Archive for the 'Guns' Category

In this silly article, the author cites someone parroting that ridiculous line again that the best defense against a bear is bear spray.  But the following quote caught my eye.

“In the case of grizzly bears, the only time you can shoot … is in defense of your life or someone else’s life,” he said. “You can’t just shoot because it’s in your yard and killing your chickens.”

Manley added that he would never recommend shooting at bears to scare them away.

That list of suggestions by Sean Albrite, a firearms salesman at Snappy Sport Senter – “Bang pots and pans, yell at them from a safe position or set off you car alarm with a remote” – is highly irresponsible.  If a bear is in the vicinity of you, your family, or your beasts, you should grab a .45, a .357 magnum, or better yet a rifle (not .22LR), and prepare for self defense.

As to the notion that “You can’t just shoot because it’s in your yard and killing your chickens,” that’s just like saying that you can’t just shoot a felony intruder just because he’s in your yard and threatening harm to your children.  Only a progressive (who doesn’t believe that man is made in God’s image or that beasts who our property warrant defending) could come up with such an obscene idea.  And how could anyone seriously defend the proposition that a bear should be any more protected than my dogs or chickens?

Prior: Man Who Shot Grizzly Bear Defending His Family Gets Fined

David Codrea:

What Hollis won’t do, if the suit prevails, is rescind the National Firearms Act of 1934, including registration and transfer tax requirements. What it would do is invalidate the absurd prohibition that says you can own a machine gun made before May 19, 1986, but if you possess an identical firearm made after that arbitrary date, you’ll be a felon in for a world of hurt. And the other thing it would do is create all kind so interesting market repercussions that have kept the prices of pre-’86 machine guns at artificially inflated (and then some) prices.

To anyone capable of grasping basic logic, acknowledging the ludicrousness of the cutoff would seem cut and dried. But when descending into the bizarre and often contradictory world of ATF rulings and judicial interpretations, a happy resolution is anything but a slam dunk.

Read David’s entire piece.  I sure would like to see the arbitrary cutoff go down in flames.  As I’ve argued before, this arbitrary cutoff also has other nefarious affects on the American arms industry, like preventing the development of fully automatic weapons technology.  Why do you think the only squad automatic weapon fielded today in the Army and Marines is made by FN Herstal?  Wouldn’t it be wise to invest in open bolt technology in order to have better weapons ourselves?  Sorry, can’t do that, because there isn’t enough money to develop weapons that may or may not be contracted by the U.S. armed forces.  Weapons like this need a civilian outlet in the case of rejection by the Army and Marines to make them financially feasible.

David Codrea:

“It is not believed that members of the various shooting clubs and organizations would concern themselves over a curtailment of highly-powered firearms,” Hoover opined, probably not altogether incorrectly considering the indifference of many who to this day still place sporting interests over rights. “Additional penetration is of no value to target shooting, and it is logical to assume that organizations promoting this sport would be in hearty accord with legislation curtailing high velocity bullets in an attempt to insure their members the continued use of target pistols.”

How interesting.  David has a great find on history of the .357 magnum cartridge and Hoover’s opinion of civilian ownership of weapons that can handle the cartridge.  He (Hoover) uses the word “insure” rather than the correct word “ensure,” a pet peeve of mine, so I think he was an idiot, and I would have slapped him around for it.  See David’s link to the document.  Between David’s research and what Jerry Miculek lectured and demonstrated, we are learning more about the .357 magnum.  And the more we learn, the more I like it.  I’ve always liked shooting it.

Handgun permitting by CLEOs may be done away with in North Carolina, like it should be.  Personally, I think it’s a pain in the ass in addition to being an infringement.  It’s a reversion to Jim Crow laws.  But look for CLEOs to fight it because they would lose revenue, control and justification for staffing.

See this billboard courtesy of Mike Vanderboegh.  This is a great billboard, in addition to being a very nice piece of art work.  I’d like to see a few in every state, or as many as we can get, with people all over this nation asking, “What’s this I’m seeing about III%?  What does it all mean?”

