Archive for the 'Guns' Category

Times-Herald:

Because of ongoing difficulties getting enough ammunition for their .40-caliber service weapons, the Senoia Police Department will be trading them in for new 9mm pistols.

The Senoia City Council approved the trade-in and purchase of the new Glocks at Monday’s city council meeting.

“Over the past year we have had serious … difficulties finding .40-caliber ammunition,” said Senoia Police Chief Jason Edens. “We have been experiencing anything from six to eight months lead time” on getting their full order of both practice ammunition and “duty” ammo.

“It’s not obtainable by any department, not just ours,” Edens told the council.

Edens, and Councilman Jeff Fisher, said that the shortage of 40-caliber bullets is caused by the U.S. Military’s switch to the round.

“They are providing it to the military first… everybody else is second,” Fisher said.

Edens said he has done a lot of research, and there has been extensive testing done with the 9mm round. “It is performing as well as, if not better than, a .40-cal,” he said. It’s also up to 20 percent cheaper and “it is readily available, which is just very important to us.”

There are other advantages, as well. The .40-caliber magazine holds 15 rounds, while the 9mm holds 17. The 9mm bullets aren’t that much smaller than the .40-caliber, but there is less recoil with the 9mm, making it more user friendly. Plus, “we want to build a firearms program that concentrates on precision and accuracy with the shots, as opposed to just having a big chunk of lead,” Edens said.

The newer generation Glocks have a changeable back strap piece that can be customized for the size of the user’s hand.

Edens added that one of his officers, Lt. Jason Ercole, attended Glock’s Armorer School in the fall and can now do maintenance and repairs on the weapons.

The SPD will be trading in 14 used .40-caliber pistols and getting 16 new 9mm pistols. Glock will pay $300 for each trade-in, for a total cost of $2,434 for the new guns.

The military doesn’t use .40 S&W ammunition.  When looking for handgun ammunition, I can always find .22 WMR, .38., .357 Magnum, .40 and .45 (all of which I shoot and need).  I can never find 9 mm ammunition and that’s a good thing because I don’t shoot 9 mm.  The chief has his story backwards.

It sounds to me like the department just wants new firearms and is making up a story to support it.  Unfortunately, the city council is stupid enough to believe them.

They grow to four and a half feet long.

Tampa Bay:

Tampa bay, Florida– Large, invasive lizards are taking over parts of Hillsborough County.

They are called Tegus and they are from South America but have made southwest Florida their new home …

Offner has spent the last three years catching tegus.

“They produce rapidly, laying between 25-50 eggs at a time,” said Offner.  “They eat everything from plants to other animals with bones and shells- also amphibians, and birds.”

“We had a whole gopher turtle preserve on our 1,100 acres and now they are all gone,” said volunteer horse rescue worker, Marvel Stewart. “We see four to five a week on our property.”

Stewart lives in Lithia along with other homeowners who have been reported sightings of the four-foot long lizards.

“One got into our horse shed, and thankfully the horse was not in there at the time, but if it had been it would have been bad because the horse would have bucked, and possibly hurt herself trying to run from the lizard,” said Stewart.

The animals are native to Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, and Argentina.

The FWC has set out 28 traps in the parkland and dozens more on private property to help catch them.

They lure the lizards in with a raw chicken egg and then trap them and humanely euthanize them.

They have no known predators according to the FWC.

Like all invasive species problems, this one can be solved rather easily.  Call in the hunters, and tell people to carry weapons and shoot them on sight.  But that would cause the police concerns because then the “only ones” wouldn’t have sole right to discharge weapons.

If you’re a Floridian with big snakes, lizards, bear, panther and other critters who can harm you and you don’t carry a gun, why not?  As for the invasive species problem, Florida will continue to be overrun by all manner of animals because authorities don’t really want to solve the problem.

This problem is like feral hogs which are overrunning much of America, except the hog problem is much bigger, running some farmers out of business.  There shouldn’t be any limit anywhere on time, manner, season, choice of weapon, with hunting license or not, on killing feral hogs.

You can’t make this stuff up.

He was a Doraville police officer, until a tip led to an investigation and ultimately his dismissal.

“One of our officers was trying to sell an automatic weapon,” says Doraville Police Officer Gene Callaway.

Callaway tells WSB Officer Woodrow Mann had been with the department since 2008.  His attempted sale was discovered following a tip to the police.

