It was just a normal “football play” that resulted in a serious injury for Tennessee State linebacker Christion Abercrombie. According to The Tennessean, TSU head coach Rod Reed said in a radio interview Sunday morning that Abercrombie “was taking on a block” in the second quarter against Vanderbilt when he suffered what has been deemed a serious head injury. “It wasn’t anything malicious or dirty or anything like that. Just an unfortunate situation,” Reed said.
(emphasis added)
Maybe he'll quit football and take up competitive shooting .. if he recovers.
The opinion column of the New York Times is always good for a "WTF?" moment.
(SEE: Below The Fold)
Despite the recent (?) spate of school shootings, NYT thinks that arming teachers would:
"... contribute to a climate of fear in schools and note that study after study equates more guns with more injuries and deaths."
It's significant that the wise editors of the NYT use the term "contribute to the climate of fear", which tacitly acknowledges that a "climate of fear"already exists in schools, after reports of predators attacking schoolchildren around the country.
When the only one with a gun is a predator, it's difficult to imagine how an armed defender could make any student more fearful .... unless the NYT is willing to encourage students to "Pay No Attention To The Man Shooting Your Friends". Apparently, students should not trust their teachers, but they should trust interlopers.
Three used firearms The rest used knives, or various forms of strangulation. Apparently, when teachers run amok, they use the tools at hand ... some of which are more gruesome than others. (Many of the reports note an "interpersonal" relationship; the teacher was banging having an affair-gone-wrong with the student.)
I haven't found any reports of Mister Jones or Miss Smith Niner-ing their Junior High School class on Civics in Dubeque Iowa. THE FOLD:
That’s why the Eagle Eye has come together and proposed these following changes to gun policy. We believe federal and state governments must put these in place to ensure that mass shootings and gun violence cease to be a staple of American culture.
I believe that any effort put forth by our "government" is more likely to infringe upon our Constitutional rights than to support them. And anyone who invites the Government into our privacy is an absolute dingbat clueless asshole.
Yeah ... I'm talking about You, Guardian! Ban semi-automatic weapons that fire high-velocity rounds
Civilians shouldn’t have access to the same weapons that soldiers do. That’s a gross misuse of the second amendment.
These weapons were designed for dealing death: not to animals or targets, but to other human beings. The fact that they can be bought by the public does not promote domestic tranquility. Rather, their availability puts us into the kind of danger faced by men and women trapped in war zones
WHY shouldn't Civilians have the same weapons (and ammunition) as soldiers do? In America, we revolted against British Rule by arming ourselves with the same arms and ammunition as our oppressors used .. and we kicked their asses!
Sorry .. are you British? Did I offend you?
Terms not defined. And yes ... assuming that all semi-auto weapons fire "high velocity rounds", this probably defines the weapons which people who are attacked would choose to defend themselves. It's difficult do carry on a dialogue with someone who is entirely CLUELESS about the technicalities of the subject.
Moving on ....
This situation reflects a failure of our government. It must be corrected to ensure the safety of those guaranteed the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
"Our Government" is rife with failures. It sounds naive to expect Our Government to accept responsibility for our individual life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
The police are not responsible for our safety. Look it up ... they just enforce the law, and clean up the mess "after". They don't protect, whatever the chi-chi motto is painted on their patrol cars.
"Our Government" has chosen to NOT accept this responsibility.
High-capacity magazines played a huge role in the shooting at our school. In only 10 minutes, 17 people were killed, and 17 others were injured. This is unacceptable. That’s why we believe that bump stocks, high-capacity magazines and similar accessories that simulate the effect of military-grade automatic weapons should be banned.
If you were attacked by a number of people and weren't very good at shooting .. wouldn't you want a lot of ammunition to defend yourself?
This is a "Second Amendment" nation. We hold these truths to be self-evident .. unlike the British whose truths are all wrapped up in gauze and tape.
Establish a database of gun sales and universal background checks
We believe that there should be a database recording which guns are sold in the United States, to whom, and of what caliber and capacity they are.
That makes it very easy for the government which you don't expect to protect you to take your guns away from you. Are you SURE this is what you want?
You offer no reason why you would want your government to have such a Draconian control over you. You sound like a person who trusts anonymous elected officials to be more caring about your health than you are. Don't you think you are the best person to decide how you should be protected?
Why in the WORLD would you want that?
The Government already knows more about you that you would wish ... the only reason for "them" knowing all that crap is so that they can violate your civil rights arbitrarily.
Together with universal background checks, this system would help law enforcement stop a potentially dangerous person before they commit a gun crime.
Thanks to loopholes, people who otherwise wouldn’t be able to buy firearms are able to purchase them at gun shows and secondhand sales. The existence of these loopholes reflects the ineptitude of state and federal legislators. If we are serious about preventing people from purchasing deadly weapons, we must monitor sales that take place at gun shows and on secondhand markets. This is especially urgent given the danger posed by mentally unstable and violent individuals armed with firearms.