This is a very educational video, with Jerry going over the history of the .357 magnum round and demonstrating what it can do.

Like I said, a great video.  But still, a .357 semi-auto?  Hmm … I don’t know.  I love me a .357 magnum wheel gun.  Love me one.  I’m just sayin’.  Love.

Firmin Debrabander in The Atlantic:

But there is an unfortunate lesson playing out for those who have armed themselves to feel safer—and for all of us, too. The gun-rights movement has worked hard to push an increasingly radical agenda that undermines both our personal safety and our civic fabric. To that extent, there is something almost tragic occurring here: The well-meaning citizens who arm themselves in droves, perhaps even in public, are in that very process threatening the peace and order they seek to preserve, and claim to uphold.

Stand Your Ground laws are a prime example …

[ … ]

LaPierre’s argument for being armed boils down to this: Americans are on the verge of—or already sinking into—a state of anarchy, where it is each man for himself. In that state, “the government can’t—or won’t—protect you…Only you can protect you,” he warns …

Another favorite gun rights saying is that “when seconds count, police are minutes away.” In other words, it’s better to have a gun on you, or an armed ‘good guy’ in the midst of a shooting, when police cannot arrive soon enough. But first responders arrived at the scene of the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting within three minutes of the first police radio broadcast of the attack. Police arrived on the scene at the Aurora movie theater 90 seconds after being called. How small ought that window be to satisfy gun-rights advocates? Perhaps it can’t be small enough. In their view, guns must be ever-present if society hopes to keep order. This logic implicitly undermines law enforcement’s role in society. The world is just too dangerous, it argues, and cops are outmanned and outgunned (again, thanks to the NRA’s efforts). Armed citizens are therefore needed to fill those gaps when cops are not present—no matter how small or short those gaps may be—in order to keep the peace.

[ … ]

Rule of law is essential for maintaining the peace in civil society. It is also an act of faith: People presume and trust that everyone else around them will act lawfully and safely. For example, I must presume that the driver in front of me will obey the laws of the road; I must also presume that he will not, Mad Max-style, swerve around to aim a rifle at me and start firing.

Good grief.  There are so many problems with this article that it’s hard to know where to start.  I can only offer several rejoinders and let the readers fill in the blanks or complete the analysis.

The “rule of law” as the author sees it has to do with ordered collectivism, but the problem is that collectivism is only ordered for the benefit of the ruling elite.  As to the question “How small ought that window be to satisfy gun-rights advocates? Perhaps it can’t be small enough,” the window will never be small enough.  There is no perhaps about it, so Debrabander doesn’t have to wonder.

Assuming that the police are always there to benefit the innocent and defend the just is tantamount to dereliction of duty to yourself and your family.  And there is the rub between Debrabander and many readers.  His article of faith, that he “must presume that the driver in front of me will obey the laws of the road; I must also presume that he will not, Mad Max-style, swerve around to aim a rifle at me and start firing,” not only runs contrary to the facts, but he has no reason to believe such a thing.

I prefer Gordon H. Clark’s definition of faith: it is a belief system, not a set of irrational propositions that have no relation to any other propositions.  I have reasons for my belief system.  Mr. Debrabander has no rational excuse for his stated belief that everyone will obey all laws.  He read that nowhere, he heard that nowhere, he cannot ensconce or place that proposition syllogistically within any belief system on earth.

Finally, like so many collectivists, he misses the point of ownership and bearing of arms.  Since he believes in tyranny, he doesn’t understand that tyranny must be rectified. Arms are for the amelioration of tyranny.  Kurt Hofmann and I agree that guns are for self defense, as long as one defines self defense in the context of both personal self defense against ne’er-do-wells and defense of self, family and community against the state.  Only when Debrabander comes to terms with this concept will he differentiate himself from the Nazi’s of Germany, who also believed in the rule of law as they sent Jews (and also Christians) to their deaths by the millions.

News from Florida:

A former Miami-Dade police internal affairs lieutenant today admitted buying and smuggling guns for a drug ring through security checkpoints at Miami International Airport and depositing some of his payments into a Fort Lee bank account.

