Archive for the 'Guns' Category

Midland Daily News:

Since this verse comes up frequently in discussions of gun control, let’s destroy this argument once and for all. First, let us examine the full context of the verse by including the following two verses. “He said to them, ‘But now, let him who has a purse take it, and likewise a bag. And let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one. For I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me, ‘And he was reckoned with transgressors’; for what is written about me has its fulfillment.’ And they said, ‘Look, Lord, here are two swords.’ And he said to them, ‘It is enough.’

The New Oxford Annotated Bible has this to say about the passage. “An example of Jesus’ fondness for striking metaphors, but the disciples take it literally. The sword apparently meant to Jesus a preparation to live by one’s own resources against hostility. The natural meaning of verse 38 is that the disciples supposed he spoke of an actual sword, only to learn that two swords were sufficient for the whole enterprise, that is, were not to be used at all.”

Anyone who has read the Gospels knows that Jesus was fond of metaphors. Matthew 23:24 – “You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!” Or Mark 10:25 – “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” Clearly, Jesus had no intention of inflicting either of these painful actions upon any camels. So, presuming that everything Jesus said was to be taken literally is groundless.

Jesus frequently used physical objects (seeds, lamps, vineyards, coins, lost sheep, etc.) to teach universal truths, and the same is true of the two swords. This interpretation is supported by Matthew 10:34: “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth, but a sword,” (another verse often misquoted by gun advocates). In proper context, Jesus did not mean a physical sword that cuts up and bloodies the family, but a spiritual and moral one that may divide families nonphysically.

Biblical scholar Bart Ehrman labels a literal interpretation of Luke 22:36 as an absurd contradiction. Throughout the Gospels, Jesus teaches peace.

[ … ]

Therefore, the words of Jesus in Luke 22:36 are not to be understood literally, that he would have his disciples furnish themselves with swords. His meaning is that, wherever they went and a door was opened for the preaching of the Gospel, they would have many adversaries. They would be met with violence, followed by rage and persecution. The phrase expresses the danger they will be exposed to.

Obviously the author is a believer in German so-called “higher criticism” (Source, Form and Redaction criticism).  This is so “yesterday” that most churches who believe this are dead or dying and certainly waning in influence.  But apparently they are still around causing trouble for folks.

To be sure there are different types of literature in the Bible, allegory, apocalyptic and so on.  Each in turn must be interpreted within the correct hermeneutical framework in order to get the right meaning.  But this particular assessment violates the most basic principle of all interpretation.  The more complex passages are interpreted in light of the simpler, and any deliverance you might concoct that runs contrary to the warp and woof of the balance of Scripture is obviously wrong and you need to go back to the beginning and try again.

Even if Jesus had intended to convey an additional (or even another) interpretation of what he said there, He didn’t rebuke them for having the items they counted in order to answer the master’s question.  The disciples weren’t holding metaphors – they were holding fixed-blade swords.  Jesus didn’t tell them to throw them away, even if our detractor is correct in his assessment of the passage (and I claim that he’s not).  The disciples had swords before Jesus told them to find themselves a weapon, and they had they afterwards.  The assessment fails at every turn.

Additionally, as I mentioned before, this assessment fails to consider the warp and woof of Scripture.  I have never turned to this passage for demonstration of the right and even duty of self defense.  As I’ve summarized before:

I am afraid there have been too many centuries of bad teaching endured by the church, but it makes sense to keep trying.  As I’ve explained before, the simplest and most compelling case for self defense lies in the decalogue.  Thou shall not murder means thou shall protect life.

God’s law requires [us] to be able to defend the children and helpless.  “Relying on Matthew Henry, John Calvin and the Westminster standards, we’ve observed that all Biblical law forbids the contrary of what it enjoins, and enjoins the contrary of what it forbids.”  I’ve tried to put this in the most visceral terms I can find.

God has laid the expectations at the feet of heads of families that they protect, provide for and defend their families and protect and defend their countries.  Little ones cannot do so, and rely solely on those who bore them.  God no more loves the willing neglect of their safety than He loves child abuse.  He no more appreciates the willingness to ignore the sanctity of our own lives than He approves of the abuse of our own bodies and souls.  God hasn’t called us to save the society by sacrificing our children or ourselves to robbers, home invaders, rapists or murderers. Self defense – and defense of the little ones – goes well beyond a right.  It is a duty based on the idea that man is made in God’s image.  It is His expectation that we do the utmost to preserve and defend ourselves when in danger, for it is He who is sovereign and who gives life, and He doesn’t expect us to be dismissive or cavalier about its loss.

