Why in the WORLD should NRA back a ban on "Plastic Guns"?

The very idea that the NRA should "back the ban" on ANY kind of firearms restriction ("infringement") is absolutely ridiculous!

"Shall not be infringed"

COD, August 15, 2018: NRA should back ban on plastic guns | YOUR OPINION | richmond.com:

NRA should back ban on plastic guns Editor, Times-Dispatch: The National Rifle Association has a wonderful opportunity to win the hearts and minds of those of us who are in the “center” of the gun control debate. By the center, I’m talking about the majority of people who support individual gun ownership rights but also see a need for more controls on certain types of weapons.

In the first place, the concept that the NRA should "back the plan" on ANY kind of firearms infringement is abhorrent to firearms owners ... who rely on the NRA to support the ideal of the Second Amendment. 

The Second Amendment was designed to protect the rights of Americans from those who do not agree with the concept of freedom of Americans.   You are an obnoxious herb-eather who has no respect for the basic rights which we all enjoy.   You prefer to lower us to your level.
Which is not only obnoxious and demeaning, but also (when you suggest we should yield our rights to POLITICIANS) ... disgusting.  You should be ashamed of yourself.

Seller Beware!

"They Say" ... it's easier to buy a gun than to buy a used car.

That only goes to show what they know.

Massachusetts man arrested for selling guns without a license:

Rathsomnang Neth, 22, faces one count of dealing in firearms without a license and two counts of possessing and transferring an unregistered shotgun with a shortened barrel, according to a federal indictment unsealed Wednesday. The former carries a maximum sentence of five years and a $250,000 fine. Each latter possession charge, however, carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison, according to the Department of Justice.

Who among the readers doesn't have some firearms which are 'superfluous to my needs' and would you like to find them a new home?

Sellers who dispose of more than X-number of firearms in private transactions, during Y-number of months, would be advised to go beyond the usual cautions of vetting their buyers.

If you don't know the values of "X" and "Y", maybe you should just hide them in your gun safe.  Or gift them to a a family member.

It doesn't matter who you sell to, their soon (who knows when) comes a point when you are arbitrarily migrated from the position of "private owner" to "DEALER!!!"
.
If you sell "too many guns" in "too short a time", you are still subject to FEDERAL prosecution regulation.

My case is a lot easier.  I'm old, I'll die soon.  My kids will inherit my firearms as well as my furniture.

They can sell my furniture to anybody .. but they need to go through an arcane number of federal regulations to successfully "vend" firearms.

Somehow this makes my prospects of an early heart attack less threatening, considering that the legal implications are A Fate Worse Than Death!

So .. yes; I believe I WILL have another piece of pie, thank you very much.

God Forbid I should have to face a jury of my peers.

Bullet-Stamping Impossible, says CA Supreme Court

I said it in 2004, and California is finally admitting that the proposition that you can identify crime evidence by stamping an unique serial number on EVERY BULLET is an impossible task!

The Latest: California Justices Toss Bullet Stamping Suit | California News | US News: SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — The Latest on a ruling by the California Supreme Court on a state bullet stamping law (all times local): 10:45 a.m. The California Supreme Court says state laws cannot be invalidated on the grounds that complying with them is impossible. The unanimous ruling on Thursday rejected a lawsuit by gun rights groups that sought to throw out a California law that requires new models of semi-automatic handguns to stamp identifying information on bullet casings. The groups argued that technology did not exist to meet the stamping requirements, and a law can't mandate something that's not possible.

(Actually, I think the term "Bullet Stamping" is misleading; the intent is not to serialize the actual projectile, but to emboss on the base of the cartridge a code which uniquely identifies the firearm which fired the cartridge.)

So .. the whole "Bullet-Stamping" thingie is no longer an issue in California.

Because the Supreme Court of the State of California doesn't care that it's technically impossible to comply with the law.   Which implies that the law will be enacted.

I addressed it twice in 2014: here and here.

(BTW .. most alternatives include stamping or embossing  unique serial numbers on the base of a cartridge when the gun is fired the identifiers would supposedly identify the guj from which the round was fired..   That doesn't do much for rounds fired from a revolver, which are not automatically ejected onto a 'crime scene".)

Embossed serial numbers from firing pins and breaches of firerms can easily be sanded down or filled in until the actual serial number is obfuscated to the point where they are unreliable in a Court of Law.

The last time I addressed the issue was 2014, when I finally admitted that California had their heads so far up their nether regions that they were unlikely to ever change their unrealistic rhetoric.

Things have changed.  Sort of.

 California DID ... finally ... take a closer look at the mechanics of the  issue and realize that they were wasting time, money and political power on a never-win issue.    So they said "do it anyway", and washed their hands of the issue.

ONE OF THE ISSUES in this inane law is that the details were .. unclear.

Ultimately, EVERY gun part which might be used to stamp an unique identifier onto either the primer or the base of a cartridge is readily (and cheaply) replaceable ... or subject to obfuscation by use of a file or an emery board..

There is no part of a semi-automatic pistol which cannot be replaced or altered .. even temporarily ... with a "Box Stock"  part within a matter of seconds.  Which makes the concept that imprinting a "serial number" on the base of a cartridge not only unrealistic, but laughable.

You may argue that the "frame" of a handgun is inviolate.  It isn't; if I have a file and sandpaper.

While California is working hard to accept 20th Century realities... they still have a long way to go.

But a "We Did Our Best" is not good enough in a court of law.'

And it's still anti-Second Amendment to register a gun.

(updated August 05, 2018, to recognize that the California Supreme court rejected an argument which would have invalidated the new law)

Fear Mongers R (not) US!

The Limeys have their knickers in a knot because Americans are being terrorized by the National Rifle Association.

