Saturday, October 07, 2017

Chipping Away at the Second Amendment

The anti-Second Amendment folks have a script that they all read from, and the line at the top is:
"Nobody is trying to take your guns away"
There's this thing about undermining the constitution; it's hard to do when you openly state "We Don't Think You Deserve These Rights Because We Don't Trust You", so these folks say other things, like :
"Gee, I know YOU wouldn't abuse this gun, but obviously other people will, so let's just agree that it's A Good Idea to make it illegal for anybody to own it".
Here is a prime example:

The Cancer in the Constitution - The New York Times:
All of his weapons were legal but should not be by any rational reading of the Second Amendment.
What Constitutional Scholar made that decision? The NYT writer didn't say.

UPDATE: 3 hours later ... I've been usurped ... someone else is already writing my article!

Bump-Stock?  WTF is that?

Like most people, I didn't know what a Bump Stock was until the Vegas shooting.  If I had heard of it, I would have shrugged my shoulder and thought "what a dorky idea".

Here's what it looks like:

Now we have politicians lining up to claim that they're against it ... whatever it is.   Well, maybe they're right, maybe they're wrong.  But a gun stock is not a firearm, and it is not protected by the Constitution.   So they can make a lot of noise and a lot of headlines and won't have to worry about the Constitutional Rights of their constituents.   What a great day to be a Politician in front of a microphone!   Hell, if they had scruples, they would have retired from Congress.

I think that the immediate reactions to Vegas are beginning to get a bit too strident.    And I wonder whether, in all the confusion, the anti-gun folks are going to take the ball and run with it until they make it illegal to own anything that isn't "specifically permitted" by currently existing law.

Here's a currently existing law:   "Shall Not Be Infringed"

The Celebrity Class is all over this tragedy like Stink on Shit  I read an article today where somebody whose name isn't in the papers often enough to suit her career said "the murderous members of the NRA should face a firing squad".  If she had the integrity of her father, she wouldn't be so eager to lump ordinary, law-abiding citizens into the same class with a man who had  too much money, too much time on his hands, and no morals. (I'm referring here to the mass murderer, not the singer.)

UNDER THE FOLD: "Any Sporting Purpose"

Friday, October 06, 2017

Middle Ground'

Brokaw: Gun Conversations Become 'Emotional' Between Gun Owners and People Saying There's 'Reasonable Middle Ground' - Breitbart:

"... It it’s impossible to have a conversation on what kind of firearms can be purchased because it becomes emotionally-charged between gun owners “who are protected by the NRA, and other people who are saying, ‘There ought to be a more reasonable middle ground.'” 

There is no "middle ground" 

The gun-control folks are asking the gun owners to relinquish their Constitutional rights ... but the gun-control folks have nothing to give in return.
 Brokaw stated there should be a national conversation on the amount of mass shootings in the US. He added: “...Stan McChrystal, who led our forces in Afghanistan and Iraq said, we ought not to be selling these kinds of weapons to the American civilian population. They’re designed to do one thing, which is to kill people .... "
Brokaw fails to note here that these same weapons are used in a defensive mode, to protect people against intruders whose goal is ... not to play Parcheesi with the folks whose home they have just broken into.

Nor does he pay attention to the 'other uses' to which these firearms are used.  My experience is that a lot of people are using the same firearms in Competition (see: Three Gun) and also for other legal purposes.

Brokaw dissimulates:
Because it immediately becomes so emotional between the gun owners of America, who are protected by the NRA, and other people who are saying, ‘There ought to be a more reasonable middle ground.’ I’m a gun owner. I’ve got a closet full of them in Montana. I don’t have one of those AR-15s. I don’t need them. Because I’m not going to be shooting that kind of thing. But almost all my friends out there now have that kind of a weapon.” 
 He confuses his readers when he accuses the defense of the Second Amendment with "emotion".

Americans don't reference the Second Amendment to protect their rights to keep and bear arms.  It's already out there, and has been for two hundred years.  It's not an "emotional" appeal; it is the right of Americans to protect them selves, their family and homes, and their nation against intruders, charlatans and people who would undermine our Constitution.

And if Tom Brokaw doesn't respect and revere our Constitution, he will never understand why Americans cleave to ".. their God and their Guns".

Because this is what stands between Americans, and those would undermine our country.
 Brokaw concluded by saying, “I don’t know what we do…in keeping our citizens safe unless we begin to lock down those kinds of gatherings. Because they have become targets for opportunity for these kinds of maniacs, as we’ve seen in too many other places.”
Maniacs will prevail, unless we acknowledge our individual right protect and defend ourselves and our fellow citizens.

Repeal the Second Amendment?

