The Hill:

A pair of Democratic lawmakers are introducing legislation to require a background check for all firearm ammunition sales.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) said on Monday they had introduced the bill, known as the Ammunition Background Check Act of 2018, arguing it would help close a “loophole” in the current law.

“Ammunition sales should be subject to the same legal requirements as firearm sales, and that includes instant background checks. … Closing this ludicrous loophole is a common-sense component of a comprehensive strategy to reduce gun violence,” Blumenthal said.

Wasserman Schultz added that it is “common-sense legislation” that would close an “absurd loophole.”

Understand this is what they would do to you.  This doesn’t have much of a chance of passing as things stand now.  But give the House to the democrats, and things get a little more dicey.  Give the presidency to the democrats, and things go down hill fast.  If the republicans thought they could get away with it, they’d do it too.

Don’t look to the supremes to undo this if it ever happens.  They won’t even take up cases for New York State where people cannot purchase weapons without CLEO approval, and cannot carry anywhere.

You and I don’t have enough ammunition.  Not even nearly.

Via reader Fred Tippens, this.

What North American and South American territorial predator is a voracious hunter of livestock and deer, weighs up to 220 pounds and can reach short speed bursts exceeding 45 mph?

If your answer was the cougar or mountain lion, give yourself a pat on the back and enjoy a soft drink.  A pair of residents in the suburbs West of Milwaukee had the fortune of encountering a big cat through the magic of video, as a transient male was seen literally peering into the window of the home.

This is in an urban setting.

Reddit/r/firearms:

Toomey Introduces Bill That Would Toughen Existing Gun Laws – Requires FBI to report prohibited persons to state LEOs when denied purchase

The bill can be found here.  I would expect this kind of thing from Toomey, who is a communist.  Most disappointing though is the redditors who like it.

Having read the bill, I’m on board with this. Its a shame it isn’t policy already, but I see nothing wrong with this bill as written.

And another:

I don’t think I hate this.

Well, I do.  I loath every man and woman who sits in their offices like the cowards they are, sends boys to war to perish, lose arms and legs and eyes and brains (from TBI), and then wants to prohibit them from purchasing a gun if they have ever been diagnosed PTSD or have someone else do their finances for them.

Realize that this is what the recent Omnibus bill does.  It forces the VA to report such names of veterans to the NICS, creating a situation in which a veteran doesn’t know he is prohibited from purchasing weapons until he is rejected from doing so, now having lied on Form 4473 and become an immediate felon.

I loath all of you who voted for such a thing, or who would vote for such a thing.  I hate you with a white, burning hatred for your cowardice and malfeasance.

I hate to do it, but I must embed a video, and this one is very good.  It comes to us from the only congressman who I can trust on gun rights.

So, good job, redditors, you idiots.  You just jumped in bed with communists.  To every politician who did this to honorable veterans whom you sent war, you can ES&D.  That goes for Toomey as well.

Concerning David Codrea, he is apparently a second amendment extremist.

One example is an essay recently posted on the website of the far-right Oath Keepers militia by Second Amendment extremist David Codrea.

Hey, what exactly do I have to do to catch a break here?  I want some prog to call me something like a “far-right gun nut second amendment extremist wild man,” or some such thing.

I’ll have to leave it to readers.  I wish I could have a contest to see who could create the best caricature of me, the winner claiming prizes of guns and ammo.  I could post it as the comment of the week.  Alas, I have nothing to give away.

Reuters:

The teen organizers of Saturday’s nationwide “March for Our Lives,” aimed at toughening gun laws to help stop school shootings in the United States, have won kudos and cash from dozens of celebrities, helping to raise their national profile.

The April 2 cover of Time magazine will feature five students from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida who have organized rallies, walk-outs and challenged U.S. lawmakers since the February 14 mass shooting at the school that left 17 students and staff dead.

Miley Cyrus, Ariana Grande, Jennifer Hudson, Demi Lovato and Common are due to be among performers at Saturday’s main march in Washington D.C., while “Trainwreck” actress Amy Schumer and pop star Charlie Puth are expected to headline a march in Los Angeles, organizers said.

