Wednesday, March 28, 2018

Who Runs March for Our Lives?

I recently posted an opinion boosting teenage protestors (although I disagree with them) and wondering who were the "adults" who micromanaged  The March.

The following article may provide some answers:

Sultan Knish: Who Runs March for Our Lives?:
Gun control activists wring their hands over the NRA. They claim that a special interest lobby is illegitimately thwarting the “will of the people”. Yet it’s the anti-gun groups that are invariably false fronts. It’s very clear who runs the NRA. But the latest fake anti-NRA group is a nebulous shadow. Out front are the high school students and out back are the professional activists.

Here is CNN's version.

Yes, we DO want to take your guns

Following Stevens’ ‘Repeal 2A’ Rant, Anti-Gunners Run From Truth - Liberty Park Press:

Why does everything have to be a “loophole” and why are all restrictive gun control measures “common sense?”

Read The Whole Thing.

OMG ... an "Ammunition Loophole"? What will they think of next?

If you shoot a lot, you owe it to yourself to begin loading your own ammunition.

And even if you don't ... consider buying a press (you can buy a cheap one) and dies to match every center-fire cartridge you use.

And maybe even dies for a few "common calibers" which you don't currently use; you never know.

No Lawyers - Only Guns and Money: Loophole Here, Loophole There, Everything's A Freaking Loophole: Sen. Richard "I served in Vietnam (not!)" Blumenthal (D-CT) and Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL) have come up with a new loophole that MUST be closed. That is the ammunition sale loophole. To that end, they have introduced the Ammunition Background Check Act (S.2627 / HR 5383) The bill would require instant background checks for the purchase of ammunition.
You never know what's going to happen next.

Buy a reloading press set-up which accepts a change of caliber with only the replacement of heads with dies matching calibers you own; they're not inexpensive, but who knows when reloading dies will become on the "wish list" of gun-grabbers?

Use a lot of pistol cartridges?  Buy extra brass.  Also caliber-appropriate bullets; cheap by the 5,000 unit purchase.  The ,38 cartridge dies may be used for 9mm  in certain circumstances, but if you have guns in both calibers, buy dies dedicated to the specific cartridge, and pre-set them for each cartridge.

And mark them, whatever calibers you choose, so you can shoot in the guns you own.

Note that tapered cases will require a different die for straight-wall cases.  (Research in other websites to determine which dies can be used for varying calibers._)

Buy dies which are "adjustable"  .. for example, you have a .270?  Buy dies for .25-06, if you have both rifles.   And by the way ... buy chamber gauges for EVERY caliber you expect to use (the .270 vs .25-06 example is not reliable).

The Way Things Are Going:

It's difficult to predict what restrictions and legalities may be imposed as new Federal (or even state) laws are imposed. Chances are that it will be a while ... a year, maybe two ... before legislation begins to limit your rights to load your own ammunition.   

Perhaps never.

Perhaps tomorrow.

It seems a (regrettable) expectation that a government which is increasingly dominated by anti-gun influences may eventually begin to perceive that those who reload their own ammunition are not bounded by whatever laws they impose.  Best to beat them to the punch, and provide your own tools to obviate unjust laws.


If your instant background checks are not effective in preventing firearms sales to dangerous persons, why do you need the same kind of checks on ammunition purchases?   You are applying the same failed "solutions" to a similar "problem", but expecting better results?

And if your background checks are ineffective in preventing criminals from purchasing firearms, why do you suppose that the SAME checks on purchasing ammunition will be more effective?

Blumenthal and Wasserman Schultz Introduce Ammunition Background Check Act | Press Releases | United States Senator Richard Blumenthal:
Under current law, just as criminals, domestic abusers, and dangerously mentally ill individuals are prohibited from purchasing a firearm, they are also prohibited from purchasing ammunition. Unlike firearms, however, federal law does not require a background check to prevent the illegal purchase of bullets. The Ammunition Background Check Act of 2018 would close this loophole by requiring all buyers of ammunition to undergo an instant background check under the same FBI National Instant Background Check System (NICS), the same quick and easy process that applies to the purchase of firearms.

Referring to the previous statement:

Federal law does not require a background check to prevent the illegal purchase of bullets.
(By that, one assumes that the ignorant author of the article refers to "loaded ammunition", not the "bullets" themselves.  One would wish that the press would get their terminology correct to prevent misunderstandings.)
It's curious that a law is imposed to restrict the purchase of ammunition by the people who are restricted from purchasing firearms.  Do members of the Federal Government think that the laws they have already passed are likely to be disobeyed

This does not speak well to their confidence vis a vis the efficacy of their original law restricting access to firearms.

When I was a Sergeant in the Army, I was taught to "never give an order which you know will be not be obeyed".

Apparently, the Politicians who have chosen to join in this autocratic movement to ban 2nd Amendment Rights have not yet learned this lesson.   Ultimately, they may learn that it is much easier to restrict rights to own firearms... but quite a different problem to restrict rights to ammunition.

The Second Amendment has often

Want to stop gun violence now? Regulate bullets

As if we don't have enough idiotic ignorant liberals in America, now the LA TIMES is importing them from foreign countries on their Opinion Pages?
Want to stop gun violence now? Regulate bullets: Robert Muggah is a co-founder of the Igarap Institute, headquartered in Rio de Janeiro, and a co-director of the SecDev Group in Ottawa.
Here's a quick recap of his unworkable "solutions" (all of which we've seen before"):
Because bullets are so widely available, people often wonder whether ammunition can be regulated at all. The answer is yes.
"AT ALL"?   Sure.   Realistically, considering the volume?  No way!
A good place to start is the factories where bullets are manufactured. Strict control on the production and sale of unusually dangerous ammunition would be straightforward, since such sales can now be monitored digitally.
(Would you please define "unusually dangerous ammunition"?   All ammunition is dangerous ... but then, you know that.  Don't you?)
It's also cheaper than ever to mark and trace bullets with microscopic codes or serial numbers, which help law enforcement solve gun-related crimes. This data can be registered with the buyer's personal information at the time of purchase.
(Can you cite a single instance where 'serialized ammunition' has ever been used by law enforcement to solve a 'gun-related crime'?   I didn't think so)
What's more, there are far fewer producers of ammunition than there are producers of firearms, according to Small Arms Analytics, a research firm. This makes the ammunition industry easier to regulate.

Give me strength ... and a strong stomach!

(1)  The author seems to conveniently ignore the fact that ammunition ("Bullets"!) are manufactured in Bulk.  They are usually inspected by hand, for Quality Control; but they are packed automatically.   Which strongly implies that any effort to "serialize" ammunition will not result in a reliable method of tying the individual "bullet" with the  package by which they are sold.

(2)  "Serialized Ammunition" is packed in quantities of (usually) no more than 50 rounds per package.  Some are SOLD in bulk ... by the bucket-load.  So if you're going to "easily mark ... bullets with microscopic codes or serial numbers" you must ensure that the buyers' personal information is related to an unique group of "bullets".   What happens when a serialized "bullet" is packed in the wrong package ... and purchased by a person with criminal intent?  And the (cartridge case) retrieved at the scene of a crime has the 'serial number' which belongs to a 50-round package purchased by an innocent person?   In that case, your "easier to regulate" scheme has served two purposes; a criminal escapes, and an innocent is prosecuted.   Sometimes "easier" is not the same as "better".

(3) Making the "ammunition industry easier to regulate" is an effort which is not commonly considered a requirement.  Every round is marked with the manufacturers' headstamp, so if a cartridge ("bullet", in your parlance) causes an injury which leads to adjudication, it's obvious who the manufacturer may be.    Common headstamps include "WIN" (Winchester), for example, plus the caliber of the cartridge on the base of the cartridge.

 (Note that the "BULLET" is a component of the cartridge ... which a knowledgeable person would have known and would not have used the two terms interchangeably!!!)

(4) Speaking of which, I am assuming that you truly intend to "serialize ammunition" by placing an unique (or semi-unique) serial number on the base of the CARTRIDGE, not on the BULLET.

Because if you are truly not so ignorant that you don't know the difference between the Cartridge and the Bullet, then you are raising the expense of ammunition manufacture to a quantum-level of complexity.   

Mr. Muggah, I'll cut you some slack and assume ignorance on your part; but if you deliberately said that BULLETS can be serialized and administratively .... somehow .... be linked to the serial number on the package of CARTRIDGES purchased by a gun owner, then you are not only ignorant of the manufacturing process but abysmally, fatally, incomprehensibly STUPID!!!!!

Want to stop gun violence now?

Here's a plan:  Register every person who reads your L.A. Times article and nods their head as if to say: "Yep; sounds reasonable to me!"

Y'all have serious Mental Health Issues ... or else you're all just IDIOTS.

Tuesday, March 27, 2018

NRA Blunder?

Bloomberg was all over last weekend's anti-gun march, featuring a plethora of teenagers who were mad as heck and are just not going to take it any more.    And for lack of any other organization devoted to protecting our Constitutional Rights, they (both the marchers and Bloomberg) dumped a smelly load all over the NRA.

NRA Created the March for Our Lives That Now Threatens It - Bloomberg:
... The marches against gun violence would not have been as big without the undercurrent of rage that liberals, Democrats, good-government activists, racial minorities, ethical conservatives and others carry through daily life under President Donald Trump’s regime. And they wouldn’t have been as big without the cathartic breakthroughs of #MeToo and the Women’s March that preceded them.
(At a guess, an "ethical conservative" is a RINO.)

I was rather impressed with the determination of these young people to take on the 500 pound gorilla  (the National Rifle Association) in the room.   And even more impressed by the liberal adults who used them like a rented mule to further the Liberal Agenda.

It would have been more impressive if the marchers actually knew what an "assault weapon" was :   (H/T: MasterClass)

The reporter embarrassed a lot of teens when he asked them what an "Assault Weapon" is.

He should have asked them to define "Roofie".

They know what that is.

Protesters say ban assault weapons…whatever they are