Paul Waldman at The Week.

We are a nation divided, as everyone knows. And what we need to fix that problem is to reach out, express some empathy, and show our opponents that we don’t hate them even if we disagree.

Or at least, that’s what liberals are supposed to do.

You can hear that argument everywhere on the subject of guns: Whatever policy changes liberals might be proposing, it’s important to communicate to gun owners that you respect their culture and you don’t mean to wage an assault on their way of life. When someone like retired Supreme Court justice John Paul Stevens writes an op-ed in The New York Times calling for the repeal of the Second Amendment, it only convinces people that you’re a bunch of gun-grabbers.

I’m all for respecting other people’s cultures and taking their feelings into account. But when was the last time you heard someone implore conservatives to respect the culture of coastal or urban-dwelling liberals?

We’re told that if you grew up around guns, then you’re right to worry that your culture could be eroded, and we need to understand and sympathize with your perspective. But here’s something that might surprise you: For millions of Americans, not having guns around is an important cultural value. It’s part of how we define the kind of places we’d like to live. Since most Americans don’t own guns, maybe that’s worthy of respect and consideration, too.

We never seem to hear that — both sides of the gun issue may have opinions, but only one side is supposed to have a “culture.” But it’s important to understand that “gun culture” is a relatively recent invention.

Make no mistake, in the past a greater proportion of Americans owned guns than do today. As recently as 1977, half of American households had guns, according to the General Social Survey; by 2016 that number was down to 32 percent. But back when a far greater portion of the American public lived in rural areas and small towns than do today, there wasn’t really anything like today’s “gun culture.” If you had a hunting rifle or a shotgun your dad gave you, as millions of Americans did, you weren’t participating in an encompassing “culture” in which guns defined your identity. That gun was a tool, like a broom or a shovel or a cleaver.

But the gun culture of today, with so much fetishizaton of guns and an entire political/commercial industry working hard to spread and solidify the idea that guns are not just a thing you own but who you are, is what we’re now expected to show respect for. For instance, the idea that anyone should be able to own military-style rifles designed to kill as many human beings in as short a period as possible, for no real reason other than the fact that some people think they’re cool, is supposed to be a part of people’s culture, no matter how ludicrous it would have seemed to your grandparents.

And when you say something is part of your culture, you’re placing it beyond reasoned judgment. Its status as a component of culture infuses it with value that can’t be argued against. I don’t tell you that your religious rituals are silly, because they have deep meaning for those within that culture. Your ethnic group’s traditional music may not be pleasing to my ears, but I’m not going to argue that it sucks and you ought to start listening to real music, defined as whatever I happen to like. The food your parents taught you to make from the old country might not be to my taste, but I’ll appreciate it (at least once or twice) as a window into another aspect of our rich human tapestry.

In other words, when you place something in the sphere of culture, you automatically afford it a kind of conditional immunity from criticism. And you can demand that it be respected.

Nobody understands this better than gun advocates, who have been working to change the culture around guns, and our expectations about them, for some time. With only the most minimal restrictions on who can buy guns and what kind, their focus in recent years has been on putting guns in the hands of as many people as possible in as many places as possible. State laws have been passed to allow guns in government buildings, churches, schools, restaurants, even bars. They encourage people to get concealed carry licenses and to open carry whenever possible, to inculcate everyone with the idea that we should just expect to see guns wherever we go — until their culture becomes your reality, whether you like it or not.

Oh my God.  You’re not going to cry, are you Paul?  Based on the tone of this commentary, I think you’re going to cry.  You don’t want to hold hands in a circle and sing Kumbaya, do you Paul?  Because I don’t think I can take that.

Listen Paul and others like Paul.  We’re educated enough to know that the war of independence was catalyzed over gun control.  We also know that guns were not only ubiquitous in colonial America, they were highly valued and used for all manner of things, including self defense and the amelioration of tyranny.

