Concerning this article, I sent the authors a short note as follows.

Gentlemen,

So here is an important question about your coverage of the happenings in Charlotte.  I follow this sort of thing and have ascertained that more often than not, when the NG is deployed, they aren’t under “arming orders.”  This was true of the NG deployed to the Mexican border (they mostly sat in offices and aided with paperwork as they had no ammunition given to them for their weapons), and was true of the NG deployed in Ferguson.  Issuing arming orders is a big deal, involving training, requalification by the riflemen, issuing “rules for the use of force” that have been reviewed by the lawyers, etc., etc.

But they rarely listen to a blogger, so you might ask the question of the officials.  You might catch them flat footed and they will likely refuse to answer you because it might show the world that deploying the NG is just window dressing and none of them have ammunition.

If you ask and they answer, I’d appreciate attribution please.

This incredible paragraph appeared at Jacobin:

A few things are clear: guns are a murderous problem; the NRA is racist and reactionary; and liberals are deluded if they believe that sentencing more black men to prison for gun crimes will do anything other than send more black men to prison. Government must disarm America, including NRA members, including the police. And it is government too that must end the war on guns.

Daniel Denvir, the writer of this pitiful piece, is so confused one wonders if they have any editors at this web site and how they let such a paragraph slip through.  A good editor might have thought to ask the writer, “So how are we going to disarm America is we disarm ourselves, and who will do the disarming, since, if government disarms itself they won’t have the necessary arms to disarm anyone?  And as for that matter, how does creating such a war end a war?”

But they apparently don’t have good editors.  At least you can give this to the author.  He’s honest about his confusion, to the point that he is willing to embarrass himself writing about it to the world.  The folks at Bloomberg – not so much.

The NRA is not suggesting that every aspiring gunslinger become an expert. Quite the contrary. The organization talks a lot about gun safety and runs training programs. But its priorities lie elsewhere — such as its demand that virtually every American have immediate access to firearms, without training or qualification or cause or background check, and that they be authorized to carry those firearms in public no matter how unskilled or reckless they may be. That’s one reason that there are countless cases of accidental shootings, rage-induced homicides and alcohol-fueled attacks for every rare instance of a good guy with a gun stopping a killing.

It’s always dangerous to read too much into a slogan, even a catchy one. Still, it bears repeating: A guy with a gun and good intentions is not enough to stop a bad guy with a gun. As Jason Falconer showed, it also takes a guy who’s good with a gun.

The writer is being dishonest, and he knows it.  The catalog (even at this web site) of the awful muzzle and trigger discipline and behavior with guns is staggering: wrong home raids, pulling shotguns on a ten year old, pointing a pistol at a seven year old, being known as dog butchers, abusive treatment of innocent victims during a botched raid, dangerous gun play with other cops, lack of knowledge of the state of their weapons, negligent discharges, negligent discharges in an airport, killing dogs for sport, negligent discharges in police precincts, shooting each other while cleaning their weapons, hitting people on the head with guns, 600 rounds discharged in a rolling gun battle through the inner city, mistakenly shooting a gun instead of a taser, killing a man, firing a gun on a junior high campus, more negligent discharges in police stations, accidentally killing each other, shooting men in the back during raids, killing innocent men because of negligent discharges, throwing flash-bangs into baby cribs, pointing guns at city councilmen during meetings, firing rifles in court, negligent discharge of an AR-15, losing guns, 23 police officers firing 377 rounds at two men with no guns, losing machine guns, shooting each other while trying to kill dogs, and in the author’s own city, shooting 84 rounds at a man, missing with 83 of them.

The author isn’t calling for the disarming of cops, just others.  That’s how you know he’s lying.  He is advocating the collectivist belief in monopoly of force.  He just doesn’t want you to have a gun.  I did quite well the last time I was at the range, and I’ll put my ability with weapons up against most cops any day.  Either way, it’s a lie to say that people who haven’t been trained in stress management can’t defend themselves.  The author knows it.  The author of the editorial just isn’t being as honest as the Daniel Denvir, who admitted to us that he has no idea what he’s talking about.

Here’s something else about which the author(s) should be honest.  Attempting to confiscate guns or even place further controls on them risks bloody civil war.  If they didn’t know that before, they do now.  They’ve been told.

Uncle gives us his usual quick take on what Rubio’s proposal.  Go and read it for yourself.  TCJ reader Fred comments on this, but I want to focus on one comment in particular from Sean Sorrentino who is himself a blogger.

Sorry, Uncle, but you’re wrong on this one. This is a great move on his part. It offers the lying shitweasel Dems everything they *say* they want without giving them anything they *actually* want.