Nearly a year after an investigation by FBI and DEA agents out of Passaic County led to his arrest, 45-year-old Ralph “the Milk Man” Mata pleaded guilty in federal court in Newark to conspiring to distribute cocaine, “aiding and abetting a narcotics conspiracy” and depositing money for the illicit organization.

As part of his plea, Mata agreed to forfeit $75,405 seized by federal authorities when he was arrested last April 9.

U.S. Attorney Paul J. Fishman said Mata bought at least six firearms from a gun store in Florida that ended up in the hands of members of the Juan Arias Drug Trafficking Organization.

“Using his prior experience as a lieutenant assigned to the Miami International Airport, as well as his law enforcement contacts at the airport, Mata and others smuggled the six firearms through airport security checkpoints and onto a commercial airliner destined for the Dominican Republic,” Fishman said.

Mata also “provided advice, guidance and counsel to Juan Arias regarding the means and methods the drug trafficking organization should use to import and distribute cocaine,” and also “transported narcotics proceeds for the organization,” the complaint says.

In exchange, he got “cash and a Rolex watch valued at approximately $10,000,” it says.

Gosh.  I hate it when that happens to me.  I remember the last time I bought guns for the drug lords.  I was working for the U.S. ATF and under their direct orders when did that so I didn’t get in too much trouble.  Only a few of those patriot types really cared.  But they wouldn’t let me keep the Rolex.

Guns.com:

Schlotman said:

That was a group called Moms Demand Action. They were opposed to the fact that our policy is to adhere to the local gun laws. If the local gun laws are to allow open carry, we’ll certainly allow customers to do that based on what the local laws are. We don’t believe it’s up to us to legislate what the local gun control laws should be. It’s up to the local legislators to decide to do that.

So we follow local laws; we ask our customers to be respectful to the other people they are shopping with. And we really haven’t had any issues inside of our stores as a result of that.

The comment reaffirms  the company’s original statement when Moms targeted the supermarket giant last summer after a series of successful campaigns targeting other chains. The group was able to raise awareness of policies by Target, Chipotle, Facebook and Starbucks and force the companies to respond, more often than not in a lukewarm way.

Moms won’t have as much success against Kroger as they did with a progressive company like Starbucks.  As I pointed out:

Look Christy, if moms and kids could tell the difference, like this instance when Harris Teeter stores were robbed at gun point, you couldn’t do anything about it.  You couldn’t protect your children, because criminals don’t obey laws or follow rules (even if Harris Teeter made such a rule).

You see, I carry a weapon in Harris Teeter stores, as I do everywhere else.  The fact that you can’t see it doesn’t mean that I’m not a bad guy, and if I open carry, that doesn’t mean I’m not a good guy.  This all has to do with your private psychological peculiarities, and says nothing whatsoever objective concerning anyone else.  This all has to do with things going on in your mind, not reality.

Moreover, if you do ever get into a situation in which you need protection and your husband isn’t with you, one of us might just save the day.  I wouldn’t rely on the police if I were you.  Their response time is far too long, and they have proven again and again and again that they can be very dangerous people with guns.

Harris Teeter doesn’t want this fight.  There are far too many of us and they don’t want to lose the business.  So I recommend that you go somewhere you’re wanted and leave the Harris Teeter parking lots free for folks who want to shop there.

I also noted that the Harris Teeter on Matthews Township Parkway still had their no firearms sign up.  Well, as soon as Harris Teeter saw the photo on this web site, they removed the sign.  Harris Teeter is now part of Kroger, and given where these two chains are located, Moms won’t have success against either one of them.

Congratulations to Kroger and a strong stand.  It’s always creepy to see someone take a stand and then back down in the face of someone bitching about the stand.  If you back down, you didn’t really believe it to begin with.  Reward Kroger and Harris Teeter with your business if you get a chance.