In the colonies, availability of hunting and need for defense led to armament statues comparable to those of the early Saxon times. In 1623, Virginia forbade its colonists to travel unless they were “well armed”; in 1631 it required colonists to engage in target practice on Sunday and to “bring their peeces to church.” In 1658 it required every householder to have a functioning firearm within his house and in 1673 its laws provided that a citizen who claimed he was too poor to purchase a firearm would have one purchased for him by the government, which would then require him to pay a reasonable price when able to do so. In Massachusetts, the first session of the legislature ordered that not only freemen, but also indentured servants own firearms and in 1644 it imposed a stern 6 shilling fine upon any citizen who was not armed.

When the British government began to increase its military presence in the colonies in the mid-eighteenth century, Massachusetts responded by calling upon its citizens to arm themselves in defense. One colonial newspaper argued that it was impossible to complain that this act was illegal since they were “British subjects, to whom the privilege of possessing arms is expressly recognized by the Bill of Rights” while another argued that this “is a natural right which the people have reserved to themselves, confirmed by the Bill of Rights, to keep arms for their own defense”. The newspaper cited Blackstone’s commentaries on the laws of England, which had listed the “having and using arms for self preservation and defense” among the “absolute rights of individuals.” The colonists felt they had an absolute right at common law to own firearms.

The culture you’re talking about, where you want safety and cradle to grave security from the state is the one that’s new, not mine.  Furthermore, I feel absolutely no brotherhood with you or your kind at all.  In the defense of kin and kith, you can have your state because I won’t be there to help you.  You can sleep in the bed of your choice.

You have a right to the culture you seek, but what you don’t have a right to do is enforce yours on me or mine.  And that’s what it would take, Paul.  We’re through talking.  There is no discussion on this that can make me change my mind, there is no compromise.

When you ascribe the differences to “culture,” I don’t think you understand that it’s a comprehensive world and life view that separates us, not merely culture.  You can respect mine or not.  I really don’t care either way.  The bottom line here for you is that the gulf that separates us is far wider and deeper and more problematic than you can imagine, and will never be bridged.  We will never come to agreement over these things, any more than we will about whether the state has the right to confiscate our wealth and redistribute it, force us to buy products or services, or force us to believe in certain things and behave in certain ways.

Your best solution is for some sort of amicable separation of the two of us, some peaceful departure that lets us live the way we choose and lets you worship the state.  Would you go for a solution like that?  I’m betting not, because the fundamental rule of controllers is that you want to control the lives of others no matter the cost.

Burlington Free Press:

CORRECTION: This story has been updated to show that the magazines were not high-capacity.

MONTPELIER – Gun rights activists gave out free rifle magazines Saturday in Montpelier as Gov. Phil Scott is poised to sign gun-control proposals into law.

“17 senators didn’t want to hear anything about unenforceable laws like the mag ban,” Chris Bradley, president of the Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs, said on Saturday.

Bradley introduced Sen. Joe Benning, R-Caledonia, one of 13 legislators who voted on Friday against a package of gun restrictions that passed in the Senate. Saturday’s rally on the steps of the Statehouse was a protest against restrictions on gun ownership and a lawsuit fundraiser as 2nd Amendment advocates vowed to take the fight to the court system if Scott signs the bill into law.

Last week 2,500 students and gun control advocates rallied in support of restrictions, following two weeks of school walkouts.

Benning, who was in Montpelier for another meeting last Saturday, witnessed the student rally. He took a conciliatory tone as he addressed several thousand gun rights activists.

“You guys are as passionate as the other side was,” Benning said. “I know you are going to find this difficult to believe, but some of those folks on the other side are really scared of you.”

Safety, Benning said, was the uniter, though each group had different methods of achieving that goal. Benning urged both sides to talk to each other and not yell at each other, while promising that the fight for gun rights had just begun.

“Lets use this as the beginning of the discussion not the end,” Benning said, referring to the November election.

After several more speakers Rob Curtis of Williston, the executive editor of Recoil Magazine, a “lifestyle magazine” based in Los Angeles according to its website, began handing out the promised 1,200 30-round polymer magazines that can be used for AR-15 and M4 weapons. The double line of receivers stretched out and down State Street.