Repeal the Second Amendment - The New York Times:
Some conservatives will insist that the Second Amendment is fundamental to the structure of American liberty. They will cite James Madison, who noted in the Federalist Papers that in Europe “the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” America was supposed to be different, and better. 
I wonder what Madison would have to say about that today, when more than twice as many Americans perished last year at the hands of their fellows as died in battle during the entire Revolutionary War. My guess: Take the guns—or at least the presumptive right to them—away. The true foundation of American exceptionalism should be our capacity for moral and constitutional renewal, not our instinct for self-destruction.
Think about this.

During the Revolutionary Period, most of the "Revolutionists" were prominent politicians, most of the land owners (a rarity ... an Elite!)

It is obvious that the "Founding Fathers" and their progeny endured a long period of warfare, and even more intense conflict.

Again, Americans went to war, to establish and affirm their independence, and to distant themselves from their European progenitors.  See John Paul Jones.

So when you ask: I wonder what Madison would have to say about that today, when more than twice as many Americans perished last year at the hands of their fellows as died in battle during the entire Revolutionary War, I would guess that they would say: "Oh, a mere civil disturbance, which should be stamped down most expeditiously!"

But as most Americans have access to firearms, they are able (if only intermittently competent) to enforce the laws of a civil society without recourse to paid assassins.

Fortunately, we have moved past our "Founding Father" method of dealing with civil unrest, and the call to arms .. and stamping out Constitutional Rights ... are not our first response.

The police, and the Militia (National Guard?) are a last resort.  Ultimately, one American's duty to his neighbors is to prevent the outrageous exigencies of a rogue member of the community by positive action.

Which is not to suggest a "Block Party with a Noose"; it should be sufficient that everyone knows that his neighbor has his back, when the Wild Bunch comes calling.   If enough neighborhoods faced down drug dealers, that might make the local street corner a place to sing "Sweet Adeline" instead of a place where you want your children to pass on the other side of the street.

See below: "The Revolution".

Machine Gun Vegas Calls For More Gun Control? Dialogue!

Surfing through Gun Blogs, I found this interesting dialogue:

Machine Gun Vegas Calls For More Gun Control . . . Then Doesn't? - The Truth About Guns:

A says:
 After this mass murder, the NFA will never be repealed. Zero chance today or ever. 50 years from now, the politicians will use this event as an example of why it should not be repealed. At this point the NRA will be fighting to keep what few rights we still have. There will be no repeals of existing restrictions and the NRA will be in a huge battle with the next President which will be a Democrat. This was event was really bad for 2nd Amendment supporters.

B says:
 If they make a peaceful return of our rights impossible they will make a violent return inevitable. I’m waiting for this clown’s connection to the alt-left to get released. 

C says:
 Oh cut em some slack. Vegas is in shock. Let them make some mistakes, Their contributions to the gun cause is exceptional. i’ve used their services. And after a few rounds with all the major full autos, I’ve decided that what happens in Vegas….probably shouldn’t. 

D says:
 the next president will be trump, stop buying the media garbage democrats have no teeth anymore
I'm not familiar with the general tone of comments on this gun blog;  I'm not a full-auto enthusiast, so my priorities probably don't mesh comfortably with the Usual Suspects here.

But I find their comments (anonymous) to be an interesting cross-section of Second Amendment concerns as a consequence of the Vegas shooting.

My analysis:

A:  Negative expectations
B:  Reactionary, combative
C: Ameliorative, neutral
D: Positive expectations/Political

I think this defines the range of reactions which is to be expected from Second Amendment supporters in America. 

Generally speaking; some of us expect that The Feds will come down critically on our rights ... hard! 
Others of us expect that our government will consider the Vegas tragedy to be the work of an anomalous actor, and ignore the "act-which-could-not-have-been-foreseen".

And some of us have no confidence in our government, and are inclined to react quite negatively to what we  the consider an abridgement of our inalienable rights.

We have he CONSTITUTION on our side!

Blomberg Lies To Make A Political Point

A Bump in the Debate Over Gun Violence - Bloomberg:

Using both a bump stock and large ammunition magazines, Paddock fired roughly 90 shots in 10 seconds -- approaching the volume of a fully automatic machine gun. Automatic weapons have been tightly regulated since the 1930s, and manufacture of new machine guns has been illegal since 1986.

Well, I can see the point that Blomberg is trying to make, but I call them liars or else poor writers when they descent to inaccuracy to make a (political?) point.

Paddock fired roughly 90 shots in 10 seconds

I doubt that.

