Reddit/firearms.

Using Google, Bing, Murderpedia, Wikipedia’s Massacres, terrorism, and familicide pages I was able to find 89 mass shootings, 31 mass murders, and 14 school shootings since their 1995 Decree 64 laws classified Semi-Auto rifles with detachable magazines higher in caliber than .22 as Weapons of War and made them prohibited for civilian use. Argentina already had strict licensing & registration since 1973. And also made handguns above the caliber of .38 illegal for civilian use in 1993 (Decree 269). All these mass shootings should have 4 or more victims in one setting, session, incident or incidents without the FBI’s “cooling off period” in between. And you should all be able to find multiple sources if you Google or Bing them. Most of the sources are in Spanish so you may need Google or Bing translate. Hopefully this can aid in correcting the misinformation that mass shootings and school shootings are a uniquely American problem amongst developed nations. And showing that that applying Western European gun laws in Non-Western European countries are ineffective.

​http://www.filedropper.com/argentinamassshootings-copy

This is too good not to pass along.  Visit the reddit link to see his observations and conclusions from the data.

Now, it certainly isn’t the case that this will convince a controller not to be a controller.  Can a Leopard change it’s spots?  A controller is a controller because of a moral defect in his or her character.  But the thing we learn from all of this is what we already know, but need to rehearse again and again in order to have moral character.

Giving up your firearms never leads to more safety, for you or your family.  Never.  It only leads to the inability to defend home and hearth, a condition which the Almighty finds unacceptable.

News from New Zealand.

“We’ve got about 17,000 firearms in total – those numbers are good, but we want them to be way better, quite frankly. I’ve just got to get on and make sure that we work as hard as we can. There’s six months we’ve been given to carry out the exercise.”

[ … ]

In March, the Council of Licensed Firearms Owners said there could be as many as 400,000 weapons in New Zealand covered by the new legislation – that would leave about $500 per gun.

17 / 400 = 4.25%.

That’s low, but I would have actually expected it to have been lower than that.  I’m left wondering what that 4.25% is going to do for defense of home and hearth in the future?

And I wonder what the final percentage will be?  Do my New Zealand readers want to weigh in?  I know you’re out there.  I see you.

Via David Codrea, this bit of interesting prose.

… by requiring that every member of the militia … must own at least one long gun, one handgun, and 1,000 rounds of ammunition for each, or pay an annual $1,000 tax for failing to do so.

To which David observes, “I do have to wrestle with the coercive nature of that and wonder if things couldn’t be worked out more along the lines of if you don’t help, you don’t get helped.”

Um … hmm …, well, I don’t know.  I’d have to think about that some.  Not, by the way, that I have a problem being someone member of a militia.

My main point has always been that while I understand (and have no problem with) the invocation of the militia in the 2A, it was the closest thing the founders grabbed at the time.  All they needed was one good reason, and that happened to be the one they wrote down at the time.  The point wasn’t to write a treatise.

The right of amelioration of tyranny (whether a member of the militia or not), the right of self defense, and the right to feed your family without having to get permission to hunt “the king’s forests,” is God-given, not depending on the constitution, the 2A, or even what the founders wrote or thought.

The constitution is a covenant, an agreement, nothing more, and nothing less.  It doesn’t guarantee anything, it isn’t the foundation for anything, and it isn’t the basis document for anything – except the vows that were taken on the part of the government NOT to interfere with God-given rights.

News from Chicagoland.

A federal appeals court on Thursday upheld a county-wide ban on assault weapons and limits on magazine capacity. The three-judge panel rendered a unanimous opinion for the court, including the assent of Trump appointee Judge Amy Joan St. Eve.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit found that two Cook County, Illinois residents who sought to challenge these restrictions came “forward with no reason — much less a compelling one,” to revisit the court’s own precedent establishing such rules as constitutional.

A U.S. District Court judge dismissed the lawsuit last year, and the three-judge panel upheld that ruling on Thursday.

