Friday, February 22, 2013

Firearms Manufacturers Refuse to Sell Guns to Law Enforcement Agencies

Infidel Bloggers Alliance: Since New York State enacted its restrictive new gun laws, many manufacturers have sent that state (and others) a message: If local governments are going to severely restrict the ability of citizens to own guns, then these companies will not be selling to law enforcement in those areas.

I heard on the Marc Levin  show today that firearms manufacturers, in response to state and local infringements on citizens, are increasingly refusing to sell or service, or provide ammunition to, Law Enforcement departments in localities which curtail the rights of their CITIZENS to the same access to firearms and ammunition.

This is "not-quite-breaking-news"; apparently this is a trend which has being ongoing for several days,  and I only heard about it this afternoon.

It's also "not-quite-breaking-news" in that nearly seven years ago (april, 2005) we reported here that Ronnie Barrett had refused to service his .50 caliber rifles which he had previously sold to the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) because of that city and county policies.

Has it taken THAT long for the rest of the the firearms manufacturers to wake up and smell the coffee?

I won't even attempt to provide all the links to bloggers and "Main Stream Media" which are reporting this news.  You can do the search using such keywords as "police" and "Firearms Manufacturers" and "Refuse".  And I encourage you to do so.  I only cite The Infidel because he has a nice list of manufacturers who have jumped on the bandwagon (belatedly) ... and by this time, the list is outdated already.

Anti-gun people have been after Firearms Manufacturers for YEARS to force them (unfairly) to take responsibility for misuse by end-users of firearms which have been retailed by dealers under Federal restrictions.   And the gun makers have been quiet ... complacent, except in the courts .. in response.

It's about time that these manufacturers, wholesalers and even retailers (such as "Cheaper Than Dirt") took a stand.

I applaud them for their new-found assertiveness.  Too long have they played the meek mouse under continuing attacks.  I think they should have followed the lead of Barrett Arms years ago, but I won't criticize them because "Hey, it's a business, and you don't offend your customers!"

At last, their customers have offended THEM by the use of double-standards which have affected ... The Business.

Every year, the government has infringed upon the market by threats of federal 'standards' which are both unconstitutional and anti-business.  The gun and ammo makers tried to keep it going in the lean years, and when an anti-gun president is elected (or re-elected), the business fail to keep up with demands of new customers.  This negatively impacts their ability to serve the needs of their 'regular' customers, as we have seen for the past five years.  And this is the same situation which other businesses in America have experienced;  they don't have a legitimate 5-year plan, because they don't know which way the President will jump from one year to the next.

Hell, from one month to the next!

I think that ALL businesses in America might take heart by this example.   There needs to be an uprising against uncontrolled Federal infringement on business (and, to a lesser degree, at the state level) because of wildcat variances of governmental regulations.

I don't know about you, but I'm tired of paying $50 for a brick (1,000) of primers .. which sold for $85 for a five-brick "Sleeve" (5,000) of primers ten years ago at bulk rates.  And you can't even find them in stores at any price!  It was two years after Obama's first election before my local Bi-mart would sell me more than 200 primers at a single purchase; their supply simply could not accommodate the demand.

Is this grounds for impeachment?

Probably not.

But it ought to be.

Tuesday, February 19, 2013

America's Funniest IPSC Videos

"Americans love a winner, and they will not abide a loser"

So said George S. Patton, at least as he was portrayed in the 1970 movie "Patton".

IPSC competition is a little different.
We don't typify a "loser" as everyone else who doesn't win his/her match, division or class.   "Winning is nice" .... but we don't care that much when our friends are concerned.

What we love is someone who runs through a stage and exceeds all expectations.  They may win First Place, Second Place, or actually win nothing at all. But when a shooter has an exceedingly good run, those of us who know them and how they usually shoot are joyous if only because they have done 'better that usual:.

Here are three videos from several (okay, 6) years ago which are among my favorites.

