Archive for the 'Guns' Category

Politico:

Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry on Thursday positioned himself as a pragmatic, pro-compromise presidential candidate, dismissing 2016 rivals whom he said merely seek to be “critic-in-chief.”

Perry in recent weeks has sought to portray himself as a more moderate, thoughtful contender than he was during his 2012 campaign, when he entered the race as a firebrand conservative. In an appearance before the socially conservative group American Principles Project in Washington, Perry argued that Republicans should nominate someone with a message that goes beyond merely opposing the other side, an apparent swipe at fellow Texan Ted Cruz, a conservative hard-liner.

Guess one subject on which he has “moderated” his views?  That’s right.  Guns.

Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) said Thursday he was skeptical of open carry gun laws, as conservatives in his home state are attempting to push such measures through the legislature …

In an interview with the The Texas Tribune and The Washington Post, Perry said he was “not necessarily all that fond of this open carry concept.” His concerns, however, seemed to be more practical than philosophical.

“I don’t want the bad guys to know if I’m carrying,” he said. “I don’t want to be the first person shot if something’s going down.”

A Perry spokesman didn’t immediately return a request for clarification on whether Perry would sign open carry legislation if he were still governor.

In his interview Thursday, Perry also said gun owners should be “appropriately backgrounded, appropriately vetted, appropriately trained.”

“We license people to drive on our highways,” he said. “We give them that privilege. The same is true with our concealed handguns.”

The most important revelation about Perry’s views isn’t his opposition to open carry, although he wouldn’t advocate that LEOs conceal rather than open carry (and thus his view here is hypocritical).  The most significant revelation pertains to his view of licensing carriers, noting that it is a “privilege.”

Privilege it isn’t, as God has not only granted the right of self defense, he has stipulated that men will be prepared to protect their families at all times if they want to honor His laws.  It is more than a privilege.  It is a duty before God.  In attempting to track towards the middle, Perry won’t gain a single vote in his corner, but this will come back to haunt him with gun owners.  Another one bites the dust.  His political career is dead.

The GOP is so corrupt and wasted that it can only think about fielding men like Perry (a gun control moderate), Christie (who made his fame in gun control in the great collectivist Northeast), Rand Paul (an open borders freak), and Jeb Bush (wrong on everything under the sun).

Baltimore Sun:

Where do criminals get guns? I’ll explore that question a lot this year because the supply of guns to people prohibited from having them remains a principal cause of Baltimore’s violent eruptions. When a convicted felon can allegedly walk out of his house with an AR-15 style semiautomatic rifle and a 9 mm handgun and kill two men in a dispute over a parking space, we need to know: Who enabled him? Where’d he get the guns?

If he stole them, the case ends there.

But if he bought them, then those who supplied the weapons ought to be held accountable, too. The way I see it, they are accomplices to murder.

Oh goody.  That’s just what we need.  Another progressive “exploring” the issue of guns.  I can’t wait.

While Welch-Sutton is a federal case, the straw purchases they admitted to are exactly what the Maryland General Assembly had in mind when it toughened up the state’s firearms law in 2013. The law now requires people who want to buy a gun to submit to a background check, fingerprinting and four hours of gun-safety training.

Opponents of the measure called it an infringement on liberty.

But it’s no such thing. The intent is to discourage straw purchases, to keep old buddies from buying firearms for felons. It’s one piece of what should be a steady, comprehensive effort to reduce the size of the black market of guns that end up causing so much havoc and death. More to come.

Here’s what you won’t find Mr. Rodrick’s focus on: machetes.  Or Chicago gang violence with machetes and knives.  Like this.  Or hammer attacks and the need for a ban on assault hammers and background check before purchasing one.  Or finally, the need to disarm the police because attacking officers and perpetrating crime upon their person for the sole purpose of stealing their weapons has become a favorite tactic of criminals.

Because despite what Mr. Rodrick says about this not being infringements on your rights, it really is about that, and about the state having even more power than it does now.  All progressives want more state control, because it is in their nature.  It’s part of their DNA.  It’s their all encompassing world view.  The hippie movement was never about freedom, love and peace.  It was all about changing ideas and replacing those in power with their own people so they could control things.