This same sort of thinking can be applied on a larger scale to states and nations as so expertly done by professor Darrell Cole in Good Wars (First Things), relying on the theology of both Calvin and Aquinas.  But this is a bridge too far for some Christians who are just now dealing with the notion that they might be in danger.

Now a word of advice for the pastor who proffered this laughable interpretation.  It’s things like this that cause congregants to lose respect for the pulpit, and nothing screams the irrelevance of the sermon more than the Biblical impossibility of the pronouncements of the pastor (or in other words, the inconsistency of what he says with the balance of Scripture).  It’s just best to leave your own political aberrations out of the pulpit and teach the Bible.

Prior: Let Him Who Has No Gun Sell His Robe And Buy One

CNN:

This notion — that the Second Amendment gives citizens the right to fire upon federal officials, or their local police, or sheriffs or even U.S. military personnel — is common among right wingers. But it’s one thing to hear, say, goofball Ted Nugent honk off that way. (The Nuge, by the way, has boasted about how he avoided taking up arms in defense of his country during Vietnam.) It is another to know that someone with those loopy views is one step away from the United States Senate.

The Washington Monthly blogger Ed Kilgore has asked the right question — the one any Iowa voter should be putting to Ms. Ernst: “Since you brought it up, exactly what circumstances would justify you shooting a police officer or a soldier in the head?”

Good question, Ed. Is it OK to do so if, say, the Supreme Court stops the counting of votes so as to give the presidency to the candidate who got fewer votes? I don’t think so.

How about segregation? If ever American citizens were oppressed by their government it was African-Americans under Jim Crow. Thank God we had Dr. King and not Ms. Ernst leading the civil rights movement.

Perhaps Ms. Ernst reserves her bloody right to truly egregious government actions, like ensuring affordable health care, even to folks with pre-existing conditions? Lord, I hope not.

[ … ]

Don’t believe me? Ask George Washington. Gen. Washington, as president, forcefully rejected the notion that American citizens had a revolutionary right to take up arms against their government — even against the most hated government officials enforcing the most hated government program. President Washington and his Treasury Secretary, Alexander Hamilton, sought to enforce a tax on whiskey, which Congress passed in 1791. A group of Pennsylvania whiskey distillers objected, violently. In what was known as the Whiskey Rebellion, they refused to pay the tax and burned the home of the federal tax collector.

Washington personally led 13,000 troops to crush the rebellion (the only time a president has commanded troops in the field). Washington was willing to shed blood to ensure no one took up arms against his or her own country.

To argue that the Second Amendment allows citizens to turn their guns on their government is to repudiate the actions of George Washington, as well as the Constitution itself.

I say this as a gun owner — and I’m not just talking about some puny 9 mm like the one Ms. Ernst brags about. At last count I have 22 guns. I use them to hunt, shoot targets, and bond with my family. My grandfather was a hunter and gun owner, as is my father, as am I — as are my sons.

But neither we, nor Ms. Ernst nor any American has the right to turn those weapons on American military personnel, peace officers or other government officials.

The last refuge of a gun control scoundrel is to claim that he has guns, and the more of them the better.  But I couldn’t care less if he has 2200 guns.  As the saying goes, beware of the man with one gun.  He probably knows how to use it.

Begala’s invoking of George Washington and the Whiskey Rebellion is rich.  Only someone like him could ignore the fact that the entire continental congress in effect turned their guns on their own government, and commissioned George Washington as general to lead the effort.

But Begala quickly turns his attention away from the founding fathers to examples of things that would cause a man to turn a weapon on his own government.  Socialized medicine?  Nope.  Racism and Jim Crow laws?  Nope.  But how far does this go Paul?  Where would you draw the line?

Would it be okay with you if the government showed up at your doorsteps one day to confiscate your grandchildren to take them off to be put to death because they happened to be born different?  What should the parent of a Down’s syndrome child think when this happens?  What about Jews, Paul?  What about Catholics, Paul?  You’re a Catholic (at least nominally).  A number of religious clerics went along with Hitler’s plans.

But there were good men too, like Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Martin Niemoller who opposed Naziism to their own demise.  In which camp are you, Paul?

