Archive for the 'Guns' Category

See this picture of me shooting in Pickens, S.C., where the horrible Larry Martin is state senator.

…

For a longer demonstration of proper pistol grip, see this instructive video.

)

Southwest Florida Online:

On March 9, 2014 at approximately 22 :29 hours a home invasion robbery took place at 3306 SE 26th St., at the time of the home invasion robbery the residence was occupied by 5 people.

According to accounts of the incident from the occupants of the residence there was a knock on the door. When the door opened three males entered the residence. Two of the males that entered the residence were armed one with a Shotgun and the other with an ARl5 style weapon-

The occupants were order to lay face down on the ground by the gunmen and to remove all their personal belongings from their pockets. Several of the occupants were able to identify one of the gunmen as Timothy Deshon Williams.

The witnesses who identified Timothy have all personally known him from 8 to 14 years. According to witnesses accounts Timothy was carrying the AR 15 Style weapon. Shortly after entering the residence and ordering the occupants to lay face down Timothy shot Leon Anthony Cotton in the right: leg with the ARl5 because he would not get on the ground as instructed.

As a result of the gunshot Leon suffered a broken right femur and has required surgeries to treat and repair his leg.

He’s fortunate to get away with a broken femur.  I don’t answer the door without a firearm, especially in the unlikely event that someone knocks after dark.  These folks should have been armed.

Isn’t it ironic though.  In Connecticut and New York, the bullies in charge would want us to be left comparatively defenseless in the face of such home invasions.  So if the criminals can use them, then why not me?

David Codrea:

In spite of that, one “A-rated” Democrat, Sen. Jon Tester of Montana, joined with confirmed anti-gunners Chuck Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, Dick Durbin and others.

This is Tester’s second vote for administration interests over those of his gun owner constituents in a little over a month.

I just renewed my NRA membership for another year because I figure it seals and ensures my right to complain to them.  David is right to complain, and I do my fair share.  But it’s really a shame, this degree to which NRA rating has fallen in stature.

I pay little to no attention to it for just the reasons David laments.  There is also the issue that politicians will make claims concerning NRA ratings that are outdated and old, when new ratings have been issued, or when no ratings have been issued at all.  I’ve discussed this with NRA folks by phone.  If the NRA wants its ratings to be taken seriously, it will begin to husband them with diligence.  Otherwise, it’s an irrelevant feature of what could otherwise be a powerful lobby for our interests.

Kurt Hofmann:

In other words, to refer to his earlier opposition as “an act” is perhaps giving him too much credit–perhaps “a lie” would be a more accurate assessment.

Hey, they’re politicians.  It’s what they do.  Sort of like pictures of  Lindsey Graham holding an AR-15 while he secretly conspires with Senator Cornyn to infringe on gun rights, right?

What do cartoons, guns and Obama have to do with each other?  No, it’s not that our president is a cartoon and is scared of guns.  Uncle tells us.  And yes, I know what you’re thinking.  What a dumb ass!  No, not Uncle.  The other guy(s).

Mike told us about the idiot cop who wanted to donate his left nut to the cause of gun control.  He will probably lose a lot more than his left nut.  And if I’m not mistaken, there is further action on this front.

Eugene Volokh:

A gun with a larger than usual capacity magazine is in theory somewhat more lethal than a gun with a 10-round magazine (a common size for most semiautomatic handguns), but in practice nearly all shootings, including criminal ones, use many fewer rounds than that. And mass shootings, in which more rounds are fired, usually progress over the span of several minutes or more. Given that removing a magazine and inserting a new one takes only a few seconds, a mass murderer — especially one armed with a backup gun — would hardly be stymied by the magazine size limit. It’s thus hard to see large magazines as materially more dangerous than magazines of normal size.

[ … ]

Still, these same reasons probably mean that the magazine size cap would not materially interfere with self-defense, if the cap is set at 10 rather than materially lower. First, recall that until recently even police officers would routinely carry revolvers, which tended to hold only six rounds. Those revolvers were generally seen as adequate for officers’ defensive needs, though of course there were times when more rounds are needed.

