Archive for the 'Gun Control' Category

The Daily Journal:

Radio talk show host and TV commentator Hugh Hewitt is among a growing number of conservatives calling for monitoring the stockpiling of large-capacity ammunition feeding devices similar to how Sudafed is controlled.

Hewitt calls for photo IDs and records of purchases on firearm ammunition following the Oct. 1 shootings in Las Vegas that left 58 dead and 489 people wounded.

“If people buy a lot of ammunition in a short period of time, this should trigger a red flag with law enforcement,” said Hewitt on the NBC “Meet the Press” show on Oct. 8.

Monitoring ammunition stockpiling would be a way to let stockpilers know that law enforcement is keeping an eye on them. However, no guns or ammunition would be confiscated.

Officers who entered the room of the 32nd hotel floor used by the shooter were shocked to see the amount of weapons and ammunition the shooter had stockpiled. His victims were those who gathered nearby at the Harvest Country Music Festival.

Sudafed is regulated because pseudoephedrine, the active ingredient in some forms of medication, can be used to create the street drug methamphetamine, or crystal meth.

The federal act sets daily and monthly limits on how much of the active drug a person can buy.

When it comes to firearms and ammunition, there is no federal limit to how much a person like the Las Vegas shooter can buy, nor is there a national database of purchases.

A 1994 federal law, which expired a decade later in 2004, defined a large-capacity ammunition feeding device as a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip or similar device that has a capacity of more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

“Gun control won’t work but ammo monitoring could,” says John Carnes, conservative author and firearms expert.

Twice you read it in the commentary above.  “Conservative” host Hugh Hewitt.  “Conservative author and firearms expert” John Carnes.  Actually, he somewhat misrepresents the gist of John’s article, who says this.

People should oppose gun control restrictions and registration requirements, but we shouldn’t let these turn our eyes from the existential threat of ammunition control. If ammunition printing ever becomes as cheap and effective as printing firearms parts currently is, then we can all rest assured that the right to keep and bear arms will never again be as infringed as it is today. Until that day comes, ammunition controls may be the most effective form of gun control.

He didn’t misrepresent Hewitt, apparently.  I never really thought Hugh Hewitt was a conservative.  But it does go to show that even the supposed conservatives are giving you up (case in point, the NRA, whose willingness to compromise empowered the controllers, who saw nothing but weakness).  They don’t care about your rights, whether firearms or the ammunition to use in them.

I know, I know.  The Supreme Court may block such rules and regulations, but they may not.  They didn’t block the assault weapons ban, and Heller was a weak enough decision that it may even be used to bolster the ammunition control case.

I think a lot of people sense that the one weakness our community has is ammunition.  This isn’t any different than it’s always been.  Consider this report, the only significant piece of information in an otherwise stupid article.

“Everybody I know is stockpiling ammo,” said Allen, who came from Sacramento, as he carried a plastic bag bulging with bullets and gun parts. He declined to give his last name.

Sure, fight this in the political arena, fight this in the courts, and fight it in the town square and court of public opinion.  But never assume you’re going to win.  If at first we lose, the winning will come later.

Prior: Gun Control Through Ammunition Control

David Codrea:

Focus the protection of the Second Amendment on keeping nonmilitary arms at home for self-defense, while putting an escalating standard of protection on other kinds of arms and uses …  If individuals want to own semi-automatic assault weapons, either as collectors or for practice shooting, then enforce a provision that such weapons can only be kept at legally registered shooting ranges or other registered depositories, and cannot be removed from the designated premises.

To the author of this silly piece, Jeff Sachs, I only have one thing to say.  Any time you feel froggy.  Go ahead and come after my guns any time you feel like you have a chance.  Oh, I see, you intend to send others to do the dirty work for you?  That “enforce” thing might get a lot of people in serious trouble, and I don’t mean us gun owners.

Here is a broad ranging discussion thread where the commenters throw down with each other, referencing an AR-15 discussion thread where Mark LaRue apparently hinted at the willingness to accept gun control.  Some commenters at reddit think not, but here is what he apparently said.

“Like I said, if I come up with a way to use a waterhose to shoot up all your ammo faster, does that mean waterhoses are protected by the second amendment?”

He also apparently said this in support of the NRA.  Now, I have to admit that the comment makes no sense and seems to me to be nonsensical.  It could have been clear and made sense if it just included a typographical error, and should have read … “does that mean waterhoses aren’t protected by the second amendment?”  It would make sense because it would be using a superlative to make a point, or arguing a fortiori, from the lesser to the greater [why stop with bump stocks, ban waterhoses too], or even reduction ad absurdum.

