Archive for the 'Guns' Category

David Codrea:

The thing is, transporting these children, sheltering them, feeding them, clothing them, bathing them and dealing with the waste they generate will all have an environmental impact, and while seemingly negligible compared to the totality of things, that’s added to the millions of heretofore illegal aliens already in the country now empowered to stay, and to those on their way, attracted by seeing “migrants” who came before them rewarded for lawbreaking. Their long-term impact as an aggregate on the environment and on the resources needed to provide energy, sustenance and disposal, can hardly be considered negligible. Nor can the immediate and continuing impact of environmental destruction left in their wake …

How much more of an impact will the president’s immigration directives have on the environment than the off-chance a person defending their life may (or may not) need to fire off rounds of ammunition that may (or may not) leave traces within national park boundaries? … Why not figure out the best jurisdiction to get an injunction halting Obama’s action until an environmental impact study can be completed.

Progressives are liars.  They pretend to care about the environement but don’t.  If they did, they would lobby for the startup of nuclear power plants.  Rather, progressives use their pretensions as a cudgel for their other causes.  As for the environmental impacts of immigration and lack of border security, we’ve discussed that here.  They don’t care.  Perhaps a judge can be found who would pay attention only to the law, but s/he wouldn’t care about the morality of the situation.

David Codrea:

 Obviously both of these individuals were not part of what the citizen disarmament cult disparages as “the gun culture,” as the lack of respect for even the most basic of safety rules indicated by the report points to people absolutely unfamiliar with basic rational gun-handling. The obvious ridiculous and senselessly dangerous way this woman evidently ended her own life unsurprisingly brought out ridicule-based comments, including predictable “Darwin Award” references.

“She deserved to die,” a gay Huffington Post reader from Yale weighed in. “Trailer lady deserved it.” Talk about tolerance and concern for “different” people of perceived lower economic status!

Progressives only pretend to care about the lower class.

From Uncle, here is a list of top handgun manufacturers.  I’m kind of surprised that Springfield Armory isn’t on the list.

Don Surber: Do not rebuild in Ferguson.  Yea, but when I said the same thing, I was somehow the devil.

Mountain Guerrilla:

Single-points have been popular for a long time, and I’ve been a fan. I ran one for a long time. I think the biggest selling point for single-point slings, for most people, is the cool-guy CDI (chicks dig it) factor. Guys see Chris Costa, or Travis Haley, or Kyle Defoor running them, and want one. The reality is, I HATE single-point slings. Every time I drop the gun, whether to transition to my sidearm (doesn’t happen nearly as often as a lot of training courses make it seem like does), or to go hands-on with someone, the f****** rifle nails me in the nuts.

Kyle Lamb, American Rifleman, December 2014:

A general-purpose AR just isn’t complete without a sling.  If you plan to carry a rifle or stabilize it while shooting, you must have a sling.  I use a quick-adjust, two-point type, the VTAC sling.  It allows the user to carry the carbine muzzle down as well as quickly cinch the rifle tight to his chest or loosen it for shooting or transitioning.  The sling can be slightly tightened while building a shooting position to greatly increase stability.  If you choose to use a single-point or three-point sling you will lose the ability to also have the built-in shooting aid.  The single-point lets the rifle dangle, merely there in case you have to transition to your side arm.  I find that less-secure configuration may also allow it to crack you in the family jewels or on the knees, depending on the adjustment.

My son Daniel and the rest of his company threw away or modified the mandated MC-issue three point slings to make them whatever the Marine wanted (even braiding 550 cord to make their own slings), in most cases a single point sling.  At the time they were preparing for Fallujah and a lot of CQB and room clearing, and needed the ability to raise the weapon and engage the sight picture via a “reflex sight” very quickly and efficiently.  Up and down and side to side and use of hands was very important.

David Codrea:

Time was, the turkey was considered a game bird. The Pilgrims at Plymouth feasted on them. Generations later, Ben Franklin considered it such a useful fowl that he nominated it for the national bird.