[ … ]

… even if bans on magazines with more than 10 rounds are unwise, not all unwise restrictions are unconstitutional. That’s true for speech restrictions. It’s true for abortion restrictions. And I think it’s true for gun restrictions as well.

This is an oddball commentary by Eugene.  I don’t think the issue is whether, as the judges tried to adjudicate, a magazine capacity restriction burdens the second amendment, but whether those who are protected are burdened by the restriction.  It’s not a trivial distinction.

I’m not really sure why he drew on the issue of abortion rights to create the analogue.  It isn’t a very good one.  The wording of the second amendment is clear, including the phrase “shall not be infringed.”  The Supreme Court created a right to abortion ex nihilo.

Even if you believe that such a right exists, the analogous wording isn’t there in the constitution to protect it.  Thus, restrictions on abortion have no equivalency to restrictions on firearms.

Furthermore, there is a case to be made that restrictions on abortion and lack of restrictions on firearms have the same goal, i.e., the preservation of life.  Eugene provides the defeater argument for his own case, and states a contradictory conclusion anyway.  But firearms are used for more than just personal defense.  They are also necessary for the amelioration of tyranny.  Both of these are life preserving things, just as restrictions on abortion are life preserving restrictions.

Why Eugene didn’t choose to work on this angle and why he chose the opposite, is anyone’s guess.  All in all, this isn’t one of Eugene’s better pieces of work.  I think he missed the mark, and widely so.

For magazine capacity and what it may do for you, see also my analysis of Mr. Stephen Bayezes.

David Codrea:

In a related development, this column has been following up on what should be a larger concern for gun owners, and that is how the Armatix pistol made it on to California’s “safe handgun roster” without incorporating microstamping technology months after the state certified it was a requirement for all new semi-automatic handguns listed.

Because laws are for little people.  I suspect that regardless of what the law says, gun haters in California were able to slip this one in because they consider it a good trade.  They give up microstamping, and in return they get the ability to control forevermore the ability to sell or gift a firearm.  David will eventually find out and tell us.

Also see David’s article for the information on Armatix support for global disarmament efforts.  You should never purchase anything from this company.  They are in bed with the totalitarians.

Finally concerning California, I am reminding you that I still haven’t heard anything back from Smith & Wesson on whether they will continue to supply handguns that have not been microstamped to California LEOs while they don’t sell at all to California residents.

It gripes my ass that this double standard exists.  Laws aren’t for the little people.  Smith & Wesson shouldn’t sell at all in California, including to LEOs.

Speaking of double standards, were you aware that LEOs are exempt in Connecticut from its newest gun bans, and can have AR-15s along with standard capacity magazines – for their personal use?  No, not for on-duty use, but for personal use and protection?

Well, you know now.  This was the bribe that the Connecticut legislature made to the LEOs to get their cooperation in enforcing the law.

Prior: Smart Guns Tag

Following the pattern set by Ms. Catey Hill writing at WSJ, it seemed prudent to address at least ten things that we’ve tried to tell you.  Whether you’re listening is usually evident by whether you write things like Catey or say stupid things like, say Michael Bloomberg.  At any rate, here are the ten things.

1. Concerning Gun Safety

Catey says of the “gun industry” (whatever that is) that “Owning our product may be hazardous to your health.”  That wasn’t what I was thinking at all.  I was thinking that we’ve tried to tell everyone that guns, like automobiles, like ladders (50% of falls from ladders kill), can be unsafe when treated that way.  Online forums repeat the rules for gun safety to the point that it is almost excruciating, and yet I know them by heart and practice them everywhere I go.  I’ve never had an accident or so-called “negligent discharge” with a gun.  Because, you know, I’m responsible.  I wish I could say the same thing about those idiot kids driving down my road in hot rods, far too fast for neighborhood safety.

2. Concerning Guns and Fear

Catey says of the gun industry, “Fear is good for our bottom line.”  That wasn’t what I was thinking at all.  I was thinking that just like the industry surrounding door locks, being prepared is a good thing.  It usually involves patience, study and a little bit of money.  For some reason I’m reminded of a story.  An older lady is stopped by a Highway Patrol Officer, and like a responsible gun owner she informs him that she has three handguns in the car, a .45 1911, a .357 Magnum S&W revolver and yet another revolver (perhaps it’s another S&W revolver, this time a .38).  The officer asks what she’s so afraid of, and she replies, “Not a damn thing officer.”

