Archive for the 'Guns' Category

David Codrea, discussing the firing of gun writer Dick Metcalf:

From a strictly human point of view, it’s a tragedy. Being a professional gun writer is a specialized craft, and opportunities to earn a living at it are few and far between. Devoting oneself to that as a career, getting it right most of the time and suddenly becoming not just unemployable, but widely excoriated, is a terrible outcome.

It’s fair to ask if some of the concerns raised by writer Bob Owens might soften demands for Metcalf’s head, and the uproar also raises inevitable comparisons to the way gun owners have reacted in the past to similar major foul-ups.

Bob Owens makes the following statement:

A modern well-regulated militia—one that is smoothly functioning and in proper working order as an irregular small unit militia force of the kind the John Mosby and Max Velocity train—requires blood, sweat, and tears. It’s hard work. It’s exhausting duty. It’s a promise to future generations that you ready, willing, and able to fight and live (any unprepared idiot can die) to preserve liberty for posterity.

On the other hand, “shall not be infringed,” taken without any responsibility, is a hedonist’s choice. It implies no responsibility, obligation, or duty. It is the cry of, “Why, we should have anything and everything, just because!”

Some of us are very selective in cherry-picking which parts of the Second Amendment we want to support, aren’t we?

I’ll speak to the subject of tactical training viz. Max Velocity and John Mosby later.  I don’t have that difficulty because of my methodological approach.  The Second Amendment circumscribes the power of the federal government, and its limitations are complete and comprehensive.  The Second Amendment doesn’t speak in the least to the power of the state, and we’ve discussed this before (please don’t slip in an argument over the fourteenth amendment at this point without reading the history of that subject here at this web site).

The State does indeed have the right to regulate firearms just like they have a right to regulate traffic laws, and this places both the authority to do so and the ability to remove those leaders from office who abuse that authority, right where it should be, near the people.  For example, the State has a right to expect that I will secure my weapons in such a manner that they will not become a danger to the neighborhood children should they come over to play (while at the same time no one has a right to illegal search or seizure to inspect my home “just because“).  The State also has a right to prohibit drunk driving.  I have never argued, nor will I ever argue, for anarchy or having everything I want just because.  God gives me rights, and the state recognizes those rights.  If it does not, I must hold the state accountable because God says I must.  All of life is a covenant, and the government is just as much in covenant with me as I am with it.  The wise founders left the centralized government out of this conversation as they should have.

As to the issue of gun owner reaction, to me this is simple.  Gun owners have the right to expect what they want in publications, and to refuse to purchase products if they don’t get what they expect.  Do consumers of other products not have that right as well?

Kurt Hofmann continues the conversation we engaged here concerning the closure of the last lead smelter plant in the U.S.

This could carry dire consequences with regard to availability and price of ammunition, prompting some to speculate that the anti-gun Obama administration’s EPA is motivated less by the claimed concern for “cleaner air” than by desire to squeeze private gun ownership from a new, less obvious angle.

Perhaps, perhaps not, but regardless, the squeeze is likely to be felt quite keenly by gun owners. All the more keenly because of longstanding federal law banning the use of many other materials in the construction of bullets used in “handgun ammunition.” If lead is unavailable/unaffordable (and now verboten, to California hunters), and if a great many other possible bullet materials are illegal, the remaining options are both few and of limited utility.

Yes, and that’s why this may be problematic as we discussed.  It isn’t as simple as substituting steel balls for lead, copper for brass, or steel for anything else like casings (which can tear up chambers).

Mike Vanderboegh reminds us yet again why it is an awful idea to talk to the police.  I know that some people have a hard time considering the exercise of their right to silence, but you need to watch all of this video again.  Please.  Watch it all.  And don’t ever talk to the police about anything.  They are an arm of the court, and exculpatory evidence discovered during questioning is inadmissible because it is hearsay.  Again, watch the entire video.  So have you watched the video, or just listened to me talk about it?