“That led to an inquiry and we found that he was trying to sell a Class 3 weapon, which is a fully automatic weapon,” says Callaway.

When Doraville received the tip they contacted the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.

“Because the weapon had not been delivered,” Callaway says, “it didn’t meet their threshold for a crime.”

Mann was dismissed from the Doraville police department.  He can appeal his firing.

So let’s leave aside for a moment the issue of the NFA and the Hughes amendment (and Gun Control Act) being obscene abominations.  How does this cop get off trying to sell a class 3 weapon and not be charged with a crime?  Simply because he didn’t actually complete the sell because the ATF caught him?

Okay, so I said let’s leave behind the issue of the NFA, GCA and Hughes amendment being obscene abominations.  I lied.  I didn’t really mean it.  You know what I wouldn’t do if I had a class 3 weapon?  Sell it.  Point it at women and children like SWAT teams do.  Terrorize others with it for no good reason.  Keep it laying about unsecured.  You know.  Bad things.  Things like the police do with automatic weapons.

So tell me again how we’re not qualified to have them and can’t be trusted with such firepower.  Let’s hear it.

Reported by Mike Vanderboegh a while back, open carry is defeated in South Carolina.

A bill that would allow South Carolinians to carry guns openly or concealed without first receiving the State’s sanction through a permit was killed by Republicans. It failed to advance out of the State’s Judiciary Committee — despite a large Republican majority — under strong opposition from Republican Senator Larry Martin.

The bill is called Constitutional Carry. Backers say its premise is based on the fact that the 2^nd Amendment is the only permit needed to carry a weapon.

Understanding the Republican statist position opposing the bill requires following tortured logic. It was best described by Martin himself in response to a constituent who asked him to vote to advance the bill, as reported by BenSwan.com.

“If the 2nd amendment has been as you interpret it, why hasn’t SC law reflected that for the last 140 years? I’m sorry but you are describing an ‘unlimited’ right that has never been the case with the 2nd Amendment. My view of the 2nd Amendment has always been the right to own guns and keep them in our homes, business, and property and not to wear a gun whenever to wherever I pleased.”

He just thinks that because he is a communist.  Comments at Mike’s place seem to indicate that it was the tourism lobby in Charleston that defeated the bill.  I make no claims to knowing the real story behind the bill’s demise.  But one thing is certain – Senator Larry Martin of Pickens is either the ring leader or a stooge and tool.  In any case, he is now the target.

Gregory Smith observes “South Carolina has a pro-gun governor and an anti-gun Senate. This defeat is shameful, this is the work of self-hating Southerners, scalawags that would rather kiss the carpetbaggers than pass pro-gun laws … I believe there’s gonna be political hell in South Carolina. I want to know who are the 17 bastards that voted against the 2nd Amendment, are any of them Republican? If so then it’s time to excommunicate them from public office.”

I think the retribution needs to be greater than that.  Mr. Martin needs to feel uncomfortable even being out in public.  He has now declared himself to be an enemy of the people.  And oh, by the way, as to the LEOs who helped to kill the bill, you are also an enemy of the people.

The Week:

Or, as one member of the range put it, “When it comes to gun laws, there’s the whole country, and then there’s New York.” While that may be a slight exaggeration, New York is indeed the polar opposite of lax states like Utah, Alaska, and Arizona, and is arguably the toughest in the country to own a gun. Here, no one is actually entitled to possess a firearm, at least not until the police give the go-ahead.

“Your right can never be taken away from you,” continued Leung, “but your privilege can be revoked at any given time. The NYPD is the licensing entity. They can add any kinds of stipulations they want. And they don’t have to explain why.”

It makes sense to keep guns on a short leash, Leung acknowledges, because “you want people to realize this is not a toy …

As we were talking, a middle-aged man in a grey suit who was carrying a black plastic case sat down at the table next to us. He unlocked it, removed a 9mm Beretta and nonchalantly placed the pistol on the table. Then he took out a box of bullets and started loading them into a magazine, one by one.

First a comment about putting a “box of bullets” on the table and filling his magazine.  They weren’t “bullets,” they were cartridges.  Second, this is extremely bad form.  No magazines get loaded until on range, with weapons pointed downrange.  This is true of everywhere I shoot, many places.  They have no concept of range safety.

