Archive for the 'Gun Control' Category

I told you so.

NBC:

Days after a dozen modified rapid-fire guns were found in the Las Vegas gunman’s hotel room, Democrats introduced a bill on Wednesday to ban such changes to weapons — and dared Republicans to ignore it.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said her legislation would bar the sale, manufacture and possession of so-called bump stocks and other devices — all currently legal — that drastically increase a firearm’s rate of fire.

“The only reason to modify a gun like this is to kill as many people as possible in as short of a time as possible,” Feinstein said …

This is being co-sponsored with Bob Casey.  The GOP is unwilling to take that dare.

“I own a lot of guns, and as a hunter and sportsman, I think that’s our right as Americans, but I don’t understand the use of this bump stock,” Senator John Cornyn of Texas, the No. 2 Republican in the Senate, said, adding, “It seems like it’s an obvious area we ought to explore and see if it’s something Congress needs to act on.”

Mr. Cornyn said the continuing legality of the conversion kits was “a legitimate question,” and told reporters he had asked Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the Judiciary Committee chairman, to convene a hearing on that issue and any others that arise out of the Las Vegas investigation.

Other Republican senators, including Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Orrin G. Hatch of Utah and Marco Rubio of Florida, said they would be open to considering legislation on bump stocks.

You could have seen this coming with Cornyn, who tried to push mandatory mental health checks by government-approved doctors as a prerequisite for gun ownership.  I don’t think anyone is going to be surprised at the presence of Lindsey Graham, Orrin Hatch or Marco Rubio on this list either.

As a long time gun owner, I have never seen fit to purchase a slide-fire stock.  In fact, to break the narrative just a bit, uninterrupted fire from the shooter’s weapons without allowing the gun to cool in between bursts would have caused the barrel to droop and eventually the gas block to explode into pieces.  I see no purpose for his having used such a device to begin with.

But if you want this device, get it now.  Chances are that it will be illegal in the not too distant future.

Statement.

On behalf of MGV, we are deeply saddened for the victims and families affected by last night’s activities and absolutely sickened by the behavior of the individual who committed a sheer act of violence on our community. We realize there will be many sensitivities to firearms and their misuse, and we would like to address a few points as a business that offers firearms experiences in a safe, controlled environment in Las Vegas. We believe, as we always have, that there should absolutely be more stringent control on the types of firearms private individuals can own and the processes they must go through in order to own those firearms. There were many factors contributing to this tragic event, but there is no doubt that the shooter’s ability to inflict so many casualties was heavily due to the types of weapons he had access to. MGV agrees that the NRA, Federal Government and individual states have a responsibility to continue to maximize efforts to keep these firearms out of the hands of the wrong people.

We believe that responsible gun ownership is attainable through the application of common sense, more stringent vetting and background checks, dramatically increased mandatory sentencing for gun offences and increased testing standards for gun owners.

I hope their few moments of fame with the collectivists felt good, because gun owners never forget.  If you want to get a taste of the venom coming their way, visit this reddit link.

I can’t find the original post.  If they have any sense at all, they took it down.  But that may be too little, too late.  The gun community now knows what they’re made of.

Too bad for them.  But it’s best that we know, and the community will act accordingly, I assure you.

Via WRSA:

Some links, and then a brief assessment from me.

Nick Gillespie, bless his heart, is fighting the good fight, with a very good article at Reason arguing that now is the time for less gun control, not more.  I agree.

Paul Ryan, known to us as the communist shill who hates gun rights, has said that the SHARE act is dead for the time being.

Someone named Andrea Ruth, writing at Red State, argues for more involvement of the community witch doctors we know as Psychiatrists.  I suppose she wants mental health “professionals” to approve all gun purchases.  Perhaps she would think differently is a mental health professional had to approve her raising a child, or driving a car.

The White House punts on suppressors, saying essentially there is no love for the SHARE act.

And Trump himself has said “we’ll be talking about gun laws.”  Great.  I wouldn’t be so concerned about that if I thought he held to any doctrine on anything at all.