From Instapundit, a gun rights issue at Gonzaga:

SPOKANE, Wash. – Two Gonzaga students are facing possible expulsion from the University after they pulled a weapon in self defense as a six time felon attempted to get into their on campus apartment. According to the student handbook, students may not possess handguns on campus or university owned property.

That’s because the disciplinary board is being immoral.  Now to Philadelphia:

Philadelphia Police are searching for two suspects wanted in connection with a violent home invasion Friday night in the city’s Oxford Circle section.

The incident was reported at the 1500 block of Rosalie Street.

Police tell Eyewitness News a 28-year-old woman was tortured in front of her two-year-old daughter and her four-year-old nephew.

Police say a pair of men broke into the back door of this home on Rosalie Street, attacking the people inside including the 28-year-old woman, her two-year-old daughter and four-year-old nephew, her 54-year-old mother and an electrician working at the house.

“These two individuals tied up all the three adults. They tied up their wrists and their ankles,” Philadelphia Police Chief Inspector Scott Small said.

Beating up the electrician in the process, police say the pair started demanding money, something the 28-year-old said she didn’t have. That’s when one of the attackers allegedly picked up a kitchen knife, turned on the stove, and put the blade in the flame.

“And then four separate times burnt the 28-year-old female, burnt her face, both of her arms and her stomach,” Small said.

Still she refused to speak, so the crime went further.

“Then picked up the 28-year-old’s two-year-old daughter and threatened to kill the daughter if she didn’t say where the money was,” Small said.

Finally she caved, and gave up some money she had.  So did her mother and the electrician.  The pair got away with nearly $4,000.

Notice that the police were there to write their reports, take descriptions and perhaps clean up a little of the mess.  And then again perhaps they left the mess to the poor victims.  The police aren’t there to protect you, and couldn’t even if they wanted to.

This is the way collectivists and statists would have it.  They would rather you be tortured and abused to the point of death than recognize your right to own and use weapons.

Purchase guns and ammunition.  Use them to defend yourself and loved ones.  If you live in a place that doesn’t allow your ownership of weapons, you are being irresponsible by staying there.  Two home invasions, two different outcomes.  Which will it be for you?

I don’t particularly like the SCAR, and I get along just fine with my RRA AR-15.  I would also be interested in what brand of AR-15 Jerry would choose for 3-gun competition if S&W didn’t sponsor him.  Finally, this isn’t as comprehensive as something like “Art Of The Tactical Carbine” with Travis Haley, but in 20 minutes it can’t be more than it is.  Jerry does try to sell his complete version, which might be a good Christmas present.

Toronto Sun:

Outdoorsman Marco Lavoie, rescued Wednesday after three months in the deep woods near James Bay, made the heartbreaking decision to kill and eat his beloved German shepherd to stay alive.

A source close to the amazing story told QMI Agency that Lavoie, 44, sacrificed his dog when he became stranded at the Nottaway River, roughly 800 km northwest of Montreal.

A bear had eaten Lavoie’s food and destroyed his boat in mid-July, leaving him alone with the dog.

A few days after the bear attack, the person who spoke to QMI on condition of anonymity said Lavoie used a rock to kill his dog before eating the pet.

By the time provincial police airlifted him out three months later, Lavoie was barely able to speak or eat. He suffered hypothermia and dehydration and had lost about 90 pounds.

Survival expert Andre Francois Bourbeau said Lavoie did what he could to live.

“He survived because he made ‹good decisions. Eating his dog was one of them,” said Bourbeau, author of a survival guide.

Bourbeau has researched hundreds of similar stories, some of which include cannibalism.

“You have to be desperate, but there’s no shame in (eating the dog),” said Bourbeau. “He had to use reason.”

The survival expert says that after 30 days in the wilderness with no food, Lavoie’s body would have gone into shock from starvation.

“Hunger squeezes you so much that you would accept food that’s not normally possible,” said Bourbeau. “You can crave slugs and bugs.”