Second, this range owner is a sad testimony to the mentality of pitiful New Yorkers who unwisely rely on the police for protection they cannot (and have no intention to) provide.  The police have usurped God’s authority, who commands the ability of self defense and defense of the little ones.

If the police have usurped God’s authority, the people have abdicated their responsibility and duty before the Almighty.  They will answer for that one awful day, along with collectivists who put them in that position to begin with.  Evil with the one doesn’t obviate the other.  I’m sorry for my New York readers who are good, honest folk and who don’t live in NYC.  But if you’re like this range owner, you deserve everything you get.

Hell will freeze over before I ever abdicate my God-given rights to own guns to a cop or judge.  Oh, and since I haven’t mentioned it in a few weeks, to Remington, Kimber and any other gun manufacturer in the empire state: why are you still there?

What will it take with you?  My most recent rifle purchase was a Winchester Model 70 rather than a Remington 700.  My Model 70 will be made right down the road from me in Columbia, S.C.

Rowan Scarborough of The Washington Times has written a lengthy piece on the battle of Wanat (or Want), that I covered in so much detail.  Hating on the M4 plays a prominent role in the article.  Part 1 is here, while part 2 is here.  A sampling of quotes follows.

The warrant officer said he and fellow Special Forces soldiers have a trick to maintain the M4A1 — the commando version: They break the rules and buy off-the-shelf triggers and other components and overhaul the weapon themselves.

“The reliability is not there,” Warrant Officer Kramer said of the standard-issue model. “I would prefer to use something else. If I could grab something else, I would” …

In 2002, an internal report from the Army’s Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey said the M4A1 was prone to overheating and “catastrophic barrel failure,” according to a copy obtained by The Times …

A former Army historian who chronicled the infamous Battle of Wanat in Afghanistan, where nine U.S. soldiers died after their M4 carbines jammed, tells The Washington Times that his official account was altered by higher-ups to absolve the weapons and senior officers …

But the gun’s supporters have pointed to a single sentence in the official Wanat history issued in 2010 by the Army’s Combat Studies Institute at Fort Leavenworth, Kan. It blamed the gun’s sustained rapid fire that day, not its design, for the malfunctions.

“This, not weapons maintenance deficiencies or inherent weaknesses in weapons design, was the reason a number of weapons jammed during the battle,” the sentence read.

Higher-ups inside Army command edited that sentence into the history, the report’s author says.

“That was not my conclusion,” said Douglas R. Cubbison, a former Army artillery officer and principal Wanat history author. “That was the Combat Studies Institute management that was driven from the chief of staff’s office to modify findings of that report to basically CYA [cover your ass] for the Army. You know how that works.

“Other soldiers have informally told me of similar problems they had with the M4 at high rates of fire,” said Mr. Cubbison, who is now curator of the Wyoming Veterans Memorial Museum …

Higher-ups made other changes, such as removing much of the historian’s criticism of senior officers for not better preparing the outpost for an attack.

I have a copy of the (I believe unedited version) Cubbison report.  I agreed not to divulge the contents of the report except to comment on the content (rather than reproduce the content).

There were indeed many problems associated with Wanat, such as ensconcing a unit too small to defend the location, Taliban massing of forces (to approximately a Battalion size force), something I had tracked and discussed at length.  There was also the lack of logistical support, lack of (or untimely) CAS, lack of heavier weaponry, and delay of more than one year in setting up the FOB, allowing the enemy to make careful plans for his attack.

I scoured my e-mail thinking that I had exchanged mail with Mr. Cubbison, but I couldn’t find any.  In any case, I found Cubbison’s writing to be clear, well crafted, and well researched.  He is a good historian.  But on the issue of the M4 I disagree with Mr. Cubbison (although I will stipulated that it is extremely bad form to change the prose of another author just because it is uncomfortable to read it).

I’ve heard it all before, this idea that the gas-operated rotating bolt system allows the AK to cool better than the direct impingement system that Eugene Stoner designed.  This isn’t the whole story.  The AK-47 is also a less accurate design, is prone to malfunctions in the field (according to first hand reports I trust), is heavier and fires heavier ammunition, and as one crusty old Marine general said, plenty of Marines have survived a shot by 7.62 X 39.

Any weapon system has its advantages and disadvantages.  Give Soldiers an M14 and they will complain that it’s too heavy (like they did in the jungles of Vietnam).  They will complain that its ammunition is too heavy and they can’t carry as much (and they will be right, considering that kit is now around 80 pounds without ruck, 120-130 pounds for a couple of nights out in the field).