But what he may be doing is lampooning gun owners’ reflexive tendency, as he sees it, to defend anything under the rubric of the second amendment.  In fact, I think this is close to the truth.  Mark LaRue goes on to release a statement correcting himself, but it may be too little, too late.  He also uses obscenity against a member of the AR-15 forum later on in the discussion thread.

What is the matter with these guys?  Seriously, what’s wrong with their thinking?  Why not say nothing at all, and do your best to serve the gun community with high quality products for as cheaply as you can sell them?

Well, I may be in the market for a high end AR-15 first quarter of next year.  I think LaRue Tactical is off my short list.

SunSentinel:

There are approximately 300 million guns presently in the United States — probably much more if you count the illegal weapons. Even if the most stringent laws regarding gun control were passed, we would never see our country unarmed.

There is a simple solution that is largely ignored: Guns do not kill people — bullets do. Bullets are not good forever — guns are. The average life of a cartridge is 10 years; after that the primer is no longer dependable. Why can’t we limit the ownership of ammunition to a reasonable amount and strictly regulate the sale of bullets? Since the right to bear arms in the Constitution doesn’t state “and ammunition,” it would probably also hold up to challenge by the NRA.

Right now we strictly regulate the sale of narcotics and give hypodermic needles away to addicts. Hypodermic needles are the guns and narcotics are the bullets.

How do you like being compared to a drug addict?  Still, there is wisdom is listening very carefully to your enemies.  I think Sun Tzu said something along those lines.

As gun control goes, if the collectivists want to get the biggest bang for their buck, ammunition is the way to do it.  Plan and act accordingly.

Cincinnati.com:

But since the Las Vegas shooting, Massie has taken his Second Amendment support to a new level, setting himself apart from his Republican colleagues and even the NRA.

The Kentucky congressman, who holds a concealed carry permit and says he is generally armed when he’s his home state, has questioned whether bump stocks truly made last week’s shooting in Las Vegas more deadly.

“Needs to be discussed: Murderer probably could have fired more rounds conventionally instead of dealing with misfires caused by #bumpstocks,” Massie tweeted on Oct. 7.

He has castigated his GOP colleagues for suggesting they would be willing to consider a ban on such equipment.

“Obamacare repeal and tax reform can’t happen in 9 months, but now some GOP signaling they’re ready to immediately work on gun control?” he blasted in another Twitter message.

[ … ]

Proposed “bump fire stock” ban is a red herring that would lead to ban of other firearms and accessories. See videohttps://t.co/e47eg9QcPN

— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) October 5, 2017

“There are at least a dozen ways to make a semi-automatic firearm more quickly,” Massie told the Examiner. “There is no way to ban bump fire.”

Not surprisingly, gun-control advocates vehemently disagree.

“We’ve regulated machine guns in this country quite carefully for the last 80 years,” said Avery W. Gardiner, co-president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. “Why should an accessory that turns a gun into the functional equivalent of a machine gun not be regulated in the same way?”

Because it’s not a machine gun, and machine guns shouldn’t be regulated anyway.

As for representative Massie, he shows the way to do it.  All you have to have is a soul, a little bit of guts, and a moral compass.  Unfortunately that’s lacking in most politicians today.

Congratulations to representative Massie.  We’re in your corner.  Stay the course, and keep up the good fight.  If the demons, gargoyles and pit vipers in Washington don’t listen to you, at least someone is listening, and He will judge them all one awful day.

These are must see videos.  If you don’t do anything else today, watch these. Act accordingly.

Time.com.

On the issue of gun control or reform, there should be some middle ground. Gun owners and 2nd Amendment supporters need to give some, as do anti-gun folks. Civilians should not be able to own military-style weapons. I do believe Americans should have the right to own weapons for home self-defense and for hunting, but there are too many weapons available to civilians that were originally designed for the battlefield. And as Las Vegas shows, once again, there are too many Americans willing to turn civilian life into a battlefield. I think what worries some gun owners is who decides what is military, and what is for sp ort. I am deciding for myself.

My action may not change anything, but the truth is, if my semi-automatic battle rifle were stolen, or fell into the wrong hands, it would be devastating. So to put my money where my mouth is, I am getting rid of mine and donating it to a law enforcement agency.

The gun I’m getting rid of is called an M1A Springfield Scout, or Civilian M14. It shoots a 308 or 7.62-51 NATO. It is a semi-automatic and can send bullets 1,000 yards (700, accurately) as fast as I can pull the trigger. It has a 10- and 20-round clip. You could probably get an even bigger one.