Even if he was using 30 round magazines ("banana clips" which he probably had but which are notoriously poor at feeding reliably in Rifle calibers) that would require him to fire 30 rounds in 3 seconds, make a magazine change, and do the reload at least one more time to empty 3 magazines.

If he was using 20 round magazines (which are a 'straight-line design', as apposed to "banana clips' which are curved and much more difficult to insert into a rifle), that would require:
 (20 + 20 = 40; reload + 20 = 60;  reload  plus  20 = 80,  reload  + 20 to acquire 90 rounds to the gun) 3 reloads in 10 seconds.  Plus the amount of time to actually empty the magazines.

If he was using 30 round magazines, that would require only 2 reloads, which would  be even more difficult to reload quickly given the curved design of the magazines.  Plus they are less reliable.  The available photos show straight (not curved) magazines as his reserve, which an experienced shooter would prefer.

I have been competing in IPSC matches for 30 years, and even with the best equipment and magazines immediately available on my belt pouches, I find it difficult (if not impossible) to reliably reload a pistol magazine in three seconds.

Pistol magazines are a straight stack design, which means it's more easy to align the magazine with the gun. 

I've use an M16 in combat and in training, and even the (shorter, easier) 20-round magazine is difficult to reload quickly.  And in fact, we consistently loaded only 18 rounds into the magazines which were designed to accommodate 20 rounds, for reliability. 
(Magazines with 20 rounds in them tended to be more difficult to feed into the gun, because of excessive spring tension; and they were less reliable when feeding because the rounds tended to 'jam' when feeding into the gun.)

If we posit that the Idiot In Question had magazines immediately at hand, the scenario posited would give him 3 seconds for each reload (unrealistic ... rifle magazines are more difficult to seat than are pistol magazines) and four seconds to empty the two magazines, calling for a reload.

I know how fast an AR-type rifle cycles, and seems unrealistic that he loaded "90 rounds in 10 seconds" and  expended all the rounds in that period of time.  OR that he ran through two 30-round magazines, and reloaded, in that period.

Plus I've seen the videos .. the rate of fire seemed approximately 100 rounds a minute, at best.

Things that make you say ... "DUH!"

Tyler Perry says he doubts that his friend, Oprah Winfrey, and former first lady Michelle Obama will "ever" run for president.

(And neither will I!)

Rep. Foster Calls for "Military-Style" Guns to be Locked Up at Gun Clubs

Rep. Foster Calls for "Military-Style" Guns to be Locked Up at Gun Clubs:
 “I would hope that when you look at what’s happened with mass shootings in the last years that we, at a minimum, establish the principle that if you are going to own a military-type weapon that should be locked away in a gun club and not carried in public – that is completely consistent with the Second Amendment and it’s a principle that we should apply nationally,”
Representative Bill Foster (D-ILL)

Nobody would know better the perfect solution to Gun Violence than a Democratic politician from Illinois.

Wednesday, October 04, 2017

VEGAS! (The Conspiracy!)

The imaginative Conspiracy Theory about the Vegas shootings.

This is the first theory I've found:
(Natural News) It’s all hogwash. The “official” narrative of how things went down in the Las Vegas massacre is so full of holes that it begs the question of just how deep the truth about this attack really goes.
Details and quotes:

MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: Official story of Las Vegas shooting unravels; physical impossibility of lone gunman senior citizen makes narrative ludicrous –

People who aren’t familiar with firearms have no idea how difficult it is to conduct sustained fire with an automatic weapon. It requires tremendous strength, endurance and training — something that Stephen Paddock had none of. Military special forces operatives train for years to be able to manage such weapons and handle all the problems they pose (barrel overheating, ammo jams, double feeds, recoil management, etc.). The idea that some senior citizen accountant can just pick up a machine gun and lay down thousands of rounds of effective fire in a sustained, 10-minute assault even though he had no experience with such weapons is completely ludicrous.
Apparently the author of this article takes exception to the reportage.  I have no reason to suspect that there was a conspiracy among two or more murderers.   Still, the article was written within hours (not days) after the shooting, and before more detailed reports were available.   I have no idea how the author knew whether the shooter had formal weapons training.