Of course, this was in the days when the right to bear arms was taken for granted, when free people hunted turkeys for sustenance, all the while honing marksmanship that would serve them well in time of need.

Fast-forward to present-day Boston, a place of sacred tradition, the literal forge for our heritage of individual liberty. Except Boston is now a place where traditions have been betrayed. Its current overlords have succeeded in disarming the whole people in a way that General Gage could never have conceived possible.

So successful have these rulers been that the city that gave us Sam Adams and Paul Revere is now a city under siege …

David Codrea:

At Wednesday afternoon’s White House ceremony for the traditional annual presidential pardon of turkeys from being served up for Thanksgiving dinner, Barack Obama likened the action to his executive order last week on illegal aliens. The president made the remarks before assembled press with daughters Malia and Sasha present before sparing the lives of turkeys Mac and Cheese, the beneficiaries of his latest order.

That’s because he’s an asshole.

Kurt Hofmann:

One cannot help but wonder about Ensley’s blustering “we’ll take them.” Does he propose to personally take part in the confiscations, or would his participation be limited to cheerleading from the sidelines. Personally, I strongly suspect the latter.

Yes, but I prefer the former.  At least that would make an honest man out of him.

Magpul finalizes departure from Colorado.

Uncle: Will the Army drink the Kool-Aid?  I don’t know.  But I’m not worried about what the Army does.  To S&W, I say again like I have to every gun manufacturer.  Don’t even start down the path of relying on government contracts to keep your company solvent.  It’s like shooting heroin once.  Just say no.  Just don’t do it.

Mike Vanderboegh:

It is possible to condemn rioting and lawlessness in the streets without embracing the militarized police state.

It is also possible to call into question the righteousness of Wilson’s use of deadly force without embracing arson and pillage.

These are not mutually exclusive propositions.

Yea, but when I said the same thing, I was somehow the devil.

Opposing Views:

An unidentified woman pulled the trigger on her rifle and witnessed the gun explode in her hands in video footage uploaded to LiveLeak over the weekend.

Although the woman appeared to be unharmed, her exact condition is not known. The location of the incident is also unknown.

ConcealedNation.org, a website focused on firearms, suggested a reason for the explosion, since the woman in the video seemed entirely surprised by the accident.

“It seems that she experienced a squib load on the 2nd to last shot. While she cleared the casing from the rifle, she did not check for barrel obstruction,” the website explained. “Once she pulled the trigger again, the newly-fired round ran right into the back of the previous round that didn’t have enough energy to make it out of the barrel.”

The website added that squib is usually attributed to an underpowered cartridge, a missing powder charge or a light powder charge. If an obstruction is created, then a fired round comes into contact with it and causes “dangerous situations”.

As if you needed any more reasons not to shoot crappy guns or ammunition, this should be enough.

Have you considered Scott Walker as a viable candidate for the GOP nomination for President?  Think again.

On the surface, Scott Walker seems like a gun owner’s dream candidate for president. The Wisconsin governor is backed by the National Rifle Association, which lauds his signing into law concealed carry and castle doctrine legislation. The “On the Issues” political leadership website notes Walker opposes restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms.

It’s unsurprising then, that NRA Director Grover Norquist has co-authored a piece for Reuters explaining “What makes Wisconsin’s Republican Governor Scott Walker a good choice for 2016.” But in this case, Norquist is wearing a different hat – that of president of Americans for Tax Reform, teaming with ATR’s director of state affairs, Patrick Gleason.

So what’s not to like? Don’t both issues track with greater freedom? Where’s the conflict?

Wearing that different hat, Norquist campaigned for and endorsed Bob Dold for Congress, in spite of the “Republican’s” support for restricting gun purchases and possession which was known at the time. The unsuitability of Dold’s Democrat opponent notwithstanding, NRA Director Norquist chose his priorities and endorsed a known gun-grabber who went on to accept an award from the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence.

There’s an issue besides taxes Norquist has yet another hat for: immigration. Just like Barack Obama, Norquist endorses rewarding alien nationals who have broken U.S. law by entering and remaining in this country illegally with a “pathway to citizenship.”