First is my favorite lady shooter; SWMBO (She Who Must Be Obeyed) Smith.  The title of the video (Witchy Woman) says it all:

*Yes, I have posted this video here before ...and I probably will again.  I trashed this stage, but She .. with a borrowed gun, did just fine.  Besides, I loved to watch her shoot.*

Nest is a Junior shooter "Stephan" addressing the challenge of a "Surprise Stage" in the jungles of Dundee.  He didn't win anything ... came in rather low in the "Croc Match" (a high-round-count match) in fact.  But he rocked his world on this stage, and my friends who were the husband-and-wife team who set up and officiated at this stage counted it among their own personal favorites:

Finally, the man who actually won a very difficult stage in the same Croc Match, Yon Lee showed us how well he could perform by literally dancing through an up-and-back stage.

I'm hoping that someone will watch these videos, and will be encouraged to try IPSC/USPSA competition themselves.  It's a great way to meet new friends who like  to shoot pistols as much as you do.  And, as a bonus .. there will come a time when you do one stage exactly right.  With a little bit of luck, someone will be there with a camera to record  your triumph.

Or .. you may never win a stage in your entire life.

But you will have a helluva lot of fun!

Obama's Gun Control Proposals .. pro and con

On January 16, 2013, President Obama went on national television and presented his 23-point "Executive Order" proposal to "stop the gun violence":

You can see the video here ( a 16 minute speech):

(  The context of the speech is available in text from the Washington Post,  here.   NOTE that the context of this "QUOTE" is not the same as the context you will see in this video.   It starts earlier in the speech.)

A side note, though: I find it shameful that disagree strongly with the the President who (at about 7"40' into the speech) typifies those who disagree with his solutions as being motivated by personal gratification:

" This will be difficult. There will be pundits and politicians and special interest lobbyists publicly warning of a tyrannical all-out assault on liberty, not because that’s true, but because they want to gin up fear or higher ratings or revenue for themselves. And behind the scenes, they’ll do everything they can to block any commonsense reform and make sure nothing changes whatsoever. ."
[emphasis added]
This isn't mudslinging against a political opponent, but a base canard pointed directly toward those who believe that their vision of the Second Amendment of the Constitution legitimately differs from that of the President.

Well, he's a politician.  Remember the old saying from when you were a child?
"I'm rubber, you're glue; whatever you say bounces off me, and sticks to you!"
Not anyone agrees that these talking points provide the "Perfect Solution".

Some say, that the goals cannot be accomplished without universal gun registration; and that registrations equates to confiscation.  (See also here; a 2-minute rebutal.) 

On February 12, 2013, President Obama delivered his annual State of the Union Address, in which he discussed (in part) the issue of Gun Control:

He did not address his specific proposals, but only spoke parenthetically about "Gun Violence":

Our actions will not prevent every senseless act of violence in this country. Indeed, no laws, no initiatives, no administrative acts will perfectly solve all the challenges I’ve outlined tonight. But we were never sent here to be perfect. We were sent here to make what difference we can, to secure this nation, expand opportunity, and uphold our ideals through the hard, often frustrating, but absolutely necessary work of self-government.
I applaud President Obama's tacit admission that enacting random confiscatory laws against firearms possession will not resolve the problems with violence in America.  I hope that all Americans will look closely at  the various "Gun Control" proposals which are being presented to Congress and to the people of the United states.  These proposals are less than a band-aid; they will not change the pattern of violence; they would only exacerbate the problems by penalizing peaceful, honest citizens while doing NOTHING to curb violence, hatred, evil intent and public slaughter of innocents.

For perhaps the first time I agree completely with Mr. Obama.  It's not about "Gun Violence", it's about "Violence".  It's not about "Gun Control"; in fact, it's not about guns at all.

I don't know who he has been listening to, but I only wish he had started listening years ago.  It would not necessarily have made our nation more "peaceful", but it would have allowed us to protect each other more effectively.

NOTE:  Some people wonder if congress has any right at all to regulate firearms ownership in America.  See the Christian Science Monitor, February 13, 2013.