3. Guns & The Law

Catey says that “Guns get special treatment under the law.”  That wasn’t what I was thinking at all.  I was thinking that we’ve tried to tell you that guns are in that special category of being specifically mentioned in the constitution, just like free speech and the right not to quarter troops in your home or the right to refuse to testify against yourself.  It’s a fundamental God-given right, and recognized as such in the constitution.  Hence, you must tread carefully on this terrain.

4. Children & Guns

Catey says of the gun industry, “We want your kids to play with guns.”  That wasn’t what I was thinking at all.  I was thinking that we’re tried to tell you our stories of learning to shoot when we were children (I learned on my father’s 10/22 in my back yard), our stories of learning gun safety as youngsters, and learning to listen carefully to our parents and mentors.  For this reason – and others – those lessons are burned into our memories.  What we learn as children is difficult to forget as adults.

5. Gun Control

Catey says of the gun industry that “Gun control may work.  We still think it’s a bad idea.”  That wasn’t what I was thinking at all.  Except for willful disobedience to clearly obscene laws (like what is going on in Connecticut right now), gun control absolutely works.  We’ve tried to tell you that it works for its intended purpose, i.e., control of the citizens (gun control is all about control).  We’ve tried to tell you it has nothing whatsoever to do with crime or violence.  We’ve tried to tell you that the proponents of gun control know this as well, and routinely set up a straw man to hide their real intentions.  Let me demonstrate for a moment.  At Daily Kos, this bit of honesty appeared one day.

The only way we can truly be safe and prevent further gun violence is to ban civilian ownership of all guns. That means everything. No pistols, no revolvers, no semiautomatic or automatic rifles. No bolt action. No breaking actions or falling blocks. Nothing. This is the only thing that we can possibly do to keep our children safe from both mass murder and common street violence.

Unfortunately, right now we can’t. The political will is there, but the institutions are not. Honestly, this is a good thing. If we passed a law tomorrow banning all firearms, we would have massive noncompliance. What we need to do is establish the regulatory and informational institutions first. This is how we do it.  The very first thing we need is national registry. We need to know where the guns are, and who has them.

Yea, I know what you’re thinking.  It seems invasive and creepy to me too, sort of like a fat uncle who can’t stop staring at little girls during family reunions.  That’s the way anti-gunners are.

6. Guns & Politics

Catey says of the gun industry, “Politically, we’re practically unbeatable.”  This was exactly what I was thinking, except substitute gun owners for gun industry.  And I don’t know why you’re not listening.  If you were you wouldn’t have enacted those obscene laws in New York and Connecticut.

7. Guns & Obama

Catey says of the gun industry, “Under ‘Gun Ban Obama,’ we’re doing just fine.”  That wasn’t what I was thinking at all.  I was thinking that in spite of gun ban Obama, we’re doing just fine.

8. Guns & Advocacy

Catey says, “Sometimes we aren’t ‘pro-gun’ enough.”  To add insult to injury, she brings up the S&W boycott.  Sheesh!  I do hate to rehearse that bit of pain because I love S&W so much, but I have indeed pointed out that we reward those who are friendly to us and punish those who aren’t.  So this is sort of what I was thinking along with Catey.  I’m glad we could agree on something.

9. Guns and Gun Sales

Catey says of the gun industry, “We sell guns to people you might not want us to.”  That wasn’t what I was thinking at all.  I was thinking that I’ve tried to tell you that I know your real intentions.  I am on this list of people “you might not want” to have guns, along with every other law-abiding citizen.  I know this, and you know this.  Now it’s just a matter of telling everyone else the truth.

10. Ammunition Availability

Catey say of the gun industry, “Ammo is our secret weapon.”  That wasn’t what I was thinking at all.  I was thinking just today that if I didn’t have my truck, I wouldn’t have to buy so much gasoline.

There are many more things, but that covers it for now.

WaPo:

The California gun store that put the nation’s first smart gun on sale is facing a furious backlash from customers and gun rights advocates who fear the new technology will encroach on their Second Amendment rights if it becomes mandated.