The FedEx delivery tracking information shared in Recoil press statement showed a 12 package delivery of approximately 400 pounds was delivered to a residence in Williston on Saturday morning. The magazines are worth between $10 and $20 at online retailers. Curtis said that MAGPUL, a manufacturer and retailer based in Wyoming, helped organized the “Green mountain Airlift” to get ahead of the proposed restrictions.

Vermonters can keep magazines already in circulation, according to the bill.

The action was also a fundraiser with the Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs taking donations high on the steps of the Capitol. Down the stairs, Keith Stern was collecting signatures for a run for governor while a few kids frolicked in the sun and collected packets of magazine with their families.

“My kids have been to the range and they know how to shoot,” Andy Roberts said standing with her son Ethan and husband Phillip. Ethan clutched his magazine and shyly admitted he was not yet a hunter.

There’s a little more at the link.  I left the correction in there because I thought it was amusing.  So I have to say several things if no one else does.

That doesn’t look like a crowd of several thousand to me.  Even if the photo was a bad one to represent all the people there, several thousand is an insignificant number of people considering what’s at stake.  Truthfully, I’m not sure if it happened in my own state we could get more than several thousand at the state capital to protest or rally.  Maybe I’m preaching to the choir, but I’ve never seen a worse group of people to protect and fight over their rights than gun owners.  They’d rather send a few dollars, compromise and get back to [whatever they do].

Next up, I have to say about the rally-goers, you missed the boat when they interviewed you.  You didn’t supply the right optics, you didn’t communicate your message very well.  I see a sea of orange and the final meaningful statement in the article had to do with a hunter who had a boy who didn’t know if he was a hunter yet.

Folks, this has nothing to do with hunting.  Nothing.  It has nothing to do with sportsman’s clubs, or hunting weapons or gear, or turning over a hunting legacy to your children.  You don’t need a Pmag to hunt.  In fact, you can turn your bolt action rifles in at a state-controlled armory and check them out prior to each hunting trip and turn over a legacy of hunting to your boys.

What you can’t turn over by doing that is a legacy of liberty and freedom.  Governor Scott says he’s changed completely on gun issues.

Senate President Pro Tempore Tim Ashe, D/P-Chittenden, promised that universal background checks would reach the Senate floor by the end of next week for an “up or down vote.”

Scott sent a wide-ranging memo to lawmakers asking them for immediate and long-term actions that he said would bolster school safety and keep guns out of the hands of people who should not have them.

Read Gov. Scott’s full memo here.

[ … ]

The Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs, a gun-rights group affiliated with the National Rifle Association, prefers the extreme risk protection order bill but has requested some changes. 

“I don’t think we’ll oppose it. In fact, as best we can, we agree with it,” said Chris Bradley, the organization’s president. Bradley added that he was concerned that the bill could morph into an omnibus proposal that’s “absolutely intolerable” for his group.

Scott said he was not interested in banning the sale of certain types of guns, but would consider restrictions on high-capacity magazines. He also called for a state ban on “bump stocks.”

He said that arming teachers, as suggested by President Donald Trump, was not a viable solution to violence. 

“There are other steps we can take that are more achievable and create a safer atmosphere,” Scott said.

With the Fudds already retreating before the first salvo is fired, I’m not sure I would have shown up at the “rally” either.  The very folks picking up Pmags are part of the “Sportsmen’s Clubs” who are supporting the infringements along with the NRA.

How sad all of this is.  So go ahead and wear your orange, boys, and teach your children how to shoot.  Pick up those Pmags as a token of what was once a free country.  But take careful note.  You are a poor substitute and replacement for the inspiration for magazine handouts and smuggling, Mike Vanderboegh.

Greenville News:

Although federal law prohibits convicted felons from possessing guns, local and state law enforcement officers as a rule don’t work to enforce federal laws, lawmakers say. State law bans only those convicted of violent crimes from possessing guns.