It was designed for the military in the mid-1950s and is still used by special forces. It is much more powerful and accurate than an AR-15 or an AK47. I purchased it because it is a great gun and the truth is I’m still a boy at heart (and mind, too). I convinced myself I needed it because — Hey, there a lot of crazy people with weapons out there that I may need to defend myself from. I also told myself I needed to kill wild hogs. I’ve only seen wild hogs once. I have used the rifle to hunt deer but I have a bolt-action rifle for the same purpose, which is all anyone needs for deer hunting.

After the shooting happened in Las Vegas and the details began to come out, I knew this man had to have a weapon like mine. I know I don’t need this rifle, and neither does anyone else. Selling it would be hypocritical because it would go back into gun circulation. I plan to give mine to the Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks — the game wardens in my state. It is a very expensive gun — it cost me $1,300, not counting the scope — so this is not a particularly easy thing to do. But it will mean I’m not a part of the problem, at least in my mind. My plan is to put any tax write-off towards charitable giving.

I will keep my other guns for hunting and self-defense. Some people will say I’ve overreacted, others will say I have not gone far enough. Getting rid of and eventually banning assault rifles and other military-style guns will not end the violence, but it will help.

No it won’t.  All this means is that you’ve decided to rid yourself of the best means of defending your family.  In the event of multiple home invaders, you’ve made the decision to let your family perish because of emotional distress you sustain caused by watching the television.

Oh, and here’s a suggestion, Fudd.  Call it a magazine, not a clip.  At least you’ll sound like a pseudo-educated Fudd.

This stupid article with disconnected thoughts and poor composition was the occasion of my reading today, and nothing stood out as important to me except this tweet from Marc Thiessen (former Bush speech writer and sometimes TV commentator).

My twitter feed is filled with NRA members saying they agree on bump stock ban. Time for Congressional Republicans to lead on this.

With friends like that, who needs enemies?

Tom Brokaw at NBC:

I am a gun owner and have been since I was 12, growing up in South Dakota. I still have an assortment of shotguns and rifles, all used for sporting purposes.

My son-in-law, a New Yorker, loves to come to our Montana ranch and with Doug (our expert marksman manager) target shoot a variety of legal weapons.

During the hunting season Doug provides a wide variety of game for the ranch menus.

But, in recent years, my favorite gun store in Big Timber, Montana, began stockpiling the ever-more-popular military-inspired weapons alongside those used to hunt game and defend livestock. They sell the AR-15, modeled on the military version — except that it is configured for semi-, not full, automatic fire.

But Google “convert AR-15 to automatic” and you’ll find all kinds of ways of altering a semi-automatic weapon to fire more rapidly — and it appears that’s exactly what Stephen Paddock did in Las Vegas by purchasing and using “bump-stock” devices.

And while Congress is now considering whether to make bump-stocks illegal, it’s not enough to make the conversion illegal. Who will catch the change artists?

The larger question we need to be asking ourselves is: Why do we have all-but-military-grade weaponry available to civilians in the first place?

Yeah, Yeah: The Second Amendment. But the Second Amendment does not guarantee the right to bear any arms you please. Fully automatic weapons have long been illegal to buy, as have bazookas and artillery pieces our troops take to war.

All of our rights have conditions. That’s how we maintain a civil society.

I am a journalist, protected by the First Amendment. “Congress shall make no law,” it says, except that all journalists know they cannot, among other acts, deliberately libel a person or falsely shout fire in a crowded theater without legal consequences.

It is time for civility to reign — and madness to be snuffed out.

It isn’t enough for these statists to go after bump stocks, which action I oppose, by the way (i.e., making them illegal).  They have to go after “military grade” weapons as well, meaning modern sporting rifles.

Did you catch the reference to “sporting,” and hunting, and supporting the second amendment with limitations?  The only thing he left out was being a life NRA member.

How disconnected can these guys get?  Doesn’t he know that the gun rights folks will lampoon his idiotic essay as written by a Fudd?  Instead of Googling “convert AR-15 to automatic,” why don’t you Google “Fudd,” Tom.

And you can come after our modern sporting rifles and all-but-military-grade weaponry whenever you feel froggy.  I’m waiting.  We’ll see how civil your society is when you try that.

TPM:

“You said earlier that you would be willing to allow a clean bill in Congress that bans or regulates bump stocks without requiring more, broader gun control to be attached to the bill,” Jake Tapper said. “Is universal background checks, closing the so-called gun show loophole, requiring background checks for private sales, is that the next step for people in your philosophical camp and Senate?”

“It should be the next step, in large part because it is the most popularly accepted change. And it has the biggest effect,” Murphy said. “So yes, that would be the clear next step. That should be our North Star as we try to figure out how to proceed.”

Never forget they want you in a registry.  It’s their “North Star,” their “touchstone,” the penultimate inflection of their control desires.  Just before illegality.