Attacks in online forums and social networks against the Oak Tree Gun Club have prompted the store to back away from any association with the Armatix iP1 smart gun. The protests threaten the nascent smart gun industry, which received a jolt of support recently when a group of Silicon Valley investors offered a $1 million prize for promising new technology.

The vitriol began almost immediately after The Washington Post reported last month that the Armatix iP1 smart gun was for sale at the pro shop. Electronic chips inside the gun communicate with a watch that can be purchased with the gun, making it impossible to fire without the watch. Gun control advocates, who believe smart guns could reduce gun violence, suicides and accidental shootings, marked the moment as a milestone.

“These people are anti-gunners,” someone said of Oak Tree on the store’s Facebook page, adding, “I will never step foot in this dump.” On Yelp, a user wrote, “If you care about the ability to exercise your [Second Amendment] rights, I would suggest that you do not continue to frequent this place.”

[ … ]

Gun rights advocates and Armatix executives have been mystified by the store’s response, which has been to deny ever offering the gun and apologizing for any confusion in several places online, including to a gun rights advocate at Examiner.com.

The denials come despite Oak Tree owner James Mitchell’s extensive comments about why the gun was put on sale there. Armatix executives also provided The Post with two photos of the gun for sale in a gun cabinet at the facility, as well as multiple photos of customers shooting the iP1 at an event in a specially designed firing range with large Armatix signs.

Like I’ve said before, spend all the money you want on “smart guns,” advertise it until your heart is content, and talk it up big.  The gun owner market will determine how it does.  Bring your wallet and join the fray, if you dare.

And it doesn’t.  That’s the end of the story.  Wasted money.  Wasted because no one who understands anything about machinery – and I do because I’m a registered professional engineer – will pay one cent for a monstrosity like that.

That doesn’t even touch on the issue of inhibiting the ability to resell, becoming a de facto universal background check for gun owners (which is itself evil), and being able to identify to the .gov where you are at any given time.

And like I’ve said before, gun owners rarely forgive and rarely forget.  We reward those who are friendly to us, and punish those who aren’t.

See also Kurt Hofmann’s latest article on this, Backlash against gun shop shows gun owners smarter than ‘smart gun’ pushers, where he says “gun owners, and more specifically, gun buyers, wield enormous power over the gun industry, and thus enormous capacity to punish collaboration with the forces of “gun control.”

Prior: Smart Guns Tag

David Codrea:

Voters chose to allow authorities to seize firearms at domestic investigations (Yes: 5,579 / No: 2,066), ban firearms from establishments that serve liquor (Yes: 5,194 / No: 2,517), and require firearms in the home to be locked up (Yes: 4,351 / No: 2,971) …

Remember when I said this?  “In order to prevent local hicks, ne’er-do-wells and criminals from acting out their Napoleon fantasies upon other men, association with the state means that – assuming robust gun rights laws already exist – local municipalities and townships shouldn’t be able to preempt state laws.”

David’s article is first of all about preemption.  It’s an odious thing when local yokels (who are usually elected in elections that aren’t well attended and who are usually unknown until they act out their Napoleon fantasies upon others) presume to tell their townships what to do about everything under the sun.  Totalitarianism doesn’t just happen inside the beltway.  The second thing I’ll observe is that if you have a gun and keep it locked up, it is nothing more than a locked up paperweight.  You certainly don’t have it for protection.

Kurt Hofmann:

“I’m not sure why people need body armor unless they are planning something untoward,” Anderson said. “And I’m not sure why an individual citizen would require a .50-caliber rifle.

And I’m not sure why someone would presume to legislate anything at all about body armor unless they were planning something untoward.  What do you have in mind, buddy?  Making sure we are defenseless against SWAT raids?

So someone is calling Mike Vanderboegh an insurrectionist.  I’ve been called far worse than that, but the really bad thing is that he didn’t link Mike and send traffic his direction.  Bad, bad form.  Sebastian has panned my stuff without linking me before.  Again, bad form.

See Mike on S&W.  It’s also because they make great stuff.  I mean really, really great stuff.  I just wished they lived down South.  Because, you know, of the North and everything.  And what they believe up there in those parts.

