Archive for the 'Guns' Category

From a pastor in the UMC (where else?).

Consider for a moment a nightmare scenario: A person walks into your worship service and brandishes or, worse still, actually fires, a weapon.

Now, because your church has opted into our state legislature’s new law allowing licensed gun owners to bring weapons to church, several folks in the congregation are able to draw their guns and return fire.

Now, look into that scene and tell me truthfully: Does the second half of that scenario make you feel safer? In the chaos of such a moment, are worshipers in LESS peril because MORE people are shooting?

I’ll admit, however, that my perspective, like any personal view, isn’t simply practical. My opinion is shaped by my Christian faith and beliefs.

[ … ]

I’m not saying there is no place for power or weapons in the protection of the innocent (my own son is a police officer, and people I love and respect are in the military). I AM saying that guns in the church are:

• a danger to the very people we would protect,

• one more barrier between us and Christ, and

• no more than the illusion of security.

And then there is this from Patheos.

My views on our gun culture are fairly simple.  It can be boiled down to this: the human tradition of the second amendment does not trump the divine revelation of the fifth commandment. That’s because, to repeat, the single most important fact of our gun culture is 30,000 corpses each year.

Notice that our UMC pastor tips his hat to the necessary evil of having to use violence by pointing to police (while not mentioning a man’s own protection of his family), but says that it is a “barrier between us and Christ.”

Also take note how he paints the picture.  It is one of a perpetrator firing wildly, and a would-be self defender, rather than shooting in a controlled manner to end the violence and thus save innocent lives, firing wildly in return.  It’s a painting of two whirl tops shooting indiscriminately rather than with purpose.

He does this to bias his ignorant readers into thinking that folk who carry guns are going to go wild and whirl top on their families.  But the pastor knows that something is wrong with his argument.  He knows that there is no stopping a gunman unless someone else has a gun.

His solution?  “The way of the cross is true and good. Be not afraid.”  But here his powers of Biblical exegesis (if he ever had any) fail him.  Christ never promised that his propitiatory sacrifice on the cross would stop gunmen.  The ignorant pastor conflates different subjects in the Bible.

We’ve discussed this before.  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.  Thus have I said:

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.

So our writer at Patheos and the UMC pastor are both equally theologically shallow and childlike.  We can only hope that their influence is commensurate with their poor knowledge of the Scriptures.

As for guns in churches (and anywhere else for that matter), think of the children and the mandate by God to protect them.  If you cannot do that you are guilty of violating God’s law.  Think of the children.

David Codrea:

Titled “Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Report of Multiple Sale or Other Disposition of Certain Rifles,” and assigned OMB Number 1140–0100, the 60-day notice abstract declares “The purpose of this information collection is to require Federal Firearms Licensees to report multiple sales or other dispositions whenever the licensee sells or otherwise disposes of two or more rifles within any five consecutive business days with the following characteristics: (a) Semi automatic; (b) a caliber greater than .22; and (c) the ability to accept a detachable magazine.

In the updates and comments, there is still some question as to just how far this goes.  Does this codify the requirement only for border states or does it expand it to all FFLs?  Either way, the ATF is overreaching, a feature of every agency in the Obama administration and a symptom of a larger more pernicious illness.

Kurt Hofmann:

The reporting requirement was imposed by raw executive fiat. A similar requirement for multiple handgun purchases, in contrast, is mandated by federal law. A blatantly unconstitutional law, to be sure, but at least that requirement has the thin veneer of legitimacy of having received the blessing of Congress.

At least when the communists in Congress have been involved, part of the constitution has been followed (albeit neglecting the most important part – our protections in the Bill of Rights).  But the ATF knows that there is no constitutional provision for what it is doing.

WRSA has a must read piece on more police piggishness, oddly enough by Mark Steyn.  Read every word of Mark’s article.  And there is this.

The District Court found for the coppers, and so did the Fifth Circuit, ruling that “Get your fucking hands off my mom” constituted a “verbal threat” and, from a guy on his knees 15-20 feet away, “an immediate threat to the safety of the officers” – rather than (as we approach Mother’s Day) what ought to be the sentiment of any self-respecting young man seeing somebody physically assault his mom.

The district court and the officer who perpetrated this evil had better watch their six should they ever do this to my wife of mother.

I had to miss Mike on Alan Colmes, but there is this.

Acrimonious, but fun. My favorite line: “You know, I’ve been warning about the possibility of civil war caused by government bad conduct for the past 20 years, but it wasn’t until I started mentioning that collectivist senators were putting their own testicles at risk that people started paying attention. I think I must have accidentally put my finger on where you fellers worship — if you can stand THAT mental picture.”