'The NRA are fearmongers': students excoriate gun group and politicians' lack of action | US news | The Guardian: Students from Marjory Stoneman Douglas high school accused the National Rifle Association on Sunday of exploiting people’s fears to sell weapons and criticized the Trump administration for its stuttering response to last month’s gun rampage in Florida, which left 14 of their peers and three teachers dead.

Actually, the NRA doesn't sell weapons.

Those who libel shooters are generally timid folks.  They see danger in situations which have nothing to do with them, except in their own minds.   They live in protected environments, stay in their high-rise apartments, and email to their publishers opinions on subjects which they are poorly qualified to evaluate.

In my PERSONAL opinion, a bunch of teenagers who have recently been traumatized by a terrible act of violence are inclined to react emotionally, given the slightest bit of encouragement from Liberal News Networks. 

I don't criticize the teenagers who have reacted emotionally to a horrible experience. 

But I DO blame the Liberal Press for taking advantage of a malleable group of victims to buoy the Liberal Anti-gun agenda.

Somebody wants to ALLOW you to "own a gun"?

The Liberal talking point is that if you don't NEED a gun, why should you be allowed to HAVE a gun?

Why do Americans need guns? Rip UP the Second Amendment, problem solved.
I won't go into the details of the counter-argument to the 2nd Amendment, but  if you care .. you can go read it here.

But just to give you the flavor, here's a full paragraph quote:

Now am sorry to spit on your 2nd amendment right, but for me self defence is not a valid argument for defending the 2nd amendment. Also the ability to carry arms has been severely restricted by the Gun-Free School zones act of 1990 signed by Gorge [sic] H W Bush, which is ironic considering that 41% of republicans own a firearm compared to only 23% of democrats so kudos to Bush. This does mean though that as a law abiding citizen in a town or city you really can’t carry a gun knowing that you are not breaking a law. As such you would be better just not carrying one, so again if you get attacked by someone you shouldn’t have a gun to defend yourself in the first place because to be carrying said firearm you would be breaking the law. 

[emphasis added]

And Liberals think that Conservative arguments are not compelling.

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.

Adding Insult to Injury in the State of Misery

Good intentions, I'm sure, but how happy will you be to prosecute a parent who has just lost his or her child due to an accident in the home?

Bill would hold adults liable for unsecured guns | Local News | newspressnow.com:

A Missouri state representative is proposing a bill that will hold an adult responsible if a child gains access to an unsecured firearm. Stacey Newman, D-St. Louis, is sponsoring House Bill 1343, which specifies that a person commits the offense of endangering the welfare of a child if he or she knowingly fails to secure a firearm. The goal is to eliminate the cases of children accidentally shooting themselves or others after gaining access to a firearm.

I Had Never Touched a Gun . Then I Bought One.

Fascinating article for a self-professed "Snowflake", examining the angst and trauma of an gun-control proponent.

The author walks us through the trials and tribulations of buying, and becoming familiar with, a handgun in the wilds of Seattle.

I Had Never Touched a Gun Before the Las Vegas Massacre. Then I Bought One. - Features - The Stranger:

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:

1. Violent Criminals
2. People who are either incompetent, untrained, or unable to comprehend the lethality
3. 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.

Never Give An Inch

If "People Of The Gun" are an anachronism in Modern America, we should at least leave a Dinosaur-sized footprint behind as we die off.

Dianne Feinstein is at it again.   Hit 'em high, hit 'em low, there's no limit to her perfidy:

Democrats' New 'Assault Weapons' Bill Would Ban the GLOCK 17, More Semi-Auto Pistols - The Truth About Guns: The text of Senator Dianne Feinstein’s assault rifle ban bill is now available on her website and, contra Nick’s expectations, it isn’t simply a copy-and-paste re-run of the failed Clinton era assault rifle ban language. It’s worse. Much worse.

I don't know, maybe Senator "Mr. and Mrs. America, Give 'Em All Up" has the right of it.  Perhaps we "Bitter Clingers" (to quote another famous American) have stayed stuck in an era which the rest of America has passed by.  We may have outlived our "Stale Date".

But I don't really think so.  There's an intractable element of our society which rejects the "New America" because we were born in an era that believed the Constitution protected liberties which all mankind can - or should - recognize are "inalienable".

Today, the Constitution is nothing more than an irritating anachronism (there's that word again) to the new "Dear Leaders".   They will be happy when the Old School dies off; it can't come too soon, to them.

But the pivotal moment in the American Revolution came when the British attempted to confiscate the contents of an American arsenal. 

Americans of that era decided to fight and die to protect their right to keep and bear arms.  England at that time was the "owner of America" and arguably the strongest military force in the world.  But Americans with flintlocks (which were prohibitively expensive at the time) not only paid the price in the applicable gelt at the time,  but in American Lives, to keep their guns.

They needed guns to fend off attacks from the Native Americans, who resented the encroachment on the land where they were born.

The Liberal intelligentsia is, today, not yet strong enough to force Americans to voluntarily "give up their guns"; but they're working on it.  Their tool is to denigrate gun owners as being rabidly violent anti-social neanderthals.    And it's working, even if there is little evidence that the average firearms owner is either anti-social or irresponsible.   Whether we are Neanderthals is a side-issue.

These New Americans don't think we need guns.  Well, they live in major cities where police are readily available ... for various values of "readily available".  They are reluctant to take responsibility for their own personal protection; except for the Gang Bangers, who know best their need for personal defense.  Or defense of their 'turf'.

The police are reluctant, at best, to go from door to door and search private homes with the goal of confiscating firearms. (We have given up the concept that private arms must be keep in an arsenal ... good choice!   The Brits could learn from this.  See "Concord" and "Lexington".) 