David Codrea:

Attempting to further bolster a de facto monopoly of violence in New York City, Police Commissioner Bill Bratton proposed additional edicts to tip the power scales even more in favor of enforcers over citizens, the New York Observer reported Wednesday. In addition to stiffening penalties for things like wearing protective body armor, tinting windows and holding police to similar information disclosures that “civilians” (a telling attitude in itself ) are subjected to, Bratton said it would be “very helpful” if charges of resisting arrest were upped from misdemeanors to felonies.

Oh good grief.  Is there any depth to which they won’t stoop?  I can see it now.  An otherwise innocent bystander in some crime is confused with the perpetrator of the crime by idiot police, he argues with the officer when apprehended, and is then banged upside the head with a stick and hauled before a court that is sympathetic to the officer in the first place.  He is now a felon, having been guilty of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.  And I do mean “the wrong place.”  Who in their right mind would live in NYC?

Rifle-toting deputy takes his post at court building.  You know, for “safety” reasons.  Hey, he’s openly carrying a rifle.  It’s not okay if you or I do something like that.  Just because.

Biasing of temperature data biggest scientific scandal of all time.  Because anthropogenic global warming is a lie.

Daily Finance:

In December 2012, a gunman burst into Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, and shot 26 people dead. Two years later, sales of guns and ammunition are off the charts.

That’s surprising, to say the least. After all, a lot of people thought that Sandy Hook might be a turning point for the gun control movement in America. Investors sold off shares of publicly traded gunsmiths Smith & Wesson (SWHC) and Sturm, Ruger (RGR) in the wake of the tragedy. Retailers of guns and ammunition — Cabela’s (CAB) and Dick’s Sporting Goods (DKS), and even the much more diversified retailer Walmart (WMT) all experienced slumps in share price post-Newtown. Dick’s went so far as to suspend gun sales to consumers for a time. Private equity house Cerberus Capital Management made plans to exit the guns business entirely, by selling its interest in privately held arms manufacturer Freedom Group.

And yet, according to a new poll out of Pew Research, the percentage of Americans who say they support “the right of Americans to own guns” hit a new high last year, with 52 percent in favor. That’s up 7 percentage points since the shootings at Newtown. Up 20 percentage points since the Virginia Tech shootings in 2007. It’s nearly twice the level of support for gun rights at the time of the Columbine shooting in 1999. And support for gun rights is only growing stronger.

It’s only surprising to people who don’t understand America.  For all of you who sold your gun manufacturer stock after Columbine, Sandy Hook, and the Colorado theater shooting, you are idiots.  Each and every one of you.

CNBC:

The federal judge considering a proposed class-action settlement involving millions of allegedly defective Remington rifles is raising new questions about the accord, warning a plaintiff’s attorney in court that the agreement as it currently stands risks more people being injured by the guns.

Remington and the plaintiffs in two nationwide class-action cases have proposed replacing the triggers on nearly eight million guns, including the wildly popular Model 700 Series, which critics allege are prone to firing without the trigger being pulled.

Some two dozen deaths and hundreds of injuries have been linked to accidental firings of the guns. The 2010 documentary Remington Under Fire: A CNBC Investigation explored allegations that for more than 60 years, the company covered up the alleged defect.

Remington has steadfastly denied the allegations and still maintains the guns are safe.

“There’s nothing wrong with the Remington 700 rifle,” said Remington outside counsel John Sherk at a preliminary hearing in a federal court in Kansas City to consider the proposed settlement. But he said “Remington is committed to this settlement” in order for the company to move past litigation that has gone on for decades.

This is what happens with students go to law school and become convinced that it’s okay to tell lies.  There is indeed something very wrong with the Remington 700.  As I’ve said before, don’t believe what I’m saying.  Go study the evidence for yourself, including the testing performed at Remington.

The reason this is a big deal goes beyond mere responsibility for your work products as good and honest workers.  This goes to the honesty of engineering, the fidelity of weapons design and the ability to entrust your life and the lives of loved ones to a manufacturer.  Remington is showing itself to be a very bad example to the gun community.  Forget the issue of legal settlements.  What happened to being good professional engineers who take ownership of their designs?

David Codrea:

… those associations in and of themselves don’t relate how Carter would be able to use the position of Secretary of Defense to impact gun owners.