There is no "Gun Show Loophole".
What there IS, is the ability for two people to make a private transaction of any commodity without involving the Federal Government.
Which suits me just FINE.
Allow the CDC to make recommendations for gun reform
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention should be allowed to conduct research on the dangers of gun violence. The fact that they are currently prohibited from doing so undermines the first amendment. It also violates the rights of the American people.
The CDC has been restricted in its reportage ... not its research. The reason is that the CDC allowed it's anti-gun agenda to negatively influence its reportage because they emphasized gun attacks, and never mentioned defensive use of guns (which saved lives).
Their support has NOT been cut off; several other sources (such as Harvard University) have come forward to provide funding. But our tax dollars no longer are arbitrarily used to support a political position which some of us do not espouse.
Personally, I'm grateful. I hate the thought that my tax dollars would be wasted on a governmental department dedicated to undermining my Second Amendment Freedoms!
Raise the firearm purchase age to 21
If you;'re old enough to serve in the army, you're ole enough to pack a gun.
Dedicate more funds to mental health research and professionals
bunch of crap; the researchers and professinals are more often as bug-house nuts and their patients.
Increase funding for school security
Our children are our future. They should be protected against any threat.
No effort is too expensive, no defense is too radical.
Besmirching the image of honest, law-abiding gun owners by conflating them with criminals and madmen is both dishonest and misleading.
We cannot tell the difference between a peaceful, law-abiding gun owner and a criminal or a madman, except for their record of arrests. Smearing the peaceful with the tar of madmen and felons is Not Helpful ... it only flings another torch into the flames of ignorance and Constitutional apathy.
Too often, the authors of such screeds will include not-so-subtle hints that Americans With Guns feel that their masculinity is threatened when faced with a movement for total civilian disarmament.
No, we're only sad that you chose to have such a low opinion of America.
I am coming from a place of passion, but I am willing to compromise. Yes of course, in the churn of yet another school shooting, in the only country where this happens anywhere near as often as it does, I want to make the problem go away. In these all-too-common moments, my most special wish is to make all the guns disappear. I would also, while we’re at it, like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony, and the song I would like to teach us all is “Jump! (For My Love)” by the Pointer Sisters.
"... I Am Willing To Compromise ... "
"... my most special wish is to make all the guns disappear"
No. Actually, you are willing to encourage the repeal of the Second Amendment for the purpose of advancing your career. Millions of Americans own and use firearms legally and safely, and have done so for centuries. You offer no plan for "compromise" ... which is good; because every "compromise" which anti-gun writers propose only compromises the rights of Americans to enjoy their Second Amendment rights. When will a "compromise" act in favor of responsible gun owners?
Never yet, so far.
We have "compromised" our rights so often that it's a wonder that we have any rights at all ... and "you people" still ask for us to give you more. There is never enough as long as anti-gun people define the word.
The suggestion that lawful gun-owners will over-react (and badly!) to the proposition that "now you want to take all the guns away" .... is another taunt. Yes, he does want to take your guns away.
Or if he's just another media whore (one will write anything to elicit a response, and make him more marketable as an author) we must admit that he's very good at stirring up public opinion against defenders of the Second Amendment.
The only thing we know for sure, is that any group (including gun owners) will have "bad apples" who make the huge majority seem irresponsible.
I guess Opinion Writers have their bad apples, as well.
When you write a piece about America’s unique and uniquely deadly gun problem, as I have done many times for Esquire, you expect a few things to happen: gun-control people will applaud, gun-rights advocates will get upset, and your Twitter mentions will be a mess for a few days.
But when, in the face of another school shooting, you write an angry one about how you’ve finally had it and now you want to take all the guns away—even if that piece ends up being pretty moderate when you actually look at it—a whole new series of events will happen. In case you’re thinking about taking on such an endeavor, here are a few things to expect. (See the original article for more.)
“We have a message for the NRA – National Rifle Association of America: If you hurt people, we ARE coming for your guns,” wrote Newsome.
The message was accompanied by a video featuring Newsome speaking on how the only thing more certain than another mass shooting is the “moral cowardice” of Republicans who ignore it.
What ever gave him the idea that NRA members want to "hurt people"?
I have no information which suggests that the NRA, or members of this organization, have ever (Individually or as a group) deliberately hurt people except in defense of innocents who were arbitrarily attacked by other people. So I don't know what this means.
And what has all this to do with "Mass Shootings". Has he information about NRA membership of murderers in the news, recently? If so, I've not been privy to that news.
The charge of "moral cowardice" is equally as confusing;. As far as I know, the only moral cowardice possible is the dis-inclination to defend self, home and family against assault by those who choose to attack those who they assume are unarmed ... Lord knows the attackers are never, ever, members of the NRA!