They say they want to ban terrorists from buying guns. This would do it. It gives the AG the power to prove, in court, that a person is a terrorist, and stop him from buying a gun. I’m totally cool with this. Who wouldn’t be? And they only get three days to get the paperwork in. And if they fail in court, they have to pay ALL reasonable attorney fees and costs. So you know that every ambulance chasing dickhead in the nation will show up to defend the little terrorist jerk. Or me, if it’s me.

But the shitweasel Dems can’t just randomly declare that every person who buys a “Don’t Step on Snek” flag is a terrorist and make them fight to get their rights back.

This is why Rubio’s opponent is screaming about this like someone just raped him with a running chainsaw. He realized that they just got outmaneuvered. They just got fucked over.

“Oh, you want to ban terrorists? Here you go. ACLU would buy in on this process. Why are you angry? It’s everything you SAID you wanted?”

But gun owners are too busy screaming “MUH RAHTS!” instead of finding new and interesting ways to screw over our enemies …

Horrible.  Just horrible.  Who wouldn’t be okay with your option, Sean?  I wouldn’t be.  You give far too much deference to the corrupt court and the corrupt officers of the court for my tastes, and you’ll be sorry for this approach one day if they seek a declaratory judgment for folks who believe in second amendment remedy for tyranny to be right wing terrorists.  They’re either there already or not far away.

Hey, I have a much better idea, Sean.  How about if they can prove to a jury of our peers (even here I’m skeptical given the idiots that make up juries these days) that a person is a terrorist – you know, has actually perpetrated some act of terror – they jail him or deport him?  Or put him to death?  In fact, if a person isn’t a citizen and believes in the application of Sharia law in America, they should deport him too!  I can give you all kinds of suggestions for how to close the border.  I’ve thought about this a good bit.  For example, let’s deploy the U.S. Marines along the Southern border to shoot “mules” who transport people across.  See?  I have lot’s of worthy ideas.

If a person is really a terrorist, we should do a lot more than prevent him from purchasing a gun.  He can get a car and kill far more people, or a truck load full of fertilizer and kill even more.  You see Sean, you’re chasing after Red Herrings and misdirects.  It’s how they want their underlings to behave.

That’s what the progs want us to do.  As for Rubio, he is an open borders freak.  I’m not surprised he wants to help folks chase after misdirects rather than focus on closing the borders.  It took Ted Cruz, Louie Gohmert, Dave Brat, Mike Lee and Jeff Duncan to shut that crap down when he tried to do it as part of the gang of eight bill before.  Don’t help the little weasel keep the borders open by chasing after this misdirect.  Be smarter than that.

UPDATE: Ken Blanchard has a very good analysis of this.

Washington Times:

Marine Corps headquarters has sent out a Communications Playbook that says top brass in Washington, not local public affairs officers, will control press statements about women in combat.

The edict was issued in the aftermath of strong disagreements with civilian leaders on gender integration.

The Corps normally gives wide latitude for spokespeople worldwide to discuss all sorts of Marine issues — but not in this case.

Under “[public affairs] posture,” the playbook says: “Proper PA coordination both up to the Office of United States Marine Corps Communication (OUSMCC) and down to lower division and Recruiting District PAO’s will be due prior to any media engagement or release,” according to a copy obtained by The Washington Times.

All commands, says the 68-page playbook, “will coordinate closely with OUSMCC to synchronize communication efforts to fulfill integration measures and communication goals.”

The playbook lists 36 Corps issues such as weapons development and aircraft accidents, but gender integration is the only topic for which Washington headquarters must approve all messaging.

Not to be outdone, the Army is following lock step as well.

Calling all female noncommissioned officers: The Army wants you to consider transferring into combat arms jobs.

Just weeks after Sergeant Major of the Army Dan Dailey sent a memo to the force calling for volunteers, the Army is preparing to send a team of subject matter experts to several major installations to inform soldiers about the opportunities available to them.

“Currently, we have over 100 young women across America who have volunteered to join our ranks as cavalry scouts, armor crewmen, fire support specialists and infantrymen,” Dailey wrote in the Aug. 1 memo. “… As young soldiers do, they will look for leadership and mentorship from their superiors. Unfortunately, we have not had a sufficient number of serving female soldiers and NCOs volunteer to transfer into these mentorship and leadership roles.”

But they’ve got to do better.  They should follow the lead of the Navy, who seems to be leading the pack.

It’s been a long time since Americans read a headline about the U.S. military that actually had to do with national defense. And thanks to the Navy, that’s not about to change any time soon. While Congress has yet to weigh in on the administration’s push for open transgenderism in the ranks, Navy brass are making it clear that it’s full steam ahead on President Obama’s radical social policy that threatens to unravel whatever unit cohesion the military has left.