Here’s one area that it might: In following up on reports of military installations destroying expended ammunition brass rather than making it available to the commercial reload market, this column uncovered a copy of a June 23, 2011 memorandum from Carter on “Department of Defense (DoD) Implementing Guidance for the Commercial Sale of Expended Small Arms Cartridge Cases (ESACC).”

The memorandum includes an “Implementing Guidance” attachment stating “DoD will dispose of ESACC as quickly and effectively as practical, and in compliance with applicable laws, regulations and DoD guidance.” Of relevance, it also states “The DoD will not expend resources to determine whether ESACC are serviceable for non-military purposes.”

Ashton Carter is a progressive leader – not just shill – but leader.  Obama wouldn’t have appointed him if this were not the case.  You can lay bets on the notion that he will do everything in his power to ensure progressive policies are implemented.

Kurt Hofmann:

In other words, everyone who obediently registered their “assault weapons” and “high capacity” magazines, as per the new law, had provided the state with a map telling the gun confiscation raiding parties just where to go … let’s focus on one particular provision–registration of every gun. Actually, that’s annual registration, which is to be accompanied every time with a test of “firearms handling capacity” and knowledge of gun laws.

It never stops folks.  When they talk about “common sense” gun laws, what they really mean is that if you will let them get a foot in the door, they’ll force their way inside and take over.  It’s what control freaks do.  It’s what they believe.  They cannot not try to control every aspect of your life.  It’s like a dog returning to its vomit.  And it’s just as grotesque.

David Codrea:

“A Kermit [Texas] parent said his fourth-grade student was suspended Friday for allegedly making a terroristic threat,” the Odessa American reported Friday. After seeing “The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies,” nine-year-old Aiden Steward allegedly brought a ring to school and told a classmate it was magic and could make him disappear.

The boy’s father, Jason Steward, said Kermit Elementary School Principal Roxanne Greer informed him “threats to another child’s safety would not be tolerated — whether magical or not.” For her part, Greer declined to comment …

Yea, I’ll bet she declined to comment.  This woman is an imbecile.  Do you really need another reason to get your children dissociated from the communist indoctrination program?

Iraqi father guns down seven ISIS members.

David Codrea:

Noting he is prohibited from commenting on grand jury proceedings, perhaps the DA’s mindset can be gleaned from a statement that is on public record. Berberian had previously maintained the shooting was inappropriate and illegal due to what he called “community standards.” In Marin County, those standards place a political “stigma” on gun ownership, and Berberian’s personal hostility to gun ownership, where he goes so far as to invite citizens to “surrender” their firearms to a “buyback” program, is seen by some as an “unhealthy obsession.”

Community standards?  Perhaps we need a community standard that takes corrupt DAs out behind the jail to find a lamp post and some rope.

David is following up that awful commercial made by the anti-gun nuts. “The producer of an anti-gun “public service announcement” video appears to have violated California law regarding either real or imitation firearms on school premises, a Freedom of Information Act response by the North Oakland Community Charter School implies by default. Documents provided to Gun Rights Examiner in response to a Public Records Act request partially corroborate the school executive director’s earlier claim that “NOCCS does not allow, condone, or support bringing weapons of any kind (real or replicas) to school.”

David is pointing people to a debate appended to one of his articles, where Bruce Krafft argues as follows:

And after some argument, he says “You believe that immigration will be a net drain despite the fact that some 50% of new businesses are started by 1st generation immigrants.”

Let’s be clear here.  I can answer David’s first question with clarity and intentionally include not just some sort of vague, murky “natural” right (I am not a follower of John Locke and his ilk).  I believe that the God of the Bible has granted every man the right to defend his family the way he sees fit.  Now to Mr. Krafft’s problem.

He is a simpleton.  All of that has abolutely nothing whatsoever to do with whether the U.S. recognizes aliens, gives them sustenance, recognizes rights, or anything else.  Just as I can point to God having granted the right to self defense and amelioration of tyranny to all men everywhere, I can also point to a sovereign state’s resposibility to secure its borders, protect its heritage, and secure its freedom from tyranny.