Alan Colmes and his radio show?  Worthless.  The telephone call in?  Pennies.  Mike’s line: Priceless.

Finally, if you want some pure gun porn, look here and here (be warned, it will take you a while).

Hillary “What difference at this point does it make” Clinton, has spoken on guns.

Hillary Clinton told an audience of mental health professionals on Tuesday that the United States needs to rein in its gun culture or risk a world where insignificant disagreements could lead to shootings.

Asked about the mental health aspects of guns, Clinton said “I think we’ve got to rein in what has become a almost article faith that anybody can have a gun, anywhere, anytime. I don’t believe that is in the best interest of the vast majority of people.”

“We really have got to get our arms around it because at the rate we are going, we are going to have so many people with guns everywhere fully licensed, fully validated,” Clinton said, painting a picture of a country where small annoyances could lead to shootings.

Clinton, whose comments came during the question and answer portion at the end of her appearance, said because “we are living at a time when there is so much external stimulation and some much internal confusion in certain people,” it would be a bad idea to let people “go to bars with guns, let them go to schools with guns, let them go to church with guns.”

But Clinton also gave an olive branch to gun owners, adding “I think you can say that and still support the right of people to own guns.”

The witch knows this isn’t true.  She knows that many people carry guns to church.  I have, others have, and do all of the time.  She knows that we don’t let disagreements with the sermon devolve into shooting sprees.

And the witch knows that you can’t say the things she said and believe what she believes and “still support the right of people to own guns.”  A gun at home in a safe is the equivalent of a paperweight.

So there you have it.  Collectivist, liar, witch.  But you knew that all along.

Mike Vanderboegh:

As an aside, weapons handling in Jerry’s camp was terrible and I observed numerous unsafe practices about muzzle discipline with loaded rifles. It was a wonder that no one was killed or injured by a negligent discharge during my stay. As they say, if I may paraphrase, God takes care of drunks, little children and the American militia. I counseled some of these safety scofflaws personally and privately. Eventually I gave it up as wasted effort and just tried to stay out of the line of potential fire. The sight of a newbie clerk sitting at the check-in table in the CP wearing a loaded FAL on a sling in front of his body muzzle-up while he filled out new arrival cards was as comical as it was appalling. That this was apparently with the tacit approval of Jerry, whose life was also endangered thereby, can only be excused by extreme sleep deprivation, which as I have mentioned is itself a command failure.

This is a very serious issue.  Negligent discharges happen, and if trigger discipline doesn’t do the job to keep people safe, muzzle discipline is supposed to fill the gap.  The concept is “defense in depth.”  This is why we learn, practice, correct each other, discipline ourselves at the range and at home, and in general think of the rules of gun safety in nearly religious dimensions and proportions.  People can be maimed and die as a result of our lack of discipline.

For those who haven’t been trained in the discipline of firearms ownership and use, they should not put themselves in a position to harm other people.  Untrained people should have been sent home, and this should have been done without remorse and without prejudice.  There is no room for emotion or hurt feelings.  For those who have been trained in the discipline of firearms use and still refuse to practice safe handling practices, this is a moral issue.  The weapon owner is in effect saying, “I don’t care about you or even your life.  I am willing to disobey worldwide respected firearms safety practices for the sake of my own convenience, or just because I am an ass – or who knows why.  Maybe I’m just too lazy to to care.  For whatever reason, I’ve decided that my life matters, and yours does not.”

Those people are even more dangerous than the first kind.  The Marine Corps makes it clear that it won’t be tolerated.  They go to what my friend Tim Lynch calls the “room of pain.”  And extended stay in such a place changes things, and if not, discharge is the next step.  Since no one at the Bundy ranch could be taken to the room of pain, sending them home was the best option.  I don’t know who should have taken the responsibility to do that.  Perhaps Bundy’s sons should have taken a larger role in the control of people on their property.

But perhaps they weren’t in a position to do that.  In either case, for the folks at the ranch to be called “militia” and behave this way is a sad commentary on the state of militia.  Apparently, folks need to go back to the basics before they are assigned to larger jobs.

And for us, the mission is clear.  Practice, read, stay at the range, train, and imbibe the rules of gun safety and proper behavior protocol for gun owners until they are so second-nature that it comes before everything else.  The kind of behavior Mike observed at the Bundy ranch is totally unacceptable.  Muzzle flagging individuals and muzzle sweeping crowds is for losers.  If this offends your sensibilities, and even if you were there at the Bundy ranch, that’s just too bad.  I don’t care.  We’ve got to do better than this.

Last 3-shot group of the day.

Shooting at the range in Pickens, S.C., with the Tikka T3 Hunter, 0.270, Walnut stock, Weaver scope.  Yes, that’s a double-punch at 100 yards.  Between the three shots, 1 MOA.