Police don't know which firearms owners are 'crazy' enough to resist confiscation with force, but their thought is that there are more than a few.   So let the Liberals among them (and they are few) risk their lives to serve their masters; most police are 2nd Amendment supporters, anyway.   My personal experience is that legal gun owners are the most responsible and law-abiding members of society, but there is no such thing as a "Universal Truth", no matter what the Huffington Post says.

Essays should end with a conclusion, proven by preceding arguments.   At least, that's what the "Ten Golden Rules of Essay Writing" says.

Here's my conclusion:

Dianne Feinstein is full of crap.

Dems Deny Concealed Carry By Charging Preposterous Permit Prices

John Lott details the obstructions anti-gun states use to deny Concealed Carry by "Undesirables".

How Democrats keep guns in the hands of the rich - Chicago Tribune: A new report from the Crime Prevention Research Center shows that the average fee for a concealed handgun permit is $67, but it is much higher in the most Democratic states. Each 10-percentage-point increase in a state's presidential vote for Hillary Clinton was associated with an additional $30 in the concealed handgun permit fee. In California, where Clinton won by about 30 points, fees can be as high as $385 for just two years. In New York City, where she won by 60 points, a three-year permit costs $430.

 In addition to prohibitive fees, some blue states — California, Illinois — require four times as many training hours as the national average, adding hundreds of dollars to the cost of obtaining a concealed-carry license. In California counties, the mandated cost of training can run from $250 to more than $1,000. Compare heavily Democratic Illinois, where the cost of permit and training runs over $450, with neighboring Republican Indiana where the total cost for everything is $50.

I'm on the side of encouraging firearms training ... I teach it at my local gun club.   But there is no 'certification' awarded in my class;  it only serves to familiarize students in safe gun handling, with an emphasis on competition. So I can attest that It Ain't Rocket Science; what you PAY for is the certificate, which some states/localities require before a Concealed Carry License will be issued.

The states which mandate "certification" aren't using this requirement to "ensure proficiency"; they're using it as a club to beat the shit out of anyone who has the gall to demand that their Constitutional Rights will be honored.   Then after the expensive training, they add on this absurd fee for the permit itself.

Dr. Lott is, as always, absolutely correct.   This is all a great scheme on the part of the so-called "Liberals" (who are anything but liberal) to obstruct the American Citizen's access to firearms as noted in the Constitution.

This is why we can't have any fun any more.    The Democrats are, literally, doing everything they can to discourage law-abiding private citizens from exercising their rights.   Why are they doing that?

There are two reasons why Democrats are against the Second Amendment.

The first reason is that they are, as a class, a bunch of narrow-minded fuss-budgets who pretend to believe the Government can solve all your problems for you ... and if you aren't the government, you're not competent to run your own life.

The second reason why Democrats are against the Second Amendment is that Conservatives (not all of them Republicans) are FOR it.   Anything Republicans like, Democrats instinctively denounce.

Yes, many Democrats are nice people; many of my best friends are  ... uh ... no, not really.   A couple, at best.   But I'm sure there are a lot of nice Democrats out there, that I just haven't met yet.

Having said all that, the Democrats in "Blue State" of Oregon are among the "Nice Democrats".    For example, the cost for a CHL (Concealed Handgun License) is in the $50 - $65 range.    You can actually take an online course for about that same amount, and apparently their certification of completion is acceptable in Oregon.   (Also, it seems that most County Sheriff offices will accept USPSA membership as certification of handgun competence.  Go figure.)

(The same website offers a neat summary of Oregon Gun Laws)

"Gun Safety" vs "Gun Control"

When Liberals get all worked up about guns, they don't focus on the gangsters; they focus on the law-abiding firearms owners.  Why?  Because they know we're safe ... and we can be identified because the liberal Gun Registration Laws are focusing on US!

Wisc. Democrats: Gun Safety Course 'Inappropriate' for High Schoolers - Breitbart:

Rep. Sondy Pope (D-Dist. 80) opposes the gun safety courses for high schoolers. She says the bill to create the course is bad because nothing in it “prohibits students from hiding ammunition in their bags and loading their guns in the school.” 

Liberals (Democrats, almost universally ) claim that when they espouse "Common Sense Gun Control", they are concerned about safety.  They seem to believe that when a "normal person" is presented with a firearm, something goes sick in their heads.   (See the movie "Blue Steel".)

But when presented by a plan to teach firearms safety to teenagers ... something goes sick in their heads.    They can't get past the awful images of Things Which May Go Terribly Wrong, and they focus on the worst possible consequences of allowing the Stupid American Electorate ("after all .. they voted for me; how smart can they be?")  to exercise their Constitutional Rights*.

Thus we come to the irrationality of Rep. Sondy Pope (D-DIST. 80) who worries that, if high schoolers are 'allowed' to take a firearms safety course, they may go stark raving mad and shoot up their school.   She apparently thinks there should be something in the bill to make it illegal to shoot up a school.  "There, that's fixed!"

(Note to Rep. Pope:  and this would be different from the alternatives .. how?    I note that in that list of 101 school shootings, only 35 of them occurred in American schools.  Which is too many, granted.  But considering that America has the most guns per population, you would think that such a Wild West culture would dominate the list more definitively.)

*(Yes, it's in the Constitution.  But those old guys ... what did they know about how America would look in 200 years?   They knew enough to foretell that idiots may would be elected to Congress.)\

No, Nancy, that's not it.

Pelosi: I Am a 'Target' Because I Am a 'Master Legislator,' 'Politically Astute Leader' - Breitbart:

Thursday when asked about criticisms that her leadership contributed to the recent special election losses for the Democratic Party, House Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said she was a “target” because she is “a master legislator.” 