I have a feeling that Paul Begala can’t answer the question.  Note that God was never invoked in Begala’s missive, but it is in my own title.  That’s because to a collectivist, there is nothing more supreme than the state.  Not the right to vote, not the right to be free, not the right to bear arms, not the right to use them.  To the collectivist, the state is god.  And if you have no threshold that can be crossed, no trigger than can be pulled, literally no action that the state can take and be opposed by you with force of arms, you’re no different from those pictured above.  And I’m glad I don’t know you.

David Codrea:

The Department of Justice and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives are appealing a settlement in the case of Dobyns v United States, a post by retired agent Jay Dobyns on the Clean Up ATF member forum announced Friday. In September, U.S. Court of Federal Claims Judge Francis M. Allegra awarded Dobyns $173,000 and denied government royalty claims against Dobyns for his book, “No Angel: My Harrowing Undercover Journey to the Inner Circle of the Hells Angels.”

Apparently this isn’t over yet.  And it could get good.  Via Mike Vanderboegh, Dobyns speaks thusly:

I’m coming with all of it.  With all the information that they thought slipped through the cracks.  All the dirt that they thought the Judge would never see or know about.  I told you to trust me and that the trial opinion was going to be brutal.  It was.  Now trust me again.  The behind-the-scenes story of what took place and that I was choking down is going to get let out and it is very bad.  Disgusting bad …

I’m saying here and in the open. Obama, Holder, DOJ Attorneys, ATF leadership – you are punks and bitches.

You’re not going to look good in orange jumpsuits with “DOC” on the backs.  Don’t drop the soap, sleep with your backs to walls and make sure your pod doesn’t allow broom handles to be present after lights out …

I’m gunna see to it that you are braiding cornrows wearing halter tops and lipstick before this is over.

Outstanding.  I look forward to the coming festivities.

Mike Vanderboegh is waxing lovingly about the “grease gun.”

Cheap, easy to make, great for shooting bad guys

It is no secret to my friends that the M-3A1 “Grease Gun” has long been my favorite submachine gun. (It is also no secret to the ATF, apparently, since three times in the 90s snitches tried to offer me one for sale in a “can’t miss” deal. Each time I picked up the phone and called the state police and the snitch went away. The devil, it must be said, knows your temptations better than you do so be prepared to resist them.)

And of course, because of the ungodly abomination that is the Hughes Amendment, we can’t have one.  I’ll add that such a device would have been close to useless to my son in Iraq.  Marines today are trained to use their carbines with such short time between trigger pulls that they can discharge three rounds in about the same amount time that it would take a fully automatic weapons to do the same, even without the gun in select fire mode.  And this conserves ammunition.

Of course, he shot both the carbine and the SAW, and went through DM (designated marksman) school, and not many of us can afford to shoot half a million rounds in a 1.5 year workup for combat.  But assuming that we can always get better than we are with more time and practice, there is one thing I would like to duplicate from the grease gun.  Caliber.

I just can find a good pistol caliber carbine in .45 ACP.  There are plenty of 9 mm (RRA has a 9 mm carbine and I like RRA guns), some .40, but no .45 that I can find (and I don’t want a gun that is based on MAC-10 design unless I can be assured that it functions far better than the MAC-10 which is total crap).

Uncle: “The .gov spent $1B to destroy $16B worth of ammo. They could have sold it. Or given it to me and I’d have destroyed it absolutely free. And there’d have been a party.”  Yea, a lot of us feel that way about the government and ammunition.

Questions from Cleveland:

My son brandished a wooden train track in a plastic bridge.

“It’s a shooter!” he said, pointing it at me. “I’m spraying you in the face with water.”

“We don’t shoot at people,” I said, by rote. It was an oft-repeated directive when my little brother was into guns and cowboys.

But my mind was churning. Where did my almost 4-year-old get this stuff? How did he know what a gun was? We don’t own any guns, aside from a water blaster shaped like an alligator. He’s never seen any violent TV show or movie. Is playing with guns just inborn in boys?

“This connection is likely — like most things — a combination of genetics and environment,” said Joshua Weiner, an Arlington, Virginia-based psychiatrist who specializes in children and adolescents. “Boys probably have some yet-unknown gene which contributes to this behavior.”

Just like girls must have some ingrained penchant for shoes and purses. My 20-month-daughter adores purses, whether it’s my purse or a kids gardening tote she stuffs with trains, puzzle pieces and plastic food. She drags them around the house. And she is constantly playing with my shoes, particularly a pair of shiny tortoiseshell ballet flats.