My brief assessment.  The shooter had an awful lot of guns and magazines, more than he could ever shoot in several days of being in that room.  These were magazines that hold more than 30 rounds.  He spent an awful lot of money on weapons, more than I find feasible in a short amount of time (like months or even several years).  These were pricey weapons, not low-end guns.

Something is very wrong with this picture.  I don’t like it at all, but it’s going to take time to cipher all of this.  Something feels very rotten, and as if on queue, the controllers started spewing forth their gun control bullshit as soon as this happened.

AR-15s, AR-10s, high capacity magazines and slide fire (or bump fire) stocks will be the boogeyman.  I expect a reassessment of slide fire stocks very soon by the ATF, or an executive order challenged by no one, that places them on the NFA list.

I expect the introduction of new gun control bills in Congress, and all it takes is the democrats and a few republicans (along with Trump), and we have a brand new assault weapons ban.  Perhaps this is intended in all of this.

Times are going to get dicey for us.  Hold on to your breeches.  The ride is liable to get rough.

Washington Post:

However, one member of the band went even further, posting a lengthy message on Twitter about his personal response to the attack. After spending the night fearing for his life, Caleb Keeter, the group’s lead guitarist, spoke up about gun control.

“I’ve been a proponent of the 2nd amendment my entire life. Until the events of last night. I cannot express how wrong I was. We actually have members of our crew with [Concealed Handgun Licenses], and legal firearms on the bus,” Keeter wrote. “They were useless.” He continued:

We couldn’t touch them for fear police might think we were part of the massacre and shoot us. A small group (or one man) laid waste to a city with dedicated, fearless police officers desperately trying to help, because of access to an insane amount of fire power.

Enough is enough.

Writing my parents and the love of my life a goodbye last night and a living will because I felt like I wasn’t going to live through the night was enough for me to realize that this is completely and totally out of hand. These rounds were just powerful enough that my crew guys just standing in close proximity of a victim shot by this f—ing coward received shrapnel wounds.

We need gun control RIGHT. NOW. My biggest regret is that I stubbornly didn’t realize it until my brothers on the road and myself were threatened by it. We are unbelievably fortunate to not be among the number of victims killed or seriously wounded by this maniac.

So part of being a proponent of the second amendment for you is believing that a handgun would be of any use against a long range, standoff weapon like a long gun?  And in spite of the fact that the shooter didn’t use handguns, you project the evil of what happened on your own guns that you consider worthless for self defense, disregarding the fact that they would have been quite useful had the shooter decided to engage close quarters battle with you?  And you didn’t ponder the fact that a handgun would have indeed been useful to someone who did engage the shooter in close quarters battle?

I see.  Why don’t you stick with music and leave the thinking to thinking men.

The Hill:

Fox News strategic analyst Ralph Peters said “the Founding Fathers didn’t want every juiced-up psycho to have a machine gun collection” and argued that “an armed crowd” would have only made the situation worse after a mass shooting at a Las Vegas concert left at least 58 dead and more than 500 wounded.

“The idea that an armed crowd would’ve made a difference — if it made any difference, it would’ve been worse,” Peters told Stuart Varney on Fox Business. “And I am a gun owner. I will always be a gun owner.”

“But the Founding Fathers didn’t want every juiced-up psycho to have a machine gun collection,” he continued. “We need to look at what kind of weapons they had — clearly, this guy had military-grade weapons — and where he got them. Because automatic rifles are illegal for the average citizen to own.

How the hell do you know what the founding fathers wanted beyond what they wrote, drama queen?  And I assume that you have a clinical definition for the phrase “juiced-up psycho?”  Let’s hear it, doctor.  Give me your clinical definition.  We’re waiting.  Oh, I see.  You don’t have one.  Okay, on to the next point.

As to this notion that the founding fathers didn’t want “civilians” to own “military grade” weapons, you expect us to believe that the patriot fighters during the war of independence, who had risked their lives, livelihoods, families and fortunes, and who shot cannon when they had powder and ball, and who used these weapons against the government, would not have wanted machine guns if they had access to them?  You only think that because you’re an idiot.