The bill prompted questions by Sen. Brad Hutto, an Orangeburg Democrat, starting with why a 36-year-old who was convicted at age 22 of breach of trust with fraudulent intent for embezzlement shouldn’t be allowed to own a gun.

“They’ve done their time,” Hutto said. “They’re fully off probation. Now they’re gainfully employed. They’re married. They’re a deacon in their church. Why are we going to reach back to those people that I would think have just as much right to defend themselves in their own house?”

Hembree said it is already federal law that the embezzler cannot own a firearm.

“But the federal government doesn’t come to my house every day, but the local constabulary might,” Hutto replied.

Hembree said the real solution is to fix the state’s expungement law instead of making the state law on guns different. Expungement is a court order that removes something from a person’s criminal record if that person meets certain conditions.

“You’re not fixing it by having a different state law,” Hembree said. “You’re fixing it by expungement, because if you fix it through expungement, then it’s not a federal violation. That’s the right way to fix it.”

Hutto said another problem with the bill is that if a spouse of a felon owns a gun, the spouse would have to remove it from the house. He believes most households in the state have guns for self-protection.

Hutto also said he wanted to be sure divorcing couples couldn’t use the law to remove each other’s firearms if a judge as a precaution placed a restraining order on both. He said in the heat of emotions, judges sometimes issue such orders to keep relative peace, while there is no evidence in many such cases of any threat of physical harm.

Good points sir.  I agree with every single one of them.  Now, tell me why you’re still ignoring the issue of open carry in South Carolina, and why you’re still like New York and California when it comes to how a man decides to carry his firearm?

What right by God do you have to make a man who openly carries his firearm a felon?  How can you defend an embezzler and call an open carrier a criminal?

David Codrea:

That said, and since it looks like the fix is in, it may also be fair to wonder what good it will do to comment on this latest iteration of the proposed rule on “rate-enhancing devices.” There are several reasons to go ahead and submit a comment in spite of such misgivings, not the least of which is it’s the right thing to do.

Well, maybe it is.  I just know that I’ve read the response to the comments submitted on the proposal to propose a rule (some of them were mine), and they may as well have bent over and crapped on the constitution and everyone who made comments about what it said.

It’s an amazing thing to see a group of people so okay with being so hated, detestable and disgusting.  I encourage my own readers to make comments even though the fix is indeed in.  Post them here.  If I make comments again, I won’t be as nice as I was the first time around.

I recall in seminary training with Dr. C. Gregg Singer discussions surrounding the compromise the early and mid-20th century churchmen made with Darwinism (for more, see A Theological Interpretation of American History).  Being all sympathetic as they were, they wanted a “system” of theology that mitigated the embarrassment young students felt when they went off to college and heard professors knocking their theology of the supernatural.

The Auburn Affirmation is one such compromise, yet there are many, many more in American history (and indeed all of church history).  But in the compromise there was death.  The Scriptures cannot contradict the Scriptures, and the first rule of Biblical hermeneutics is that upon encounter with the difficult passages, Scripture interprets Scripture.  If a particular passage seems to you to say something that contradicts a plainer and simpler and easier to understand passage, then your view of the particular passage is wrong and needs correction in order to maintain a logically consistent system of theology.

So it is with the resurrection.  It isn’t a metaphor, it isn’t a nice story, it’s not trying to teach us something about life.  It’s a historical fact without which there is no atonement or justification for sins.  It’s the Father’s stamp of approval on the vicarious sacrifice of His only Son, our Lord.  If Christ had stayed in the grave, we would too.  Paul says it better than me.

³ For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, ⁴ and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, ⁵ and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. ⁶ After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; ⁷ then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; ⁸ and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also. ⁹ For I am the least of the apostles, and not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. ¹⁰ But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me did not prove vain; but I labored even more than all of them, yet not I, but the grace of God with me. ¹¹ Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

¹² Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? ¹³ But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; ¹⁴ and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. ¹⁵ Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. ¹⁶ For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; ¹⁷ and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins.

I recall sitting in class with Dr. Singer wondering what kind of idiot would exchange the resurrection for comfort among the pit vipers in a college classroom, for compromise is never wise and never brings truth or surety.  Compromise is for losers.