Does this mean that they shouldn’t carry an M14, Remington 700 or Winchester Model 70 for long range shooting?  No.  Should a DM (designated marksman) with the unit be prepared to shoot DM rifles?  Yes.

But shooting uphill should also be taught at the ranges (the report correctly notes the difficulties associated with being in a valley), and fire control should be taught and emphasized for a multitude of reasons.  As my son put it to me, “shooting 500 rounds in 30 minutes means that you’re shooting at everything, and at nothing.  And it also means that you’re making yourself a target.”

Compare the high rate of fire with one lesson learned from this Marine Corps engagement in Afghanistan when faced with massing of troops.

Fire Discipline: Engagements have lasted from two to forty hours of sustained combat.  Marines must be careful to conserve rounds because there may not be any way to replenish their ammunition and it is not practical or recommended to carry an excessive number of magazines.  Marines took a few moments to apply the fundamentals of marksmanship and this greatly improved the ratio of shots fired to enemy fighters killed.  Crew Served Weapons do not always need to be fired at the rapid rate.  Good application of shoulder pressure will tighten beaten zones and lead to effective suppression. Talking guns will help conserve ammunition.

Finally, Travis Haley has shown what can be accomplished with precision fire using a scoped AR-15 with a 20″ barrel.

The Eugene Stoner design is well-suited for CQB and up to 400 meters, firing with low recoil (thus allowing quick target reacquisition), and carrying large quantities of ammunition.  It is also known for the projectile’s yaw in flight and significant tissue damage.

Ridiculous counterinsurgency strategy and stupid flag and staff officers are responsible for the failures at Wanat.  Cubbison’s study is correct about that.  But the M4 (and AR-15) still stands out as a superior weapon system for all but extreme distance shooting.

As one last comment (and this one is perhaps the most interesting to me), take note of the post date of my article on Cubbison (it was four and a half years ago).  The Washington Times is just now getting around to writing about this, or perhaps just learning about the Cubbison study.

Main stream media really should pay more attention to blogs.  It makes them look very out of touch and slow to respond when they are so unaware of things going on with their competitors.

So retired Lt. General William Boykin has stirred up some controversy alleging that Jesus will return to earth carrying an AR-15.

Boykin, a retired Army lieutenant general who now works at the lobbying group, was paraphrasing the biblical prophecy in Revelation 19 that describes Jesus returning to Earth as a “warrior” with a “sharp sword.”

But he believes the scripture is due for an upgrade.

“I’ve checked this out — I believe that sword he’ll be carrying when he comes back is an AR-15,” Boykin told the crowd at the Pro-Family Legislators Conference in Dallas.

“The sword today is an AR-15. If you don’t have one, go get one. You’re supposed to have one. It’s biblical,” he said.

More fascinating is the reaction from one Lt. Col. Robert Bateman.  We’ve had our run-ins with gun control fanatic Bateman before (here and here).  In order to understand what Bateman says, you have to listen to Boykin.  Bateman says of Boykin:

Wow, seriously? You believe that the fellow who preached “turn the other cheek” and “the meek shall inherit” and all that other stuff from the Sermon on the Mount, is coming back with blood on his robe?

The Second Amendment is from God. Hmmm. But yet surely, all this Jesus shooting a 5.56 NATO standard bullet from an AR-15 sticking out of his mouth must surely be metaphor, right? I mean that is how it has been interpreted for centuries. And then Lieutenant General, Three Star General Boykin (Ret.) continues:

“I know, everybody says that was a metaphor. IT WAS NOT A METAPHOR! …And that was the beginning of the Second Amendment, that’s where the whole thing came from. … I know that’s where it came from. And the sword today is an AR-15, so if you don’t have one, go get one. You’re supposed to have one. It’s biblical.”

Bateman in his previous encounters with us pretends to be a historical scholar.  Here he is pretending to be a Biblical scholar.  And he is intentionally conflating what Boykin said.  He (Boykin) wasn’t referring to Revelation 19 and whether it was metaphorical.  He was referring to whether the notion of bearing weapons for self protection (as Jesus discussed in Luke 22:36) is metaphorical.

Of course, just a little research could have shown Bateman that the idea of God as warrior is thoroughgoing in the Old Testament and a motif that is carried into the New Testament as well.  Jesus was no doormat or pacifist (see Matthew 10:34-36), and he certainly used violence when it was called for (Matthew 21:12).