Pray for Mike and his health.  I have.  Mike’s got to stay healthy.  God has too much work for him to do.

Finally, Uncle links someone who is unimpressed with 1911s.  Meh.  I’m unimpressed and I would indeed choose to carry a 1911 for self defense.  I just put 150 rounds through my new S&W 1911 with no failures at all.  And Uncle is right.  I can shoot this one better than my polymer frame pistols because of its slim profile.

There is no need to rehearse the Ukrainian revolution in blow by blow fashion.  The best up-to-date coverage is happening at this reddit thread.  But there are more than a few lessons for patriots who want to be prepared for dystopia in America.  I’d like to start a conversation about this topic, with my thoughts being in “stream of consciousness” prose rather than rehearsed talking points.  This will be a breezy discussion from gasoline and guns to the redoubt and littoral regions.

First there are the immediate stages, or the follow-on to the crisis.  The first observation I would make is that each of us should find someone to love.  Or another way to say it is that we need tribe – close and extended family for whom we can care and who can care for us.  We weren’t made to be lone rangers.  We were created to work, provide for, protect, and lead our families, while we also respect the gray heads among our clan and defend and protect them (Leviticus 19:32).

Having tribe means that there are immediate concerns beyond our own safety and security.  It means planning ahead for food, potable water, communications, guns and ammunition, and even in the short term power (or a replacement for power).  As a boy scout I saw one scoutmaster use a light that burned oil on a wick with a reflecting back, almost as effective as a flashlight.  It worked for days on a single can of oil.  Our 123 batteries will soon run out.  As I said, I’ve looked in vain for this kind of light.

For some in our clan, that may make the difference between life and death for certain medical conditions.  This is why Jim Rawles expends so much effort to help others with medical issues and what may seem mundane to us.  Medicine and even rudimentary medical care can save lives, while preparation for the mundane can affect the psychology of survival.

Do you have emergency cash on hand?  My oldest son does, and I am ashamed to say that I don’t have as much as I should.  Has your gasoline supply gone past its shelf life?  Do you have firearms and ammunition, food and water for those around you who have not planned, and to whom you wish to extend grace?

If you successfully protect your tribe during the initial stages of the crisis, there is the longer term, or intermediate stage with which to contend.  The government will no doubt be a player, and they may even be now studying Dave Kilcullen’s recipe for twenty first century stability operations.

This era’s unprecedented urbanization is concentrated in the least developed areas of Asia, Latin America and Africa.  The data shows that coastal cities are about to be swamped by a human tide that will force them to absorb—in less than 40 years—almost the entire increase in population absorbed by the whole planet, in all of recorded human history up to 1960. And virtually all this urbanization will happen in the world’s least developed areas, by definition the poorest equipped to handle it—a recipe for conflict, crises in health, education and governance, and food, energy and water scarcity.

Rapid urbanization creates economic, social and governance challenges while simultaneously straining city infrastructure, making the most vulnerable cities less able to meet these challenges. The implications for future conflict are profound, with more people fighting over scarcer resources in crowded, under-serviced and under-governed urban areas.

[ … ]

The food security effects are equally severe, as pollution from coastal urbanization imperils fish stocks, and peri-urban areas surround city cores whose infrastructure is scaled for populations far smaller than they now support. This newly settled peri-urban land was once used for farms, market gardens and orchards, but as cities expand into this space, the distance between the city core and its food sources increases significantly. Food must now be produced further away and transported over ever-greater distances, increasing transportation and refrigeration costs, raising fuel usage and carbon emissions, exacerbating traffic problems, and creating “food deserts” in urban areas.

[ … ]

The three megatrends of urbanization, littoralization and connectedness suggest that conflict is increasingly likely to occur in coastal cities …

[ … ]

The implications for civilian agencies of government are equally obvious—the ability to expand social services, city administration, and rule of law into peri-urban areas are clearly important …

Kilcullen recommends that the U.S. military prepare for even more stability operations in littoral, urbanized areas rather than jettison that as a paradigm for the present century.  [Note: I appreciate the exchanges of e-mail I had about Kilcullen with Dan Morgan].  The redoubt will be more manageable for us, but the urban, littoral areas will be where hearts and minds are won.

