Archive for the 'Guns' Category

CBS Connecticut:

The Paradis and D’Avino family knows guns. They’ve owned them and enjoyed hunting and target shooting. Shooting was just part of life, like the time after Thanksgiving dinner in 2009 when a guest of husband and wife Peter Paradis and Mary D’Avino brought out an AR-15 rifle he had in the car.

Together, with their children, the couple spent time shooting at a tree in their backyard on five acres off heavily wooded Route 61.

Paradis and his stepdaughter, Hannah D’Avino, recalled that holiday afternoon recently. They sat their kitchen table and reminisced about Hannah’s sister, Rachel D’Avino.

Rachel D’Avino died Dec. 14, 2012, inside Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown. Twenty first-grade students and six staff members died when Adam Lanza, a 20-year-old Newtown resident who had attended that elementary school, stormed into the building with a Bushmaster AR-15 rifle. He shot his way through classrooms, then killed himself as police converged.

The rifle that killed their stepdaughter and sister was the same kind of military-style rifle the family had shot together that Thanksgiving Day. They’re commonly called assault weapons, a term once applied to fully automatic weapons used on the battlefield but now applied to semi-automatic military copycats given the same look, but not the ability to fire continuously with one pull of the trigger.

Let’s pause there for a moment and review the media explanation of guns.  The term “assault weapons” was not once, ever in history, used to describe what the military uses (which is technically referred to as assault rifle).  As we’ve discussed before, the concept of assault rifle involved three features: intermediate cartridge, mild recoil and selective fire.

Since the typical working man cannot afford the cost of owning a fully automatic weapon (only automatic weapons manufactured before 1968 stayed in circulation and their price is extremely high – see the Hughes Amendment), we have only two of the three features.  The phrase “assault weapon” is a fabricated bastard concocted by the Brady Campaign to scare people.

The next part of the article is very interesting and important.

Rachel’s murder has not marred her family’s memory of that holiday afternoon. For a family of marksmen, it also has not changed their views about guns.

After months of silence, Hannah D’Avino and Peter Paradis said they feel compelled to speak publicly: They are not happy that Rachel D’Avino’s name and her memory are being used to push for more and tougher gun legislation.

Their tragedy, they say, has been hijacked for political gain, to further a message with which they disagree.

“We’re very frustrated mainly because the 26 families got lumped together. We’re 26 families made of individuals that all have different opinions,” Hannah D’Avino said. “It’s like people are speaking for me and speaking for my sister. They don’t know her and they don’t know us.”

Paradis and D’Avino note that the only firearm-related injury or death in their family happened when Rachel was killed. She joined them in target shooting and was a good shot, they said.

That’s not all they remember of her _ it is a small detail of a life remembered mostly for her short career as a behavioral analyst and her work with autistic children and their families. Rachel D’Avino carried a passionate desire to help autistic children, to improve their quality of life and their families. The family home’s solarium is filled with gifts sent by strangers: drawings, letters, jewelry from people touched by her story, and by her tragic death. The family continues to raise money in Rachel’s name for research and services for autistic children and their families.

The family has been reluctant to talk publicly, largely because of unprofessional treatment by media representatives. Days after Rachel’s death, they were inundated with requests for interviews. They were frustrated by repeated attempts by producers and reporters who hoped to land their angle of the Newtown story.

Hannah D’Avino “friended” a woman on Facebook after the woman said she was a friend of Rachel’s. That woman later turned out to be a producer asking to interview her. Another woman got past a state trooper stationed at the front of the family’s driveway, saying she was a friend of Rachel who wanted to bring a basket of packaged muffin mix to the family. Inside was a card containing a business card from a producer at CNN.

So there you have it.  The D’Avino family wants to help the families of autistic children in memory of their beloved Rachel.  The media wanted to foist their political views into the tragedy in order to score points, and CNN lied in order to gain access to the family.

It seems that the term “assault weapon” isn’t the only bastard in the story.

This is Ron Avery with Haley Strategic (managed by Travis Haley) showing us pointers and tips to a faster and smoother gun draw.  It seems helpful to me, but it will require hours of practice.  And if you use a retention holster, this stroke is only part of the equation.