 Pelosi said, “We believe there’s a real opportunity. Now, it’s not a slam dunk. History is on our side, but it takes strategic, unified and disciplined — to have harmony. It doesn’t mean we have anonymity, but we have unity when it comes to that fight. Should I sing my praises? Well, I am a master legislator. I am a strategic politically astute leader. My leadership is recognized by many around the country, and that is why I am able to attract the support that I do which is essential to our election, sad to say.

I have absolutely nothing to say about that.  Well, nothing I want to put in print, anyway.

Assault Pistol?

SF Police: Shooter Armed with Assault Pistol | | oleantimesherald.com: Police say the shooter who opened fire at a San Francisco UPS warehouse Wednesday morning was armed with an assault pistol when police found him. Three people were killed as well as the shooter in the incident. (June 14)

Sure wish I had me one of them Assault Pistol thingies!   It sound like it would be ... say, just what the heck IS an Assault Pistol, anyway?

Is it a long barrelled handgun firing a medium range cartridge with selective fire and a bayonet (optional at extra cost for the civilian market )???

Put SF together with AP and you get F-SAPs.   They don't know what they're talking about, but they speak with complete confidence that they are always correct.

see AP's "Smart URL":

Subscribe for more Breaking News: http://smarturl.it/AssociatedPressGet updates and more Breaking News here: http://smarturl.it/APBreakingNewsThe Associated Press is the essential global news network, delivering fast, unbiased news from every corner of the world to all media platforms and formats.
AP’s commitment to independent, comprehensive journalism has deep roots. Founded in 1846, AP has covered all the major news events of the past 165 years, providing high-quality, informed reporting of everything from wars and elections to championship games and royal weddings. AP is the largest and most trusted source of independent news and information.
Today, AP employs the latest technology to collect and distribute content - we have daily uploads covering the latest and breaking news in the world of politics, sport and entertainment. Join us in a conversation about world events, the newsgathering process or whatever aspect of the news universe you find interesting or important. Subscribe: http://smarturl.it/AssociatedPress

effing bunch of tards, all of 'em.

Oh, see also
http://gunfreezone.net/index.php/2017/06/15/the-fake-media-gun-experts-strike-again/

"BUT ..."

Fisking Kim Kardashian

Quote of the day—Kim Kardashian | The View From North Central Idaho:

(Hat Tip: Joe Huffman)

I’M NOT AGAINST GUNS AND I’M NOT AGAINST PEOPLE OWNING GUNS. AFTER WHAT HAPPENED TO ME IN PARIS, I KNOW HOW IMPORTANT IT IS TO BE SAFE AND TO HAVE ARMED SECURITY. ALL OF MY SECURITY TEAM IS ARMED, BUT THEY ALSO SUPPORT STRICTER GUN CONTROL LAWS AND BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD RESTRICT ACCESS TO FIREARMS FOR PEOPLE WITH MENTAL ILLNESS, ANYONE PREVIOUSLY CONVICTED OF A MISDEMEANOR, THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN SUBJECT TO A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND THOSE AT A HIGHER RISK OF COMMITTING GUN VIOLENCE.

Everyone knows and values Kim's  respect for and her honor of the Second Amendment.

Not.

Kim, there are laws already on the book which disallow "people with mental illness" from owning firearms,.

And we already know that you can *(and have)* hired armed security professionals ... a precaution which is probably wise, since your position disallows you from arming yourself..   Your precautions seem reasonable to most of us, because nobody expects YOU to take personal responsibility for your safety.

Why should you, when you can hire trained, experienced protection personnel whose  proficiency at arms is far superior to your own?

BUT the rest of us cannot afford hired guns to protect ourselves; we are like those who breed and raise swine; we have to do the dirty work ourselves.

Which includes "Taking Out The Trash".

You say:
 I KNOW HOW IMPORTANT IT IS TO BE SAFE AND TO HAVE ARMED SECURITY

Yes.  And if I could afford it, I would hire 24/7 professional security to protect my life, even though I'm not quite so "High Profile" as you are.

But I do not think the words of the Second Amendment mean what you think it means.

It doesn't mean that we can hire armed men to protect ourselves ,.. if we can afford it.

It means that we common men can legally acquire whatever means neccessarty to protect ourselves and our families, home and property ... if we are willing to accept the responsibility, and if we can afford it.

 (Many of us think, as you do, that we can NOT afford to NOT take steps to provide for our personal security.)

When you say that you support "Stricter Gun Control Laws", what you are saying is that you support stricter gun control laws on LAWFUL and LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS~

We already have laws against felons and madmen owning firearms.  So when you use the word STRICTER ... we automatically understand that you want to restrict the rights of law-abiding private citizens to own firearms.

STRICTER GUN CONTROL LAWS are exactly that; if we have already eliminated criminals and madmen from owning firearms (which we have), then your statement leaves only one segment of the population which you would ".. restrict access to firearms ...";  honest, law-abiding citizens.

As a veteran (Viet Nam infantry platoon sergeant, 1969/1970) I personally resent your implication that a simple MISDEMEANER or a "Temporary Restraining Order" (which can be registered by any domestic partner without any evidence of foul play .. and cannot be challenged in many states) should be grounds for undermining my Constitutional Rights.

In case you are not aware, a misdemeanor charge is generally considered somewhat less imposing than a Constitutional Right.   While we are all well aware that the confusion of an interpersonal relationship is difficult to resolve in the courts, the denial of one's Constitutional Right is somewhat akin to dropping an Atomic Bomb; it enturbulates all parties, and affords no benefit to anyone.

SO ,. when you suggest that it may be appropriate to  RESTRICT ACCESS TO FIREARMS FOR ...   ANYONE PREVIOUSLY CONVICTED OF A MISDEMEANOR we can only assume that either:

*(1) you don't know what the heck you're talking about ..

or
*(2) you don't care what damage you may cause as long as your political goals are satisfied.