Is he accusing Republicans of "Moral Cowardice" because of their political affiliation? Someone should tell the Republican Party that their membership is composed of "Moral Cowards". I'm sure that would be news to them!
I am currently a member of the National Rifle Association (NRA); but the moral equivalence of the NRA has never been an issue; if anything, I sometimes feel that the NRA is insufficiently supportive of the Second Amendment.
An "armed society" is a "respectful society". So saith the memorable author Robert Heinlein, and more people know his name than know the name of Gavin Knowsless!
And not all members of the NRA are "Republicans" who "ignore" ... well, the original article is lacking in the definition of moral fiber which is, in his view, ignored by NRA members. Many of our members are Democrats, and members of other policies; our common ground is to just be left alone to enjoy a day hunting, or shooting a match on the range.
God knows that our intention is not to "hurt people"!
Newsome speaks of "Moral Cowardice", but I'm sure that my brothers who are armed are as astounded as I am to learn that we are so charged. Many of us are veterans, as I am, and whatever cowardice we may rightfully be accused of is to go to a foreign country and fight a war for a cause which we did not agree ... but we went there, and fought a war we did not believe in, only because our National Leaders decreed that we should do so.
So to my mind, the only "Moral Cowardice" of which we may be accused, is the we didn't emigrate to Canada instead of allowing ourselves to be drafted. Did Newsome ever face such a moral quandary?
Newsome, you've spent too much time in The Land of Fruits and Nuts. You should get out more. Go visit folks in flyover country and discover America. You may be surprised to learn that most Americans love their country more than their state or their selves, and are willing to get shot at when they are drafted into that "Crazy Asian War" which you so conveniently missed.
Newsome's entire screed is based on disrespect for his country, his people, and anyone whose political viewpoint differs from his.
I lived in California for a couple of years in the 1970's; The weather was great, but I sure am glad I moved out of there before people like THIS nimrod came into power!
A liberal snowflake gets to know gun culture from the inside.
The author walks us through every detail of his decision to 'find out' what the attraction of firearms might be. And during the trip, he pays much attention to detailing how upsetting ... yet fascinating ... the journey has been.
As I read through the article (excellent written, atypically "fair and balanced" as they say", I began to wonder about his motivation. If he finds guns so fearful, why did do this. True, it's a fine example of expository skills; and though it's rather long, it's not a waste of time and I hope he received a fat check for his efforts.
But still .. he harps on the fear he felt. Why the fear? Was there something special which made the 'experiment' particularly dreadful for him?
Then toward the end of the article, *under the header "TRIGGER WARNING"* he provides full exposure:
He has a suicidal tendency which he has fought years; he controls it by medication.
There Are Some People Who Simply Should Not Have A Gun
I have made this point in my writings over the past ten years here. To my mind the sorts of people who should not have a gun include:
Violent Criminals
People who are either incompetent, untrained, or unable to comprehend the lethality
Mentally Unstable People
There is obviously some overlap in these three major categories, plus sub-categories not defined here.
But a person who is admittedly suicidal, and who requires medication to control suicidal urges, is certainly playing a life-and-death game with himself. This author qualifies in the second and third categories, although he makes a stringent effort to describe why he shouldn't be included in the second (and lacking a felony conviction, he has not qualified for the first category).
Although I admired his work, and still have my copy of "Hunting with Hemingway", I lost my respect for Ernest Hemingway when he took his own life.
And you, sir, are no Hemingway.
Please follow up with your better judgement, and remove that damn Glock from your life, rather than to remove your life with the Glock.
Law abiding firearms owners are demeaned, castigated, and insulted on a daily basis by liberal "pundits" who suggest (and too often specifically state) that we are shills for "The Gun Lobby", "Firearms Manufacturers", and the NRA.
It's demeaning to read Internet articles which suggest that we are irresponsible, infantile, and are unduly influenced by money-grubbing industry sharpies with the immoral purpose of taking advantage of our lack of civil and moral values.
It's convenient when a Gun GrabberGun Control shillGun Safety Advocate comes out in the open about their agenda:
Last week, Republicans rejoiced, and some Democrats winced privately, when Nancy Pelosi said she hoped regulation of bump stocks—the device the Las Vegas shooter used to make his weapon more deadly—would be a “slippery slope” to further regulation. Democrats were concerned that Pelosi had handed the NRA a political cudgel the group would brandish against every one of them. But Pelosi was right, and I would like to see more Democrats find her courage, because the alternative is to surrender our ideals, and the moral high ground, for no discernible upside.
I fail to understand where the "moral high ground" lies in undermining the Constitution and abrogating the civil rights of Americans.
We could lay the death of progress at the feet of the Republican Party, which has become a wholly-owned subsidiary of the National Rifle Association, but that would ultimately be a cop out.