Finally, we’ve covered how the American revolution has its roots in continental Calvinism.  I cannot speak for Boykin and what he sees as metaphorical or literal.  To me, Jesus upholds all things by the word of His power (Hebrews 1:3), and so doesn’t need an AR-15.

But He certainly didn’t intend to dissuade people from self defense (with Boykin I assert that it is a Biblical duty), and imagining Jesus as a long haired peacenik commits the error discussed by John Frame of applying an exclusive reduction (rather than an emphasizing reduction) to God.  Or perhaps Bateman has never read John Frame.

David Codrea:

The major problem with Wilkinson’s snottiness is that’s all he’s got. GOA refers people to data compiled by the Pew Research Center, which shows overwhelming preference among “unauthorized immigrants” for the Democrat party.

Yep.  I’ve discussed this myself, and there could be no greater threat to gun rights than to put people in charge who want to take them away.

Kurt Hofmann:

Oh–about that “Only Ones” exemption. When this technology, and mandates for its use, were first being pushed, much of the rationale was based on the notion that it would protect police officers from having their guns grabbed by a suspect, and being shot with their own guns. Apparently, though, New Jersey police were strangely unappreciative of this concern for their safety, forcing the exemption as a condition for their support for (and lack of active opposition against) the requirement.

There’s Kurt again, destroying their arguments by pointing out inconsistencies.  The argument is a ruse, and the fact that LEOs don’t want those stupid guns shows just how stupid they are.

Some smart ass named Teret says “They thought the air bag would kill them,” said Teret, who did early work on air-bag technology. “They thought it would shove them out the back window, that it would explode. It takes awhile to dispel these mythologies.”

Uh huh.  Well, I guess air bags can actually kill you.  And so can a gun that doesn’t function when you need it to.  And the cost of this ridiculous machine?

The cost is high. Amatrix’s iP1, a .22-caliber pistol, is priced at $1,399 — plus $399 for the watch. A .40-caliber Glock handgun can be had for about $600.

Like I’ve said before.  Put it on the market and see how it does.  See also my coverage on smart guns.

Mike Vanderboegh has an absolutely must see graphic on ammunition.  It is so true that it’s scary that someone reads my mind like this.  And pray for Mike.

And finally, no, I don’t think I bear a single bit of responsibility for reducing gun violence, any more than I bear responsibility for drug problems in the ghetto or providing medical care to people who don’t work.

Eugene Volokh is discussing the very recent Ninth Circuit decision on the right to bear arms outside the home.  See also here and here.  Eugene’s comments are well worth reading.  Here is one interesting excerpt from the decision.

… with Heller on the books, the Second Amendment’s original meaning is now settled in at least two relevant respects.  First, Heller clarifies that the keeping and bearing of arms is, and has always been, an individual right.  See, e.g., 554 U.S. at 616. Second, the right is, and has always been, oriented to the end of self-defense.

See, e.g., id. Any contrary interpretation of the right, whether propounded in 1791 or just last week, is error. What that means for our review is that historical interpretations of the right’s scope are of varying probative worth, falling generally into one of three categories ranked here in descending order: (1) authorities that understand bearing arm s for self-defense to be an individual right, (2) authorities that understand bearing arms for a purpose other than self-defense to be an individual right, and (3) authorities that understand bearing arms not to be an individual right at all.

To illustrate, a precedent in the first category that declared a general right to carry guns in public would be a great case for Peruta, while a decision in the same group that confined exercise of the right to the home would do his position much damage.  By contrast, those cases in the third category — which, like the dissenting opinions in Heller, espouse the view that one has a right to bear arms only collectively in connection with militia service and not for self-defense within or outside the home — are of no help.

It’s very important to understand what they’re arguing and what they’re not.  But first, let me rehearse my view of the Second Amendment.

Recall that I view the Second Amendment as primarily and first of all a restriction on the power of the federal government.  It was meant to frame in, or circumscribe the centralized powers.  Therefore, it needed only one reason to restrict that power, that reason being stated as concerning the militia.  The Second Amendment is not restrictive, it is inclusive.  I’ll return to that in a moment.

Later, the Second Amendment was applied to the States through incorporation, and thus it applies to all U.S. citizens regardless of State.  However, this should have been superfluous at the time, since most States (Illinois being one exception, having been corrected only recently) recognized the right to bear arms in State Constitutions.  It should have been … but it wasn’t because of collectivist designs on control.