Lavoie is an experienced hiker who often spent weeks in the wilderness by himself. But the Nottaway River is considered too dangerous even for the hardiest outdoorsmen.

Andre Diamond, a Waswanipi Cree who lives on an island at the mouth of the river, said he warned Lavoie to stay away.

“He said it didn’t scare him, but it’s not a river to travel alone,” said Diamond. “Other adventurers have gone there over 20, 30 years and never came back.”

I don’t want to sit in judgment of the fellow for what he did.  My dog is one of my best companions, my friend, my partner on hikes, camping trips, and walks, my travel companion, and partner for playing at night time and on the weekends.  She is sad when I leave, and overjoyed when I return.  I would have made a different decision concerning the dog, but as I said, I don’t want to sit in judgment of the fellow.

But I do have one bone to pick, and it has to do with the downright obscene and objectionable expectations of people who travel into the wilderness.  As to the statement “he survived because he made ‹good decisions,” I would respond, “he almost died because he made awful decisions.”  My demurral goes farther than the dog – it goes to preparation for the trip.

Had he carried weapons (a good, scoped bolt action rifle and large caliber handgun such as a .44 magnum revolver), the bear would be dead and eaten, the gentleman would still be alive, and he would be hugging his dog.  Instead, he apparently had to watch as a bear nearly cost him his life.  Furthermore, if he had access to firearms, it is quite possible that he could have killed game (fowl if he had carried a shotgun, small game, or even large game with a rifle or shotgun with slugs) to eat instead of eating his companion.

Let’s suppose that Canadian law prohibits the carrying or even ownership of weapons such as the ones that I mentioned, and let’s further suppose that shooting the bear would have been illegal (or in other words, there is no such thing as a bear tag in that Province of Canada).

It doesn’t matter.  The trip nearly cost him his own life, and it is immoral for the Canadian government to make or enforce such laws.  Immoral, obscene and unrighteous laws not only need not be obeyed, but they must be disobeyed.  When a government makes unrighteous laws, it has become unrighteous.

Congratulations to the “libertarian” voters in Virginia who today voted for Robert Sarvis.  How does it feel to know that you threw your vote away and could have made a difference in the outcome of the election of communist Terry McAuliffe to the Governor’s mansion?

We discussed it.  Instead of driving to the voting booth, you’re in a fight for your rights now, and will probably lose your liberty to own guns, your liberty to purchase them, and maybe even your liberty to purchase ammunition.  You own it now boy.  Oh, and make sure to sign up for Obamacare tomorrow.

Gird your loins, or move.

UPDATE: Via commenter HempRopeAndStreetlight, this:

Mark Levin wrote in a Monday Facebook post that the RINOs, or Republicans in Name Only, wanted McCauliffe to win on Tuesday. “Many in the GOP establishment, from major fundraisers and consultants, to GOP officeholders such as the GOP Lt. Gov and mayor of Virginia Beach, have either trashed Attorney General Ken Cuccinnelli or endorsed McAuliffe outright. The GOP national machine has done next to nothing for Cuccinnelli,” Levin wrote. 

In addition to all of those GOP establishment figures who were key operatives for Cantor, McDonnell, the RNC, and actual state GOP lawmakers, national RNC chairman Reince Priebus spent Tuesday in New Jersey to back up Chris Christie, whose re-election was never in question, rather than in Virginia using his celebrity to get out the vote in Cuccinelli’s nail-biter race.

There is also this report on Cuccinnelli in his own words concerning being abandoned by the GOP.  This might have happened under the radar fifty years ago, but in this day and age they can’t hide it.  The establishment GOP is in a scorched earth war on conservatives.  So be it.  Go ahead and nominate an establishment GOP candidate for the next office, gubernatorial, president, senate, house or whatever.  Watch as conservatives stay home like they did in the last presidential election.

I had previously said this:

I am a long standing and diehard advocate of State’s rights, even to the extent that I don’t think the federal court system should be invoked when local gun control is concerned.  All gun politics is local, I have said.  The corollary is that 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.  The state is the right size for law-making and control.  Our founding fathers were wise.