I told my sons Joshua and Joseph about your commentary, Ralph, and we all agreed that we care more what our dogs had to say about gun control than we did what you have to say.  Joseph asked Roxie, his Chow, a very sweet girl, and she looked at him like I look over the top of my glasses at somebody stupid.

Roxie thinks you’re full of crap, Ralph.  So do I.

Miguel Faria, writing at The Telegraph:

In 2005, at the time of Hurricane Katrina, the New Orleans police used the excuse of enforcing compliance with the mandatory evacuation order to confiscate firearms. They went door-to-door seizing guns from the people who stayed behind hoping to ride out the storm. These were the same firearms the citizens expected to have available to protect their lives and property in the aftermath of the disaster.

In fact history has repeatedly shown that firearms, including assault weapons, can be very useful and life-saving tools following natural disasters, such as Hurricane Hugo in 1989 and Hurricane Andrew in 1992, and during times of civil unrest, as during the Rodney King L.A. riots of 1992.

In New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Mayor Ray Nagin’s police superintendent said that the only guns allowed would be “in the hands of law enforcement.” Moreover, Stacy Washington, a decorated Air Force veteran, writing for the NRA Americas’ 1st Freedom, pointed out: “Guns were confiscated with disastrous results: Utter lawlessness ensued, and the police were spread too thin to respond to all the mayhem. Before total gun removal was completed, the NRA stepped in — first gaining a preliminary injunction and then an order putting a stop to the ill-conceived plan. The sheriff had to return more than 1,000 firearms to their respective owners.”

Gun-grabbing superintendent should have known that confiscation of firearms from persons, who have not committed a crime, is a violation of the Second Amendment — and under the dire circumstances of a natural catastrophe, an inexcusable and unforgivable misjudgment, as well as an affront to the people of New Orleans.

Gun confiscation at the time of the Katrina disaster—when they are most needed by citizens to protect their families and property—was such an outrage that several states and the federal government passed laws to prevent that egregious constitutional infringement from ever taking place again during natural disasters.

In 2006 Congress passed the Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act that became incorporated as an amendment to the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2007. It was signed into law on October 4, 2006. This federal legislation prevents the government from confiscating legally-owned firearms during times of major disasters or state of emergency. Following the example of the federal government, most state legislatures adopted similar versions of this law.

But be that as it may, on Sept 5, 2017, in preparation for contending with Hurricane Irma, the governor of the U.S. Virgin Islands, Kenneth Mapp, contrary to U.S. law, ordered the National Guard to confiscate firearms and ammunition from the people of the islands. Confiscation was supposedly necessary so the authorities “could carry out their mission.” Whatever that may be, we are left to wonder. Nevertheless, the islands are ruled by federal law approved by Congress in 1954, “Revised Organic Act of the Virgin Islands” and subject to U.S laws. Fortunately, the government of the Islands’ plans for gun confiscation seem to have been put on hold after the NRA threatened to file a lawsuit.

Washington further wrote: “Time after time during natural disasters, reports of looting and increased armed criminal action have been reported. The primary reason for firearms purchases is to protect self and loved ones, and this is especially important at times when the police are overtaxed and crimes of opportunity are more likely to occur. Natural disasters offer criminals an opening too sweet to resist — and once an individual or group of marauders is at your door, it’s too late to ask the National Guard for your guns back.” Exactly.

Well, this may answer my question.  According to the writer, gun confiscations never actually occurred in the US Virgin Islands, and I’ll say it again.  I suspect that it’s irrelevant anyway.  When the gun control laws are so onerous that no one owns a weapon, there is no need for confiscations.  In effect, guns have already been confiscated.  Take note.  If you allow these gun control laws, you are acquiescing to gun confiscations, albeit slowly, like a frog in boiling water.