[emphasis added]
Or the Republican party might be defined as that political group which protect the Constitution; all of it. And it could be than many firearms owners are Republicans because the alternative ... to elect Democratic representatives to high office ... would compromise our own civil priorities and moral values. And since too many Democratic Officials are ignorant of the term "Democratic" (representing ALL, equally) ...
The speaker for the Democratic Opposition to Civil Rights continues:
But when it comes to firearms we routinely fail. We are now in the midst of another gun debate that we will almost certainly lose. The majority of Americans support stricter gun laws; less than 40 percent of Americans live in a house with a gun; consensus Democratic gun control proposals like requiring universal background checks and banning assault weapons poll above 80 percent; and yet the idea that even trivial legislation will reach the president’s desk remains a fantasy.
"40 percent of Americans" vs Democratic Polls
(See Below The Fold for a short discussion of "DEMOCRATIC")
It's a strange thing about the Constitution. Each generation of Liberals fails to understand that the point is to avoid the "tyranny of the majority". In this case, the author conveniently fails to cite the source of his statistics. Which I wouldn't believe even if he did.
If you were asked to respond to a telephone "poll" asking if you had firearms in your house, how would you answer? My own unofficial poll is that 100% of Americans who own guns would decline to answer in the affirmative. But I'm more honest than the author; I only asked myself.
It's nobody's business whether I own firearms. I freely acknowledge here that I do, because it's obvious; not because some nosy reporter asked me to become a statistic.
"... another gun debate that we will almost certainly lose ..."
... and rightly so. People who want to undermine my Constitution have no moral stance here. It is immoral for one person to demand that a law-abiding American citizen be denied his right to defense of family, self, home and property.
The author suggests asserts that the Republican Party ... has become a wholly-owned subsidiary of the National Rifle Association, which is misleading at best, disingenuous at worst.
The National Rifle Association (NRA) is a representative organization which is supported by its (approximately 5 million) members, who are firearms owners. Contributions and support are generously sourced by business interests (which in turn are supported by the purchases made by firearms owners); but the corporate interests would go out of business if NOT for the support of firearms owners and other sportsmen. The NRA would not exist without its (relatively small) membership.
Note: Political Party Membership varies in the United States, with about 45% in each major party (changes annually). Membership in the NRA seems relatively miniscule compared to major political party membership, which is somewhere in the area of 100 million members; give or take 5 million.
It's as disingenuous to suggest that the members of the NRA are controlled by the NRA, as to suggest that the NRA is controlled by the firearms industry. It's a tripartite relationship, each wing as dependent on the others.
And firearms laws would not be enacted by our elected representatives if they were not voted into office. Note here that the power of the NRA does not come from financial contributions, but by the VOTES OF LEGAL FIREARMS OWNERS. Politics is funded by money, but it is decided by votes. Firearms owners are often single-issue voters, and both parties are aware of this.
People are increasingly buying more lethal guns, and arming themselves for purposes of protection rather than for hunting or recreation, new research shows.
There's no doubt that people are buying "more lethal" guns, if one defines the term of "over .22 caliber".
And doubtless, many are purchasing firearms for no other purpose than protection of property, self and family. Also doubtless, the "Bad Guys" are also acquiring (read: stealing) Big Guns.
By the way, these firearms include AR15 variants .. which are usually, after all, .223 caliber.
But the AR15 (et al) have a SPECIAL entry; they are scary looking!
{shudder!}
The lead for the artical focuses on "more lethal guns" and "for purposes of protection rather than for hunting or recreation".
I submit that the author has insufficient experience or knowledge of current "Action Shooting Sports" to be competent to defend his statement.
In The First Place:
... there is nothing wrong with buying guns for protection. The American society itself has become more lethal without the "guns" entering into the equation.
"Drugs" and "Gangs" are the driving factors of the increased violence.
Look at the published statistics ... you virtually can't surf the net without finding a website which address these two words. Usually, they're used in the same sentence. The reason is, 90% of gun crimes ("gun violence") are committed by gangs and 90% of the assailants AND victims are gang members, or innocents who are caught in the crossfire.
This isn't a "GUN" problem; it's a "SOCIETY" problem.
The answer to THAT problem is going to be very, very expensive. Somebody needs to define the answer (see below), and more somebodys have to pay for it.
And the middle-class has to make that 5-year old Chevy last for another year.
The cops are always a minute farther away than they need to be, to be useful
And the Upper Class isn't directly affected by Crime In The Streets; they hire their guns.
In The Second Place:
This isn't about a congressman being shot in the ass on a baseball field.
This is about crime in the streets, home invasion; about old white people being attacked in public for no better reason than the rage of a young black man who can't make an honest living, and he blames it on the white man.
And he's probably right; he just chose the wrong old white man. That guy in the wheelchair never had a vote in Congress.
