NRA accepted donations from 20 Russian-linked contributors

NRA accepted donations from 20 Russian-linked contributors: Wyden has questioned the NRA for months about possible connections to Russia. Frazer said in the letter to the senator that the organization would stop providing information on the matter. "Given the extraordinarily time-consuming and burdensome nature of your requests, we must respectfully decline to engage in this beyond the clear answers we have already provided," he wrote.

Read this. Bookmark this. Then read it again.

The truth is in the details, and BOY HOWDY does this guy get into the guts of the details of firearms and homocides!

Essentially, more guns do NOT cause more crime; even (especially?) Murders.

Suicides? ... well, guns are as effective as the Japanese method of putting your skull between a pile-driver and the pile it's driving, but much more convenient.

Everybody’s Lying About the Link Between Gun Ownership and Homicide:

Everybody’s Lying About the Link Between Gun Ownership and Homicide There is no clear correlation whatsoever between gun ownership rate and gun homicide rate. Not within the USA. Not regionally. Not internationally. Not among peaceful societies. Not among violent ones. Gun ownership doesn’t make us safer. It doesn’t make us less safe. The correlation simply isn’t there. It is blatantly not-there. It is so tremendously not-there that the “not-there-ness” of it alone should be a huge news story.

(And yes, I have talked about this before. I'll talk about it again, next year.)

Shannon Watt vs Gun Violence

Some gun owners are violent people.

Let's get that out in the open; some gun owners just want to hurt people.

But the MAJORITY of gun owners don't fit that description

Shannon Watts is one of many writers who are delivering a tremendous amount of effort espousing her anti-gun violence message, and I agree that "Gun Violence" is an issue which needs to be addressed.

After Sandy Hook This Mom Started a Grassroots Movement Against Gun Violence That’s Spread to All 50 States - Health:

With her nonprofit Moms Demand Action, Shannon Watts has mobilized a women-led army of volunteers.  This story is part of Health’s #RealLifeStrong series, where we are celebrating women who represent strength, resilience, and grace.

There are hundreds of thousands of people in America who ... through mental incapacity or felonious inclination ... should never be allowed to be near a firearm.  These people need to be restricted.

ALSO ... there are millions of sane and responsible (but untrained) people who have never handled a firearm, but yet MAY chose to do so from ignorance or vanity because they think they are automatically "okay" to own and shoot firearms.  Well, they have the right, but too often they do not have the skills or the trained expertise to do so safely.

And yet,  there are millions of Americans who are sane, responsible people; trained and experienced  in safe gun-handling practices, who can be reliably expected to be ALWAYS safe and ALWAYS responsible with a gun in their hands.

Ms. Watts focuses on those who are either incapable or untrained in her screeds against firearms ownership.  She performs a valuable service in warning against firearms, but she lumps the untrained, the insane, and the competent together ... and in doing so, she does a disservice against the majority of firearms owners who ARE responsible, who ARE trained, who ARE experienced and competent.

Yes, everyone wants firearms to be used only by responsible owners.   But most firearms owners are law-abiding, and understand that there is a responsibility implicit in possession of a gun.  (Again, I do not include felons in this mix.) 

 Sometimes, new gun owners only need training and experience:  the NRA (National Rifle Association) and other firearms oriented organizations often provide these training opportunities, and often at little or no cost to the students.

Those who denigrate the NRA  generally ignore the fact that the NRA is one of the very few organized sources of firearms Safety TRAINING; usually, the detractors of the NRA consider it no better than a political wing of selfish profit-oriented firearms manufacturers.  The NRA is not the Political wing of Gun makers .. it represents people who use guns for a variety of reasons, which include hunting, competition, training AND Political Representation of their 2nd Amendment rights on the National scale.

I'm not asking Ms Watts to "tone down her rhetoric";  we all need to be aware of the dreadful consequences of a gun in the wrong hands; and I think that most legal firearms owners are very aware of their EXTRA need to be thoughtful of the consequences of their actions.

However, when she lumps felons, mentally unbalanced people, and responsible firearms owners together in the same cauldron of mere "possession", she does a disservice to those who never (and would never) deliberately use a firearm in an illegal or unsafe manner.

In our discussion of responsible firearm ownership, we need to be careful  to distinguish between the insane, the irresponsible, and the responsible American.

I've not read every opinion that Ms Watts has written (who could?!) so perhaps I am doing her a disservice by calling her to task.

