “Class II” has been changed to “Title II.”  I appreciate Glenn’s attention to this article.  Also, David Codrea gives a link.

UPDATE #2: Thanks to John Richardson for the attention.

UPDATE #3: Thanks to Mike Vanderboegh for the attention.

Around America, people are voting on gun control with their bank accounts.

MECKLENBURG COUNTY, N.C. — Requests for gun permits soared in Mecklenburg and surrounding counties last month, mirroring a nationwide buying spree fueled by fears of tougher gun laws after the school shooting in Newtown, Conn.

In all, 1,971 people applied for handgun purchase permits in Mecklenburg in December, compared with 860 who applied in December 2011, according to data from the Mecklenburg County Sheriff’s Office.

Sheriff’s office spokeswoman Julia Rush said the department has a backlog of applications and has used overtime to deal with what she called a “deluge of requests.” North Carolina law requires that handgun purchasers get a permit from their local sheriff’s office. The permit must be presented to the gun shop before the purchase can be made.

Such permits are not required for shotguns and rifles, including the Bushmaster AR-15 assault-style rifle used in the Dec. 14 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School that left 20 schoolchildren and six faculty and staff members dead. Federal law does prevent felons, certain types of domestic abusers and people with a history of mental illness from possessing the firearms.

Local gun stores have had lines of would-be purchasers stretching out the front door in some cases. Larry Hyatt said the crush of sales at his gun store on Wilkinson Boulevard in December was remarkable.

When The Observer visited the shop Dec. 21, a wall that had held assault-style long guns was nearly empty. Before the Newtown shooting, it had been full.

“It was just overwhelming,” Hyatt said. “We couldn’t even (get) people in the store. It’s like going to the grocery store when it snows. We started running out of some things.”

Hyatt Gun Shop saw a jump in customers the day after the president made his remarks, Larry Hyatt said. December became the single busiest month Hyatt has had since his gun store opened on Wilkinson Boulevard in 1959.

Hyatt typically has 12 or 13 staff members working the counter. During December, he had 30 coming in early and leaving late. His gunsmiths – the people who repair guns, or add accessories – were drafted as salesmen. Still, there were times when the store was full and the shelves emptied quickly.

And in a single day of sales before Christmas, Hyatt Gun Shop did more than one million dollars in business.  The people who purchased these firearms aren’t planning on Dianne Feinstein telling them that they cannot bequeath their wealth – including their firearms – to their children or grandchildren.  If she attempts to do so, she (and any jackbooted thugs whom she sends to enforce the laws) will meet resistance.  Not the peaceful kind.

From a NYT Editorial:

Bushmasters are by no means the only assault weapons of choice among mass killers (the Aurora shooter used a Smith & Wesson), but the brand’s repeated presence in murderous incidents reflects Bushmaster’s enormous popularity in the gun world, the result of a successful marketing campaign aimed at putting military firepower and machismo in the hands of civilians. Gun owners once talked about the need for personal protection and sport hunting, but out-of-control ad campaigns like Bushmaster’s have replaced revolvers and shotguns with highly lethal paramilitary fantasies.

The guns, some of which come in camouflage and desert khaki, bristle with features useful only to an infantry soldier or a special-forces operative. A flash suppressor on the end of a barrel makes it possible to shoot at night without a blinding flare. Quick-change magazines let troops reload easily. Barrel shrouds allow precise control without fear of burns from a muzzle that grows hot after multiple rounds are fired. But now anyone can own these guns, and millions are in civilian hands.

“There is an allure to this weapon that makes it unusually attractive,” Scott Knight, former chairman of the International Chiefs of Police Firearms Committee, told USA Today, speaking of the Bushmaster rifles. “The way it looks, the way it handles — it screams assault weapon.”

The company’s catalog and ads show soldiers moving on patrol through jungles, Bushmasters at the ready. “When you need to perform under pressure, Bushmaster delivers,” says the advertising copy, superimposed over the silhouette of a soldier holding his helmet against the backdrop of an American flag. “Forces of opposition, bow down. You are single-handedly outnumbered,” said a 2010 catalog, peddling an assault rifle billed as “the ultimate military combat weapons system.” (Available to anyone for $2,500.)

In case that message was too subtle, the company appealed directly to the male egos of its most likely customers. “Consider your man card reissued,” said one Bushmaster campaign (pulled off the Web after the Newtown shooting), next to a photo of a carbine. “If it’s good enough for the professional, it’s good enough for you.”

The effect of these marketing campaigns on fragile minds is all too obvious, allowing deadly power in the wrong hands. But given their financial success, gun makers have apparently decided that the risk of an occasional massacre is part of the cost of doing business.

What a silly, puerile commentary.  Notice the use of effeminate, emotional prose: male egos, machismo, out-of-control, bristle, and the fear-inducing “screams assault weapon.”  Oh, and we mustn’t forget the shoulder-shrugging issue of the “occasional massacre,” either.

The NYT says that shooters were once interested in self defense (as if we’re not now concerned about that very thing), but apparently those writers who live in their protected bubbles and ride in limousines to work aren’t aware that the trend in home invasions is for the criminals to utilize multi-man teams to terrorize, steal, rape, torture and kill their victims.  Perhaps the editors should read the news.  High capacity magazines, indeed.  Anyone who is responding to such an event wants everything they can get for self protection.

But the best sentence of the commentary is this one: “But now anyone can own these guns, and millions are in civilian hands.”  The editorial staff should do their history homework, or maybe read a little bit.  The M1 Carbine used a high capacity magazine with a low to moderate recoil cartridge.  And it has been around and used by the military since 1942, and used by the civilian population since right after World War II.  I recently purchased one myself, a new rifle from Auto Ordnance.

We (American citizens) have always had access to military firearms.  The ready availability of firearms isn’t new.  Neither, for that matter, is acts of terror against school children (see Bath School Disaster).  What is new is American fascists blaming firearms owners for such events.

UPDATE: Mike Vanderboegh has some thoughts.  Yes, Mike, I just need some more money.  Some for a Garand, some for an M-14, and some for … [to be continued].