Jesus is alive.  He is risen!  Celebrate.

Our stolid friend James Fallows at The Atlantic has yet another dense post up mainly consisting of letters to him and a few lines in reply.  There’s not much to see, except that he does make an admission that brings a much-needed breath of fresh air.

I understand that the AR-15 is not functionally unique. Thus anyone who argues that the AR-15 should not be in civilian hands should be willing to extend the argument to similar weapons. That’s what I think about the AR-15, and and I say the same thing about functionally similar weapons.

Good.  It’s a healthy and helpful thing to speak honestly about such matters.  This whole thing began some years ago with arguments over select-fire and the definition of assault rifle, the smaller caliber cartridge and whether it is any good for deer hunting, the value of a pistol grip, the “scary looking” features of the AR-15, the standard capacity magazine, its semi-automatic design, and on and on it went.

These were merely the first steps in the dance.  We’re way past that now.  Honesty has demanded that the progressives admit their demands, and honesty has demanded that we reply.  The definition of “military” is nonsensical anyway, and we all know it.

There was an article recently about Glock making their “military-grade” pistol available to civilians.  This means that it’s a Glock with a flat dark earth finish and pretentions of being modular.  Nothing more.  And truthfully, all weapons are “military grade.”

Let’s talk 30-06 bolt action deer rifles.  Yep.  Ask those whom Carlos Hathcock killed in Vietnam to speak from the grave and tell you all about that 30-06 round that hit them from a Winchester bolt action gun.  Marines were still using Winchester bolt action rifles for DM guns at the beginning of OIF, and most sniper rifles in military use today are bolt action.  How about 30-06 semi-automatic?  Yep.  The M1 Garand.  WWII.  And how about semi-automatic or automatic carbine?  Yep.  The M1 Carbine.  WWII.

How about shotguns?  Yep.  The Marine Corps was using Benelli M4s for room clearing in Now Zad, Afghanistan, during OEF.  How about revolvers?  Yep.  They were the sidearm for many years, and today .357 Magnum and .44 Magnum wheel guns are still in use defending homes and against big predators in America.

No one who knows anything should have to ask about Browning’s best design of his life, the 1911, which is still the most expensive handgun that can be purchased.  The point is that there is no such thing as a weapon that hasn’t been used on the field of battle between countries or various actors, and it makes no sense to argue over whether something is called “military grade.”  We’ve got virtually everything the military has ever had, and vice versa (except that the professional precision rifle shooters probably have better guns than the military).

The freshness about what Fallows said is that he admits that there is no stopping point, and that’s good, because logically he’s right.  And the freshness for us is actually not all that fresh, I just don’t think Fallows is hearing it, or perhaps he’s hearing it, but he just doesn’t believe it.

No.  We won’t give them up.  Period.  Your move.

David Codrea:

 … Citibank’s unwarranted attack on gun owners and the firearms industry by requiring businesses to discriminate against gun to lawful customers under 21, and barring the sale of so-called “bump stocks” and standard capacity magazines. Further, the global banking giant signaled its intent to drag manufacturers into its citizen disarmament schemes.

There are reasons why some of us who have our firearms purchases choices denied by corporate parasites find Citibank’s promotion of Jay-Z so hypocritical …

There are two ways to look at this.  The first is that the market will handle the problems and anyway, I cannot possibly boycott all of the businesses that cause me problems.  There will be no prohibition on guns that is successful.  As commenter Fred has pointed out, “prohibition doesn’t work … Markets see regulation as damage and automatically re-routes around it.”

On the other hand David points out that Citibank is the recipient of FedGov money, or in other words, our money.  It shouldn’t be, and it’s a testimony to the evil that grips our country that corporations can both receive tax monies and then work against the very rights that founded the country.

Other than governmental actions against such corporations, and/or boycotting every corporation that does things like this, I have no solution short of civil unrest.

Ammunition to go has an entirely new round of ballistic gelatin tests on personal defense ammunition that should be a great contribution to the knowledge base for making informed choices.  The link is here.