[ … ]

“As the court recognized, states have broad authority to pass public safety laws to protect their citizens, including laws prohibiting assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition magazines,” he said.

Thanks Amy.  What did you do – lie on the questionnaire, or did Trump fail to question you on your knowledge of the second amendment?  Who do we blame for this?

Except the last part, this is a good history lesson.

“At a distance of approximately 15 meters, one Ranger fired an AR-15 full automatic hitting one VC [Viet Cong guerrilla] with three rounds with the first burst,” one report read. “One round in the head — took it completely off. Another in the right arm — took it completely off, too. One round hit him in the right side, causing a hole about five inches in diameter.”

Another run-in detailed five kills with AR-15 rifles — “back wound, which caused the thoracic cavity to explode; stomach wound, which caused the abdominal cavity to explode; buttock wound, which destroyed all tissue of both buttocks; chest wound from right to left, destroyed the thoracic cavity; heel wound, the projectile entered the bottom of the right foot causing the leg to split from the foot to the hip.”

And then the author goes off the rails.  “This history is fundamental to debates over gun reform. The AR-15 and its cartridge were designed together to create a rifle optimized to kill humans, but the rifle and ammunition have since become a mainstay of civilian hobby shooters.  This isn’t a new revelation. Eugene Stoner knew exactly what the gun was supposed to do when he designed it 62 years ago.”

As if we don’t have a right to own whatever the military owns!  I think the constitution says something about that, yes?

News from NC.

Obviously we’re going to suggest no one take a firearm to a bus stop to pick up a child, but as far as criminal behavior, we can’t find a criminal violation,” said Chris Honeycutt with the Stanly County Sheriff’s Office.

Ignoring the question whether it was wise to carry a rifle to a bus stop, the Sheriff’s office made the right call here.  As we’ve seen before, North Carolina is an open carry state, and that includes any firearm.

I hope that North Carolina LEOs are finally learning this lesson.  It’s damn well taken long enough.

Ammoland.

Despite the fact that Joseph Belton failed to convince the Continental Congress to outfit colonial soldiers with his repeating rifle, it’s still a very important story. Belton invented his gun in 1777. The Bill of Rights wasn’t ratified until 1791. That means our Founding Fathers not only knew about repeating rifles 14 years before the creation of the Second Amendment, but that they thought highly enough of the idea to pursue further development and implementation of such technology. The fact that it proved to be cost-prohibitive is moot, as it certainly could have been done if Congress and Belton had agreed upon the definition of “reasonable compensation.”

So, the next time someone tells you the Second Amendment was never designed to protect the right to own a repeating rifle, or that it was only meant to apply to flintlock firearms, sit them down and tell them the story of Joseph Belton and his repeating flintlock musket.

Is to identify their position on violation of the bill of rights, confiscation of property and especially gun rights.

Hugh Hewitt Retweeted Senate Judiciary

To which Jeff Bush remarked this.

Red Flag laws and Gun Violence Restraining Orders make a lot of sense.

Just like his brother, who supported a renewed AWB.

Max McGuire writing for The Federalist.

People often ask me why I am so unwilling to “compromise” on gun control. In reality, I’m not. A compromise is supposed to mean both sides of an argument get something out of the deal. Neither side gets everything they want, but they both at least get something.

When people ask me what I would be willing to compromise on, I give them a simple answer: I would trade tougher background checks in exchange for nationwide concealed-carry reciprocity. If we are going to create a system where every gun purchaser is fully vetted through the FBI’s background check system, then we should give those vetted and trusted gun owners the right to carry their guns nationwide.

And this is why compromise means that gun control always wins.

He’s willing to trade universal background checks for a system of federal licensing on guns, which national reciprocity is (where the FedGov decides who can carry and what the requirements must be in lieu of states’ rights).

So he gives up something in order to give up something else.  That’s why the controllers always win at the compromise game.  People willing to give up recognition of rights.