But it would be a responsible action if she would acknowledge that there are a huge number of Americans who can (and do) use their legal firearms safely and responsibly ... and have never allowed their guns to shoot innocent people.

Gun owners are not typically violent people, by nature.  But in dire straits, they sometimes are willing to use their firearms in defense of home, self, family and other innocents.

Those who do not readily accept that concept are those whom I choose refer to as "People Who Have Never Been Mugged".

I've never been mugged.  But I've been "shot at", and so I can testify that in that circumstance, it's more of a comfort to have a gun than not to.

You mileage may vary.  Let me know the next time you wish you had a gun to defend yourself, your home, or your family.  I'd really like to know how you defended yourself against gratuitous violence.

They Say The Fault Line Runs Right Through Here

Sometimes, one cannot help but wish that the Pacific Coast Fault Line would truncate the California coastal area, so the rest of California could just be part of America:  as long as it took Sacramento.

California man arrested for bringing 'assault rifle, large capacity magazines' from Nevada:

 Authorities in Contra Costa County announced the arrest of a man who allegedly smuggled guns and magazines legally bought in Nevada into California where they are banned. 

Oh dear ... he violated the law which says he is in California, and no longer in America?   I've been to California; they have check stations at the border where troopers ask if you have any fruits or vegetables.  But they don't ask about munitions.  Is that fair?

 The man, Virgilio Salazar, 50, of Antioch, was arrested late last month as part of a task force effort after he allegedly purchased guns and magazines in Nevada and brought them back to the San Francisco Bay Area to resell. Police seized “a .223 Colt AR-15 assault rifle, CZ 9mm semi-auto assault pistol, three large capacity rifle magazines, and two large capacity pistol magazines,” during a search of Salazar’s home. 

That could have been me!

Whether he bought them to 'resell' is controversial, and immaterial.  The POINT is, he had an "assault rifle" (legally undefined), and "assault pistol" (nobody has any idea what THAT is), and various "large capacity magazines" in his possession.  (Nobody knows what number of round-capacity defines a "large capacity" magazine, either, except that it's a Really Bad Thing!)

 He was booked on felony charges under California law that include importing an assault rifle, possession of an assault rifle, and importing large capacity magazines. 

It would be asking too much for the news feed to cite the laws which Salazar is purported to have violated; but it would be nice if they DID tell us what the laws were so we could know when we were felons in California when we were not felons in ... say ... Oregon for possession of the same standard equipment.  (see: Gun Laws By State)

Salazar was released on $300,000 bail. Of note, the Contra Costa County Superior Court felony bail schedule, by comparison, sets bail for those charged with rape at $100,000 and child beating at $50,000.

Well, that's good to know, and thank you Guns-dot-Com for providing the comparative standards of Justice in California.

I have children and grand-children residing in California.  It's reassuring to know that California law is more concerned about magazines capable of holding more than x-number of rounds than the well-being of my grand-daughter.

If the coastal fault line runs through California (and it does), and if there Is A God In Heaven, it would be nice if He deleted Sacramento and its Liberal politicians but left the Secret Hidden Bunker where my grandchildren live.

Because frankly, I think they are in more danger from the Liberals who run the state, than from a guy who owns magazine holding more than 6 rounds.

Or whatever.

But it's good to know that I can no longer safely visit my grandchildren, because I don't travel under-armed, and I don't travel light.  Thank you again, California, for causing me to fear prison because I wish to defend myself against assailants ... including the No-Longer-Great State of California!

File under:  (Insane Clown Posse Liberals)

See:  "The Allure of the AR-15"

Jack-booted Thugs? I think not.

Police and Gun Owners come in two flavors:   "Good People" and "Not-So-Good People".
As responsible Gun Owners, we have an obligation to each other to stay in the first flavor.

There are millions of Americans who believe that gun owners are inclined toward violence. 

You and I know that is not true ... gun owners are among the most peaceful people in America.   We don't need to over-react to perceived slights or injustice.  We believe in the Laws which protect our rights.

When we speak about our Second Amendment Rights, we need to be precise in the words we use, lest they be misconstrued by folks who "are not yet sure" what to think about us:

Stop Gun Confiscation Orders In Your State | Current Action Alerts:

 So here’s what happens when a Gun Confiscation Order is issued in your name: the police or SWAT team arrives at your door to ransack your home and, if you resist, to arrest or even shoot you and your family.

I know, it is a dramatic statement; one which emphasizes the question of "just how far ARE the police authorized to go when a citizen resists confiscation?"

It all depends on the definition of "resist".   

One can only assume that the term includes resistance by violence ... which puts an entirely different color on the word "resist".   This seems to be the definition implied by the author of the quote.

Most of us would assume that when we "resist" confiscation of our legally owned fire-arms, we intend vehemence in discussion and/or requiring the advocacy of a lawyer to protest an unjust persecution of the gun owner.   None of these legitimate modes of resistance would have dramatic consequences to the gun owners or their families.   Or the police, or the neighbors, or their children.

But when the word "resist" postulates violence on the part of Law Enforcement Officers, that would be justified only as a response to violence initiated by the gun owner.

 Rational people know better than to offer violence against police exercising their assigned duty.

If you're not a rational person, you should not be a gun owner.

It frightens the children, and makes the rest of us look bad.

I never owned an M14

When I was in Basic Training back in 19-(mumble) I was trained on the M14.

What's not to like?  Major Power cartridge, wooden stock, weighed about 80 pounds and sights were exceedingly sucky.   But it had ... options.  You could actually go full-auto with The Beast, although nobody ever did so except by accident.

So I'm not going to be able to add that to my collection of American Military Rifles.

Unfortunately, I've got another hole in my collection, which is the M16.

I never liked the M16 because of a lot of reasons:  I shot them in training, if only a few rounds, and it was impossible to keep it on target because of the light weight (unlike the M14).   A few years later, a friend of mine invited us to his 'ranch' and let us all try his *legal* M16.

Older and wiser I was, but unable to resist;  I discovered that the damn thing still pulled high-and-right with every shot and I still suffered from the CHS syndrome.

(CHS:   "Can't Hit SHIT!)

So as I've replaced the M14 with the M1 Garand, I need to replace the M16 with an M15.  Just for the synchronicity of it all, you understand.

Anyone know were I can pick one up for a reasonable (old retired guy living on Social Security and Popcorn Farts) price?

There was a time when I was in possession of 30+ magazines for the M15/M16, but I gave them away.   It's funny how one becomes generous when one has magazines and no rifle to run them.

Anti-gun Terrorism

A half century ago, a bunch of ignorant pecker-heads burned the homes, businesses and churches of Americans because they didn't like the color of their skin

We've come a long way, Baby!
(Uh ... no, we haven't.)

North Carolina Gun Range Goes Up In Flames In Obvious Case Of Arson:

USA – -(Ammoland.com)- Early Monday morning, a North Carolina gun range, Triad Active Shooters Klub (TASK), outside Greensboro/Winston Salem North Carolina lost multiple structures and covered firing ports in an apparent case of sophisticated and deliberate arson carried out by numerous unknown perpetrators.

This was not a mere act of vandalism; it was an attempt to deprive a group of law-abiding Americans their constitutional rights.     No, it wasn't really a home, a business or a church.

But for people who embrace and practice their right to Keep and Bear Arms, a shooting range has similar elements.

A shooting range is a business, in the sense that people pay money to build and operate it.

It's not a residence, but for People of The Gun, a shooting range is where they go to relax and enjoy their hobby, to meet with friends and people of a like mind.

And although it would be a stretch of the imagination to call a shooting range a Church, the members of a gun club celebrate their Constitutional Rights with the reasonable expectation that it will be respected by sane citizens ... even if non-members don't agree with their practices or their philosophy.

This is AMERICA, people!

Are marksmen, hunters, defenders of hearth and home to be the target (excuse the irony) of hateful extremists?

A bit of advice: Tread softly on the toes of Men With Guns.

And remember ... they fired first.

6 Underreported Reasons Why The NRA Are Just The Worst

I really enjoy reading CRACKED.com

Not that I do so often, but when I do, there's never a dull moment between conspiracy theories and a tongue-in-cheek version of current controversy.

Here's a CRACKED.com version of the news, along with the occasional geeky comment:

6 Underreported Reasons Why The NRA Are Just The Worst:

With AR-15s in the news because of [insert this week's horribly depressing reason here], there's a chance you might be feeling rather peeved at the organization making sure guns are plentiful and easy to purchase in America, the National Rifle Association. But regardless of your politics, you've got to give the NRA some credit for their skill at hiding horrifying stories that would kill any other organization. Their feats range from preventing any real attempts at studying firearm violence to, well ...

(6) Campaigning To Re-Legalize Silencers Because Of "Hearing Safety"

I've been shooting guns for over 60 years.

I've fired "silenced" pistols.  Silencers don't STOP the sound of a shot; they just filter out the sound to the point where it's a "CRACK!" instead of a "BOOM!"   they lower the decibel level; they don't eliminate it.  So it's not as if you can shoot a silenced gun and nobody can hear it ... except in the movies.

Have you ever looked at the muffler on your car?  It's a couple of feet long and several inches wide, and weigh several pounds.   They're MUCH more effective than the silencer you can put on the end of the barrel of a gun.

Silencers are a boon to competitive shooters; they have nothing at all to do with sneaky shooting people so nobody knows you just killed them ... which is the scenario suggested by the CRACKED author who obviously doesn't know SHIT from SHINOLA when he tries to shine on readers who expect a knowledgeable analysis from a trusted source.


(5) Promoting Dumbass (And Dangerous) Conspiracy Theories

"The above-referenced piece of scarelore about the United States’ having already entered into a such a treaty — one which supposedly provides a “legal way around the 2nd Amendment” and will result in a “complete ban on all weapons for US citizens” — is erroneous in all its particulars ..."

Actually,  had Clinton been elected president, she would most likely have imposed draconian restrictions on the private ownership of firearms in America.   Note her comment:  "The Australian Solution is worth looking into".

The Australian Solution was to ban private ownership of most firearms, and to confiscate all but a very few "special license" firearms.   The reason Hillary felt safe in suggesting that it might be a viable solution in America is that the Australians "repurchased" the guns ... for pennies on the dollar.  And BTW ... you can't "repurchase" something you didn't own before.

It's all smoke and mirrors with Hillary, and it's all a great big joke for CRACKED!

For Americans, it's a violation of our Constitutional Rights.

Check out the actual text of the UN Arms Trade Treaty and tell me if you find verbiage which exempts private civilians from the extreme restraints imposed upon terrorists.  (You can't, because they cannot define the difference between a terrorist ans a home-owner.)

So ... yes, there IS a "Conspiracy" against Firearms Freedoms.  It' publically known as The Democratic Party, and privately know as Hillary Clinton .. who has been open in disavowing the validity of the Second Amendment.


(4) Screwing With Police Investigations By Not Allowing A Database Of Firearm Owners

Actually, the reason why Americans are against a Universal Database of Firearms owners is three-fold:
     *(A) Registration of all firearms provides a handy list of owners and guns when they come to confiscate your guns.  YOU may think this is a "Conspiracy Theory" on the part of legal firearms owners, but that's the current trend in Democratic Politics.   Yes, they DO want to "take your guns away" ... and they don't care how responsible you, as an individual, may be; they just want your guns.

    *(B)  Those states which have pushed, and/or are pushing for the legislation, are typically NE Seaboard states (NY, NJ, etc.) which are liberal and "citified".  *Also California*   They don't usually have a lot of gun owners, in part because of the cultural differences between themselves and more "rural" states.   City folks tend to be Liberal ... and vote that way!   It's significant that of all those states have been allowed to pass restrictive firearms laws as a tool to 'reduce gun violence' and "make it easier to resolve crime".  It's worth mentioning that not one state cited has solved a gun crime because of registration.

    *(C) Also, firearms owners are generally independent persons who do not care to be part of a "database".  Ownership of a gun is a private thing, just as is your sexual orientation and your religion.
It's significant that while your sexual orientation is not a Constitutional Right, Religion and Guns ARE!



(3) Exploiting Hurricane Harvey To Sell Guns To People Afraid Of Looters

Natural Disasters are an excellent example of exactly WHY we need out Second Amendment rights.
When the local infrastructure is INOPERATIVE because all communications lines are substantially  inoperative, police and emergency medical and fire protection resources are typically overwhelmed by all the calls for help.

South Eastern American disasters over the past few years have demonstrated that looters have been able to have their way with honest citizens, their persons and their property, when law enforcement is overloaded by the volume of calls for help.

When seconds count, Emergency Responders are weeks away; the best they can do is to (a) confiscate privately owned firearms and (b) pick up the corpses.   Oh, did I mention that the phones don't work?  Who you gonna call  .. Ghost Busters?

Police in these situations have as part of their "game plan" to confiscate privately owned firearms.  This does nothing to ensure the safety of their citizens, but it DOES ensure that marauders, thieves, rapist and killers are assured that all of their would-be victims are unable to protect themselves against those bad boys who didn't register their guns  (and never would).

(2) Endorsing The Work Of The World's Hackiest Researcher

John Lott.     The author of "More Guns/Less Crime", is a world renowned researcher who has written many scholarly articles, and has recently focused his attention on the firearm as a necessary took when seconds count and the police are minutes away.

Op-eds by Lott have appeared in such places as the Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, and the Chicago Tribune. Since 2008, he has been a columnist for Fox News, initially weekly.^[

Typifying Lott as "The World's Hackiest Researcher" is not only dismissive, but ignorant.   Just because the accuser refuses to acknowledge the experience and expertise of DOCTOR Lott doesn't reliably dismiss his experience and scholarly contributions to the issue of firearms ownership.   The accusation deserves less attention than it has already received.
And I would like to know when the accuser was awarded his PHD, and in what  area of expertise.

No?

I didn't think so.  Cheap shot, dude!


(1) Sabotaging A Deal Between Smith &Wesson And The Government To Make Guns Safer After Columbine

 S&W developed a whole bunch of measures that they thought they  could implement to make their products safer. These included a commitment to researching and developing "smart guns" that could be locked to a specific person, plans to install safety devices on all new handguns that could lock them when not in use, and other less sci-fi-sounding but equally interesting ideas.

Actually, a lot of firearms manufacturers worked diligently to develop "Smart Guns" which would meet the requirements of ... basically ... prohibit access the the firing mechanism of a pistol by anyone except the registered owner(s).

The problem was, that when S&W offered firearms with "personal identifiers" to prevent non-authorized folks to use the gun ... the authorized folks couldn't use the guns, either.

You may be focused on preventing unauthorized usage of guns, but the folks who will BUY THEM want to make sure that when THEY pull a gun, it's going to work.  And S&W were unable to buile a reliable "Safe" gun.

In the final analysis, people who buy guns only want their car to start when they turn the key, their cell phone to connect every call, anti-biotics to cure their ills, and guns to work when they really really need to shoot someone who threatens them.

ULTIMATELY ... WHEN IT COMES TO FIREARMS, "CRACKED" DOESN'T KNOW WHAT IT'S TALKING ABOUT!1!

Gun Control Game Plan Revealed

Yes, they do want to confiscate your legally acquired firearms, and yes, they do campaign for illegal immigration.

Who are "They"?

My Turn: Gregg Lee Carter: Serious gun control is coming  in 2021:

Three trends give hope to gun control advocates that 2021 will see the Democrats back in power and a subsequent strengthening of gun laws: The rise of interest in young adults in politics (who traditionally have low turnout, but now have an issue — gun control — motivating them to vote); the generally low popularity of the Republican president, Donald Trump; and the increasing presence of new immigrants in the electorate, with most coming from societies where gun ownership is neither commonplace nor considered a fundamental right of the citizenry. Thus, recent immigrants — from Latin America, Asia, and Africa — tend to be supportive of stronger gun control legislation, and at the same time tend to vote for the Democratic Party.

They really do not like the Constitution, and they are uncomfortable with you having "Rights" that they don't want for themselves.
They are Sheep.

Arms Arbitrarily Designated as "Assault Weapons" Judicially Restricted

I admit that I am confused by the various interpretations of the Second Amendment.
Massachusetts' ban on assault weapons doesn't violate 2nd Amendment, judge rules | Fox News:

I always thought that it protected the right of the American Individual to possess, carry and use a firearm in defense of  person, property and domicile.

There is no "assault weapon" clause in the Second Amendment; indeed, it has never been defined.

My understanding was that any weapon which might be used by an assailant was equally protected as a legitimate arm to be used by a legitimate private citizen in defense of home, hearth and family.   Further, the "militia" reference in the text suggests that the private citizen ("the militia is ...

Now I am confused by a myriad of laws which limit the rights of a private law-abiding citizen in regard to the type and capacity of the firearm which he/she may use to defend against (for example) a "Home Invader".

If criminals have access to 'prohibited" firearms, why does a private citizen face prison when he/she uses the same weapon as a defense?

What in the Second Amendment defines "Assault Weapons"?

A judge in Massachusetts on Friday ruled against a lawsuit that questioned the state’s ban on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines, declaring that the weapons were not protected by the Second Amendment. Assault weapons are considered to be military firearms, U.S. District Judge William Young said in his ruling, therefore disqualifying them from being included in a citizen’s right to “bear arms.”