And Walker agrees with him.

He’s owned by the Chamber of Commerce.  He’s no different than George Bush, Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney and most other republicans.  David’s article is well researched and full of URLs for you to go and study the issue yourself.  I intentionally don’t supply the reference material so that you will visit Gun Rights Examiner.

The reasons for my rejection of Walker because of his stance on immigration are multifaceted.  First of all, the envelopment of America by immigrants changes everything, from language and culture, to generational demographics, racial demographics, and economic health of the country.

The immigrants to whom we have opened our borders are in the main low paid, low skill workers.  Big business loves them, because they can cut their bottom line.  They get away with this because we – middle class America – foot the bill for their medical care, SNAP, welfare and other necessities, thus providing corporate welfare for executives and members of the boards of directors.

The Democrats love them because they will vote democratic.  Recall what we’ve already discussed.

“For historical reasons to do with the nationalisation of the land under Lázaro Cárdenas and the predominant form of peasant land tenure, which was “village cooperative” rather than based on individual plots, the demand for “land to the tiller” in Mexico does not imply an individual plot for every peasant or rural worker or family. In Mexico, collectivism among the peasantry is a strong tradition … one consequence of these factors is that the radical political forces among the rural population are on the whole explicitly anti-capitalist and socialist in their ideology. Sometimes this outlook is expressed in support for guerilla organisations; but struggle movements of the rural population are widespread, and they spontaneously ally with the most militant city-based leftist organisations.”

One of the reasons for this reflexive alignment with leftism has to do with the the mid-twentieth century and what the Sovient Union and allied ideologies accomplished.  South and Central America was the recipient or receptacle for socialism draped in religious clothing, or in other words, liberation theology.  Its purveyors were Roman Catholic priests who had been trained in Marxism, and they were very successful in giving the leftists a moral platform upon which to build.  This ideology spread North from South and Central America into Mexico, and thus the common folk in Mexico are quite steeped in collectivist ideology from battles that were fought decades ago.

So Hispanics and Latinos think and vote as collectivists, but do their views on gun control reflect that heritage?

Latinos take a more conservative view on pot legalization and a more-pro view on gun control, according to a fresh report on politics from the Pew Research Center.

About 49 percent of Hispanics polled support legalization of marijuana versus 53 percent for the total U.S. population. Liberalization of pot use is gaining support around the nation. Come January, in Dallas County, there may be some loosening on pot prosecution with a pilot project that gives tickets rather than jail time for simple possession, as we reported here.

On gun control, 62 percent of Hispanics polled by Pew say they support controlling gun ownership, versus 45 percent for the nation.

David warned you, and again.  And listen to me yet again on this.  With every immigrant crossing the border, you will see the government acceptance and acknowledgment of your God given gun rights evaporate, further every day.

Hartford Business:

Connecticut gun makers and dealers say they want to leave the state but actually pulling the trigger on a move has been easier said than done.

Nearly two years after threatening to leave Connecticut entirely after lawmakers passed comprehensive gun control laws following the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, only one gun manufacturer has made a public show of leaving the state; the others — particularly the largest industry players — remain tied here by history and/or tough financials.

“If it weren’t for the large amount of capital they have in Connecticut, the gun companies would be gone,” said Brian Ruttenbur, a gun industry analyst for Stamford investment research firm CRT Capital. “But I don’t see any time in the near future that any of the big Connecticut gun makers are going to move. It is just too expensive.”

Gun makers like Colt Manufacturing of West Hartford, Sturm Ruger of the Southport section of Fairfield, O.F. Mossberg & Sons of North Haven, and Stag Arms of New Britain — some of which can trace their Connecticut roots to before the Civil War — face the same pros (highly trained workforce, established supply chain and proximity to New York and Boston) and cons (high energy costs and property taxes, a unionized workforce and a tough regulatory environment) as other manufacturers when considering an out-of-state move.