“So inspired by the incredible students behind #MarchForOurLives. Can’t wait to join them in DC to perform and show my support,” Cyrus tweeted earlier this week.

“Proud of these kids,” Justin Bieber wrote on Twitter.

Winfrey, Clooney, director Steven Spielberg and Hollywood producer Jeffrey Katzenberg have donated an aggregate of $2 million to the “March for Our Lives” movement. Clooney and his wife Amal have said they would march with the students on Saturday.

“This is their moment,” Winfrey told Reuters Television in praising the students. “They are the new young warriors of the light.”

“Groundhog Day” actor Murray compared them to the young protesters of the 1960s who helped bring an end to the Vietnam War.

Reuters is lying.  The students didn’t organize anything.  Everytown is organizing and managing the entire process.  The students are just being used.

The lie notwithstanding, make no mistake about what’s happening here.  This is a religious quest for them.  The language (“warriors of the light”) has very direct theological import.

This is a worship service, and they wanted to have the high priests of paganism there to preach sermons to them.  Thus, the priests were made available.

I know I have readers who do not hold to my own theological views or my Christian beliefs.  But you can be sure that your gun controller enemies aren’t atheists.  Their religion is collectivism, and their god is the state.  You’re on notice that they’ve declared war on you.

David Codrea:

“What about people that already had weapons? Well, I’m gonna tell you now, don’t buy into the scare tactics, don’t believe the scare tactics, because you’ve heard people say ‘You’ll have to pry my guns from my cold dead hands,’” Fischer admonished.

“OK, he grinned and shrugged to delighted laughter and applause of the Bloomberg Moms.

So this should be an easy and simple question for Daryl.  You are going to be on those teams trying to confiscate guns aren’t you?  Tell me you’re not going to send deputies to do that alone?  You’re going to be right there in body armor going door to door and breaking into homes to take guns away, right?  Right beside your deputies?  Or better yet, leading the way in through the doorways?

The Nation:

But Chipman says that the reality is that, even though they undergo extensive training designed to inoculate them against natural human stress reactions, it’s not uncommon for soldiers to freeze up the first time they experience combat. It’s not a sign of cowardice. In most cases, those same troops perform well—or even heroically—after that first exposure to real-life combat. We can’t expect police officers to behave any differently.

[ … ]

So I think that unless you are trained—and you’re trained over and over again, and you practice like you play, which means you’re training in simulated life or death environments—the likelihood of you even firing your gun is small. And then the likelihood that you would actually hit a moving target surrounded by other moving targets—any trained operator knows the fallacy in that. It’s highly unlikely that it would turn out well.

Wow.  You’d think this guy did room clearing in Fallujah with my son in 2007.  But on to his points, these sound like the same ones made by “military expert” Ralph Peters.

When the shooting starts, even the best-trained, most disciplined soldiers and cops — US Army Rangers or NYPD SWAT members — don’t put every round on target. The notion that a guard or teacher who goes to the range once a quarter would keep kids safe is profoundly divorced from reality. “Friendly fire” would simply add to the danger.

Well, this is depressing.  For some oddball reason, I’m recalling some happier times here at The Captain’s Journal.

Like the mother who chased away a home invader using a handgun, protecting her children.  Or the sixty year old Texas woman who shot and killed one of two home invaders using a handgun.  Or the Indiana woman who used a gun to scare off home invaders.  Or better yet, the 23 year old woman who used a handgun in self defense with someone pointing a gun at her own head.  She had the presence of mind to draw from her own holster, present and discharge her weapon.

Maybe I need to ask these women to talk to the SWAT cop or Ralphie so they can be told, “Since you don’t have all of that super secret Ninja warrior stress management training, you can’t do that.  So don’t do it again.”

Finally, would you want to be the one trying to defend the cop who hid while children were being executed?

Minnesota gun owners explain.

Anthony Bieker.