David Codrea:

That leaves one last logical place where a public inquiry could and should be conducted, but Mr. Issa hasn’t shown much interest in following up on things of late, and the Republican leadership hardly seems inclined to encourage him to do so, for reasons we can only speculate.

Put on your hard hat and other PPEs and prepare for a working man’s article.  David takes us on an adventure race down memory lane to rehearse just how bad Fast and Furious really was, now that subject weapons are again in the news.  There are lots of reference links and some technical discussion, but it’s well worth the time.

And take note that even the previously fervent and well-intentioned are disinterested, or worn down, or know that the administration won’t be truthful.  Unfortunately we don’t know, but the sad state of affairs is that people are still perishing at the hands of an administration trying to construct a case for an “assault weapons ban” by rigging the statistics with U.S. weapons.

I also noticed The Washington Post, citing yet another pointy-head academic paper, is still pressing the meme of U.S. weapons flowing South to Mexico as the catalyst for the cartel violence.  Hey, if people don’t know the truth, you can tell them anything you want.  And academics do.  And the main stream media does.

Kurt Hofmann:

Quinn, readers may remember, is an enthusiastic advocate of banning so-called “assault weapons,” being one of those who considers them to be “weapons of war that belong on a battlefield, not on our streets.” He has been, in fact, willing to violate both the U.S. Constitution and the Illinois state constitution to write his own AWB bill, because, he claims, “the proliferation of military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines undermines public safety and the right of personal security of every citizen.”

We discussed this in Bilderberg, The New American Century And The Rise Of Intelligence.  It is difficult to achieve the status of arming orders for National Guard troops (it involves training, range qualifications, military approvals, knowledge of rules for the use of force, etc.).  The National Guard sent to the border weren’t under arming orders, and thus they did paperwork and clerical duties.

Kurt’s article made me think once again about the Governor’s threat to use National Guard troops.  Such an action would be both illegal and immoral.  But if he deployed the National Guard to the city to quell violence without arming orders or ammunition for their weapons, he is turning them into sitting ducks.

The Governor can’t win.  If he deploys them with weapons and ammunition he is committing an immoral action against the citizens.  If he deploys them without arming orders, he is being an immoral leader for the troops.  And actually he can win in this scenario.  It’s easy.  Don’t deploy the troops at all because that’s not the proper use of those troops.

And for someone who decries the use of weapons of war on the streets, perhaps he should be a little more concerned about unleashing SWAT teams to terrorize citizens.  “Weapons of war.”  The administration sent them to Mexico because they don’t want us to have them – we aren’t the cartels.  The SWAT teams want them, but they don’t want us to have them.  The Governor is prepared to unleash them in the city to quell violence, but not if it involves innocent citizens protecting themselves.

One could begin to think that this all had to do with a little more than “weapons of war,” this quest to arm certain men and disarm others, no?

Read David and Kurt.

Courtesy of Say Uncle, there is this on use of an AR-15 for home defense.

If you are considering an AR-15 as your choice of home defense weapon, I urge you to read “”Bring Enough Gun”: A History of The FBI’s Long Arms,” by Bill Vanderpool in American Rifleman, October 2013, pages 115, 116 …

On page 115, Mr. Vanderpool begins discussing why the FBI chose to replace the H&K MP5 type weapons with members of the AR family for “entry” weapons.  He gives a brief history of the decision-making process and concludes that “…the AR system was found to be a safer and more effective round to use in close-quarter combat.”  [He means safer to shoot inside rooms than the two submachinegun rounds in use at the time in 9mm and 10mm.]

Well, yes, this is rehearsed in articles I’ve written about the AR-15 and ballistics of the 5.56 which tends to yaw in flight and shatter upon impact (frangible ammunition, not green tip, or steel core).  Remember though, use of any weapon inside a home means that you must remember the rules, one of which is that you must be aware of your backstop.  Dry wall is not a good one regardless of whether you are using a handgun, shotgun or rifle.

Policymic summarizes five instances of use of the AR-15 in self defense (situations that likely saved lives).