Congress doesn't have a solution:
Well, they do have one solution; they have introduced a bill to allow congressmen to carry a personal firearm any time, any place (except in certain governmental venues, and on airplanes".
They didn't do this to find a solution for YOUR benefit. They did it because they're running scared and the pusillanimous pussies are going to protect themselves and their loved ones.
(Note:THEIR SPOUSES are not covered under the terms of this bill, which indicative of .... something.)
"Okay, Job Well Done. It's Miller Time, and I'm buying down at Hamilton House" (or whatever the current senatorial watering hole is named.)
Essentially, Congress has shown that they don't consider GUNS to be the problem.
As far as they're concerned, the problem is they ... personally ... don't have ENOUGH guns!
(So they're making them available to those members of their own gang. Sound familiar?)
BUT
In The Third Place: HUNTING
The article (remember where we started out?) mentioned this: buying more lethal guns, and arming themselves for purposes of protection rather than for hunting or recreation
Most people are not aware that a HUGE number of firearms are being purchased for exactly those reasons. For example, the AR15 is legal for hunting critters up to DEER size in most states now so everyone of those AR15's might be purchased for hunting.
And the AR15 is not generally considered a "more lethal firearm" when compared to those customarily used for hunting such as the 12 gauge shotgun, the .30-06 rifle, and the less-frequently used ,but increasingly popular chosen handgun for hunting. the .44 Magnum pistol.
(SEE PERSONAL OPINION, BELOW)
In The Fourth Place: COMPETITION
Most people are entirely unaware that there are three styles of competition shooting which may or may not involve the acquisition of "more lethal guns" in pursuit of achieving either a competitive advantage, or qualifying to use the chosen caliber at all.
There are three (at least)
Although I assure you that many of these ladies and gentlemen could shoot your socks off and you wouldn't even realize you were bare-footed until you felt the gravel between your toes.
WHICH BRINGS US TO THE CRUX OF THE STORY:
IPSC and USPSA
The real thing when it comes to "MORE LETHAL GUNS".
IPSC stands for the International Practical Shooter's Confederation, and USPSA is the American Region .. United States Practical Shooter's Association.
USPSA is the original Association for the sport; IPSC is International body. Because many IPSC member regions have national firearms restrictions which are not recognized by Americans, not all IPSC competition rules are relevant to USPSA competitions. I have never participated in an international (IPSC) competition. Their target designs are different (USPSA targets have been accused of being "Silhouettes of Human Beings" which is illegal in some countries.)
The rules are than you must be using a pistol with a caliber of 9mm or larger. For the metric-confused (us Americans), that's .38 caliber. Which is, we assume, a "More Lethal Gun"
A VARIATION ON THE USPSA THEME!
IDPA: (International Defensive Pistol Association)
IDPA generally requires targets be engaged from behind cover.
IDPA doesn't consider firearms with a caliber smaller than 9mm to be "DEFENSIVE".
IDPA has requirements including (shooting behind cover) and (not dropping magazines with ammo still in them) and (pistol must be carried "concealed" at the start of the stage).
You know, Defensive stuff.
Other than that, and with a few important exceptions, the rules are much like IPSC/USPSA. ANOTHER VARIATION ON THE USPSA THEME!
SPEED STEEL: (CF: Steel Challenge)
You shoot only steel plates. You are penalized for every target you do not hit. Targets will not fall when hit; they are painted between shooters so the number of targets "marked" by impact of each shooter's bullet can be scored. You are judged based on the time you take to complete each of several turns, and your score is the time you time to complete she shooting problem. Misses are penalized.
Speed Steel is different from IPSC/USPSA and IDPA in that no cardboard targets are presented, and your score is only the total amount of time you take to complete three iterations of each stage.
The competitor with the fastest accumulated time wins each stage.
Speed Steel has a special division for competitors using .22 caliber pistols; they are not required to holster before starting each 'run' on a stage. None of the other sports mentioned have this allowance for "Less Than Lethal" calibers. There are variations in all these latter sports based on equipment, defined only to make competition more equitable between competitors with difference firearm definitions. Tip of the hat to variations such as cowboy action and quick-draw competitions. There are more! SUMMARY:
It should be obvious to the reader that "More Lethal Calibers" have become a large part of competitive shooting in recent years. Only one of the four"Action" firearm sports cited allow "Less Lethal" (eg: .22 caliber) weapons to be used.
And as these action shooting sport become increasingly popular with each passing year, more shooters will become interested, and more citizens will be purchasing "More Lethal" firearms to address their new favorite shooting sport.
What's their attraction?
These sports allow their owners to learn safe shooting skills, become acquainted with the manual-at-arms of each individual firearm, and at the same time meet new friends who are sportsmen with similar interests. You can say much the same for a pickup game at your neighborhood baseball game .. except hopefully without the INCOMING gunfire.