The author does a nice job of outlining why you need firearms in times of emergency.  The problem as you know is that you don’t know when an emergency will present itself.  A home invasion is just as much of an emergency as a hurricane.  A church shooting is just as much of an emergency as an earthquake or any other natural disaster.  So you need your firearms all of the time.  All of the time.

David Codrea:

Next up on the Mother Jones hit list is the somehow objectionable fact that opening up the market will create significant new economic opportunities. Horrors.

But that’s important to them.  They don’t want firearms or firearms accessories manufacturers to make money, and they are willing to use any and every means to shut them down.  That the constitution and free market allows them is irrelevant.  They know better.

Besides, this hit list is no different than the one crafted by Amanda Marcotte at Salon.  When nothing really works as an objection, throw in everything but the kitchen sink.  You can always tell it when the controllers themselves think they have a bad case.  They line up ten leaky buckets, hoping that the combination of them will hold water.  It doesn’t.

Dana Milbank:

The days are growing colder, and soon millions of American hunters will pursue a time-honored tradition. They will load their automatic weapons with armor-piercing bullets, strap on silencers, head off to the picnic grounds on nearby public lakes — and start shooting.

If you do not immediately recognize this pastime as part of America’s heritage, then you are sadly out of step with the current Republican majority in Congress. On Tuesday, a House panel takes up the “Sportsmen’s Heritage and Recreational Enhancement Act of 2017,” which promises “to protect and enhance opportunities for recreational hunting, fishing and shooting.”

Among these recreational enhancements:

●Allowing people to bring assault guns and other weapons through jurisdictions where they are banned.

●Rolling back decades-old regulations on the use of silencers.

●Protecting the use of armor-piercing bullets.

●Easing importation of foreign-made assault rifles.

●Protecting the practice of baiting birds with grain as they migrate and then mowing them down.

But more and more hunters are finding that conventional earplugs and muffs are not adequate for today’s weapons — for example, quail hunting with an M777 howitzer or grouse hunting with an FIM-92 Stinger missile launcher.

Hmm … Quail hunting with a Howitzer.  Poor, poor Dana Milbank.  Poor, metrosexual, hand-wringing, paranoid, bed wetter Dana Milbank.  Hey, I notice that you have a history of asking people to write your articles for you.  Did you get Jennifer Mascia or someone else at Everytown to write this one for you, Dana?

If you don’t know that it’s always time to enjoy the shooting sports in America, you’re not out of step with the GOP.  They couldn’t care less.  You’re out of step with most of the American public in “flyover country.”  You’re a chattering class resident of the beltway.  You eat the food that the dirt people grow, so you depend on the dirt people for your very life.

And if you don’t like the idea of killing geese, you can let them ensconce in your yard and foul it up.  They can’t walk two steps without shitting.  Mean, nasty critters.  I hate them.

They are, after all, the king’s forests and king’s parks, never forget.

Valihura also pressed Durstein about an individual’s right to carry a gun for self-defense, which he argued is less acute in a park tent or cabin than in a person’s home. Durstein said the trade-off for banning guns is a commitment by the state to provide law enforcement in state parks.

“Your own regs state that camping is at your own risk, state forests are a public use area and there are no after-hours, nighttime or weekend security,” Valihura noted.

With no evidentiary record to draw on, Justice James Vaughn also wondered about the protection being afforded park visitors.

“We have no idea how much police security is actually provided in these state parks, do we?” Vaughn asked. “I’ve been in them. Occasionally you’ll see a ranger go by, something like that, but I don’t seen any police presence in there.”

Why the hell does the legal system keep promulgating this idiotic myth that the police are there to protect anyone?  They aren’t, and they know it.  And the police know it.  The only people who don’t know it are the peasants who think the police will come to their rescue.

Remember.

In the 1981 decision in Warren v. District of Columbia the D.C. Court of Appeals concluded that it is a “fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.”  In Castle Rock v. Gonzales (2005), the Supreme Court declined to expand any requirements for protection and ruled that the police cannot be sued for failure to protect individuals, even when restraining orders were in place.

Your life depends on it.  When in a non-permissive environment you may have to improvise, but improvise you should.