April, a 32-year-old named Jasper Brisbon attacked a Philadelphia couple as they entered their home. The man grabbed his AR-15 and pointed it at the intruder.  The man told Brisbon to leave, but he didn’t. Instead he advanced menacingly as the resident screamed, “Stop! Stop! Stop!” and finally fired a shot into Brisbon’s torso.  He called 911 and an ambulance delivered the intruder to a hospital where he was pronounced dead. Police said the AR-15 was legally purchased.

This February, a man and woman attacked a tax preparation business near Detroit, pointing handguns at the receptionist and owner.  As you can see in this surveillance video, when one of the attackers advances past two horrified victims to check out the next room of this house converted into a small business office, a security guard behind the door enters with an AR-15 and scares off the intruders with two shots.

This January, two men with a handgun broke into the NY apartment of a Rochester Institute of Technology student named Raymond. His AR-15 may have saved his life.

In 2010, a 15-year-old Texas boy used his father’s AR-15 to defend himself and his 12yo sister when they were home alone one afternoon and two home invaders attacked their house.

Then the author lists the 1992 LA riots where a Ruger Mini-14 was used.  I am surprised that they didn’t list the instance of Mr. Stephen Bayezes that I discussed in No One Needs ARs For Self Defense.

The owner of the Guns and Ammo Gunsmith store in North Augusta, S.C. thought he was going to die tragically. Three men had driven a van into his store, executing what they hoped would be a quick “smash-and-grab” robbery.

Instead, they met owner Stephen Bayezes, who opened fire on the three intruders after the commotion set off an alarm, hitting each one at least once. He says he is not proud of what he was forced to do, but added sometimes “you’ve got to.” The incident occurred on Aug. 9, but the owner says a set of tire marks on the store’s floor and an unfinished wall are daily reminders of the night that he almost lost his life.

“It’s a haunting thought. It literally is a haunting thought when you see the tire tracks, you hear the tires,” Bayezes told WRDW-TV. “Everybody assures you that you just did what you had to do to protect your family. They say it’ll heal over time, but when does time go away? It’s something that nobody ever wants to do.”

But he says he had no choice after he heard one of the robbers shout, “Shoot the mother f**ker!,” followed by the sound of a gun cocking. “I mean, they would’ve shot me. In my mind, with no reservation. If that firearm had been loaded, I might’ve been a statistic.”

Finally, Quartz.com notes that Cerberus has tried to unload manufacturers of AR-15s (probably Bushmaster) but has been unsuccessful, and is still making loads of money off of AR-15s.  Then the author makes this amusing comment.

The inability to close a deal says a lot about the conflicted state of the US gun control battle. There’s clearly something wrong with owning this company—otherwise, why would Cerberus try to sell it and why would no buyers emerge? But there’s also little apparent public-relations cost (and no litigation cost—gunmakers in the US aren’t liable when their weapons are misused) to owning the firearms giant, at least as long as Cerberus claims not to want to. And meanwhile, the money just keeps rolling in.

Uh huh.  Look, we’ve discussed Freedom Group / Cerberus before, and how they are essentially venture capitalists and look to bust up competition rather than making their procurements better.  Thus, the way they look to increase sales in any one category is to buy and close down competition in that category.  Many a small and medium sized gun manufacturer has closed down after being purchased by Freedom Group.

They aren’t good for the gun market in the long term, and thus I won’t shed a tear at their problems.  But it’s a nice problem to have – making all of that money.  I suspect that they are trying to get out while the market is at the peak (or thereabouts), to invest in something else.  Freedom Group isn’t about guns like the article seems to think – good or bad.  It is about money.  That’s why the article is misleading and confused.

AK-47s are also in the news and you can read about it if you wish (I have shot the AK-47 before and I think it’s an imprecise, rattling clanker), but around here we speak the name of Eugene Stoner with hushed, reverential awe and respect.  If you say anything bad about Eugene Stoner or AR-15s you will be banned for life and imprecatory prayers will be spoken about you and your children’s children.