SO if it seems to the ignorami press that "People are increasingly buying more lethal guns, and arming themselves for purposes of protection rather than for hunting or recreation, new research shows ", it's possible that a great number of the purchase of "More Lethal Guns" has been driven by the dramatic expansion of choices between the various exciting and rewarding Shooting Sports.
In other words: people are buying guns so they can play "Gun Games".
Don't laugh, fellows ... if you get hooked on the challenge and the chance to meet new friends with similar interests in the shooting sports, you too may find yourself comparing the size of your magazines.
The Milwaukee (Wisc.) Journal Sentinel's position has been well known for years; they're against current "gun control" laws, and think there should be more of them.
Their "Editorial Page Editor", David D. Haynes, has some scathing comments in his screed regarding the blame due to the National Rifle Association
There is zero chance that the shooting of U.S. Rep. Steve Scalise earlier this week will change anything about the gun debate in Washington, D.C. That’s because there is no gun debate in Washington, D.C. The NRA has won. Not the debate — the gun lobby remains very wrong on the facts. But the group had won the politics — big time.
So apparently Dave's outrage is based on on laws which were enacted due to the urging of the NRA, which has as one of its primary goals to protect our Constitutional rights to "Keep and Bear Arms".
I'm not sure if he is equally adamant in his condemnation of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which shares some of these goals. Haynes didn't say.
But Haynes is certain that the NRA has goals which he cannot support. And he purports to speak as an "insider" in the firearms owners' community:
I have been a gun owner all my life. I’ve shot long guns of every kind and a variety of handguns. I have no problem with people owning them for legitimate purposes. I own a half dozen of my own firearms, several of which have been handed down for generations within our family.
But as a gun owner and outdoorsman, I also have no concerns with expanded background checks or limits on the kinds of firearms an individual can own. Civilians don’t need military-style assault rifles, which are nothing but tools for killing people. Civilians don’t need easier access to silencers or armor-piercing bullets, either, which a bill that was to be debated Wednesday in a House committee would allow. After the shooting, the debate was canceled — for now.
(I have a hard time responding directly to posts on this "... The Porch ..." blog, but it's a serious gunblogger site and deserves serious discussion: this is the best way I could find to initiate a dialogue.)
As far as Universal Background Checks, here's the correct and constitutional way to implement those: Since the right to keep and bear arms is a civil right, the default setting is that everyone has it. If someone becomes a felon or is otherwise debarred from arms, then make a NO GUNS ALLOWED black mark on their DL/ID/passport/whatever.
Show me an ID without that disclaimer, and you'd be good to go, no background check necessary. And you'd be good to go in all 50 states, at that.
I'd trade that for moving suppressors to Title I, repealing the Hughes Amendment, and interstate handgun sales. Hell, I might throw in a 3-day wait on sales from FFL dealers for that package deal.But that's not what the other side means by "compromise".
I may not go quite so far in an attempt to establish a quid pro quo ... but most of the issues you cited are already haunting us, so it's not as if you're being so obdurate that Brady will be able to say: "The Right Is Not Willing To Negotiate!"
But this negotiation needs to include one single, and essential, change:
Background Checks are supposedly established to determine that the purchaser of a firearm is not a "forbidden person". (Felon, convicted felon, drug user, madman, alien, etc.) The intent is all about the purchaser, right? The manner in which this "PERMISSION" is established, is important, but not critical.
But I do have one question:
... why does the form to vet the purchaserrequire the details of the firearm in question? Including the make, model, caliber and SERIAL NUMBER?
The ATF does not NEED this information to confirm the validity of the exchange. The firearm is blameless; it has no past, no future, and it has never (intentionally) brought harm to any living creature.
The only reason for requiring the (unique) serial number, and the rest of the details about the firearm, is to establish a tracking mechanism as that firearm is exchanged, from one owner to the next.
And that AFT has a record of every single transaction; firearm, seller, buyer and date.
In a word: REGISTRATION!
I've often said: "Love your Country; Fear your Government".
This is exactly the reason I say that.
Using the thin cover of vetting the buyer of a "used" gun, the Feds have established a method by which every honest firearms owner (past and present) has self-established a trail of ownership.
The only people who aren't in "The System" are criminals, who acquire their firearms by theft or 'black market' transactions (often supplied by theft).
The thing is, eventually every firearm which has been legally sold will be in "The System", and if a couple of steps are missing ... that only serves to provide evidence to a prosecutor that the 'last seller'is probably may perhaps be a thief.
Not ... necessarily; he may be a person who has held onto the firearm since before this egregious new set of laws were enacted. Even so, he's still in Deep Doo-Doo because he may not be able to provide a 'chain of ownership to prove that he is the legal owner,.
(Do NOT make the mistake of assuming that just because he's innocent of any wrong-doing, he doesn't need to find a lawyer who asks more for one day of litigation than an entire month of house payments ... and probably car payments, too!)