At first I didn’t want to encourage the purse-and-shoe thing. It’s such a stereotype. “But she’s just emulating you,” said my mom. So I gave in. I gave her an old Lululemon bag to stuff. And I bought her a fluffy bunny purse for Christmas.

I don’t intend to ever buy my son a toy gun.

But I’m not especially worried that he pretends to have one, especially if in his dreamworld his gun shoots water. Should I be?

Probably not.

No study has proved that pretend gunplay leads to violent behavior. And most child experts agree that forbidding gunplay only makes it more powerful and enticing.

Besides, gunplay can even help kids make sense of their world, by letting them “kill” bad guys.

God made men and women to be different, and gave the responsibility of provider and primary protector to the man.  It’s His design.  Since it is His design, he gave men and women the genetics and disposition to effect those ends.  Of course these genetics and dispositions can be turned towards evil, but so can just about anything else.  That’s irrelevant to the primary goals.  It has been this way from the beginning of time.  Understand it, don’t fight against it.

I’m glad I could clear that up.

Another instructive video by Jerry. I want one of those – and a range set up to use it.

Charles C.W. Cooke is asking why the GOP isn’t focusing on gun rights during the midterm elections?  Oh, I don’t know.  Queue up the reasons.  They have no spine – they are owned and operated by the chamber of commerce and large corporations like Monsanto and Archer-Daniels-Midland – awful people like Karl Rove are too powerful – the establishment is really Northern elitist progressives who want to be in power more than they want rights for Americans.  Pick your poison.  It makes no difference to me where you land.

Here is a recent page from American Rifleman on Thom Tillis from my state of North Carolina.

“Opposes universal background checks.”  Sounds good.  To me this is the most significant risk we face.  There are other good things on the list, like opposing the horrible recent supreme court justices.  He also assisted in passing more favorable gun laws in North Carolina.  For that I thank him.

But note that this advertisement is in American Rifleman, not the Charlotte Observer or the Raleigh News & Observer.  And don’t be so quick to judge.  Here is Thom Tillis on the recent carry law and how it affects state fairs.

Asked about the recent controversy over bringing guns to the State Fair, U.S. Senate candidate Thom Tillis on Tuesday said he would defer to Agriculture Commissioner Steve Troxler.

Troxler has said he wouldn’t allow concealed weapons permit-holders to bring firearms to the fair, despite a recent state law that allows them in public places that charge admission. A gun-rights group sued to force the State Fair to drop its decades-old prohibition of guns there.

But a Superior Court judge refused to bar the state from banning guns at the fair. The judge said the law was unclear, and he couldn’t determine what the legislature intended.

“It’s a good, wholesome environment,” Tillis told reporters following his appearance on a TV news program in Raleigh. “We have people like Commissioner Troxler and others who just want to make sure families who are going there, having a great time, showcasing our agricultural industries, feel safe and secure there.”

Thom Tillis is for gun rights when it’s convenient.  Otherwise, he’s just after as many swing voters as he thinks he can get.  I guess Tillis sees guns as contrary to a “good, wholesome environment.”  Unfortunately, Kay Hagan is even worse.  Why must the GOP give us men who are only just a little better than the alternative?

David Codrea:

Noting that the Obama administration will “open the door to as many as 100,000 Haitians, who will now move into the United States without a visa,” The Washington Times warned Monday of a new dimension in that fundamental transformation of America President Barack Obama promised supporters. The revelation was in addition to news that a solicitation from the government seeks a printer for up to 34 million green cards …

The thought strikes, especially in light of letting in foreign nationals from places where all kinds of nasty bugs run rampant in the population, that for those who donate blood, a disqualifier on the required questionnaire is if they’ve been to certain countries. By bringing people from those countries here, especially in large numbers that are then dispersed throughout the land, are conditions not being created that can mirror many of those in their homelands?

Yes.  Conditions are being created in which the wealth ownership and liquidity, gun ownership, level of medical care, health, education and welfare will be decreased to its lowest common denominator.  This is what happens, and it’s exactly what Obama intends.  He is an anti-colonialist, and he bemoans the colonial history of America.  He aimed to change that, and change it he will, and already has.

Kurt Hofmann:

Japan has for decades imposed iron-fisted controls on not only private possession of guns, but on swords, and even long knives, preserving the “government monopoly on force” so beloved of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. That monopoly is now crumbling. Imura was caught because he made no effort to hide his gun making (and indeed actively publicized it). Others will be more circumspect.

And there is very little a government can do about them, in Japan, in the U.S., or anywhere else.