And true to form for the little Napoleon child-emperors, Wisconsin gun laws may soon be a mess.

Wisconsin wildlife officials’ decision to drop rifle restrictions going into this month’s gun deer hunt was supposed to make things simpler. But hunters better do their homework before they head into the woods because local governments now are weighing whether to impose their own bans, potentially creating a patchwork of rules.

The DNR lifted its rifle ban earlier this year in the nearly 20 counties where it remained in effect. The move makes more powerful and accurate weapons available to deer hunters who had been limited to shotguns during the nine-day gun hunt.

Local governments can still restrict rifles, however, and a number have been working to pass limits before the season starts Nov. 23. That could leave hunters sifting through a patchwork of regulations to figure out whether they can use a rifle in their favorite patch of woods.

“Hunters will have to literally check the specific rules for every community they hunt, and don’t think that a single round of phone calls will be sufficient for your whole season,” Rep. Joel Kleefisch, R-Oconomowoc, one of the most avid hunters in the Legislature, warned in a statement. “The bottom line here is that the hunter still has (to do) the homework.”

The DNR banned rifles decades ago in a number of southern counties to limit the deer kill and grow local herds. Hunters in those areas were forced to use weapons with less accuracy and range, such as shotguns, muzzleloaders, pistols or bows and arrows. As the deer population grew, justification for the regulations shifted to protecting the public from far-traveling rifle rounds.

But over the past 15 years or so, the DNR has lifted the restrictions on a county-by-county basis. By last spring, the ban was still in place in all or part of only 19 counties.

The agency’s board decided in May to lift the ban completely. DNR Administrative Warden Matt O’Brien wrote in an October memo the change was meant to streamline deer hunting rules. It also had become difficult for the agency to back up the idea that shotguns were safer when rifles had always been legal for hunting coyote, fox and bear, he wrote.

Or a better way of saying is that Wisconsin gun laws have always been a mess and will continue to be so because of patchwork regulations.  And isn’t it interesting that the original justification (i.e., game management) had to be replaced with something else (i.e., public safety) because the government likes laws and reflexively regulates and controls, whether the justification exists or not.

I have advocated disobedience to unrighteous laws, but it’s still true that one pleasure the righteous man enjoys is obedience to righteous laws.  The good man knows that a truthful hunt for perpetrators of murder and theft won’t roll him into the tide because he is not guilty.

But untruthful and indiscreet law enforcement works just like patchwork regulations and laws.  They frustrate the righteous man because what’s legal over here isn’t over there, and what’s legal now won’t be tomorrow.  If you get caught not knowledgeable on all of the impossible nuances, evolutions and exigencies of the laws, you’re turned into a lawbreaker by prosecutors who have no concept of true justice.  They know the law, but not intrinsic good.

The justification against preemption of state laws by the federal government is the same as that by localities, municipalities, cities and townships.  Patchwork regulation frustrates and mocks the righteous man, and replaces intrinsic good with the law.  Patchwork regulation is fundamentally wicked.

The Washington Post:

After months of inattention, Ken Cuccinelli II (R) and Terry McAuliffe (D) have drawn the polarizing issue of guns into the spotlight of the Virginia governor’s race.

For once, a Democrat is talking tough about gun control, as if daring the National Rifle Association to take him on. And gun-rights advocates are all too happy to take him up on the challenge.

It began with the Oct. 24 candidate’s debate at Virginia Tech, the site of the worst mass shooting by an individual in U.S. history. In response to a question, Cuccinelli boasted of his A rating from the NRA.

And then McAuliffe did something surprising: He said he didn’t give a fig about the powerful lobby’s rating. And, oh, by the way, he had earned an F.

As you know, I had advocated making this race all about gun owner’s rights.  It appears that someone may finally be listening.  And why the NRA and other groups are not heavily involved I really don’t know, but readers in Virginia, you know how to do this.