There may be no more pleasing pistol to shoot than a .22 handgun. The shooting is easy and the ammunition is cheap…if you can find any. There may be no better tool in learning or sharpening shooting skill.
I agree, and I sincerely regret that I have allowed both of my .22 handguns to go by the way (I sold them for less than they were worth!) because I didn't realize how much I would miss them when they were gone.
But I have other options, and I thought I was cool with it until I decided to invite neighbors out for range days.
Example: I have neighbors who I value (actually, my landlord and his wife) and I have brought them to the range at my local club once ... and I'm in the process of bringing them back again.
SHE is not happy because the ear muffs are too tight and they made her feel uncomfortable> I have no solution other than to provide her with ear spikes ( the inner-ear style of noise reduction technology).
HE doesn't seem to care .. give him a gun, drop a ton of ammo on the counter ... he'll keep shooting until he had no more reloads, and then he'll ask for more. *(my kind of guy.)*
Um ... I could get to like this guy. He has a proper appreciation for the availability of ammunition.
She? I have no idea what I can do to find her fitting earmuffs that won't clamp too tightly around her head. Any suggestions which are not "off the cuff" would be appreciated. I think the problem is that the spring steel binders (for lack of a better word) are generally designed for people who are less sensitive to whatever it is that presses the ear protectors against your head. I'm about to suggest inner-ear plugs, but those are even more uncomfortable for most people.
Anybody have any idea about hearing protection which is .. umm .. "less something that makes you feel like your ears are glued to your head"?
Jun. 14, 2016 - 8:20 - 'The O'Reilly Factor': Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points 6/14
In this eight minute session about half-way through (03:30 minutes) O'Reilly begins to talk about the "Right Wing Responsibility".
From this point on, he should have stopped the "Acceptable Losses" mask and started another 'memo', called "Heavy Weapons". And no, I din't know what that means.
The following is a portion of the transcript (which was not made available to viewers): note that most of the text was printed on the backdrop, but O'Reilly's signature off-the-cuff comments varied. His verbal comments are highlighted when they vary from the background text. Words which were listed on the background text but which he did not voice are lined out. I wrote down his comments as he talked, and I may have missed a few words.
[begin direct quotes]
There is much gun crime in the USA and High Powered weapons are too easy to get. That's the point! So let's deal with it!
We all have the right too keep and bear arms, but we don't have the right to buy and maintain mortars even if you feel threatened by gangsters or a New World Order. No bazookas, no Sherman tanks, no hand grenades. That's because the Second Amendment clearly states that the government has oversight powers ... the right to regulate militias, made up of individuals. They have that right in the name of Public Safety. Therefore, Congress should define the kind of weapons for public sales. And the states should decide what kind of carry laws are good for their people.
(excise a few paragraphs on identifying terrorists, and acknowledging current laws regulating firearms dealers, etc.) Continue quote:
1) "Political correctness" is just a fancy term for not telling the truth. 2) Obama says he wants "mandatory" voting, as it is in Australia. Voter ID is "unduly burdensome" -- but forcing people to vote is not?! 3) Obama says with "mandatory" voting, "You start getting 70-80 percent voting rates." Still not as high as the voting rates for dead people in Chicago! 4) Democrats, the "party of freedom," want mandatory health insurance, mandatory employer-paid leave, mandatory minimum wage and mandatory voting. 5) If illegals-turned-new-citizens would likely vote 80 percent GOP, instead of 80 percent Democrat, government would've sealed the borders tighter than a clam's behind. 6) Government freebies eventually anger both those who pay and those who demand, "Where's mine?"
There are more Conservative Comments, follow the link.
I use to listen to Larry Elder on the radio, but radio in Oregon is "iffy" at best and not terribly conservative at worse. Besides, I didn't like his debate style ... he wasn't as good "off the cuff" as he is when he has had time to think it through. (Which is why I offered the contents of this think piece.)
I am tired of Hillary Clinton's constant refrain of "gun control." This candidate can't even control her own emails, much less a gun. When will she ever address the problem of controlling gangbangers, druggies and criminals who misuse firearms and maim and kill the innocent? Where is her endorsement of the NRA's Project Exile which would sentence a criminal to ten years of hard time for any crime while using a firearm?
Good Question!
However, the responses seem to veer off dramatically different ... and much more intriguing .. directions.
Small sample:
billy I got rid of all my guns and ammo so we would all be safer. No reason to come looking here. Alces alces Have you ever noticed those that advocate for gun control only come up with laws that keep reasonable, law-abiding people from owning guns but never address how to keep them out of the hands of the bad guys? WhereTFisOT "gun control" Gov coming for yer guns... 300 million guns......the fearmongers, the hatemongers of the gop and a simple use of words is amazing... gun control in a nation "founded" on spilling blood.... not many dems came out in the past 20 years and called bs on the lies... nevermind that past 7 + years when the insane bullies/liars of the nra, the gop, the faux news trash was pushing (24/7/365) that the Muslim Kenyan anti Christ President was coming for yer guns... and now the issue of suing gun manufactures is a contentious issue... not a word about jailing the idiots that allow toddlers to shoot eachother... after all the billions that have been raked in from out right lies and fear fear fear...