I won’t steal their thunder and rehearse the results – go see for yourself.  It’s a massive collection of data.  But I will convey some very quick analysis I did on the data.  I didn’t calculate the standard deviation of the data for each round like I did with the Lucky Gunner tests, but these data should inform you a bit concerning 9mm and .45 ACP results.

.45 ACP: Average penetration = 16.62″.  The variance was high, with the minimum penetration at 11.08″ (165 gr.) and the maximum penetration at 23.64″ (185 gr.).  The high and low were for bullets other than the standard 230 gr.

9mm: Average penetration = 19.32″.  The variance was extremely high.  The minimum penetration came in at 11.78″ (115 gr.) and the maximum penetration came in at 33.38″ (115 gr.).

A few thoughts.  First of all, the variance is large because this isn’t a stochastic process amenable to averages, variance, and so forth, although I’ve provided you with the data.  Powder loadings and compositions vary, QA varies, technology varies, and [most importantly] expansion varies, with some successful expansion, and then some not so successful expansion.

Bullet weights [reduced] didn’t seem to hinder penetration, but it’s also not clear that reduced weight assisted penetration.  However, you wouldn’t want to get tagged with any of these rounds, heavy, light, 9mm or .45 ACP.

Nothing, not even this battery of tests, could quench my appetite for more data.  I’m an engineer, I always want more data.  It’s who I am, it’s what I do.  Finally, there are no “flying dimes” in the lot of them.

Prior:

Oversimplifying Ammunition Ballistics

Pistol Ammunition Ballistics Part 2

Chicago Tribune:

Bans on bump stocks and civilian use of body armor were advanced by Chicago aldermen Tuesday as they reacted to last year’s mass shooting on the Las Vegas Strip and the recent killing of a police commander in the Loop.

City lawyers believe the Chicago assault weapons ban already prohibits the possession of bump stocks like those used in the Vegas shooting, but the City Council Public Safety Committee approved adding a specific reference to the devices.

The panel also approved a ban on the sale, purchase or possession of body armor, like bulletproof vests, by people other than members of the military, police officers or other emergency responders like firefighters acting in their official capacities.

Because no one should be able to stop rounds discharged from LEO weapons, so in order to make that illegal, a ban is promulgated to affect innocent, peaceful, law abiding citizens so that they can’t stop rounds either, not even from the same criminals that scare the cops.

Because cops.  They are the most important thing, not you.  Just because.  God, what a hell hole.

Every time a new contract is issued for weapons and ammunition, the typical cacophony of comments follow.  Those who think that the FedGov has too many guns and too much ammunition weigh in, and invariably (perhaps some of them are trolls or paid commenters?) some people weigh in with support.

Terrorism.  Bad people.  Every agent with a gun needs range rounds and personal defense (PD) ammunition (JHP or whatever).  Think of how many rounds you shoot per year, and multiply that times the number of agents, blah, blah, blah.

The commenters yammer and yak and go on about how we need to support law enforcement, not understanding the deeper meaning of things.  That was true of the recently released contract on behalf of the DHS.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) recently awarded Federal Premium a major ammunition contract. Starting delivery in 2018, the contract provides for up to 180 million rounds of .40-cal. Tactical HST duty ammunition to multiple Department of Homeland Security law enforcement components and other federal agencies for up to five years. This contract will provide the organization’s agents and officers with .40 cal. duty and training ammunition.

“Law enforcement and federal agencies put it all on the line for our safety and freedoms,” said Mike Holm, said product director at Federal Premium.” They should expect nothing less from their ammunition.”

Notice the sleight of hand?  “Multiple Department of Homeland Security law enforcement components and other federal agencies.”  While wrapped in a patriotic cloak of border security, this contract so hidden as to its real import that you have no idea what’s in it or who receives the ammunition or for what purpose.