David Codrea:

And while the numbers of Coloradans transferring their property or ignoring the magazine ban is impossible to measure with accuracy, there’s reason to believe they are substantial — just as are the numbers of gun owners who have refused to comply with infringements in California, Connecticut, Washington State and elsewhere. It’s part of a phenomenon I’ve been calling a “new paradigm,” although in truth, disobedience in defense of freedom has been a time-honored practice among liberty-minded Americans since before the Republic — as the example of Patriots at Lexington and Concord could not have made more clear.

Never obey an immoral law.  God does not approve of that.  Furthermore, do you notice that the ones who chat up the issue of forcible confiscation, or forcible arrest and detention, or forcible prison time, or infringements on our God-given rights are mostly the rulers who want submission to their every desire, or their loyal minions, the internet trolls who chat this up over the web?  None of these people ever volunteer to conduct the raids and get shot enforcing these stupid laws.

Kurt Hofmann:

In the end, though, it’s fair to ask just how relevant the numerical breakdown is. This is a republic, after all, and not a democracy, in which 51% of the people can vote away the rights of the other 49%. Fundamental human rights cannot be legitimately held to the outcome of a popularity contest. And finally, if the supposedly growing number of people who own no guns want to disarm us, in our supposedly shrinking numbers, we shouldn’t even need the large and growing numbers of guns we each ostensibly own. When defending one’s rights against the unarmed. one gun should be plenty–just be sure to have a good supply of ammunition.

Yea, I caught Mr. Horn’s assessment, and laughed out loud.  First of all, what gun owner in their right mind today is going to answer a telephone or internet question on whether he has guns?  Such a poll is prima facie ridiculous.  Second, this notion that rights aren’t held hostage to favorable statistical outcomes (or the results of polls) is an old and respected one with me and Kurt.

H&K rifle problems.  Well, H&K hates you, so why would you have one?

John Kerry appeals to Baal.  Will he slash his wrists and bleed out next? (1 Kings 18:28).

One in eight illegal immigrants now has a white collar job.  You know.  Those jobs that Americans won’t do.

Does Israel really have a thermonuclear weapon?  He doesn’t mean that.  He meant to say “nuclear weapon,” not thermonuclear weapon (which uses fission to create the heat for fusion to occur).  This is what happens when idiots write articles.  So dismiss everything else he has to say about everything.

The Salt Lake Tribune:

So let’s assume you have no kids in the home.  If you want to leave four handguns lying in strategic places around the house, coupled with a rifle and perhaps a shotgun, that’s your business.  To be individually responsible, every gun owner should be able to do the following: allow themselves to be blindfolded, start at the door, walk to every firearm he owns, touch it, and tell someone from memory whether it is loaded and whether a round is chambered.

That’s my personal view.  But I consider it none of my business what you do within the confines of your own home.  How may guns you have, where they are located, whether they are loaded, whether a round is chambered, etc., is your business and yours alone.  How you secure your weapons is up to you. After all, they are your property.

As for Steve Sanetti, you are out of line implying that if someone chooses to handle firearms his way within the confines of his own home, and his way happens to disagree with yours, he is irresponsible.  Making suggestions is okay.  Implying that people must do things your way isn’t.  And by the way, I don’t need law enforcement telling me anything about how to safely handle weapons.

MSNBC:

Asked about the Second Amendment at a town-hall meeting yesterday, the governor told voters, “Send me a Republican legislature. And with a Republican legislature you’ll have a governor who will respect, appropriately, the rights of law-abiding citizens to be able to protect ourselves…. No rights are given to you by government. All our rights are given to you by God.”

The theological reference was a bit odd under the circumstances. Even if Christie genuinely believes the Second Amendment creates a God-given entitlement to firearm ownership, it’s up to policymakers – humans, in positions of governmental authority – to shape and place limits on this right.

First of all, Chris Christie’s campaign is over.  It’s far too late to convince any legitimate gun owner that Christie would be good for gun rights.  Now that this point is out of the way, consider the way the reporter, Steve Benen, worded this objection.  “Even if Christie genuinely believes the Second Amendment creates a God-given entitlement to firearm ownership …”  How on earth could a man-made document create a God-given right?  What kind of ignorance and sophomoric thinking leads someone to make such intellectual missteps?