Do you keep them in a gun safe?

Yes. Always.

Jay Daley.

Do you keep them in a gun safe?

Yes, locked full size safe.

Mike Potter.

Do you keep them in a gun safe?

Yes.

Richard Troxel.

Do you keep them in a gun safe?

No, a locked closet.

Peter Boelter.

Do you keep them in a gun safe?

No, but they are not readily available for use.

Nick Booth.

Do you keep them in a gun safe?

Always. We have a daycare in our home.

Isaac Lees.

Do you keep them in a gun safe?

No. I live in a small town where we don’t even need to lock our doors because there is no crime. There are also no children in my house. If I lived in a high-crime area like the Twin Cities or had underage children in the house, I would absolutely use a safe if I kept guns in the house, but safes are extremely expensive both to purchase and to have installed, and since it is not necessary in my situation and I can’t really afford one I don’t use one.

Julie Mills.

Do you keep them in a gun safe?

Yes.

Ron Smith.

Do you keep them in a gun safe?

Most of them. I keep two pistols handy for self-defense/home protection. I keep a rifle handy for varmints.

Brad Leeser.

Do you keep them in a gun safe?

Of course.

Daniel Becker.

Do you keep them in a gun safe?

No, my rifles are kept in cases and stored. My handguns are out of sight and kept unloaded but are accessible for self-defense purposes. If there were children in the house all firearms except my handgun used for my concealed carry [would be in a safe], but my girlfriend and I don’t have children. I’m former infantry and she grew up with a firearms instructor father.

Melissa Timm.

Do you keep them in a gun safe?

Yes.

First of all, I realize that these gun owners aren’t exactly apologizing for anything, but there’s an undertone here I don’t like.  It’s a man’s own business what he does with his guns and how he keeps them (I’m not giving legal advice or recommending that you keep firearms unsecured with children around).

Furthermore, while I get the idea that you want to keep firearms secured with children around, there are many ways to do this, including putting them out of reach, not allowing children unsupervised time where there could be firearms, and perhaps the most effective, putting your home defense gun in a biometric safe where you can open it immediately with a thumbprint.

But let’s be clear about one thing.  When one respondent says “my rifles are kept in cases and stored. My handguns are out of sight and kept unloaded but are accessible for self-defense purposes,” he’s just kidding himself.  An unloaded gun is not for self defense or defense of home and hearth.  It’s an expensive paperweight.  An unloaded gun may as well not be considered accessible at all.

Having them “accessible” means the home invader has a loaded weapon and you do not, and thus when he sees you attempting to load a weapon he has two choices: (1) risk the outcome, be that death, injury, and/or prison, or (2) shoot you.

Don’t give him that choice.

I took this picture today at a local Dick’s Sporting Goods.

Edward, I told you that you couldn’t survive as a golf shop, didn’t I?  We’ve had this discussion, I know we have.

On a related note, I met a temporary manager of a local Gander Outdoors in Gastonia over the weekend (Rodney, who is the store manager in Tampa).  Apparently, the Gander in Gastonia is profitable, and they want to reopen it with all new firearms, all new gear, a new bike shop, new camping gear, and so on.

He told me “You know what’s funny?  I worked at the third Dick’s ever opened, and you know who my manager was?  Edward Stack.  It’s a shame what’s happened.”  We agreed that if he could wait a year (which they can’t because they’re going to reopen soon) they could probably hire most of the employees at Dick’s right down the road.

Edward, what happened to you?  Did the HR and corporate communications folks you hired change your soul, or have you always been a collectivist?

Military.com:

As women enter ground combat fields in larger numbers, the military services are working harder to make gender-specific accommodations for their gear — even down to tweaking protective equipment to fit around longer hair.

According to presentations prepared by the Army and the Marine Corps for the Pentagon’s Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services, both services are making independent changes to ensure gear fits correctly for women with hair buns.

I don’t know about you, but as we make sure we’re prepared for war against near-peer actors, it makes me feel safer to know that women can have hair buns along with their body armor.