Allowing voters in who would undermine that runs directly contrary to a state’s God given duties.  What another state recognizes (or not) for its citizens isn’t our concern.  That is between God and those evil rulers.  Just as we cannot be the police of the world, we also cannot ensure every man’s rights are observed by allowing our borders to be violated.  Setting one concept over against another (in a Morton’s Fork) is fodder for college freshmen.  We aren’t college freshmen, we think more clearly than that.  As for the notion that “immigrants start this,” or “immigrants did that,” or “we are all immigrants of some sort,” I am completely unmoved.  This is a play on emotions because Mr. Krafft knows he has lost the argument.  I don’t vote or advocate based on emotions.  Go emote with someone who cares, Mr. Krafft.  David titles his post at WoG “A Libertarian Paradox.”  Philosopher Gordon H. Clark once said of paradoxes, they are a “charlie horse in the head.”  So this too.  There is no logical problem here, just a lack of clear thought.

In an exchange I knew nothing about until today (I have been out of pocket for a while), Mike Vanderboegh is contemplating potential arrest at the WA state house as part of “I will not comply” protests.  David weighs in with Mike asking him to reconsider, and for a rundown of his own reason you will have to read David’s letter to Mike.

I have nothing at all to add to either Mike’s reasons or David’s counterarguments.  This is entirely a personal decision, neither dictated nor forbidden by Biblical precepts.  Perhaps there is wisdom to be gleaned, but that’s not the same thing as rules, sin, righteousness and the like.  I have not been a part of things like this because I have a job, and that job quite literally required me over the past several weeks to work about 20 straight days without time off.  Moreover, my job requires that I stay free from felony arrests, and even lesser charges could be problematic.

That said, I do get that there must be a line in the sand.  Every man must make those decisions for himself.  I cannot suffer the notion that the federal government has a list of every firearm owned and who owns them.  What I would do about that is none of your business until I tell you and make it your business.  The one thing on which I disagree with David is this: “And no, I don’t see a way to back out of this without losing face.”

Oh, I don’t know about that.  Haters will always hate.  Anonymous commenters annoy me, and like David I require that men go on record, at least with me if not others.  But posting an anonymous comment ridiculing Mike’s decision, one way or another, impresses me as sound and fury signifying nothing.  It’s like the little yap-yap dogs who run up to my 82 pound red and rust Dobbi, Heidi, making all sorts of unappealing noises, until she looks their way, and then they turn tail and run.  I think Heidi must be amused.  I know I am.

That’s what I recommend for Mike.  Amusement is appropriate in some circumstances.  But if you want to go to WA, do it.  If you don’t, then don’t.  Here is how you tell folks your decision.  You simply tell them.  That’s the end of it.  I don’t embarrass easily (engineers usually suffer from over-confidence and an almost pathological inability to care about the views of others – so I acknowledge there’s a problem with us, but I’m confident that problem doesn’t apply to me).  So maybe I’m a bad one to offer counsel.  But I just don’t see the issue with “saving face.”  It doesn’t have even the slightest traction with me.

WeaponsMan has a demurral for the M-14 / M1A lovers.  Well, I suspect that this will draw out as many violent remarks as haters of the 5.56 mm round and M-16/M-4/AR-15 platform.

kirotv.com:

Another company, Triggersmart, uses a radio ID tag that can be embedded in a ring.

But a poll done for the symposium reveals only 40 percent of current gun owners would switch to a smart gun — and 62 percent of gun owners reject any mandatory requirement to have them.

Dave Workman is a gun owner with the locally based 2nd Amendment Foundation.

“Let’s not even be talking about the technology until we are certain that it works,” Workman said.

King County Sheriff John Urquhart was on a panel, but wasn’t ready to commit to smart guns.

Urquhart says it will be years before the smart gun technology is ready. And then he’s not likely to mandate it for his officers.

Contrary to Dave’s edict, let’s talk yet again about smart gun technology.  I am a registered professional engineer, and I spend all day analyzing things and performing calculations.  Let’s not speak in broad generalities and murky platitudes (such as “good enough”).  That doesn’t work with me.  By education, training and experience, I reject such things out of hand.  Perform a fault tree analysis of smart guns.  Use highly respected guidance like the NRC fault tree handbook.