Letters to the editor, phone calls, Facebook entries, Twitter posts, conversations at church, conversations at work, EMail distribution lists, an so forth.  Your liberty is at risk.  Get busy, and make sure that ass clown McAuliffe doesn’t become the poster child for “You too can say no to gun rights and still get elected!”

First, one from Ned which caused me to spew my coffee all over the place from laughing so hard.

Good post, Herschel.

Went to PLOS ONE and read the “study.”

I learned, if one starts with a premise, supplies a bunch of spread sheets and horseshit gobbledegook, your “study” will be universally accepted by nutcakes if it’s published at a “scientific journal” such as PLOS ONE.

Here’s the Wiki entry about PLOS ONE:

“It covers primary research from any discipline within science and medicine. All submissions go through an internal and external pre-publication peer review, but are not excluded on the basis of lack of perceived importance or adherence to a scientific field. The PLOS ONE online platform employs a “publish first, judge later” methodology, with post-publication user discussion and rating features.”

OK – just publish clearly flawed bullshit in a “peer reviewed” publication down under, and you will immediately be taken seriously by a plethora of morons.

Remember, never underestimate the power of stupid, uninformed people in large groups. Oh yeah – never mind the little fact that gun control itself was racist. A simple way to disarm recently freed slaves.

I bet the first thing the freed slaves did was try to obtain a firearm. Now it seems that the most vocal Jewish and Black “leaders” are anti self-defense.

I guess the statement that no one went broke underestimating the stupidity of the (American) public was correct. Looks like it applies equally to the people on the island against whom we fought a war for independence. Along with the folks on their Australian penal colony. Of course the “progressives” du juor (or whatever the hell these commie, anti-freedom idiots call themselves nowadays) believe the same crap without reservation.

I suppose that it’s actually possible that the hoi polloi are actually becoming stupider, against all odds.

I think Ned’s got their number.  Next, one from Jean.

Lack of training and poor leadership of LEO’s
There is a common thread that links this story to so many others, local LEO’s despite billions of tax dollars spent, are poorly trained, ineffective, and suffer from a lack of leadership at all levels. This is compounded by corrupt local politicians and an ignorant electorate.
I recently witnessed the most inept police operation in my neighborhood. The police made a routine traffic stop. During the stop, the driver fled the police and ran into our neighborhood. The police spent several hours speeding through the neighborhood trying to apprehend the suspect. They did not dismount from their vehicles, but opted to use the “grand theft auto” method of law enforcement which resulted in vehicle damage to several cars. They also refused to engage the locals- who have very good understanding of the terrain. We told them, “the guy you are looking for has jumped into a drainage ditch that bisects the neighbor, you can not catch him in your Dodge Charger” After the traffic accident which was caused by the LEOs. A supervisor appeared, not the most inspiring leader. She took great offense at the questions that were asked:
• What is your pursuit policy in a neighborhood, why was the officer speeding at night without lights or a siren, two hours after the perp jumped from the car?
• Why did your officers refused to share information with citizens- Is the perp armed description etc.
• Why were the citizens told to return to their homes?
• How can the police department surge 8 cars into a neighborhood at night, but fail to patrol during the day (we had a daylight burglary the same day, police were slow respond.
• Who is your supervisor and what is their contact information- BTW she lied to us and tried to give us the local police number
• Was the suspect appended
• Would you like to borrow our dogs, they are well trained and disciplined, unlike your officers- ( that comment pissed them off)
They were also offended that many of the citizens /neighbors had chosen to exercise their 2nd amendment rights, which unfortunately became their main focus, not finding the suspect or policing the accident scene- Officer Grand Theft T-boned a citizen. Suspect still at large. Piss poor performance by the LEO’s.

I’m not surprised that their attention left the perpetrator and focused on you when they learned that you were prepared for self defense.  You see, LEOs are the only ones who should carry, and who should chase perps, and who should be in the neighborhood at night preventing crime, and er, running Dodge Chargers down the road at illegal speeds, and er, um, bashing them into other cars, and um, er, making it generally unsafe for innocent people out there.

The only ones, you see.

Continuing a theme we discussed earlier, David Codrea gives us this good summary of his review of the issue.

The real racists are the ones with evil ulterior motives doing the projecting. Gun rights advocates are not the ones trying to disarm peaceable people of all races — they are.

David also discusses fault lines within the gun rights advocacy community.

“Don’t buy Obamacare insurance just because the government tells you to,” Gun Owners of America advised members and supporters in a Thursday alert. “Don’t buy insurance just because the President tells you to and threatens to fine you if you don’t.”

A civil disobedience stance represents both a landmark step for a national organization as well as a bold departure from the direction taken by other national gun rights groups, particularly the National Rifle Association.

I am of course still a member of the NRA.  That doesn’t mean that I agree with every one of their positions.  The NRA hasn’t taken a position, as best as I can tell, on whether someone should participate in Obamacare exchanges.  If I take David correctly, his use of the word “silence” on the part of the NRA means that they simply haven’t taken a public position.  So be it.  I’ve issued a warning concerning gun owners and their doctors.  Be careful, boys and girls.  See also WRSA.

Kurt Hofmann discusses the federal government’s desire to affect state self defense laws such as stand-your-ground.

Even a nodding acquaintance with the Constitution would be sufficient to inform Schumer and Durbin that the federal government has no authority over any state’s self-defense laws. That fact, after all, is one that even their fellow anti-gun Senate Democrat, Barbara Boxer (D-CA), remembers–at least when it does not suit her purposes to forget it. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) evidently shares Durbin’s and Schumer’s wish to require that people under attack be forced by law to run and hide, rather than stand their ground, but seems at least to know that any such change would have to come from the states, rather than Congress.

Of course John McCain opposes stand-your-ground laws.  His record is to oppose things good and support things bad.  As I’ve said before, don’t trust the Leviathan.  They will find a way to impose their will, whether through civil rights laws or interpretations thereof, or the code of federal regulations.  You know, don’t you, that these problems will only become rectified when we secede?

Michael Bane:

Always great to wake up and learn something new! This from Business Insider, everything you ever wanted to know about the AR-15!

Very little separates a civilian AR-15 from the M-16s that are the standard-issue rifle for the American military. The military versions are semi-automatic, but also come with the ability to fire in a three-round burst; this feature is rarely used.Well, who knew? I was handling a modern military M4A1 last Friday morning, and to my uneducated eyes it appeared to be full auto. In fact, I thought the 3-round burst went away when the M4 upgraded to the M4A1. I guess since the President lies on a daily basis, it sets the tone for his busy little bee minions in the media.

Well, the idiot mayor of L.A. stated that the LAX shooter had enough ammunition to “kill everyone in the terminal.”  Oh, um, er, well it looks like he had only five magazines.  In other reports it has been called an “assault rifle,” but also semi-automatic, which as readers know is a contradiction in terms.

Don’t believe anything you hear in the media, unless it’s about democrats who want to control your soul or republicans who want to sell out to the democrats because they’re fearful, or really just collectivists in their heart of hearts.

That’s what the experts say, anyway.

Notice that gun control is called gun “gun reform,” as if there is something currently wrong with guns (guns are machines, humans make value judgments, and while some of us in the gun community would agree that the laws need reforming, the reformation we want means reversing things like the Hughes amendment).  And notice that this is called a “scientific journal,” not worthless fish wrap.  It’s all sounds oh so smart and sophisticated.

As a professional engineer I find reference to “science” in this context pitiful and embarrassing for the authors.  If they want to do science, go solve a system of second order differential equations.  They’re just playing at politics.  And finally, take note of their presuppositions: “There had already been research showing that … blacks are more likely to be shot, so we thought there must be something happening between the concept of being black and some whites wanting guns.”

Blacks are more likely to get shot.  So there you have it.  Whites who own guns must be the ones doing the shooting and therefore they’re racists.  They call that “science.”