As I have stated, “The basis [for bearing arms] comes not from the constitution or any other founding document, but from God Himself, and he answers to no one.  His laws have a deontological flavor (see Divine Command Theory).  He refers to no one outside Himself for notions of right and wrong, and when He speaks, it is right because He has spoken it and it follows the nature of His character, which is itself good.  Simply said, God doesn’t need the constitution, and neither do we need it to tell us it is okay to seek and employ means of self defense.”

For the grand finale of embarrassing brain freezes, Steve believes that it’s up to humans to “shape and place limits on this right.”  God, to whom man answers and who is in need of no one and nothing (see the “Aseity of God”), and who demands obedience rather than demurral, apparently hasn’t spoken clearly enough for Steve, who believes that creatures have the right to amend the word of the creator!

And there you have it.  The much heralded main stream media, who wouldn’t be able to perform good analysis work if their lives depended on it.

David Codrea:

“A Navy veteran and his wife are challenging a ban on handguns in Saipan, arguing in federal court that the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands is bound by the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment” … The right to keep and bear arms is only legally recognized as “conditionally guaranteed,” meaning it’s not. Private possession of handguns is prohibited. All the government allows people to have are “.22 caliber rifles and .410 gauge shotguns.” Naturally, “background checks,” training, licensing and registration are required.

Ridiculous.  A .410 gauge shotgun is good for certain small fowl that would be destroyed with a 20 or 12 gauge, but it cannot be adequately used as a self defense weapon.  Nor can .22LR (including so-called “stinger” rounds).  Of course, my bet is that law enforcement is allowed to have more than .22LR and .410 gauge shotguns.  Some animals are more equal than other animals.

Via Mike Vanderboegh, Army Rangers on civilian land in Georgia.

Back in June, Georgia ForestWatch District Leader David Govus came across two soldiers on foot and one in a pickup truck near Bryant Creek, a tributary of Cooper Creek. Talking with them, he learned that they were scouting out potential helicopter landing zones in the area because, as the sergeant said “the colonel wants to step out.”

[ … ]

In an apparently unrelated incident, I recently happened to be at Wilscot Gap, where the gated road to Brawley Mountain (FS45) begins, when a big pickup truck turned in toward the gate. I thought it must be Forest Service employees and went over to talk with them. But the truck was not a Forest Service one. The driver was not in military uniform, but the passenger who got out to unlock the gate, was. We had a brief, friendly conversation during which he informed me that, “This is a military road.” “No,” I contradicted him, “it’s a Forest Service road.”

This is very troubling.  The Marine Corps has trained before in various civilian venues such as Linville Gorge, and I’ve seen them doing cold weather training at Snowshoe, W.V., during the winter during ski season.  But they weren’t intrusive, and in my opinion this kind of thing ought to be the exception rather than the rule.  Military time on civilian land should be limited.  Recalling the line from the movie Patriot, “This ISN’T the King’s highway.”

Ban all guns:

But in hindsight I now wonder how did that young man get a gun?  Either he stole it, as I assumed, or he purchased it on the black market which exists all throughout America.

This got me to wondering and I realize now that guns are selfish and bring nothing productive to the conversation.

Therefore, civilian gun ownership should be banned.

I know.  You’re blown away by the power of his syllogistic reasoning.  Leave it to me to supply your intellectual challenge for the day.

Gun crime:

Investigators said the burglars took heirlooms, jewelry and cash. Most concerning for Lohmeier, though, are the 45 guns, which included 15 assault rifles. The burglars also stole 1,000 rounds of ammunition. In total, Lohmeier said the burglary cost him at least $200,000 in stolen property and money.

“The sheriff’s department said they’ve never seen anything like this and it had to take hours, so there had to be people watching,” Lohmeier said. “A crew that came in and did this.”

Insure your guns, fellows.  Just do it.  Make that call today to your insurance agent or broker, and get them covered.  Go ahead.  Do it … don’t wait.