Starting November 1 (a week before an election that could help end this nonsense), all sailors will be required to undergo “transgender behavioral education.” According to Navy Chief of Personnel Vice Admiral Robert Burke, the training will include everything from multi-hour briefings to discussion groups about how to best coddle gender confusion in the ranks. Supervisors will be taught to be “on alert” for signs of mistreatment of people who identify as transgender and deal with offenders appropriately.

“Training for sailors will be conducted by command triads via mobile training teams or DVD with a facilitation guide if the unit is in a remote area and unable to receive face-to-face training. There will also be webinars for COs to ask questions prior to delivering training to their commands,” explained a branch spokesman. At a time when our troops could use real reinforcements, the Navy is even dispatching special mobile units for the sole purpose of indoctrinating sailors on transgenderism!

Oh, I doubt the election will change a thing.  The author is ascribing too much traditionalism to Trump, and he will disappoint most of his voters.  Regardless of who wins, the U.S. military loses.  If I was Vladimir Putin or the Chinese communists, I’d be laughing my ass off right about now.

It behooves you to watch all of this video.

The Atlantic:

There are hundreds of millions of guns in the United States—enough, according to several estimates, for every American civilian adult to own more than one.

But actual gun ownership is far more lopsided than that.

A sweeping new survey by researchers at Harvard University and Northeastern University finds that roughly half of the nearly 300 million firearms in the United States are concentrated in the hands of a tiny sliver of the U.S. population: Just 3 percent of American adults own some 130 million guns, according to The Trace and Guardian US, two news organizations that first reported on the survey. (The full survey has not yet been released; Guardian US and The Trace reported plans to publish a series of stories about the findings throughout the week.)

This portrait of gun ownership represents the equivalent of about 17 guns per person among a group of “super-owners,” the 7.7 million Americans who own between eight and 140 guns each.

Surveys also show that The Trace and Guardian are full of crap.  Here is a tip for all of you aspiring “gun researchers.”  Are you listening?  No, I mean really listening closely?

Fifty years ago someone might have been honest with you about their gun ownership.  Maybe.  And just maybe you could have demonstrated that you met the requirements to be taken seriously for legitimate statistics.  I would have to review the data.  Or better, I would have had to review the data.  That was then, this is now.

Today, very few gun owners are going to be honest with you about their gun ownership, if you can even get them to talk to you.  Your data is meaningless.  All of it.  Every last bit of it.  It’s worthless.  Have a nice day.

It’s a serious question.  What happened?  He was standing still with his hands on the vehicle.

OutdoorHub:

Back to the second portion my original point: What constitutes an effective defensive handgun? A firearm designed for self-defense (either military, law enforcement or civilian) needs to meet a minimum of four criteria to be considered effective:

• Function reliability even without lubrication or regular maintenance
• Able to consistently hit a 6-inch target within self-defense range (typically within 25 feet)
• Fire a round proven to reliably stop an attacker with reasonable shot placement
• Carry at least five rounds of ammo and be easily reloadable

The 1911 barely meets the first criteria. Not because the design isn’t capable – I’ve seen 1911s that rattle like an old toolbox that run like a scalded dog – but because its magazines can be a total crap shoot. The overwhelming majority of 1911s that suffer from reliability issues can be traced back to faulty magazines.

Shooters should stick with new-production magazines from companies with solid reputations like Chip McCormick Customs. These guys have been working on, running and building 1911 magazines for 3 decades. So I called the owner, Chip, and asked him about the importance of magazines.

“Magazines lie at the heart of (the M1911’s) reliability,” Chip explained. “Browning never intended 1911 magazines to be extended, or be run as hard as competitors tend to these days.”

[ … ]

Because the 1911 meets or exceeds all the aforementioned criteria, it’s not only a solid choice for serious self-defense use, but also on par with more modern designs, right?

Yes and no.

[ … ]

The 1911’s design could certainly benefit from higher magazine capacity, like something on par with the Springfield XDm in .45 ACP or the Glock 21 in the same caliber. Higher capacity frames like those from Infinity and STI exist, but are vastly more expensive than standard capacity 1911s. But it’s safe to say, as the 1911 continues to evolve, it’s far from obsolete.

No, the 1911 couldn’t benefit from a lot more rounds in the magazine if that means giving up the single stack design.  And as for what Chip McCormick said, while I have been intending on purchasing some of his higher capacity magazines for the 1911 (I have not yet), the ones I have work just fine, and I have never had a FTF or FTE with my 1911.  Not even once.  I don’t know what they’re talking about.