It's difficult to decide which agenda could cause more damage, but it's perfectly clear that you do not much care.
All you want to do is to make a political statement; one which you have not carefully thought through.

Idiot.

Oh .. and go watch Joe's response.

H/T:

I recognize the difficulty the anti-gun people have in getting knowledgeable people to support their side, but they really should keep highly visible dimwits on a shorter leash. This dimwit is advocating for the denying someone convicted of shoplifting a jar of baby food 30 years ago their specific enumerated right to keep and bear arm. On top of that she believes she has a right to feel safe and to be protected.
However, the topper is that one paragraph after advocating for the explicit infringement upon the rights of people she claims, “we can find ways to do that, while still protecting the rights of the American people”. You can’t find ways to infringe upon the rights of people while protecting their rights.

Publish or Perish for Politicos

GUNS OUT: 2A Group Targets Anti-Gun Legislators:

While I'm no admirer of politicians Senator Warren, this ill-conceived and misbegotten attempt to interfere with legitimate consumer activity is nothing more than political grandstanding and should never even come to the table.

Earlier this week, GOA submitted a letter to the House Energy and Commerce Committee expressing their concern over House Bill 1652, Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s Over-the-Counter Hearing Aid Act. According to GOA, the bill could adversely affect gun owners. By establishing this new regulation, “hearing enhancers,” used by hunters to amplify sound, would mean the government could regulate hunting.

Oh, no.   It's MUCH worse than that!

A lot of people in shooting sports own and use "electronic ear muffs", which filter out sounds above a certain decibel level, but allow lower volumes (such as range commands) to be clearly heard.

Range Officers rely upon these "discriminatory amplifying" electronic devices, because if a downrange safety issue is observed by someone one in the audience who yells STOP!, for example ... that warning might be missed by the Range Officer who has his attention focused on the gun.

At the same time, the competitor is better served with amplification, because he is focused on his targets and the RO's range commands must be loud enough to attract this attention.

Amplifying low-decibel sound is an important range safety consideration.

Yes, you can conduct a shooting match without amplification ... but you can do a better job of it with amplification of background sounds.

So by the same sense ' ... the government could regulate target shooting ...', for example.

Regulation of any product often increases its price to the consumer, as well.  It's unwise for a government to not only interfere with a constitutional right, but also to tax it.   But don't tell the ruling class that there's a reason to butt out ... they're in the business of seeming to be "doing something" by passing laws.  (Sort of a "Publish or Perish" for Politicos.)

The Grown-ups Win One

I'm pleased that at least one California judge understands the difference between Fantasy and Reality.

Shooting Wire:
(December 02, 2016)

 NEWTOWN, Conn. - A California Appellate Court has reversed the Fresno Superior Court's dismissal of the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) and the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute (SAAMI) lawsuit seeking an injunction to block enforcement of the state's ammunition microstamping law and remanded the case back to the lower court to hear arguments. 

 "We are pleased by today's ruling because it means we will now be able to prove in court that this ill-considered law must be enjoined because it is literally impossible to comply with its requirements, and the law never requires the impossible. We have long maintained that this nascent, unproven and unreliable technology should not have been mandated. When we ultimately prevail in this case, law-abiding consumers in California will once again be able to purchase new models of pistols this law currently prevents our industry members from selling in the state," said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel.

What this means, of course, is that California shooters may have one less Impossible Thing to do before breakfast.    Doesn't it feel good when you fight the Jabberwocky, and win?

Ammunition Encoding

The NRA is making a (relatively) Big Splash on recent state efforts to require that every bullet, and every cartridge case, carry an unique serial number which (supposedly) can lead crime investigators to identify the person who purchased the ammunition used in a crime.

I say "supposedly', because the proposal has exactly zero chance of (a) aiding crime investigators and (b) being enacted for any purpose other than infringing on America's Second Amendment.

America's 1st Freedom | The Truth About Illinois’ Ammo Serial Numbering Scheme: Do you like to hunt or shoot? If so, hang onto your wallet, because ammunition could soon become prohibitively expensive if some Democrat lawmakers get their way.  An Illinois state representative wants to impose a scheme that’s not only been proven to be a multi-million-dollar failure at solving crimes, but could also make ammunition unaffordable for honest citizens*, while leaving criminals—who make millions dealing drugs, guns and (if this legislation is passed) ammunition—untouched.  And don’t just shrug if you don’t live in Illinois: As Fox News reports, similar bills are pending in at least 20 states.

The curious thing is, this isn't the first time this proposal has been aired.  And back in 2008, when it first was caught in the spotlight, I spent some serious blogging time exploring the whys and the wherefores.

Here is a link to my accumulated list of blog articles.  It's long, because the subject is complex, but it might mention a few issues which haven't been mentioned in a brief NRA warning message.  (Feel free to skim through it; not all of the issues are mentioned in only a single article.)

Here's a brief summary:

• It would be financially impossible for ammunition manufacturers to reliable encode each bullet with the case bearing the same unique identifying number ... let's call it "ID" for simplicity.*
• Packaging at the plant would be a vital, yet labor-intensive step because if one bullet/case combination got into a package with a different ID, the manufacturer would (probably) be liable to civil suit in case one round was used during the commission of a crime, and the wrong person was arrested based on this scheme.*
• Even that is a "mega-event', because the technology to match a bullet with the case bearing the same ID is not currently available.*
• ...WHICH IS EVEN MORE complex, because the original scheme proposed that the bullet would have the ID engraved on the BASE of the bullet ... which suggests that the "Quality Control Survey" would necessarily take place before the bullet was loaded into the case.  So much for Mass Production Technology.*
• The cost of such intensive quality control and inspection* (remember these are tiny little numbers, even it can be made to happen with the machinery) would require minutes per round, rather than the less-than-a-second progress which modern manufacturing technology provides.
• The cost of the complete cartridge would therefore be magnified* by a factor of  .. oh, a thousand?  A two-cent cartridge would cost you two dollars, because bullshit-factor.