As I’m sure you’ve heard by now, empty suit intends to sign the U.N. Arms Treaty.  This holds no power as long as the Senate doesn’t ratify it, which we’re told has no chance of happening.

I’d like to take some credit for it’s “dead on arrival” status in the Senate with these articles.

U.N. Arms Treaty: Dreams Of International Gun Control

The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty: It Isn’t That Complicated

The U.N. Small Arms Treaty

So whether it’s honest or not, I will take some of the credit.  Rock on.  But just because it’s dead on arrival in the Senate doesn’t mean that the Obama administration won’t try to implement parts of it by executive order.

After all, if Obama intended to obey the law, we would never have had Fast and Furious, would we?

So if this actually obtains and somehow it passes through to regulation, let me ask?  Will those funny looking little men in the blue hats come and try to get my guns?  No, seriously.  Will they?  Oh, please God let it be so.

My9NJ.com:

So let’s forget about the nuances of “assault rifles” having three features (intermediate cartridge, mild recoil and selective fire).  And let’s remember that the phrase “assault weapon” is a fabricated bastard created by the gun control lobby for guns that are supposed to look scary.

How, pray tell, does a Japanese bolt action rifle become an assault weapon?  Well, I went ahead and did something I had vowed not to do ever since the AP forbid this practice (just out of protest) – I copied the text including the fact that the AP wrote this story.

That’s how.  You let the idiots at the AP write the report.  And by the way, how do I purchase this Japanese bolt action rifle?  It would be a shame to let it go to waste being owned by the collectivists, or just as bad, destroyed.

We’ve seen how the Department of Homeland Security has pressed for biometric identification of American citizens, and how American police have adopted COIN tactics, techniques and procedures in the policing of America, including more than seventy federal agencies.  These are cogs in a larger machine.  In an event that went completed ignored in the Main Stream Media (ignored, not missed), Wikileaks recently released 249 important documents on global intelligence contractors.

Today, Wednesday 4 September 2013 at 1600 UTC, WikiLeaks released ‘Spy Files #3′ – 249 documents from 92 global intelligence contractors. These documents reveal how, as the intelligence world has privatised, US, EU and developing world intelligence agencies have rushed into spending millions on next-generation mass surveillance technology to target communities, groups and whole populations.

WikiLeaks’ publisher Julian Assange stated: “WikiLeaks’ Spy Files #3 is part of our ongoing commitment to shining a light on the secretive mass surveillance industry. This publication doubles the WikiLeaks Spy Files database. The WikiLeaks Spy Files form a valuable resource for journalists and citizens alike, detailing and explaining how secretive state intelligence agencies are merging with the corporate world in their bid to harvest all human electronic communication.”

WikiLeaks’ Counter Intelligence Unit has been tracking the trackers. The WLCIU has collected data on the movements of key players in the surveillance contractor industry, including senior employees of Gamma, Hacking Team and others as they travel through Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Brazil, Spain, Mexico and other countries.

Julian Assange, WikiLeaks’ publisher, stated: “The WikiLeaks Counter Intelligence Unit operates to defend WikiLeaks’ assets, staff and sources, and, more broadly, to counter threats against investigative journalism and the public’s right to know.”

Documents in Spy Files #3 include sensitive sales brochures and presentations used to woo state intelligence agencies into buying mass surveillance services and technologies. Spy Files #3 also includes contracts and deployment documents, detailing specifics on how certain systems are installed and operated.

Internet spying technologies now being sold on the intelligence market include detecting encrypted and obfuscated internet usage such as Skype, BitTorrent, VPN, SSH and SSL. The documents reveal how contractors work with intelligence and policing agencies to obtain decryption keys.

The documents also detail bulk interception methods for voice, SMS, MMS, email, fax and satellite phone communications. The released documents also show intelligence contractors selling the ability to analyse web and mobile interceptions in real-time.

Analysis & Commentary

An important reddit comment follows this up.

Would you like to know more?

Revolution in Military Affairs

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_in_Military_Affairs

Former DoD analyst Franklin Spinney

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_C._Spinney

“At the core of the RMA is a radical hypothesis that would cause Sun Tzu, Clausewitz and George Patton to roll over in their graves. That is, that technology will transform the fog and friction of combat – the uncertainty, fear, chaos, imperfect information which is a natural product of a clash between opposing wills – into clear, friction-free, predictable, mechanistic interaction.”