Do you doubt the relevance of this?  Putin has played Kilcullen’s playbook like an expert.  His invasion of Crimea – which began before the Olympics were finished – does three things.  First, it focuses Russian forces in high population density, urban and littoral regions.  Second, it surrounded significant Ukrainian military assets, and third, it plays the psychology of occupation and control.

Putin now has control over troops who cannot survive without food, water and power, and who will likely be conscripted into military service with the Russian Army should they surrender.  But if they don’t, the people of the the Ukraine will possibly blame the revolution for the deaths of the sons of the Ukraine in Crimea.  Putin’s game isn’t just one of the clash of forces.  He is playing Sun Tzu with the people of the Ukraine.

The Ukrainian revolutionaries had one thing right in the initial stages of the fight.

… behind the barricades, there were thousands of people working together to support the front lines. It’s an important lesson that logistics is what ultimately wins battles.

While the demonstrators at the barricades skewed younger, older Maidan activists ferried supplies and filled sandbags.

Others staffed portable kitchens set up at the main encampment at Kiev’s Independence Square. When there was ample snow on the ground, they shoveled it into bags to bolster the barricades up to 10 feet high.

But they are now facing a master strategist in Putin, and control over water, food, roads, rural areas, transportation and power work in favor of those who have planned and armed well.  People need these things to survive.  The Ukrainians have a long, hard haul ahead fighting against attack helicopters and APCs.

In the very long term there are other concerns.  Rachel Marsden observes:

Ceding to protestors’ demands, Ukrainian parliament members voted last week to impeach President Viktor Yanukovych and hold early elections, which have been set for May 25. Online “slacktivists,” keyboard warriors and various media outlets responded by breathlessly declaring the situation a “revolution” — and in some cases even proclaiming it a successful one. Except that it isn’t at this point. Far from it.

Proponents of freedom and democracy would love nothing more than for Ukrainian citizens to fully control their own destiny. However, mere wishful thinking is no substitute for manifest reality, and semantics shouldn’t replace substance. Otherwise, there’s a danger of never actually getting anywhere. There are historical standards for revolution, and they shouldn’t be lowered just because those standards predate the advent of social media.

Some have already made that mistake in the case of Ukraine. The “Orange Revolution” of 2004 was prematurely named, then prematurely declared a successful revolution. In retrospect, it was merely a rebellion — and ultimately a misnomer. If it had been a revolution in substance, the country would not be where it is now, with parliament having to reinstate the Orange Revolution constitution that was adopted in 2004 but then gutted by a constitutional court in 2010.

There’s a reason that the French Revolution started, rather than ended, with the storming of the Bastille on July 14, 1789. It wasn’t considered complete until 10 years later. A revolution, by definition, is the replacement of one political system by a significantly different system. In the case of an authoritarian or totalitarian status quo, it has always required many phases of rebellion over a number of years, and much bloodshed.

The only revolutions that end quickly are those that result in totalitarian or authoritarian regimes, as with the Cuban Revolution. Democratic revolutions are much messier. Moreover, they inherently require democratic legitimacy, which is why even a democratic rebellion such as the one in Ukraine needs to occur within the context of an election cycle and be ratified through a democratic process. Democracy can’t start ironically with a coup. The results of the May 25 elections will retroactively determine the democratic legitimacy of the rebellion.

Now, I think Rachel overplays her hand badly, and I’m not certain that an election is necessary to legitimize anything.  I would rather think that the best form of government is a constitutional republic rather than a democracy.

But her point presses for an answer.  Revolutions need stability operations.  There is no need for the illegitimate government to be the only ones who think of and plan for stability operations.  Stability operations can and should occur within the context of neighborhoods, townships and areas of operation.  In fact, working to this end would be a much better use of time for most people than any sort of lone wolf scenario.

From the short to the long, there are many concerns in such an endeavor as undertaken by the Ukrainians.  As one final pedestrian observation, I would say that shooting is a perishable skill.  If you and I are not doing it regularly, we have no basis on which to believe that we can protect our tribe.

WND: