Fluffington Post:

If you hoard weapons for the express purpose of overturning the elected administration, then you are many things. A patriot isn’t one of them. Blind adherence to a single amendment does not make you a champion of the Constitution itself. Violent intent towards the duly-elected government does not make you a friend to the nation. There is in fact an accurate word for this species of plotting: treason.

Yes, I know — it’s a matter of arming civilians against tyranny. That in itself is not a monstrous concept, and you find something of that in the Founders’ fear of a standing army, and hence in the Second Amendment itself.

Note, however: you don’t get to define “tyrant” any which way you’d like. John Wilkes Booth, for example, clearly thought that Abraham Lincoln fit the description. After shooting the president, he famously announced: “sic semper tyrannis” (“thus always to tyrants”). Hence, he was simply exercising his constitutional rights, right?

Sadly for Booth, Americans did not much agree with his assessment of Lincoln. Booth saw himself as ridding the nation of a tyrant, but the nation mostly saw him as the treasonous assassin of their elected leader. See how this works? It’s all a matter of perspective, isn’t it.

Ignore the example he uses and everything else he says, and focus on his argument.  The popular vote determines the public good.  Or, might makes right.  It’s an appeal to authority, with the authority being determined in the voting booth.  It’s a form of the genetic fallacy.

Well, speaking of perspective, I have my weapons for a great multitude of reasons rather than for one express reason.  I guess that exempts me from his charges of treason.  As for being unpatriotic, regardless of who is in office or what the particular policy being debated, it seems terribly wrong to tell me that my rights are subject to a popular vote and that my perspective must be subservient to the poll.  If so, then they aren’t “rights” by any measure of the word.

Kurt Hofmann:

Back in December, St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner predicted that a private sales ban is the most likely federal infringement on that which shall not be infringed–far easier to pass than banning so-called “assault weapons” (gun banner-speak for “regime change rifles“) or “high capacity” magazines (gun banner-speak for “standard capacity magazines”) will be.

If anything about that assessment has changed, the difference is that it looks still more accurate now. In that article, we noted that even many supposedly “pro-gun” Republicans have historically supported private sales bans even before the Sandy Hook atrocity created an anti-gun feeding frenzy that has terrified many of gun rights advocates’ less stalwart “allies” in Congress.

Since then, NRA president David Keene has made clear that the NRA is quite willing to trade Americans’ right to privately buy and sell firearms for . . . well, really for nothing but perhaps a bit of a delay before the gun prohibitionists renew their push to eviscerate every other aspect of the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms. The Hill, in an article titled “NRA chief ‘generally supportive’ of strong background checks” has video of Keene appearing on CBS This Morning, where he discussed the NRA’s surrender terms:

Read the rest at Examiner.  No, no, no, and a thousand times no.  The NRA cannot cave on this issue.  Ignore the claptrap about “caring for the children” and “making sure that weapons don’t fall into the hands of criminals.”  It’s all a ruse designed by the anti-gun lobby.  Universal background checks have nothing whatsoever to do with keeping weapons out of the hands of criminals, or a reduction in violence of any sort.  The system, if set up, is a predecessor and necessary prerequisite to a national gun registry.  This is evil to its very core.

So the next time you hear this claptrap, if it comes from ignorant people, educate them.  If it comes from people who know better, call them a liar.  If it comes from the NRA, tell them that they’re cowards and do not represent your interests.  And then tell them that you want to see them thrown out on their heads so that they can be replaced with people who honor the second amendment.

No surrender, no retreat.  Not … one … inch.

Prior: Against Universal Background Checks

Last Carbine magazine of the day, 50 feet, rapid fire, nine of fifteen shots in a one inch diameter circle.

It might have been part of his overall plan.  Mr. Obama has succeeded in spinning things up to the point that if he trots out anything less that full blown gun confiscation, people will say, “Oh thank God.  We can live with what he’s proposing.”

But be careful what you wish for.  The proposal that stands the best chance of passing happens to be the most insidious.

Hours before President Barack Obama’s official swearing-in to a second term, top Democrats predicted a victory for the broadest component of the White House’s push to change the nation’s gun laws.

During an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Sen. Chuck Schumer, N.Y., called legislation to institute universal background checks for gun buyers “the sweet spot.”

“In terms of actually making us safer and having a good chance of passing, this is it,” Schumer said on Sunday.

“I think you’re going to see [the very likelihood] in the next week or two a proposal that has broad support for universal background checks,” he added.

We’ve dealt with this issue before, how the phrase “gun show loophole” is a disingenuous invention of the gun control lobby, and how it would turn grandpa into a felon if he gifts his grandson with a .22 rifle under the Christmas tree.

Take careful note that there will be no more sales of firearms between hunting buddies, and no more exchange of guns between friends in church or at work, without paying a transfer fee to a federal firearms license.

It has been observed that a universal background check may be unenforceable.

There are 300 million guns currently in circulation and the federal government doesn’t have any data on who owns what. There’s no national registry for guns. All the federal trace data shows is who originally bought the gun from a licensed dealer.

“So let’s say a universal background check law passes and a gun I bought back in 2008 shows up on a Chicago crime scene a month from now,” says Ludwig. “The police show up at my door and ask who I sold it to. I say I sold it before the [universal background check] passed and at that time I wasn’t required to ask any questions.” There would be no way for police to know if he had complied with the law or not.

Relying on the notion that the federal government cannot ascertain whether you’re a felon because they lack the data is a horrible way to proceed.  Besides, as gun serial numbers are tracked by manufacturers, time goes by, and guns gradually go out of circulation, all it takes is a few executive orders to nationalize an electronic database of information from form 4473’s, and presto, there you have a national gun registry.

I firmly and unapologetically believe that all federal laws and regulations concerning firearms are unconstitutional.  But even if you don’t, and if you don’t fight the universal background check, remember the times.

Mr. Obama may very well get his desire for anti-gun legacy, and it may come as a Trojan horse, promising safety and security, but bringing onerous federal control that affects generations to come.

Leon Panetta:

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta joined the gun control debate on Thursday when he told troops at a military base in Italy that only soldiers needed armor-piercing bullets or assault weapons.

Asked by a soldier what President Barack Obama would do to protect school children from gun violence without infringing Americans’ right to own guns, Panetta said action was needed after the attack on a Connecticut school in December in which a gunman killed 20 children and six adults.

He told members of the 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team at Vicenza that there were areas where steps could be taken,

“I mean who the hell needs armor-piercing bullets except you guys in battle?”

Well, anyone who wants to protect themselves against a multi-man home invasion may decide that he needs “assault weapons.”  But one would think that the secretary of defense would have more important things to worry with, like the fact that we’re losing the campaign in Afghanistan.

But remember that this is the very same Leon Panetta who retains the services of body guards.  So here’s the deal, Leon.  Disarm your body guards or tell us that you’re a liar – that you really don’t believe what you say – that you know people need protection, but that you don’t care about that except for the really important people like you.

Then you’ll say in public what we all know to be true.  You’re a sniveling lackey just like Stanley McChrystal.

In order to demonstrate my good-natured and cooperative spirit concerning new firearms regulations, with Jay Carney and Mr. Obama I’ve come out strongly against High Capacity Magazine Clips, like this:

From National Journal, here is yet another potentially problematic feature of firearms that needs to be regulated.

It will also be tricky to determine just how many automatic bullets should be allowed in a rapid-fire magazine clip. Three? Ten? Twenty? Democrats in favor of restricting high-capacity magazines say that three bullets is enough to kill a duck or a quail. Fair enough, but gun enthusiasts say that 10 or 20 rounds makes more sense for people who possess firearms for self-defense purposes. How do negotiators strike a deal on that one?

I’ll tell you how.  We firearms owners stipulate that automatic bullets in rapid-fire magazine clips won’t be tolerated.  Now that I’ve compromised and met my detractors in the middle, be warned and walk with caution.

I won’t tolerate any more challenges to or infringements upon my second amendment rights and God-given duty of self defense.  And just to let you know that I’m serious, remember that I have guns and I’m willing to use them.  No, seriously.  I’m willing to use them to make sure this doesn’t happen.

Prior: High Magazine Clips And The Shoulder Thing That Goes Up

I was in Greenville, S.C., a couple of weeks ago, and stopped by the following stores: Allen Arms, Sharpshooters Gun Club And Range, Academy Sports, Dick’s Sporting Goods, and Walmart.  Allen Arms had some handgun ammunition, as did Sharpshooters.  No 5.56 mm, no .30 Carbine (well, they did have Wolf, but I won’t put steel through my rifles).  The shelves at Academy sports, Dick’s and Walmart were bare, as if a tornado had made its way through the stores.

I have also recently stopped by Firepower (Matthews, N.C.), Hyatt Gun Shop (Charlotte, N.C.) and Walmart (Charlotte, N.C.).  Hyatt had some ammunition, but their stocks were way down.  I did pick up some .30 Carbine from Hyatt.  Firepower had some, but were down in stocks too, and 5.56 mm ammunition was higher than it was the last time I purchased it.

At Walmart I would have bought .38, .357 Magnum, .40, .45, .30 Carbine, 5.56 mm, and 22 WMR.  I’m not picky.  I need a lot of all sorts of ammunition.  Tonight here is what the closest Walmart ammunition shelves looked like.  A few oddball rifle cartridges on the very bottom.

Texas may soon get some company in its resistance to tyranny.  First, to Alaska.

President Barack Obama yesterday signed off on nearly two dozen executive orders meant to curb gun violence. These orders launch a gun ownership safety campaign, require the Centers for Disease Control to examine the causes of gun violence, and call for law enforcement officials to receive better training for active shooter scenarios.

He also called on Congress to pass a ban on assault weapons. But Alaska lawmakers have introduced a bill that would circumvent any stronger gun control measures.

The Alaska Firearms Freedom Act would make it a crime to enforce any federal prohibitions on things like assault rifles and high-capacity gun magazines. A previous version of the bill already passed the House in 2010, and similar legislation is being introduced in states like Texas and Wyoming.

Then to Missouri.

Introduced by Missouri State Representative Casey Guernsey, with 61 co-sponsors, is the Missouri 2nd Amendment Preservation Act. House Bill 170 (HB170) would nullify any and all federal acts, orders, laws, statutes, rules, or regulations of the federal government on personal firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition.

The bill states, in part:

“Any official, agent, or employee of the federal government who enforces or attempts to enforce any act, order, law, statute, rule, or regulation of the federal government upon a personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is owned or manufactured commercially or privately in the state of Missouri and that remains exclusively within the borders of the state of Missouri shall be guilty of a class D felony.”

A class D felony in Missouri carries a prison sentence of up to 4 years.

While a number of states, including Wyoming, South Carolina, Indiana, and others – are looking to go head to head with the feds on specific issues under the 2nd amendment, the Missouri legislation is the strongest introduced anywhere in the country so far.

Good.  Then Texas, Alaska and Missouri can share operating experience in their opposition to tyranny.

Jesse Jackson:

“Bang! Bang! Bang!”

Hear that? It’s the sound of an assault weapon in the hands of a rogue individual, taking down an airplane flying overhead.

At least, that’s what the Reverend Jesse Jackson thinks assault weapons can do. The Reverend’s misinformed assertion that assault weapons are capable of shooting down airplanes came during a Fox News appearance yesterday.

“These semi-automatic weapons, these assault weapons, can only kill people, and in fact, they are threats to national security … the young man who did the killing in Aurora, Colorado … he could shoot down airplanes, so this is a matter of homeland security as well,” he said while speaking about gun control with anchor Martha MacCallum on ‘America’s Newsroom.’

How about a different challenge.  If anyone takes 800 meter shots trying to knock off that clown nose you’re wearing, instead of 5.56 mm ammunition with an AR (because we aren’t Travis Haley), it’ll be the boys with scoped .27 or .308 bolt action rifles.

What a parasitic moron.

That’s a phrase that you’ve doubtless heard recently, and will hear again.  As we’ve discussed, it’s a phantom.  It doesn’t exist.  It isn’t real – there is no gun show loophole.  That’s a fabricated phrase to make the legal transaction of firearms sound scary and evil.  What is legal in a home, or parking lot, or building, or anywhere else where firearms are legal, is also legal at gun shows.  A person-to-person transaction can occur without going through a Federal Firearms License (FFL) dealer and paying a transfer fee.

But on to a commentary by Clayton E. Cramer at NRO’s Corner on this subject.

It is an article of faith that closing the “gun-show loophole” would make America a safer place. But that is what it is: faith. In 2008, three criminologists (one of them not at all friendly to guns) studied the effects on murder and suicide rates in California (which prohibits private sales without a background check) and Texas (which does not). They looked at homicide and suicide rates for adjacent ZIP codes for a week after gun shows. They found no change in suicide rates, and in Texas, which has no restrictions on private party sales, a small but statistically significant reduction in gun homicides.

This might seem surprising, and at first glance, it is. Except for one little detail: Criminals appear not to buy guns at gun shows, because guns are expensive.  It is so much cheaper to steal guns instead. At Newtown, the killer first murdered his mother to steal the gun. At Clackamas Mall in Oregon in December, the shooter used a rifle he’d acquired by stealing it from a friend. In April of 2007, David Logsdon of Kansas City, Mo., murdered his neighbor and stole her late husband’s rifle for a mass murder.

I do not have a serious problem with requiring all firearms sales to go through a background check. But I do have a serious problem with pretending that this is going to make much of a difference in murder rates. You want to do something about murder? Look at the typical murders — not the highly atypical ones.

What a strange commentary.  After demolishing the notion that person-to-person transfers have anything whatsoever to do with personal or public safety, the author acquiesces and says that he doesn’t have a serious problem with outlawing person-to-person transfers.

For the record, I have a massive problem with making person-to-person transfers illegal.  Forcing all transfers to go through an FFL (for which form 4473 is filled out) is the equivalent of a national gun registry.  It’s busybody meddling by the federal government into everyone’s business, and it would effectively turn grandpa, who wanted to gift his Remington 10/22 to his grandson under the Christmas tree, into a felon.

No, and a thousand times no.  Ignore the phrase, and resist further changes in the laws.  Don’t give the gun control crowd yet another unconstitutional victory over the second amendment.