Project for the New American Century

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

In its “Preface”, in highlighted boxes, Rebuilding America’s Defenses states that it aims to:

ESTABLISH FOUR CORE MISSIONS for the U.S. military:

1. Defend the American homeland;
2. Fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars;
3. Perform the “constabulary” duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions;
4. Transform U.S. forces to exploit the “revolution in military affairs”;

CONTROL THE NEW “INTERNATIONAL COMMONS” OF SPACE AND “CYBERSPACE”

Section V of Rebuilding America’s Defenses, entitled “Creating Tomorrow’s Dominant Force”, includes the sentence: “Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor” (51).[15]

“The technotronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities. ”

-Zbigniew Brzezinski, geopolitician, former US National Security Advisor, and member of the Bilderberg Group. Quote lifted from his book “Between Two Ages”

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Brzezinski

It’s a brave new world that the rulers envision, no doubt.  No more conventional warfare, not even fourth generation warfare since the rulers know what we’re doing, who we are, where we are, what assets we have, to whom we’re connected, and how to stop “trouble-making” before it gets started.  Iraq was a laboratory for stability operations, and the story about the “snake-eaters” using a synthesis of organic intelligence, signals intelligence and smart analysis and finding the bad guys in order to end the insurgency only plays into the hands of the collectivists.  But can it really work like this?

The narrative about the “snake eaters” bringing an end to the campaign in Iraq is greatly overblown.  It was primarily the U.S. Marines who brought stability to the Anbar Province, and it was the hard work of thousands of Soldiers in the balance of Iraq that brought the modicum of success that we had in Iraq, for what end I don’t really know.

The Chicago police department cannot even stop gang violence in their own city, and the Governor is considering the use of National Guard troops to quell the violence.  It won’t work, and I seriously doubt that such troops would even be under arming orders, any more than the National Guard sent to the Southern border were under arming orders.

There is another intersection of this paradigm with collectivist intentions.  In order to find money for redistribution to the masses, they need to gut the military.  Notwithstanding the ongoing debate in our community over a standing army, the point is that the collectivists are going after money, and before they target 401Ks and IRAs, they willl use defense dollars in their designs for control.  It’s easier for them that way.

But this is all well and good for the rulers until the bullets start flying.  Obamacare was and continues to be a big deal.  Confiscation of 401Ks and IRAs might be the event that pushes typical Americans over the edge.  Watching the death of loved ones due to decisions by government death panels (while their wealth goes to funding the medical care of illegal aliens) might be another.

In the end, the hives the government has created (like Chicago) don’t work because they undermine values and the organic family unit.  Whatever the final straw, if the government cannot control violence in the very hives that they’ve created, they certainly can’t accomplish that in suburbia America, where fences, yard dogs and guns every fifty yards would make the hedgerows in Normany look like inviting terrain.

To be sure, the degree of electronic control over Americans makes the situation hard, and the government knows almost everything about us.  But for the Bilderberg group and the elitist rulers, I have a suggestion.  Try a test case in which you announce gun and wealth confiscations, and send one of the many federal policing agencies up Highway 276 in South Carolina, through Marietta, and turn left on Highway 11.  Within a few minutes make a turn to the right towards Jocassee Gorges, and start your confiscations up in those hills.  My bet is that the your vehicles will be blown to smithereens.  If you do make it up the road, it’s likely that they boys with scoped, bolt action hunting rifles will make life very difficult for you.  With all due respect to the tactical trainers (which training is very good and necessary, I’m sure), there won’t be small unit maneuver warfare.  No one will ever see the boys hiding behind the trees.  They won’t go on the run as a lone wolf because you won’t ever know they were involved in anything.  The best planning, the best troops and the best equipment couldn’t handle an insurgency in America – if one ever develops.