Ultimately, manufacturers of complete ammunition would refuse to upset their entire industry, and therefore their ammunition would NOT be sold to states with this kind of absurd legal requirements.

WHICH IS THE POINT OF THE EXERCISE!

These states aren't trying to "Solve Crimes"*; they're trying to do an end-run on the Second Amendment of the Constitution.

(PS:  What happens when you reload your own ammunition?  In 'these states', there's a bit of a problem because you can't GET bullets with the same serial number as the cartridge case you're reloading!)

I'm pretty sure this is what the NRA is saying in their article, but they can't go into such fine detail as I can because (a) they're professionals, and (b) they assume everyone else can figure it out for themselves, and (c) they hope their warning-article will be read.

"Submit or Die": Trial Of The Century

"Trial of the Century" blog writes to demonstrate how some persons may willingly subvert the verbiage of the Second Amendment to 'prove' that it promotes Gun Violence.   Here's part of his reasoned counter to the original "THE NATION" article (which writing he terms "rampant historical revisionism") by Joshua Holland:

Submit or Die |:

On its face this argument is kind of breathtaking, because it implicitly assumes that a maniac murdering a bunch of cops is tantamount to “a heavily armed populace” taking action against “a tyrannical government running amok.” That the two are not in the slightest equivalent never seemed to have crossed Joshua Holland’s mind—he seems to be able to draw no meaningful distinction between Dallas last week and Massachusetts in 1775, between Michah Johnson on the one hand and Henry Knox on the other. Can a writer for a popular magazine—even a writer for the Nation—be so terminally clueless? 

 But maybe this isn’t simply an ahistorical [sic] gaffe: maybe liberals really are incapable of divining the difference between a psychopathic mass shooting and a rebellion against tyranny. Maybe the liberal political impulse has become so degraded that, as far as progressives are concerned, there is no situation—none at all—in which one can ever  be justified in rebelling against any authority anywhere, no matter how tyrannical the authority is, no matter how justified the case for rebellion may be. It’s all illicit, all forbidden not merely by statute but by moral law: government is so final an arbiter of morality and rightness that you can’t ever fight it for any reason, under any circumstances.

You may find that reading the whole thing  is a worthwhile use of your time.

I did.  I read both articles.

I found points with which I am inclined to agree in both articles.

However, I think the point made in 'submit or die' (which, again, is not the WHOLE THOUGHT) deserves to be emphasized, bearing in mind that the quoted verb it doesn't address the whole of the HOLLAND article.

It's a complex issue; the opinions will, of necessity, be equally complex.

"Arming America" - Bellisles

People who want to undermine your Second Amendment Rights will lie to do it.
Even the best of them.
And I can prove it.
For example, this bit appeared over 8 years ago:
Cogito Ergo Geek: 43:
[March, 2008]

43 That number seems to haunt us, we who own guns and profess that they are a valuable tool for sport, competition, self-defense and other legitimate purposes.. We see it quoted time and again, and yet how many of us are as aware of the significance of that number as are the liberal gun-grabbers . They use that number time and time again as a mantra to define how horrid is the state of owning firearms for self defense.

This is a quote from an article which appeared on this website in 2008.  It was originally intended to debunk the assertions (since disproven) by Arthur Kellerman that :

Guns kept in the home for self-protection are 43 times more likely to kill a family member, friend or acquaintance than to kill an intruder, according to a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine

I won't go into the details of why, how or by whom this assertion was debunked: you can go to my original article here and read the whole thing.  Essentially, Kellerman made up his statistics from whole cloth; he was caught at it and discredited by more honest, reputable historians who were NOT trying to skew historic facts to justify their personal anti-gun bias.

But there are other historians, besides Kellerman, who just cannot resist the temptation to lie to you under the cloth of their scholarly reputation; and when caught in that lie, lose their reputation.

My intention today is to high-light the self-destroyed reputation of a liar named Bellesiles, who claimed that (based on his review of probated wills, etc. from the colonial period), Americans hardly EVER had anything to do with firearms!

Yes, this is another scholar .. an historian ...  (who enjoyed a good reputation before he made up facts to suit his personal political bias) who lied, and was caught at it.

I had written an article referencing Bellesiles in 2003, but thanks to the wonder of BLOGGER that link is no longer available.  I wonder how unkind I was to him then?
I hope I was not as unkind as I will be today.

Here is the story of The Bias of Bellesiles.

POINT:

(From a 2000 GOODREADS review of Bellesiles' book: "The Arming Of America")

In Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture, Emory University historian Michael A. Bellesiles leaps to the forefront of a recent move by scholars toward reexamining this mythology of the gun. To every article of the legend, Bellesiles mounts a relentless and eye-opening barrage of counterevidence, gathered over ten years of research in probate records, censuses, government and military documents, and other primary sources.

 From the first settlements up until the Civil War, ordinary Americans were not heavily armed and were generally neglectful of the guns they did own. Guns of the time were expensive, clumsy, unreliable, and hard to maintain. Opposing other historians' claims for nearly universal gun ownership among the settlers, Bellesiles finds that apparently "at no time prior to 1850 did more than a tenth of the people own guns."

During the Revolutionary War, the civilian militias were, again contrary to myth, ineffective on the whole as a fighting force. One basic reason: The great majority of their members had never bothered to arm themselves or attain proficiency in shooting. After the war was won by professionals, the government labored for the next 70 years to arm a surprisingly resistant citizenry.