I suspect various commenters will come to the rescue of the FedGov on this one as well (I’ve seen it every time something like this is announced), but the fact remains that 180 million rounds is a lot of PD ammunition.  Note: this isn’t range ammo – it’s duty ammo.  I have faced the usual suspects before, like “Well, the FedGov has to protect the American nuclear facilities.”

No, I reply, go back and try again.  Commercial nuclear power plants owned by utilities in America must provide their own security, and sometimes they are utility employees, while sometimes they are contract workers.  But always, the FedGov has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

Next up, “Well, FedGov must supply security for our nuclear weapons facilities.”  No, try again, I reply.  The real shooting in any incident effecting our nuclear weapons facilities will be done by Marine Corps FAST teams, and if you’re stupid enough to perpetrate an incident against such a target, you’re likely to be staring down the barrel of a Mark 19, operated by men who, as the Gunny would say, are “Ministers of death, praying for war,” and just waiting on someone like you.  I know some of them (or at one time I did).

Finally, the commenters always mention our national laboratories, and I’ve visited multiple labs on multiple occasions.  Most of the security is done by contract employees, and doesn’t get counted in any of the weapons or ammo purchases made by FedGov.

It is against this backdrop that this insightful report must be read.

In the aftermath of the Orlando terrorist attack, many Washington politicians tried to shift the conversation to the Second Amendment and called for an assault weapons bans. But former U.S. Senator Tom Coburn, our Honorary Chairman, had another idea. In this interview on CNBC, Coburn said we should improve our system of background checks, but said it was IRS officials and non-military federal personnel who should be subject to an assault weapons ban, not the general public.

This week, our organization at OpenTheBooks.com released our findings in an editorial at The Wall Street Journal that quantified the growing federal arsenal. The number of non-military federal officers with arrest and firearm authority (200,000+) now exceeds the number of U.S. Marines (182,000). Spending on guns, ammo and military-style equipment at 67 federal agencies – including 53 regulatory, administrative agencies amounted to $1.48 billion between 2006-2014.

The IRS gun-locker is an example  of this growing federal firepower. Nearly $11 million was spent on guns, ammo and military-style equipment for 2,316 ‘special agents’ during this period. The IRS stockpile includes pump-action and semi-automatic shotguns with buckshot and slugs; and semi-automatic AR-15 rifles (S&W M&P 15) and military-style H&K 416 rifles. (See the OpenTheBooks Oversight Report – The Militarization of America.)

The recent growth of the federal arsenal begs the questions: Just who are the feds planning to battle?

In 1996, the Bureau of Justice Statistics officially counted 74,500 federal officers who had arrest and firearm authority. By 2008, the Bureau quantified over 120,000 such officers. Newly updated counts were supposed to publish by this July but the Bureau now admits that over 80% of federal agencies ignored or stonewalled responses to their latest survey. What are they trying to hide?

Even though our organization at OpenTheBooks.com estimated the number of non-Department of Defense federal officers at 200,000+, the current number of non-military federal officers and security personnel could be much larger. Here’s why:

• The feds refuse to disclose the number of Transportation Security Administration (TSA) officers, claiming a national security exception.
• The growth of officers within the 53 administrative, regulatory agencies since 2008 is uncertain. Our officer count estimate used a no-growth figure of 30,000 – the same count as in 2008.
• Likewise, the count within the Department of Homeland Security is unclear. We found conflicting sources citing figures at 70,000 and 63,000. We used the more conservative figure for our analysis.

At Health and Human Services (HHS), it’s also unclear just how many ‘special agents’ are currently employed. Yet, research uncovered a multi-million-dollar program for HHS ‘Office of Inspector General Special Agents’ that used a sophisticated military-style weapons platform with Special Forces contractors training the agents on domestic special operations.

Today, HHS is operating from a brand new “National Training Operations Center” within the Washington, D.C. area they describe as “an operational readiness, emergency response, crisis room and command post for HHS headquarters and staff.” That’s serious business for an agency supposedly preoccupied with “health” matters.

The author, Adam Andrzejewski, goes on, and you can read the entire report at Forbes.  But the founders were opposed to standing armies for good reason.