Or try to do confiscations in Murphy, North Carolina, or any one of a multitude of places in Idaho or Montana.  To be reminded of the value of a good rifleman, I strongly recommend an article in the most recent American Rifleman magazine (October 2013).  Sometimes this publication becomes annoying with its advertizing and product reviews.  But occasionally the magazine crafts a winner, and this one is meets the criteria.

The article is entitled “Where will we bury them all?,” and in my paper copy it begins on page 95.  It’s the story about the communist invasion of Finnland in 1939, and the value of basic combat rifles and good fieldcraft.  It summarizes:

The winter war proved a costly victory for the Soviets.  The Red Army lost approximately 126,875 dead or missing, 264,908 wounded and appriximately 5,600 captured.  In addition, they lost about 2,268 armored vehicles.  The Finns suffered greatly to preserve their freedom.  In the four months of combat, Finnish losses numbered approximately 26,662 dead and more than 39,000 wounded.  A tiny nation of riflemen had held off the communist Red giant.

It would be easy to conclude that the 50% of America which is still working is on a direct collision course with the elitist rulers.  It would be just as easy for the collectivists to conclude that biometrics, numbers, cards, decryption, cameras and aggressive policing will enable their designs.  The former conclusion seems more likely every day.  The later conclusion seems dangerous for the collectivists.

Of course, everything in this article is for educational purposes only.

Concerning the recent shooting in Chicago:

The perpetrators of a late-night attack in a southwest Chicago park in which 13 people were wounded, including a three-year-old, used an assault-style weapon to spray the crowd with bullets, making it “a miracle” no one was killed, the city’s police superintendent said on Friday.

Ballistics evidence shows that those behind Thursday night’s attack used a 7.62mm rifle fed by a high-capacity magazine, police superintendent Garry McCarthy told reporters. That type of weapon, McCarthy said, belongs on a “battlefield, not on the street or a corner or a park in the Back of the Yards”, the neighborhood where the shooting took place.

“It’s a miracle in this instance that there have been no fatalities based upon the lethality of the weapon used at the scene,” McCarthy said, calling on lawmakers to restrict the sale of such weapons and choke off the flow of illegal guns into the city.

Bah.  Ballistics evidence can’t demonstrate one way or another whether the gun had a high-capacity magazine, and a .308 shot from distance using a high powered scope and bolt action rifle would have proven to be more lethal.

But the chief of police has some words of wisdom for us.

“Illegal guns, illegal guns. Illegal guns drive violence.”

Strange, that.  I thought they said it was gang related violence?  The mere fact that there are guns around “drives” violence, we are led to believe.  I have a physician friend who went on a mission trip to Haiti a couple of years ago, and other than Scabies (which he was unprepared to treat because he didn’t carry the medications for it), the most common injury or sickness with which he dealt was machete wounds – deep wounds.  The gangs walk around taking things from people and swinging machetes.

Machetes, hammers, baseball bats, and in the Far East, acid thrown in the eyes of victims (according to one close friend who spent several years in Hong Kong).  Things don’t drive violence.  Evil in the heart of mankind drives violence.  You can’t ameliorate evil by banning guns.  You can only be prepared to deal with it when it happens.

I wondered how long it would take for a progressive company like Starbucks to worry enough over branding that they caved on open carry of weapons inside their business establishments that they reverse their policy.

For three years, Starbucks (SBUX) has felt the ardent love of gun-rights activists as the coffee chain tolerated customers who openly packed heat. No more.

Starbucks Chief Executive Officer Howard Schultz tells Bloomberg Businessweek that firearms and cappuccino don’t mix. Beginning today, the ubiquitous caffeine bars “respectfully request” that gun owners leave their weapons in their cars or at home, Schultz says. “We’re not pro-gun or anti-gun,” he explains. The chain simply wants no part of the escalating debate over the Second Amendment and the place of firearms in American society.

In an open letter released today, Schultz wrote:

“Pro-gun activists have used our stores as a political stage for media events misleadingly called ‘Starbucks Appreciation Days’ that disingenuously portray Starbucks as a champion of ‘open carry.’ … To be clear: we do not want these events in our stores. Some anti-gun activists have also played a role in ratcheting up the rhetoric and friction, including soliciting and confronting our customers and partners. For these reasons, today we are respectfully requesting that customers no longer bring firearms into our stores or outdoor seating areas—even in states where ‘open carry’ is permitted—unless they are identified law enforcement personnel.”