The far East, Japan included, answered the philosophical question of the one and the many in favor of the one millennia ago.  In the end, though, totalitarian regimes collapse under their own weight.  Let’s pray that happens to all such regimes, including here in America.

If you live in the Yukon, you’d better have your sidearm strapped to you at all times, even in your own house.

A begrudging ‘yes’ on open carry in Missouri.  It’s a good day when you get to watch progressives admit defeat.

In South Carolina, Larry Martin is opposed to recall elections.  Of course he is.  He is a totalitarian.  Remember Larry Martin?

Will H&K USA stop hating their customers and everybody else?  Doubtful.  Besides, I don’t like them, so the feeling is mutual.

Via Mike Vanderboegh, this from USA Today:

Now, factor the Islamists — the usual default terrorist suspects — out of this list, and a striking pattern emerges. Contrary to the popular opinion that radical Islam is the primary threat to homeland security, Christianity provides the other four groups with their extremist rationale. All are in one way or another affiliated with the Christian Identity movement, a hodgepodge of anarchist and white supremacist politics dedicated to white Christian activism. It’s all about God vs. government, and shoring up the rights of Anglo-Saxon Americans …

The Bundy standoff — initially presented as prairie populism by popular media well beyond Fox News — reflects violent currents far deeper and older in American, and Christian, history. It needs to be seen for what it is — religious extremism taken to potentially lethal ends. To the extent that we as a society fail to grapple with the religious element in extremist violence, the blood is on all of our hands.

Good grief.  Just good grief.

David Codrea:

That’s a different contention than the one reporter Hartocollis began the report with, having used the specific word “carry.” Purchasing a gun, as opposed to obtaining a carry permit, are quite different things in New York, which follows the “may issue” discretion of authorities. The process is even more exclusive in New York City, where permissions are extremely rare, as exemplified by high-profile ones enjoyed by the rich, famous and connected like actor Robert De Niro, “shock jock” Howard Stern, and developer Donald Trump.

Read David’s column for two reasons.  First, he is discussing the issue of New York placing more than 30,000 persons on the no-purchase list for guns.  Make no mistake about it.  If you are former military and have ever been diagnosed with PTSD, you will be on the list.  If you have ever taken any anti-anxiety drugs, you will be on the list.  This list is an obscene intrusion into the personal affairs of people by the state, and goes to God given rights to defend oneself.

The second reason you should read David’s column is for the conflation the author makes of purchase versus carry.  And this is a pet peeve of mine.  May issue states that turn gun ownership and carry on its head by favoring big donors to campaigns, those who can afford to hire expensive lawyers and well connected individuals as opposed to common folk, are perhaps the worst kind of gun control because it feigns second amendment rights while it mocks them.

David Codrea:

So on the one hand, Ashford supports letting loose raging monsters to stalk among us, and on the other, he wants to make it more difficult for their victims to defend themselves. Not that such laws slow down demonic killers like Nikko Jenkins, who, despite his “prohibited person” status, still never missed a beat getting the guns he used to slay his four victims.

Disgusting.  In my world his victims would have been able to defend themselves, while Mr. Jenkins would have been executed and thus unable to perpetrate those crimes.

Via Mike Vanderboegh, much of the economy is a mirage.

NSSF goes after Malloy.  I wish I could feel that they’re doing it for some other reason than the economic well being of manufacturers.  You know, like second amendment rights.

One of the deputies involved in destroying baby Bou-Bou’s life has resigned.

David Codrea:

Those are fine words. They ring true, like something gun owners can believe in. Or at least they would were NRA not helping Reid, Schumer and Durbin hold on to power by declining to endorse AQ-rated Republican Dan Sullivan in one of the key races needed to flip the Senate. They would were NRA not giving an inflated grade to Democrat Mark Begich that fails to hold him fully accountable for two Supreme Court betrayals and a host of other bad votes on gun-related issues.

David is referring to a recent NRA mailing.  Go read it for yourself.  I got it too, and it’s a crying shame when the very stated goals of the NRA are ignored in their nuts and bolts grading of candidates.  It’s like their incompetent, or dishonest, or something.

Federal Appeals Court strikes down ban on possessing guns for self defense on Army Corps of Engineers property.  The take away from all of this is that regulation of guns evolving to outright bans violates the very rights enshrined in the second amendment.  So the court says (United States Court for the District of Idaho).  I’d like to see this ruling addressed in “may issue” states where corrupt law enforcement officials turn a right into a privilege by use of discretion.