So if America’s founders would be disappointed in the United States today, how much of that disappointment, if any, might be directed at the military and what has come to be known as national security affairs? It is a question especially worthy of our attention, since the American people have repeatedly said in polls that, of society’s major institutions, the military is the one they most trust.

Let us start with the Preamble to the Constitution. Whatever the framers’ intent, however aspirational the wording, and notwithstanding the fact that national security wasn’t part of the vernacular of the day, the Preamble stands as America’s enduring security credo.

Its importance is essentially threefold. It lists providing for the common defense (in lower-case letters) as merely one — not the first, not the most important — of the national aims the governing apparatus called for by the Constitution seeks to achieve. Semantically, it captures the normative essence of military affairs as self-defense (not aggression, not power projection). And it thereby implicitly cautions against purchasing defense at the expense of these other strategic priorities — national unity, justice, domestic tranquility, the general welfare, liberty.

[ … ]

Madison famously provided one of the most powerful statements ever on war:

“Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.”

Today, we live in a state of constant, potentially endless war — always, without exception, undeclared; invariably by choice (rhetorically disguised as necessity); frequently in secret (to increase the license to act, while minimizing oversight and accountability); often labeled war (to engender fear and urgency), but just as often labeled something other than war (for reasons of expediency, convenience and legal circumvention); initiated and prosecuted by a now permanently imperial presidency, largely devoid of congressional consultation and consent before the fact, sometimes even with minimal congressional notification after the fact.

Such concentration of executive power, such abrogation of legislative authority and responsibility, such marginalization of popular consent would seem to be the ingredients of tyrannical government the founders said the people had the right and the duty to overthrow.

It’s instructive and expedient to understand the FedGov and its actions under 3P’s: [1] Protect, [2] Perpetuate, and [3] Promote.  It isn’t by accident that the FedGov wants a disarmed population and continually presses gun control (supported all the way by the court system up to and including the SCOTUS).  A disarmed population is a corollary and a couple to government control and subjugation of the people.  An armed population cannot be subjugated – and thus the population must be disarmed.  It all works together, and without each part none of it works.

But in America that’s difficult, so one answer to the difficulty is to arm the FedGov better and with more.  Note well that the rulership has created a caste system of peasants who will protect the FedGov because it’s their livelihood.  Too old and not in good enough shape to join the military, and not desirous of the decrease in income, there is nothing much else a gun toting agent can do except work for the government.  Family support is a strong motivator, and provision for wife and children can cause all sorts of word twisting and reinterpretation of oaths and vows.  The job of this peasant class is to keep the other peasants in check.  It is to protect the rulership.

The rulership by its very nature perpetuates itself by patronage and largesse to its families, friends and allies.  This is the value of high taxation and federal ownership of land.  Finally, promotion of the FedGov and rulership occurs via the public education system where willing subjects are molded, and also through the MSM where willing “journalists” parrot talking points.

There are those who say that the constitution contained in it the seeds of this despair and destruction.  And there are those who say that we need a new constitution because the last one failed.  While I am no defender of the notion that the constitution was infallible or perfect, I don’t subscribe to this being the ailment or the proposed remedy.

If I’ve tried to teach anything in these last years, it’s that men are to blame.  The constitution is a covenant, or agreement with the appurtenant blessings and cursings for obedience and disobedience, respectively.  It is nothing more, and nothing less.  We don’t get rights to ownership of weapons from the second amendment – we get them from the very fountain of rights, the Almighty Himself.

But America has broken covenant with the Almighty.  After this, everything else is duck soup.  It’s easy to break covenant with men when you have no fear of God.  Blaming the constitution for the malfeasance of men is like blaming the marriage covenant for an adulterous spouse, and demanding a new marriage covenant because the last one let your spouse engage in infidelity is demanding more of the same and expecting a promise to mean something to an adulterer.

To answer the question posed by the author, “Just who are the feds planning to battle?,” the answer is that the answer is crystal clear for those who would see it.

Prior Featured: AR-15 Ammunition And Barrel Twist Rate