I have a few rejoinders to offer (you may have your own):

  • It's not difficult to conduct sustained fire with a fully automatic weapon.  It's just difficult to HIT anything when you go "full-auto", except when your target is massed shoulder-to-shoulder, filling a city block.
  • Barrel overheating: while it is/can be an issue, one way to avoid that is to have SEVERAL rifles (he had 23?) so one rifle can cool off while he used the next one.  (Note that news reports mention an AR15 with a reddish-tinged barrel, indicating that it had overheated; perhaps had even begun to cook off.)
  • Ammo jams, double feeds: see above.   That is probably why he had so many rifles.
  • "Effective fire": when you are shooting at thousands of people, packed into a city block, at distances of a few hundred yards, you're not aiming.  You're "Flock Shooting".
  • "Special Training": the guy had ... what, 23 rifles with him?  Lived alone on a ranch?  He didn't need Special Training, just practice.  He had solitude to practice and time to plan; all news reports indicate that he had the opportunity to acquire "experience" with every weapon, in both calibers.
  • "Recoil Management":  he was shooting at a compacted mass of people, and had the advantage of height.   He didn't even have to aim.  He could have shot from the hip (and probably did, toward the end).  Besides, the .223/5.56  cartridge is low recoil.   Physical endurance was probably not an issue.  No special expertise was required.
  • "Senior Citizen Accountant":   What, do men automatically become physically infirm when they hit 65 years of age?   Senile, perhaps.   "Physical impossibility"? 
  • Conspiracy Theory:  There's no reason to assume that there was more than one shooter; remember the JFK Assassination, and the Texas Tower Sniper.   Both men deliberately sought the high-ground, although those murders were shooting at individuals.   
  • This one obviously planned his attack, deliberately chose a venue with many "targets" in a large area which could be engaged without a special set of skills by using fully automatic rifles to murder the most people in the shortest time.   He used the lessons provided by his hideous predecessors.

Diane Feinstein feels a little tingle running up her leg

The Vulpine character of American Liberal Politicians has once again revealed their disdain for the freedoms acknowledged by the Constitution of America.

Most particularly, the Second Amendment.

As the Democratic U.S. Senator for California said in this 1995 interview:
"Mister and Mrs. America ... turn them in!


Diane Feinstein may have just got her wish:

In the wake of the Las Vegas massacre, Diane may be feeling as excited as the Democratic politician who learned that Barack Obama was nominated for President.

She's not the only Liberal politician who has spotted her "Window of Opportunity": House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi shares her views:

Pelosi calls on Ryan to form select committee to curb gun violence - POLITICO:
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on Monday urged Speaker Paul Ryan to create a Select Committee on Gun Violence that would craft "common sense legislation" in the wake of a Las Vegas shooting that has left at least 59 people dead and injured more than 500. Pelosi wrote to Ryan as Democrats began edging back toward calls for gun control measures that they had largely avoided after the June shooting of House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.). Following the mass fatalities in Las Vegas, however, Pelosi called for "a day for action" as well as remembrance of those lost.

The "day of action" is, presumably,  a drive to castrate the American Constitution by enacting "local laws" (at a state level?) which obviate the Second Amendment.

It may be appropriate to notice that the drive for "common sense legislation" is trotted out by Liberals every time some whack-job opts for "Suicide By Cop" and performs the obligatory happy-dance with a rifle.   Fortunately for the Liberals, who love to portray those suicidal efforts as typical of 2nd Amendment supporters, there is no limit to the number of Insane Clowns who volunteer for the job.

Still, one wonders what legislation the Dems can envision, which would provide a means of making Insanity Illegal.  God knows that universal confiscation of firearms ... which is Number One With A Bullet on the Liberal agenda ... might lead to.

It would be as reasonable, and as effective, to make Insanity illegal.

Monday, October 02, 2017

Dems on Vegas: "Never let a serious crisis go to waste"

Las Vegas Shooter Stephen Paddock Had Recent Large Gambling Transactions - NBC News:
Hillary Clinton also expressed her grief in a tweet: "The crowd fled at the sound of gunshots. Imagine the deaths if the shooter had a silencer, which the NRA wants to make easier to get." She added: "Our grief isn't enough. We can and must put politics aside, stand up to the NRA, and work together to try to stop this from happening again."
This is what Hillary says in expression of her grief: a political statement saying "we must put politics aside" ... and then using a massacre to make a political point.

Expect more quotes from Democrats, saying (in effect) "... this would never have happened on OUR watch..."   and blaming President Trump for a situation which nobody could have foreseen nor prevented.

Mass Murderers are cowards; they're not afraid to die, they're just afraid to live out their angst without making a public statement.  Everyone else has to pay for their misery.

Hillary is making her own public statement, and considering the political flack which is sure to follow this tragedy, it's difficult to find the fine line between this particular mass murderer and her own willingness to throw half a nation under the bus (by imposing draconian "gun safety" rules) which would infringe upon the Constitutional Rights of law-abiding citizens.

And she didn't even have to pay this madman to provide the crisis which she is so eager to exploit.

You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before. Rahm Emanuel

UPDATE:  10/02/2017 ! 1900 PST

As of this moment, this is the most comprehensive reporting I've found on the internet about the Vegas Massacre.