Assess the reliability of one of my semi-automatic handguns as the first state point, and then add smart gun technology to it, and assess it again.  Compare the state points.  Then do that again with a revolver.  Be honest.  Assign a failure probability of greater than zero (0) to the smart technology, because you know that each additional electronic and mechanical component has a failure probability of greater than zero.

Get a PE to seal the work to demonstrate thorough and independent review.  If you can prove that so-called “smart guns” are as reliable as my guns, I’ll pour ketchup on my hard hat, eat it, and post video for everyone to see.  If you lose, you buy me the gun of my choice.  No one will take the challenge because you will lose that challenge.  I’ll win.  Case closed.  End of discussion.

Now to the real issue.  I won’t have a weapon that can be manipulated by anyone, or for which outside interference of any kind is possible.  As I said about Gottlieb’s position, “I’m not opposed to people spending their money the way they want.  If Gottlieb wants one, let him buy one.  Leave me out of it.  And don’t ever … ever … EVER … tell me what kind of gun I can have or must buy.”

Prior: Smart Guns tag

Ammoland:

The National Firearms act regulation of short barreled rifles and shotguns from 1934 should be eliminated.   It made little sense when the primary purpose for the regulation was thwarted when it passed, it has become increasingly irrelevant, and it makes no sense at all after the Heller and McDonald decisions.

The reason for the ban on short barrelled rifles and shotguns had very little to do with the criminal use of such items.   After all, criminals use handguns many, many, times more often.    Short barreled rifles and shotguns are, in fact, as modified and used by criminals, expediently manufactured pistols.

The National firearms act of 1934 originally lumped in handguns with full auto firearms.  It is clear that the Roosevelt administration wanted to subject pistols and revolvers to the same draconian regulations and taxes that machine guns were finally subjected to.   Congress simply would not go along.  It was a step too far for even the heavily Democrat Congress of 1934.

Once you understand that licensing of handguns to the point of prohibition was the major target of the legislation, the reason for including short barreled rifles and shotguns becomes clear.    What is the point of banning handguns if any person can buy a rifle or shotgun, a hacksaw, and make a functional pistol in fifteen minutes from that rifle or shotgun?

That’s the first explanation I’ve ever heard that makes any sense at all as to why the law exists.  If seen in a vacuum, it is completely irrational and unworkable.  If seen in context, it is part of a larger scheme to deprive us of God-given rights across the spectrum, not just with SBRs.  It’s just that they failed with the rest of the control.  Thus, this piece of legislation sits alone, in need of more heinous and draconian controls to make any sense.

If you’re like me, you admire the fine, beautiful machinery in a revolver.  They beat plastic guns without mercy.  I love me a nice wheel gun.  But if you aren’t a revolver aficionado, there are things you need to know.  This is the very first one.  Watch.  Learn.

David Codrea:

Further reading confirms copies of the judgment were served to Attorney General Eric Holder, as well as to the DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility and the Office of Inspector General. Leaving the door open for further action, the opinion noted pending a final response from DOJ, “the court will reserve the question whether one or more of defendant’s attorneys acted in violation of the court’s rules and should be disciplined thereunder.”

Like I said, “this is criminal activity, and if it can be proven to the standards of the American Bar Association, they could be disbarred.  Finally, if it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, they could face criminal penalties.”  People need to be disbarred and in prison over this.

Kurt Hofmann:

This bill is an exact copy of one he introduced last July, H.R. 5344. At that time, he actually came out and said that he wants private citizens to be more vulnerable to gunfire … How one would “protect the safety” of “the general public” by outlawing safety equipment is left unexplained. Even many of the armored backpacks, sold for use by school children, would be banned.

PPEs are awesome, unless of course it makes you more protected from totalitarians trying to rule over you.

What Baghdad movie-goers think about American Sniper.  It’s instructive.

So let me get this straight.  Being an actual terrorist has to do with geographical interests and not methods or intent?  Okay.  Got it.

Mike Vanderboegh on Gottlieb on smart guns.  Very well.  I’m not opposed to people spending their money the way they want.  If Gottlieb wants one, let him buy one.  Leave me out of it.  And don’t ever … ever … EVER … tell me what kind of gun I can have or must buy.