David Codrea:

“Establishment press has virtually ignored DOJ’s pernicious ‘Operation Choke Point’ for over a year,” financial writer Tom Blumer shows in a Friday Newsbusters analysis of the program, its timeline, and its overreaching tentacles into 30 ostensibly “high risk industries” the government is now targeting. Blumer lists those industries, linking to the FDIC’s “Managing Risks in Third-Party Payment Processor Relationships.”

Hmmm.  Suddenly the BoA abuse of gun manufacturers and companies makes better sense.  David also gives us a good article at JPFO:

“In reality, most police departments only train about two times a year, averaging less than 15 hours annually,” a Tactics & Training article on Police One admits.

This is similar to what a Captain of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department told me once: “Most of our officers pull their weapons out and qualify once a year.  Beyond that, they don’t train with them.  I had to join the Charlotte Rifle and Pistol Club to learn gun safety.”

Kurt Hofmann quotes Dr. Ben Carson:

On the other side of the argument, there are reasonable people who look at the tens of thousands of people who are killed each year in this country by guns, and they do not feel that we are doing enough to stop the carnage.

Many of them want to see significant restrictions on the distribution of firearms in our nation, and others want to restrict types and quantities of ammunition. Some would be happy just to make sure that all guns and gun owners are registered, and most reasonable people certainly are not in favor of allowing criminals and mentally unstable individuals to purchase firearms.

Oh, I don’t think they’re reasonable at all.  I disagree with his premise, and so I’ll disagree with his conclusions.  That’s logic for you.  Kurt does a good job of laying out the time line and details of Dr. Ben Carson’s position on guns.  Another thing I’ll observe is that this points once again to the difference between the collectivist tendencies in the Northern states versus the Southern states.

I smile every time I see some outlet pick up the Wolverine speech by Mike Vanderboegh.  Mike links to a WND and Huffington Post piece.  Make sure you pick up Mike’s speeches here, here and here.

What’s that concerning a Mongolian Goat Rodeo?

D.S. Pledger:

Traditionalists still might scratch their heads when they see a deer hunter toting an AR-style rifle, but it’s a sight that is becoming more prevalent each fall. I’ll admit to being a little put off by those black rifles initially. In fact, I believe I wrote a column a number of years ago questioning why in the world anyone would use a military-style rifle for any kind of hunting. Times have changed, though. Today they’re becoming mainstream—and for a lot of sound reasons.

Here’s are the facts.  All weapons are “military-style” weapons.  Scoped, bolt action rifles are still used by designated marksmen and military snipers today.  Revolvers were used up through World War II by officers.  1911 pistols are in use today, and in fact the U.S. Marine Corps recently issued a brand new contract for 1911s.  Shotguns were used for room clearing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and on and on the list goes.

It’s stupid to object to the civilian ownership of “military-style” weapons, and it always has been stupid.  Every weapon can and has been used by the military for different functions.  Eugene Stoner – God bless him, genius and great man that he was (you guys know what I think about him) – gave us a wonderful shooting platform.  It’s his platform that has evolved and given us so much in the way of a good, reliable, well-functioning, and precise machine.  As an engineer, I admire precision machinery.

But I’m nothing if not agreeable.  I appreciate the honesty and sincerity expressed by Pledger.  This is different than a gun writer who authors articles and reviews for decades observing the subtle changes, sees the encroachment on our rights, and then pens an article that could have been written by the Brady Campaign.  I think y’all know who I’m talking about.  Pledger is moving in the right direction.

E. J. Dionne:

You might not have thought that the inability of people to pack while praying was a big problem. Georgia’s political leaders think otherwise, so the new law allows people to carry guns in their houses of worship. True, congregations can set their own rules, but some pastors wonder about the confusion this provision will create, and those who would keep their sanctuaries gun-free may worry about being branded as liberal elitists. Maybe the Georgia legislature will help them by requiring a rewrite of the Scriptures. “Blessed are the peacemakers” can become “Blessed are the gun owners.”

[ … ]

Nowhere else in the world do the laws on firearms become the playthings of politicians and lobbyists intent on manufacturing cultural conflict. Nowhere else do elected officials turn the matter of taking a gun to church into a searing ideological question. But then, guns are not a religion in most countries.

First of all, this has been blown completely out of proportion.  My home state of North Carolina allows carry of weapons in churches.  Georgia did as well before this law, but there was some confusion leading to court cases concerning churches connected in proximity (or adjoining) day school facilities.