Kurt Hofmann:

Much of the video focuses on the claim that “forty percent of gun sales happen just like this [without a background check].” Right away, the Brady Campaign is counting on an audience of dummies. They need an audience incapable of discovering that the “forty percent” claim is so hyper-inflated that even the reliably, rabidly anti-gun, pro-Obama Washington Post “awarded” the president “three Pinocchios” for the clearly fraudulent claim.

It also pretends that in the presence of universal background checks criminals won’t find other avenues to obtain whatever too they wish to use to perpetrate their crimes.  I know someone who spent a number of years in Hong Kong, and he found it interesting that he would meet a number of people on the street whose faces were disfigured.  When I asked him why, he stated that a common practice of criminals was to obtain sulfuric acid and throw it in the faces of victims.

Here is a current assessment of Marine Corps attempts to test women for combat.  Not so good.  And you know my views.

Mother Jones claims that the rate of mass shootings has tripled since 2011.  Is that true?  My take – ignore all of this.  The data isn’t statistically significant.  I’m not being dismissive or coy.  I mean exactly what I said.  It doesn’t meet the Central Limit Theorem and thus proves nothing.  It would have a very high standard deviation, probably higher than the mean, thus indicating that the mean can go negative (an impossible and physically absurd conclusion).

Via Mike Vanderboegh: “GOA’s brief defends the Fourth Amendment property right to the security of one’s person. If no law has been violated, then the government has no superior interest in detaining a person or seizing property, and thus the search and seizure was unconstitutional no matter how “reasonable” the police may have acted.”

I thought all of this had already been dealt with before, leading to the necessity for all stops to be “Terry Stops”?  What’s the matter with the N.C. Supreme Court, except for being stupid collectivists?

New Haven Register:

Gov. Dannel P. Malloy may have reconciled differences with the state’s teachers, but not with firearm manufacturers.

Malloy, early in his administration, insulted teachers as he embarked on education reform, when he said all they have to do to earn tenure was just show up for four years. He has since apologized and the governor now has the backing of both the AFT Connecticut and the Connecticut Education Association.

But the firearms industry is another story.

Joseph H. Bartozzi, an officer with O.F. Mossberg & Sons, in a forum piece in the New Haven Register, defended industry efforts to make guns safer.

The manufacturers and the National Shooting Sports Foundation, which represent the trade group, vehemently opposed the state’s strict gun reform bill adopted in 2013 after the killing in 2012 of 20 first-graders and six educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown by a lone gunman.

The new law expanded the need for permits, banned magazines with more than 10 bullets and outlawed 100 more assault weapons in Connecticut. Residents who had bought them prior to the ban could keep them, but they had to be registered.

The law is playing a part in the gubernatorial election between Malloy and Republican Tom Foley.

Bartozzi repeated Malloy’s statement to CNN in April 2013 on his perception of what motivates the gun industry.

“What this is about is the ability of the gun industry to sell as many guns to as many people as possible, even if they are deranged, even if they are mentally ill, even if they have a criminal background,” the governor said at the time. “They don’t care.”

In a meeting with the New Haven Register editorial board Monday, Malloy was asked if that continued to be a fair characterization.

“Pretty much … pretty fair. Otherwise they would be advocating for universal background checks. I have had discussions with people who work for Mossberg, as well as every other major gun company who have actually indicated to me, on a personal basis, that they don’t have a problem with universal background checks, but they are afraid of the NRA and they won’t stand up to it,” Malloy said.

He said the one company who did, Smith & Wesson, “was driven into bankruptcy because they did … when they advocated making changes in the gun laws. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t be supporting and captive of an entity that opposes what 90 percent of Americans support, and that is universal background checks.”

In my open letter to Mossberg & Sons I told you that Malloy didn’t care about facts – facts like universal background checks have nothing whatsoever to do with crime.  I told you he didn’t care about having the input of “experts.”  I told you that this was exclusively a calculated, political decision based on Malloy’s totalitarian world view.

Now, not only is Malloy telling you the same thing, he is calling Mossberg & Sons liars and reiterating his claim that you are out to sell as many guns to dangerous people as you can.

So how long will you, Mossberg & Sons, continue to ensconce yourselves in a state where you aren’t welcome, and where you’ve been told that very thing by the Governor himself?  We know exactly where Malloy stand on the issues.  There is nothing to see here.  The surprising thing is that Mossberg continues to take the beating.