One thing you gotta admire about Casper: When the wind blows, it blows hard and you can NEVER tell what direction it's gonna come from next.
Trust the word of a man who hunted Pronghorns there for three years running and never kept a tent upright for two days in a row.
Unable to pass new gun-control bills this year, months after the state's deadliest shooting, Oregon Democrats are diving into campaign season with promises to try again in 2017.
House Majority Leader Jennifer Williamson, D-Portland, wants to revive a measure that would limit default gun sales when background checks take longer than expected, after the bill earned tepid support and died in the Senate last month.
No. Actually, it is an attempt to bypass the 'default' protection previously afforded to firearms owners who purchase firearms. But the NICS (National Instant Check System) cannot always provide a response in a timely manner, When this happens, the DEFAULT is to allow the firearms transfer to go through.
This FEATURE (not a "bug") protects the firearms purchaser; independent interests would be required to 'allow' the purchase of a private citizen if they (NICS) could not find just cause to DIS-allow it within a reasonable period of time. (For the "gun grabbers", there are no independent interests; there are merely PEOPLE WHO DON'T LIKE GUNS, and PEOPLE WHO MUST BE DENIED THE RIGHT TO BUY GUNS.)
My curious children freely play in a home environment I have worked hard to ensure is safe. To that extent, I am adamant about keeping guns outside our doors.
This mother has strong opinions on the measures which are necessary to protect her children. I don't blame her. I don't even disagree with her. My family wasn't raised that way (there were ALWAYS guns in our homes) but that has nothing to do with the way she wants to raise her family.
But looking at the comments attached to the article, it appears that a lot of people take their disagreement personally. Some folks went as far as to say "why don't you put a gunfree zone sign on your door and see what that gets you?" or words to that effect.
Apparently, the old Heinlein mantra that "An Armed Society Is A Polite Society" isn't valid when anonymous trolls spill their guts online.
The whole population of civilian firearms owners are tarnished by this kind of vicious response. The author of the article will not only keep firearms out of her home, but people who own firearms will now seem dubious to her.
It does no good for us to say "hey, that guy is not representative of our community".
I tought another firearms class yesterday, and I was impressed by the humanity and good nature of the 'new friends' I was privileged to meet.
I wish I could have introduced them to the author. She deserved the opportunity to meet the true face of our Band of Gun Nuts.
3Gun Nation has started official matches for Airsoft.
Say what you will about Airsoft, but have a look at this video. Racing is racing and this looks like a fun and challenging sport. It has the spirit of 3gun just without the long distance targets we typically see here in the US.
It's an equivalent 'indoor' sport which includes most of the elements of the 'full poweer' version, and the excellence of the competition obviates what I WOULD have said about the sport, before I saw the video.
In a world where so many nations are determined to dismiss the natural right to compete with firearms, this is the best that many people can do.
And it's a lot less expensive than using guns with gunpowder-powered ammunition ... but still just as exciting, still focuses on speed and accuracy.
Perhaps the DVC (Speed/Power/Accuracy) equation of IPSC isn't as important when you delete the "power" part of the equation.
Sometimes "the best you can do under the circumstances" doesn't really take away from the excitement of shooting.
A good shooter is a good shooter, no matter what tools are used in competition.
I won't deprive the original poster the traffic, but I'm pretty sure that many readers will find the comments of Mr. Sanders .... interesting.
I recently posted a comment on Ms. Clinton's efforts to "out-Bernie Bernie" on the gun control issue.
My point there was that Hillarious was being absurdly obvious about the extremes to which she will willing to go to garner the Presidential nomination.
Apparently, Bernie's staff people have been talking to Hill's staff people, and the have agreed to present the same (or similar) political plank:
Guns are bad. Really bad. Awful, in fact. And we should be, like, thinking they are bad.
Somebody should do something about the gun-badness in America today. I'm The One!
In our nation's misguided (read: failed) attempt to "Fix" the problem of Violence in America, our leadership has invariably resorted to the only measure available to them: they impose more and increasingly draconian "laws" which only affect honest, law-abiding gun owners.
Why?
Because it's cheaper than doing "The Hard Thing", which is to address the societal ills which lead to acts of violence by the most resource-poor citizens in the country.
People who take an "assault weapon" into a shopping mall with the intent to kill strangers are ... a phenomenon which can be predicted. And they are a problem.
But we have other problems which are more important, and more wide-reaching in terms of the effect they have on our country.