This law clarifies that issue and ensures that no more ridiculous cases come up where people are prohibited from carrying weapons in church just because their church has a school.  As I said before:

… the pastor has wrongly portrayed the recent 11th Circuit decision on guns in Georgia churches.  The case had to do with guns being potentially prohibited in churches that were adjoined by schools (carry in schools is prohibited), and “given that the facial challenge to the law would succeed only if it’s valid in all its applications, the Eleventh Circuit responds by pointing to a valid application – when the management prohibits carrying.  What effect the law may constitutionally have when the management allows carrying isn’t resolved by the Eleventh Circuit opinion” (I am indebted to Professor Eugene Volokh for this assessment – via e-mail).

The Georgia law is a good thing.  Second, Dionne conflates the issue of approved and legal carry with illegal carry.  “Those who would keep their sanctuaries gun-free,” including, no doubt, Dionne himself, live in Neverland and perhaps honestly believe that making laws affects the behavior of criminals, thus ensuring no guns in churches as long as there is a law on the books.

Or perhaps he doesn’t believe that laws are observed by criminals, in which case Dionne only wants to ensure that families are utterly unprotected in the face of criminals bent on their harm.  In the first case he is a moron.  In the second case he is a liar and evil man.

Finally, as Dionne knows, there is no need to manufacture cultural conflict.  The divide that demarcates the people of this nation has never been so great in its history.  Guns are a symptom rather than a cause of the divide.

Remington Model 700:

Remington Arms issued a safety warning and recall notice for two different rifles Friday after potential trigger issues can lead to an unintentional discharge.

The rifles include the Remington Model 700 and the Remington Model Seven rifles with X-Mark Pro triggers, manufactured from May 1, 2006 to April 9, 2014.

According to the company, senior engineers determined that some rifles with the XMP triggers could, under certain circumstances, unintentionally discharge.

The investigation determined that some of the triggers might have excess bonding agent used in the assembly process, which could cause the unintentional discharge.

I’m not intending to place the Ruger recall in the same category, but their SR-556-VT rifle is also having trigger issues.

The company is recalling all SR-556-VT rifles due to a problem with the trigger system.  Ruger says on its website that the disconnector can wear down early.  And that can cause delayed gunfire, or even double firing.  That’s when the gun fires as expected, when the trigger is pulled—but then again when it’s released.

Ruger says it hasn’t received any reports of delayed or double-firing from customers.

On its website, the company traces the problem to a vendor not properly heat treating the disconnector.  Ruger says rifle owners should contact the company for information on how to get their guns retrofitted.

It’s good that Ruger is getting out ahead of this (or appears to be).  Denying it is the wrong thing to do, morally and from a business perspective as well.

Remington 700 models have always had trigger issues, and it isn’t at all apparent that this recall is the same one that has caused Remington such problems in the past.

David Petzal was absolutely indignant over CNBC’s expose of Remington (I’m not sure indignation at CNBC is the right posture), while Dave Hardy simply posted the link (but the comments, especially this one, provide a lot more detail).  Sure, following proper muzzle discipline may have prevented some of these problems, but the point is that a machine that needs to function correctly simply needs to function correctly, no excuses.  Making excuses is for losers.

The most comprehensive and damning indictment of Remington and its trigger problems to date is still this article from Billings Gazette.  See especially this evidence in the margins of the article, and this evidence, and this evidence, and the rest of the evidence.

The original article discusses “Senior Engineers” with Remington.  I’m particularly partial to this work title, and I am a registered professional engineer.  Are these folks registered as PEs with the state?  If not, why?  We are rightly concerned about roads, bridges and buildings, power plants and their proper design.  Why not guns, and why shouldn’t these engineers be registered?

If they are, has the issue of Remington and the apparent internal evidence ever come to light with the state board of registration?  Why would senior engineers ignore evidence of improper function of machines they designed and manufacture?  Did these engineers consider it malfeasance to ignore such evidence, and if they didn’t see it or didn’t know the evidence existed, why not?

We have many more questions than we have answers.  It has been this way for a very long time with Remington.

UPDATE: Readers should always read between the lines in my articles, but due to an e-mail exchange I should emphasize my wording above: “… it isn’t at all apparent that this recall is the same one that has caused Remington such problems in the past.”  What isn’t apparent is more prominent than what is apparent.  The explanation of “excess bonding agent” screams out for further explanation.  And I’m not sure that the explanation wouldn’t implicate other issues unrelated to “excess bonding agent.”

UPDATE #2: Thanks to Uncle for the link.  Also, Military Times has a related article.

It was recently the anniversary of the fighting in al Najaf, and Travis Haley does an after action report on his engagement (the only one I think I’ve seen from him on this epic fire fight).  Take note of what he says: “Trying to find your dope in combat” is the last thing you want to do.  Practice, know your weapon, know yourself, and practice some more.