Since 2010, gun owners in California and other states have shown up en masse and conspicuously armed for Starbucks Appreciation Days meant to promote the open carrying of firearms in the majority of states where the practice is legal. Acrimony over the guns-and-coffee demonstrations peaked in August in Newtown, the Connecticut community that was the site of the December 2012 elementary school massacre. Some residents of the town were so upset by the prospect of a pro-gun rally that the Seattle-based coffee company closed its Newtown store early on the afternoon of Aug. 9.

Under assault from gun-control proponents last month, the chain defended its previous policy. “Our longstanding approach to the open-carry debate has been to comply with local laws and statutes in the communities we serve,” a spokesman said at the time. “We continue to encourage customers and advocacy groups from all sides of the debate to share their input with their elected officials, who make the open-carry laws that our company follows.”

I see.  So “the only ones” can still carry weapons and can be trusted to be safe with them.  It’s just everyone else – like you and me – that mustn’t exercise our rights.  Frankly, this is a very, very bad idea.  Starbucks has a right to make the decisions they want, and we must respect their decisions.  Their places of business are private property.  But gun owners are very loyal, and we will make sure that Starbucks doesn’t have the luxury of “staying out of the debate.”  Just ask Smith & Wesson.  If we’ll put the beloved Smith & Wesson out of business, Starbucks is an easy decision for us.  This move is the wrong one, and Starbucks will regret it.

UPDATE: Codrea has a different perspective.

I recently heard an interview with the base commander at the Navy Yard in Washington speak to the issue of how it feels to be defenseless in the face of an active shooter.  What bothered me most was the cavalier way in which he approached the subject.  Twelve people perished today, not including the shooter, and the sad part is that it didn’t have to happen.  David Codrea gives us his initial thoughts on one of the root causes.

… one fact is indisputable. The killer(s) took advantage of a “gun free zone” at not only the facility, but one that extends throughout Washington. D.C.

Security at the center utterly failed at stopping a murderer bent on killing defenseless personnel. And even acknowledging special security conditions at a military installation, in the absence of a special legal relationship the government has no duty to provide protection to people it prevents from protecting themselves, meaning there is no attendant liability should they fail to do so.

“Special security conditions” will never stop a determined shooter, and it didn’t in this case.  The folks are defenseless, and they have been made that way intentionally and with malice of forethought.  It’s the same way in church worship services.

HOLYOKE, Mass. (AP) — Holyoke police are looking for a man they say interrupted a church service and robbed several members of the congregation at gunpoint.

Lt. James Albert says the masked suspect entered the Pentecostal church at about 2 p.m. Sunday, announced the robbery, and took personal items, including cellphones, from several of the roughly 20 worshippers.

The fact that he stole from them rather than killed them is a blessing and a second chance.  They should never voluntarily be in a gun free zone (or a gun free state) if they have any other choice.

But leave it to the progressives to learn the wrong lessons.

Gun enthusiasts say it is inappropriate to talk about gun violence at the time it occurs. Better to wait … and wait … and wait … until time has passed, and the weeping next of kin have vanished from TV, and it’s safe to return to business as usual. The idea of the gun enthusiasts is that the way to show respect for the victims of gun violence is to do everything possible to multiply their number … better mental-health provision would contribute to the reduction of gun massacres. But America’s uniquely grisly record of gun death cannot be addressed without addressing guns.

I don’t know his state of mind, and thus I don’t know if David Frum really believes his propaganda that making guns illegal will stop the perpetration of crimes, or if he’s just too invested in his idiotic notions to turn back now, or if he is a full-orbed totalitarian.  But Frum wants to discuss guns, and wants to do it right now.

Very well.  I’m okay with that.  Here’s a note to Frum.  If you or your ilk ever try to take away my guns, I’ll use them to ensure that you don’t.  There.  I’m glad we had that conversation.  Tell me if you want to talk again.