God gives me my right to bear arms.  Man can and should only recognize and respect that right.  I do not have to be a member of the militia to justify my right to own weapons (the Second Amendment gives only one reason that the centralized powers cannot infringe on my rights to bear arms – there are many others).  Again I say – and always remember this – God gives me the right to weapons and to use them for self defense.

Such notables as my friend Bob Owens have asked the question, loosely paraphrased, if militia membership is required, then what kind of training should we be engaged in?

No, and a thousand times no.  Paraplegics, the elderly, shut-ins, and all manner of people who cannot be a member of the militia have just as much of a God-given right to weapons as does a healthy, 19-year old strapping young man ready for service.  It does no good to say that we’re all member of the unorganized militia, because my 90 year old grandmother in-law cannot get herself out of bed.  It’s a lie and a subterfuge to say otherwise, and it avoids the hard question about the ultimate root of my rights.

Now back to what the Ninth Circuit said.  While I am in both categories (i.e., right to bear arms for self defense and also for resistance to tyranny), again, it’s important not to misconstrue their words.

The case before them had nothing to do with the militia or resistance to tyranny.  It had to do with the right to bear arms at all times for personal self defense.  Thus, decisions, case law, and legal texts that have to do with anything but this are irrelevant to their decision.  They lack probative worth in this context.

I think that this is right, and I think that this is generally a good decision.  Let me make a careful note that I am not finished reading the decision, and I may stumble upon something outlandish.  I’ll point it out if I do.

David Codrea says that he doesn’t cede the decision whether we have a right to bear arms to the Ninth Circuit.  Properly so.  God gives it to me, and what God gives me, no court can take away.  But for the trashy decisions handed down by the Ninth Circuit, this one is surprising and delightful to read (so far).  And I do like their focus on the historical context of the constitution rather than on what judges have to say about it from their ivory tower perches today.

For more reading on this subject, see my Christians, The Second Amendment And The Duty Of Self Defense.

David Codrea:

Regardless, the outcome of one case hardly justifies unfounded allegations of a Jim Crow-based trend, and what’s quickly obvious is a clumsily transparent agenda to equate defensive gun use with white racism against blacks.

Well, we’ve seen how the progressives like to hurl insults rather than debate rationally.  I see “stand your ground” laws as fairly simple, actually.  Anyone who understands self defense, whether by hand, knife, gun or any other weapon, would tell you that you cannot assume that you have time to escape.  My philosophy has always been evasion, escape and egress.  But there are times when that will not work to ameliorate the threat.  During those times, immediate reaction should be your plan.  Turning and running is sure to get you killed.  That has nothing whatsoever to do with race.  You will also get killed if you try to run from very bad white guys.

Kurt Hofmann:

The Department of Justice will inevitably claim that the nullification section of the law is unconstitutional, pushing the issue to the courts. Who can say what will happen there, but few would argue that it will be easy to get the courts to back the states in breaking the federal government’s grip on the power it has usurped over a period of well over a century.

This is more necessary reading by Kurt.  As I’ve argued as well, “although if it goes to federal court and is overturned (as it would certainly be in federal court), then it was never really a nullification law at all.  Federal court rulings would have to be ignored in order to meet the definition of a nullification law.”  We must be willing to throw federal agents into State Penitentiaries with the general prison population and throw away the key.

Mike Vanderboegh is discussing his work against Communist Mike Lawlor and how remarks by Robert Farago don’t quite measure up.  Look, I have nothing against Robert, but I find him to be a rather strange bird.  The  e-mails I have exchanged with him eventually found Robert offering to let me write for TTAG as long as they got exclusive rights to the content for the first 48 hours (or some time), while he also seemed very reluctant to link and comment on anything I write on my own web site.  I cannot possibly answer why he took this position.  As I said, it seems rather odd to me.

Robert says of the Connecticut situation, “No matter how you look at it, this will not end well.”  Oh, I’m not so sure about that.  Perhaps I will begin praying imprecatory prayers against Mike Lawlor.  Perhaps the collectivists in Connecticut will back down.  Perhaps this will become a toothless law.  Perhaps the first shooting or imprisonment of a gun owner will bring the house down on law enforcement in Connecticut.  I can think of a number of good outcomes.