Here the writer has let the manufacturer’s propaganda inform him a little too much.  A highly trained work force is available anywhere a company wants to invest a little time and money.  Machinists, mechanics, engineers and designers are available all over America.  As for supply chain, this can be developed overnight.  Besides, Connecticut isn’t necessarily the most efficient hub anyway.  Watch, and let me show you what I mean.

Of the companies that had their feathers ruffled during the 2013 gun control debate, PTR Industries was the only gun manufacturer that moved entirely out of Connecticut.

In April 2013, following passage of the law that banned its only product, PTR left Bristol for a small town near Myrtle Beach, S.C. As part of the move, the company took 24 of its Connecticut employees and hired an additional 120 in South Carolina.

PTR — like Colt, Ruger, Mossberg, and Stag — declined to comment for this story.

While PTR outright left Connecticut, other gun makers instead have opted to curb their Connecticut footprint.

Ruger remains headquartered in Southport but does all it’s manufacturing in New Hampshire, North Carolina, and Arizona. Mossberg in July significantly ramped up its manufacturing at its Texas plant, installing a 116,000-square-foot addition, while lowering — but not eliminating — production at its North Haven facility.

There’s also the case of the Freedom Group, the North Carolina manufacturer of gun brands like Remington and Bushmaster. Eight days before the Sandy Hook shooting, the state Department of Economic and Community Development offered Freedom Group a $1 million low-interest loan to move its headquarters and 25 employees to Stamford.

So if it’s a legitimate point that the companies are so heavily invested in supply chain and highly trained workers that they cannot afford to relocate, then why has Ruger and Mossberg eased out of Connecticut, and how did they manage to do that without going bankrupt?

The answer is that they can make the change, they just haven’t chosen to because of emotional capital in their communities and people.  I don’t fault their loyalty to their people – that’s a trait that is hard to come by these days for many companies.  But in the end, high union wages and customer dissatisfaction with their state might be controlling factors.

“In the wake of these very restrictive gun control laws, they have to deal with the consumer reaction,” said Mike Bazinet, director of public affairs for the firearms industry trade association National Shooting Sport Foundation, which is headquartered in Newtown. “There is no question that some damage was done to the brand equity of these companies because their products have a ‘Made in Connecticut’ stamp on them.”

Or not.  But if not, they (Mossberg, Ruger, and other gun makers left in Connecticut [Colt is almost a lost cause at this point]) might just have no company left with which to be loyal to their workers.  Competition is good.  Freedom is good.  It can be painful at times, and relocation of loyal workers (I didn’t mention the need for worker loyalty yet) might be a big life change, but in the end change can be good.

See also Gun Valley Moves South

Kurt Hofmann:

Earlier this month, an accused white supremacist in Florida named Marcus Faella was sentenced for two counts of the “crime” of “paramilitary training.” … The “white supremacist” accusation, if true (and there appears to be some question about that, according to witnesses called by the defense) paints Faella as an unsavory, and indeed reprehensible, individual. But it does not–cannot, in a free society–make him a criminal … Prosecutors told jurors that they didn’t have to prove a specific plan, just show the group was doing the training for some sort of civil disorder.

Kurt explores the circular reasoning inherent in the law of training for some sort of civil disorder.  You do understand that this presupposes the consequent, don’t you?  It’s a formal logical fallacy, meaning that you make a list of things involved in “training for some sort of civil disorder,” and then you prosecute someone for doing something on the list of things you crafted.  And let’s be clear.  If you aren’t currently training for some sort of civil disorder, you’re an idiot (or at least, highly irresponsible).

Mike Vanderboegh does AGW.  I told you that AGW was bad science, didn’t I?

Vanderboegh notes Rand Paul’s continued surrender to the forces of political totalitarianism.  I don’t like Rand Paul because, just like his father, he is in favor of open borders.  I will never spend one penny of gas money driving to the polls to vote for an open borders lunatic.  I don’t care what else he believes.

Finally, Vanderboegh takes on gun-prag Sebastian.  I don’t get along with Sebastian ever since he commented on one of my posts (I didn’t find out until several days later) without even giving me the courtesy of linking and sending traffic my way.  Bad, bad form, that is.  And I didn’t forward my post.  He just singled me out for criticism.