COUNTERPOINT: Amazing Disgrace

Bellesiles has a certain claim to fame, certainly, but not as “the target of an infamous ‘swiftboating’ campaign.” He is, and will be forever remembered as, a historian whose colleagues found him to have violated his profession's standards of scholarly integrity. Arming America won the Bancroft Prize -- the highest honor for a book on American history. But far more salient is the fact that the Bancroft committee took the unprecedented step of withdrawing the prize.
It is true that he drew the ire of the National Rifle Association, and I have no inclination to give that organization's well-funded demagogy the benefit of any doubt. But gun nuts did not force Bellesiles to do sloppy research or to falsify sources. That his scholarship was grossly incompetent on many points is not a "controversial" notion. Nor is it open to dispute whether or not he falsified sources. That has been exhaustively documented by his peers. To pretend otherwise is itself demagogic.

COUNTERPOINT: WIKIPEDIA

In [two] scholarly articles,^[15][16] law professor James Lindgren of Northwestern University noted that in Arming America, Bellesiles had

• purported to count guns in about a hundred wills from 17th- and 18th-century Providence, Rhode Island, but these did not exist because the decedents had died intestate (i.e., without wills);

• purported to count nineteenth-century San Francisco County probate inventories, but these had been destroyed in the 1906 earthquake and fire;

• reported a national mean for gun ownership in 18th-century probate inventories that was mathematically impossible;

• misreported the condition of guns described in probate records in a way that accommodated his thesis;

• miscited the counts of guns in nineteenth-century Massachusetts censuses and militia reports,

• had more than a 60% error rate in finding guns listed as part of estates in Vermont records; and

• had a 100% error rate in the cited gun-related homicide cases of seventeenth-century Plymouth, MA.

Critics also identified problems with Bellesiles's methods of citation. Cramer noted that Bellesiles had misrepresented a passage by George Washington about the quality of three poorly prepared militia units as if his criticism applied to the militia in general. (Washington had noted that the three units were exceptions to the rule.)^[17] 

(Note that Clayton Cramer's blog appears regulary today)

ARTICLE (January 06, 2003) by Clayton Cramer on The History NewsNetwork

Michael A. Bellesiles’s Bancroft Prize for Arming America has been revoked—the first time that a Bancroft Prize has ever been taken away from an author.[1] He has also resigned from Emory University after a blistering criticism by a blue-ribbon panel.[2] Is this embarrassing moment for the history profession a fluke, or indicative of deeper problems?
I fear that it isn’t a fluke. Arming America reveals that there are some very serious problems in the history professorate, and they are not confined to just one history professor’s demonstration of hubris.

- See more at: http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1185#sthash.IA7OusWG.dpuf
 Cramer Article continues (in part):

My first reaction after reading the first few chapters was a mixture of “There’s a logical flaw here” and “What? Could this possibly be true?” When I reached chapters that covered periods that I knew well—the early Republic—my incredulity increased. Then I started to find Bellesiles using quotations from travel accounts that I had read—and the quotations didn’t match either my memory of them, or the texts, when I re-read them.
I sat down with a list of bizarre, amazing claims that Bellesiles had made, and started chasing down the citations at Sonoma State University’s library. I found quotations of out of context that completely reversed the author’s original intent. I found dates changed. I found the text of statutes changed—and the changes completely reversed the meaning of the law. It took me twelve hours of hunting before I found a citation that was completely correct. In the intervening two years, I have spent thousands of hours chasing down Bellesiles’s citations, and I have found many hundreds of shockingly gross falsifications.

- See more at: http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1185#sthash.IA7OusWG.dpuf

SUMMARY:   BELLESILES LIED!
When the flurry died down, it had become obvious to researchers that Bellesiles had quoted sources ...  wills and testaments which were patently not available, partly because of widespread flooding which had destroyed a pletohra of historical documents in the basement of the library which he cited as his primary source ,,, and also whole-clothedly misquoted documents which remained available to other historians; if they cared to look!

Fortunately, Cramer cared, and looked, and reported.   Again from the same  HISTORYNEWSNETWORK source:

Clayton Cramer, a historian, software engineer, gun enthusiast and early critic of Bellesiles, later argued that the reason "why historians swallowed Arming America's preposterous claims so readily is that it fit into their political worldview so well... Arming America said things, and created a system of thought so comfortable for the vast majority of historians, that they didn’t even pause to consider the possibility that something wasn’t right."^[4] Historian Peter Charles Hoffer, an advocate of gun control, lent support to Cramer's charge when, in a 2004 examination of the Bellesiles case, he noted that influential members of the historical profession had "taken strong public stands on violence in our society and its relation to gun control."^[5] For instance, the academics solicited for blurbs by Bellesiles’ publisher Alfred A. Knopf "were ecstatic in part because the book knocked the gun lobby."^[6]Bellesiles energized this professional consensus by attempting to play "the professors against the NRA in a high-wire act of arrogant bravado."^[7] For instance, he replied to Heston’s criticism by telling the actor to earn a Ph.D. before criticizing the work of scholars.^[8] He pointed out that Cramer was "a long time advocate of unrestricted gun ownership" while he was a scholar who had "certain obligations of accuracy that transcend current political benefit."^[9] After Bellesiles claimed he had been flooded by hate mail, both the American Historical Association and the Organization of American Historians endorsed a resolution condemning the alleged harassment.^[10] As Hoffer later wrote, Bellesiles was convinced that whether the entire profession agreed with “his stance on gun ownership (and I suspect most did), surely academic historians would not let their expertise be impugned by a rank and partisan amateur like Cramer.” ^[11]

NB personal from this writer: The disappointment of scholars seems not to be so much  that Bellesiles' publications played the professors against the NRA, as it is that he was clumsy at it. Second Amendment Advocates are accustomed to being lied about by academics; professorial knee-jerk reaction against Constitional rights are commonplace. We are accustomed to it, consider the source (academians, insulated from the real world), and we dismiss their "ivory tower" pronouncements ... as is reasonable, logical, right and proper.  I'm amazed that you criticized Bellesiles!