I’ve said it before, but I like the grip angle (11 degrees), the slim single stack design (and resulting narrow frame profile), and the push of the .45 compared to the snap of the 9 mm.  What’s works best for you is the best choice for you.  What doesn’t is not.  There is also an article at Cheaper Than Dirt entitled Every Man’s Defensive Caliber – The 9 mm.

The only legitimate point the author makes, in my opinion, is that the 9 mm is cheaper than the .45.  True that.  But you get what you pay for.  The 9 mm isn’t every man’s defensive round if every man doesn’t like it and use it.  I don’t use 9 mm.  I use .45 because I like it.  If you use 9 mm, do so because you like it and shoot it well, not because somebody said something on the internet about it.

These debates are stupid, and anyway, why would someone feel that it’s necessary to talk someone else into liking something he doesn’t use well?  The only time this debate becomes important is for something like an entire department that issues a standard service weapon.  I guess in this case if you don’t like what they issue, you need to practice with it until you do or find another job.

Finally, I wonder what it would have been like for John Basilone if he used had the 9 mm instead of the .45?  I wonder if perchance we would have been able to win at Guadalcanal if John hadn’t lost the battle for Henderson Field?  Oh, wait.  Nevermind.

The Age:

The notion that a military-grade weapon could be in the hands of local criminals is shocking, but police have already seized at least five machine guns and assault rifles in the past 18 months. The AK-47 was not among them.

Only a fortnight ago, law enforcement authorities announced they were hunting another seven assault rifles recently smuggled into the country. Weapons from the shipment have been used in armed robberies and drive-by shootings.

[ … ]

Despite Australia’s strict gun control regime, criminals are now better armed than at any time since then-Prime Minister John Howard introduced a nationwide firearm buyback scheme in response to the 1996 Port Arthur massacre.

Shootings have become almost a weekly occurrence, with more than 125 people, mostly young men, wounded in the past five years.

[ … ]

Crimes associated with firearm possession have also more than doubled, driven by the easy availability of handguns, semi-automatic rifles, shotguns and, increasingly, machine guns, that are smuggled into the country or stolen from licensed owners.

These weapons have been used in dozens of recent drive-by shootings of homes and businesses, as well as targeted and random attacks in parks, shopping centres and roads.

“They’re young, dumb and armed,” said one former underworld associate, who survived a shooting attempt in the western suburbs several years ago.

“It used to be that if you were involved in something bad you might have to worry about [being shot]. Now people get shot over nothing – unprovoked.”

Sounds rather like Chicago, yes?  But wait.  I predict that they’ll try to make a new set of laws that makes it illegal to disobey laws already on the books.

In response to the violence, it can be revealed the state government is planning to introduce new criminal offences for drive-by shootings, manufacturing of firearms with new technologies such as 3D printers, and more police powers to keep weapons out of the hands of known criminals.

They’re all the same everywhere, these collectivists.  The law abiding citizens turned in their weapons, and so now they are defenseless against the criminals.  What they need is to rearm peaceable men and women to shoot the criminals and Melbourne will regain a sense of peace.  The police can’t stop this.  No police anywhere can stop this.  Since that’s the only option that will work, they will studiously avoid it.

Denver Post:

SWAT officers raided a Mesa County home they believed to be full of methamphetamine early Wednesday, breaching its front door and breaking several windows, only to find inside an innocent family with five children.

Authorities from several agencies are now apologizing to the family, saying they had out-of-date information from an informant. The suspects sought by investigators had at one time lived at the house in Clifton near the intersection of 32 and E roads, officials said, but had since moved away.

“We are deeply regretful of the experience to which this family was subjected,” Grand Junction police and the Mesa County Sheriff’s Office said in a joint statement. “We have met with the family, including the children, to explain in detail how such a mistake was made.”

The kids range in age from 3 to 12 years old.

[ … ]

Heidi Davidson, spokeswoman for Grand Junction police, said investigators are still working to determine which agency will pay how much for the repairs.

“It should have been vetted better,” Davidson said. “We should have done a better job from the beginning.”

Davidson explained that investigators believe their informant, a woman, was not lying about the suspects she believed lived in the home and that an investigation into the alleged criminals remains ongoing.

“We don’t have any information at this time that the information was made up or fabricated,” Davidson said.

And there’s the problem right there, or at least one of the problems.  An individual – a single individual – can say something and dispatch an armed home invasion team supported by the officers of the court.  One individual.

The police sound more like a drug gang retaliating for some offense in the organized crime world than “peace officers,” yes?