News from the great progressive Northeast, via The Boston Globe:

MILFORD — On Friday, Milford fifth-grader Nickolas Taylor was in line for lunch, just a few hours from the weekend.

But like most 10-year-old boys bursting with energy, he didn’t wait quietly. Instead, he played shoot-em-up by himself to pass the time, pointing his index finger like a ray gun and making “pew-pew” sounds.

As he battled his imaginary foes, he passed two girls in the lunch line. They told the assistant principal, according to Nickolas’s father, Brian Taylor. Later that day, the principal told the boy he was being suspended for two days for making a threat.

Upset over the suspension, Brian Taylor, 40, said he went to the school Monday morning to meet with the assistant principal in hopes of explaining it was just “innocent playing.” But the official said Nickolas had pointed at the girls, which amounted to a threat.

“He just kept saying it was against policy,” the father said in an interview Wednesday at his Milford home. “He wouldn’t see the common sense.”

Taylor said he understood that schools were on heightened alert these days to any perceived threats or potential bullying, but he said the suspension was an extreme overreaction.

“He wasn’t pointing at anyone in particular,” he said. “He was just playing. There were other ways they could have handled it.”

Taylor said his son had never gotten in serious trouble before, and that he was confused by the punishment.

“He didn’t really understand why” he was suspended, Taylor said.

Taylor said he thought the girls must have been annoyed that his son cut in front of them, and he was surprised school officials didn’t simply tell Nickolas not to do it again.

Nickolas loves video games like Minecraft and told him that all the boys play pretend shooting games at recess, shouting laser-like sounds as they chase each other.

We live in a country where SWAT teams shoot little puppies running away from them, innocent victims are assaulted and shot in their own homes by the police, and it’s all okay.  But if a little boy plays like a little boy is supposed to, he has “threatened” little girls.  Notice too the lack of discretion and wisdom on display by school administration.  This reminds me of a comment I made to a younger reader on this same kind of thing, from the perspective of graying hair and many years of wisdom.

You’ve told me what IS, rather than what SHOULD BE. I fully concur with the notion that intent is increasingly disappearing from American jurisprudence due to laws and somewhat [from] prosecutorial discretion. Nothing I’ve said denies this. And in fact, this law would have been yet another example of that lamentable fact, and one of the hundreds of reasons to oppose this bill.

That said, it isn’t disappearing completely, as there is still a difference between manslaughter and first degree murder, and there always will be. Where the secularists can make inroads to English common law, they do. Where they can’t because the people would revolt, they leave it alone.

I know very little about you, but I assume (you can correct me if I’m wrong) that you do not have children of advanced school age (and I have no idea whether you are married). If your children one day attend public schools (I home schooled mine for the last several years except for one), they will find this notion in spades in the school system. Let me tell you how it plays out.

The kids that know they aren’t attending college know the kids who intend to attend college. The school system has given up on the idea of finding facts, finding fault and finding intent. Hence, the kids who have no intention of attending college abuse the ones who intend to attend college. It happens this way, and hundreds of others.

Let’s say that the school lunch line of a five minute wait. The bad kids will break in line and even punch the good kids. The good kids take it, run away, and avoid conflict at all costs. They do this because they know that the principal will make no attempt whatsoever to find facts or intent if a fight breaks out. Fights means that a kid is defending himself, or even that he isn’t and sits in a corner getting the hell kicked out of him. When it’s finally broken up, both kids get suspended, it goes on record, and colleges don’t accept kids with records. End of story. The competition is too high to accept kids with records, regardless of the fact that it’s disputed. All such records are disputed by every student.

My boys could have beat the hell out of anyone who they fought, but one of them needed to attend a scholarly college to do what he does, and for him we simply planned classes to avoid the bad kids, sent him with his lunch, and prayed that he got out without being in a … ahem … “fight.” Daniel, my Marine, just beat the hell out of anyone who accosted him. It cannot be that way for everyone. The ones who needs to go to college behave differently. Daniel is in college now because of the Marines.