Well, you didn't actually disagree with him, did you?  You merely thought his research was poorly documented.

And so in the end, when he was caught with his professorial pants down, Bellesiles chose not to defend his academic accuracy, but to attack his accuser; Cramer.

JUST LIKE KELLERMAN, Bellesiles used shoddy research techniques, exagerated the results, lied when the data didn't match his thesis, and in the end proved himself indefensible by the ageless schoolyard retort:  

DID NOT!

Unfortunately, Wikipedia provides the death-knell to Bellesiles' career:

Historians who initially admired Arming America ceased to defend Bellesiles. The nationally prominent historian Garry Wills, who had enthusiastically reviewed Arming America for the New York Times,^[25] later said, in a 2005 interview on C-SPAN, "I was took. The book is a fraud." Wills noted that Bellesiles "claimed to have consulted archives he didn't and he misrepresented those archives," although "he didn't have to do that," since "he had a lot of good, solid evidence." Wills added, "People get taken by very good con men."^[26]Historian Roger Lane, who had reviewed the book positively in the Journal of American History,^[27] offered a similar opinion: "It is entirely clear to me that he's made up a lot of these records. He's betrayed us. He's betrayed the cause. It's 100 percent clear that the guy is a liar and a disgrace to my profession. He's breached that trust."^[28] Historian Pauline Maier reflected that it seemed historians had "ceased to read carefully and critically, even in the awarding of book prizes."^[29]

Good Bye,  Michael A. Bellesiles, PHD, Liar.  See ya!  Glad I don't have to Be Ya!
(How's that  job at MacDonald's working out for you?)

Limit 'Ammunition Clips'

The really charming thing about Professional Politicians (aka: "Those Sucking On The Public Teat") is that they feel free to state broad generalizations for publicity, but they're not so good on details.

During the June 26 broadcast of Meet the Press, Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA) said the U.S. needs to put stricter limits on the capacity of “ammunition clips.”

Host Chuck Todd initiated the focus on gun control by asking, “Are you in favor of an assault weapons ban?” Kaine responded, “I have voted for it, but I think there’s a better way to go at the problem–and that is limitations on the size of magazines and ammunition clips.”
Kaine said the way to undercut manufacturers’ ability to skirt bans is to say, “You can’t sell an ammunition clip or a magazine that would have more than 10 or 12 rounds, that is a very strict [ban].”

Problem?

There is a problem?

I wasn't aware of it.  Just what 'problem' would be 'gone at' by limitations on the "size of magazines and ammunition clips"?  (Ignore the awkward and semi-literate phraseology of the Democratic Senator from Virginia.  We all know he's talking about how many rounds may be loaded into a firearm before it must be reloaded.)

So, it's a 'very strict ban' to SELL (not possess, not import, not manufacture)  "magazines and ammunition clips" which would have more than "10 or 12 rounds".

In what way is this "a very strict ban"?   What should it be, TEN or TWELVE rounds?  Why is one number 'better' than another?  Why not Six, or Seven?  Why not Thirty rounds?  Where do you draw the line, and what should be the penalty if your TEN ROUND MAGAZINE (for example) is proven to accept ELEVEN ROUNDS if you push hard enough ... even though it may not feed reliably?

The question may sound ... facetious.  But it's actually a point of law.  It's only that the 'limit' is so arbitrary, and proposed as a law which will be enforced (fine or jail time???) that People Want To Know!

Would this make a felon of an honest citizen?  Are the people who propose these laws actually aware of the harm which they potentially do?  

Do they even care?  Or is all just a media event?  (Which doesn't mean they won't enact that, or a similar, law; they have done that before !)

(My "Ten Round" .40 cal/10mm magazines can be converted with a vise or a pair of pliers to accept and feed 11 or more rounds of 9mm ammunition ... or I can just put the magazine on the concrete garage floor and stomp on it until the feed lips are close enough to single-feed 9mm ammo.  Does this make me a felon?)

The point is .. this is all arbitrary, there is no justification for these proposed magazine limits, and these people are making it up as they go along; but you and I are the ones who face penalty, confication, prison time if we break these unreasonable and arbitrary "laws"!

No idea where The Honerable (if ignorant) Gentleman from Virginia pulled that number ... probably someone in a Gentlemen's Lounge brought it up in casual conversation, and the Honerable (if ignorant) Gentleman from Virginia though to himself:  "Hey, this is a headline grabber!"

WHAT PROBLEM?

One of the things that Effective Problem Solvers do is follow a Six Step Process:

STEP ONE:  Define the Problem
STEP TWO: Propose a solution; define the aims of the solution
STEP THREE: Define the alternatives, and possible consequences, of the solution
STEP FOUR: Test the solution
STEP FIVE:  Refine the solution; retest until (if necessary) discard it
STEP SIX: If not discarded, implement the solution

The Honerable (if ignorant) Gentleman from Virginia skipped Step One, went DIRECTLY to Step Two, and ignored everything else.

Just like a politician.

Here are just a couple of questions which one wishes that 'real reporters' would have asked:

• Why would "limiting ammunition clips" solve A problem?
• What is "The Problem" that this measure is intended to resolve?
• Why does The Honerable (if ignorant) Gentleman from Virginia think that this measure would solve ANY problems?
• How did this idiot get elected

Here's the BAD news:  Senator Kaine is on the "Short List" for Vice Presidential Candidate under prospective Democratic Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton.

God Preserve America, because this composit list of IDIOTS political incompetents certainly will not.

Just saying ...

God Protect America and Americans, because our lawmakers are idiots who know not what they do ............ not do they really give a damn as long as it looks good in the newspapers.