You see, smarts comes from books. Wisdom comes from age and experience. I have that. Been there, done that, got the tee shirt. And if you have children of advanced age one day, they will get the hell beaten out of them in school, or they will defend themselves and not go to college, or you will home school them. Welcome to fact-less, intent-less jurisprudence and lack of lawsuits against schools.

“He just kept saying it was against policy.”  Of course it was.  Everything is against policy for little boys.  They are the oppressors.

Orlando Sentinel:

OMG!! Did you hear??!!

Florida has another gun debate!!!

It’s about silencers!!

The NRA wants to allow them for hunters!!

Gun-control advocates can now start screaming about the dangers of silent mass murderers!!

And NRA members can scream about personal freedom, the Second Amendment and their God-given right to quietly blow away deer!!

If you are worked up on either side of this issue, then congratulations — you’ve been played.

[ … ]

The truth is that silencers — most of which don’t silence anything — don’t even crack the top 10 when it comes to concerns about gun violence.

If you lived anywhere close to a gun range, you’d appreciate technology that muffled the noise.

And while some significantly cut down on sound, guns with suppressors can still make as much noise as a motorcycle or jackhammer.

On the flip side, the NRA uses hysteria and nonsense to make suppressors seem like life or death.

It portrays silencers as a public-health crisis, claiming that hearing loss costs America “billions of dollars” and that bans on suppressors “are essentially mandating that firearms produce as much inner-ear-destroying noise as they possibly can.”

Apparently the NRA believes gun owners are incapable of using ear plugs.

That’s right.  We all do what the NRA tells us to do.  And silencers mean absolutely nothing to hearing protection or safety, because as well all know, the only shooting ever done occurs at the range.  Deer hunters don’t go on drives with dogs and have to take spur of the moment shots, no, not at all.  And sole hunters in the woods going to and from their stands, and spending all day in the bush, have no problem being without hearing.

Everyone can wear ear plugs, regardless of the fact that a bear may be approaching, a human may be announcing his presence or approaching camp, or the hunter may be listening for his prey.  We want men to traipse around in the bush all day with firearms and absolutely no capability of hearing anything.  Or, we can all take the time to stop what we’re doing and put earplugs in, regardless of the fact that we might lose the shot.

This is what happens when idiots write commentaries.

Dave Hardy does a comprehensive takedown of a Newsmax article entitled Can a Felon Own a Gun: 5 Loopholes in Federal Law (via Uncle).  The Newsmax article appears to be a rather poor and poorly researched piece.  Read Dave’s entire analysis.  Commenter FWB remarks:

I find explicit grants to punish counterfeiting, piracies and felonies on the high seas, offenses against the law of nations, treason, and possibly copyright and patent infringement in the Constitution. However no power to punish for any other violation of federal law was ever granted. Except for these few delegations, the bulk of the police power was left to the states.

… as Madison and others stated, the federal government does not have the authority to decide anything about firearms. A primary reason no Bill of Rights was thought necessary was because the Framers understood that the federal government had no power to legislate in any of the areas covered by a Bill of Rights. The fear also was there that inclusion of a BoR would cause people to think the feds had such authority.

Police powers reside with the states not with the federal government except in the few granted areas. All these laws and discussion concern usurped powers and unconstitutional actions by the federal government.

I have also pointed out the absurdity of application of the federal regulations regarding firearms.

My own son was honorably discharged from the Marine Corps, but knew of one poor soul who became inebriated the eve of his discharge and was caught for DUI on base.  This Marine was dishonorably discharged.  According to the wording on Form 4473, he will never be able to legally purchase a gun even if a judge agrees with him because the USMC won’t revisit its discharge and thus he won’t be able to answer – truthfully – on Form 4473 about discharge from a branch of the service.

Remember folks, any time the federal government gets involved in anything, everyone drowns in inefficient, overbearing, oppressive bureaucracy.  This includes the issue of felons and guns.