The Loneliness of the Liberal Gun Lover

In article titled (obviously) after "The Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner", Politico offers an delightful article describing a group of people who are decidedly on the "Left" side of the political spectrum ... but who enjoy shooting sports.

The people profiled would feel quite comfortable chatting with the guy who sits beside me in The Short Bus on the way to an IPSC match.  I liked the personalities described in the article.  People think that Conservatives are hateful .. we just like to be left alone to hatch our plots and go shooting on the weekends.   Anybody who doesn't think that Guns are the Instrument of the Devil is okay.

(I was kidding about hatch-plotting;

 life's too short and there are only so many shooting hours in a day.)

These people seem to have the same priorities.   At the range, we all just want to go shooting:

The Loneliness of the Liberal Gun Lover - POLITICO Magazine:

A lifelong liberal who had voted twice for Obama, O’Quinn [the primary interviewee] absorbed the insults in silence [when subjected to anti-liberal comments in a public forum]. Despite her love of shooting—she owns a 12-gauge shotgun that she likes to take out for skeet shooting—she was wary of going to a gun range because she didn’t want to run into anyone like her instructor, people who would use the image of President Obama for target practice. Three weeks ago, she found the Liberal Gun Club on an Internet search, and realized it would be holding its annual meeting an hour from her house. “I was so uncomfortable,” she said to the group. “I’m so happy to be here.” The room gave her a round of applause.

Here's the thing:  People Of The Gun are pretty much live-and-let live kind of folks.  At the range, we don't want to talk about politics.  We don't care who you vote for, we just want to feel confident that you are aware of the basic rules of firearm safety and won't be pointing your gun at us.

The only politics discussed are which politicians are trying to undermine our Second Amendment rights.   Answer:  Democrats.  The political positions are their choice, so we tend to vote the straight Republican ticket.   People of The Gun are usually single-issue voters.  Don't fuck with us, okay?

Pretty simple.  Basics are important when everyone around you is carrying a gun.   So I can understand when a person who votes for the politician who is running on the political platform of "Gun Control" is held in dubious respect by the people at a pistol range.

However, I agree that shooting at targets which depict a political opponent is, at best, very bad judgement.

The Dog Ate My Homework

I was late to my "Introduction to USPSA" class Saturday.

It was unavoidable.

The dog ate my homework.

His name was "Dusty".  He was a blond cocker spaniel ... with a docked tail (I always though it was cruel of his previous owners to dock his tail) and when he was happy,  his little stub of a tail wouldn't do much.  So he wagged his whole rear end.

So cute!

He was always happy.

I got him when I was in the  fifth grade, which would be about 1950.  He would be ... what ... sixty seven now?  In dog years (a seven-to-one ration) that would be something on the order of 6,530 years old (in :dog years").  That's pretty old for a dog.

Lately, he wasn't wagging his tail very often.  I could tell he was too old for much joy.  I think he was getting a little broke down.  For example, his hind legs didn't work so good any more, so he had to drag his ass from one side of the front room to the other.  He couldn't sleep with me any more, either; the bedroom is upstairs, which he couldn't navigate.  Which was, frankly, okay by me.  Stink? oh my!

And as for jumping in my bed to sleep with me?  Oh Argh!   It was pitiful to watch, until he got too old to .. as I said .. navigate the stairs.  Which was about 20 years ago.

Anyway, I discovered Saturday Morning (the day of my class) that he couldn't lift his head above the doggie bowl to eat his breakfast.  He didn't miss much ... I quit putting food in his bowl last year, but he never noticed because .. well, he couldn't see into it.  (I saved a TON of money on dog food this year!)

But he DID have sufficient energy to eat the paper that I had used to print my class notes on. Such an ungrateful creature!

Okay, so maybe I could have given him some fresh food, but it has been so long since I fed him, I think we both had forgotten what dog food looked like.

So Saturday, when I was suppose to be at the range by noon, I noticed that Dusty wasn't his natural exuberant self.  I think perhaps he had forgotten where his tail was, so he couldn't wag it. 
Who needs a cocker spaniel who can't wag?

Well, he had already forgotten his name.  And my name.  And the street address (which I had, as a loving pet owner,  taught him to bark out in octal bytes .. he WAS the pet of a computer programmer, after all!)

So Dusty is history, except that he had already cost me seven dollars and fifty cents for dog food (which he never ate, bless his loving heart!) this year.

So I got out my dust pan, swept him into it, and dumped him into the trash basket.

And I put his name on the dust pan:  "DUSTY"!
(I used an erasable marking pen; I may buy another dog!)

He was such a good dog .. he quit pooping on the carpet years ago and never caused me a bit of trouble until he made me late for my class yesterday.

I'll miss him.

Also, I'll have to remember to dust that corner which was, and will always (in my memory) be "Dusty's Corner"!

(sniff)  eyew ... maybe I'll dust that corner tonight ... it's getting a little ripe.

To my credit, I didn't tell the folks in my class that I was late because "the dog ate my homework".

That's so lame!

"Common Ground" on the Second Amendment?

Three Ways to Find Common Ground of Guns

Democrats want longer waiting periods to buy a gun, a limit on gun magazines, a ban on “assault weapons” (though most have trouble describing them), a limit on the number of firearms you can own, etc.   Second Amendment supporters staunchly oppose all of those things.

uh huh.

Like that's gonna happen!
 Bunch of know-nothing libtards who are willing to give up ANY Constitutional Rights that they're not currently using.  Wait until their FIRST Amendment Rights are infringed!

Blessed are the peace-makers?

More like "Damned if they do/Dammed if they don't"!

For the Liberal anti-gunners, Vegas is just another talking point.  The rest of us damn the asshole with a gun all to hell.  He killed good people and at the same time provided yet another excuse for "Gun Control"  (hiss!) 

As if laws are going to stop an outlaw.

The Second Amendment is, always has been, always will be the most tendentious/controversial part of the Constitution ... and for good reason.

People who own guns are for it; people who don't own guns are against it.

Both sides have their reasons, present their arguments (sometimes reasonably; more often emotionally) and "... never the twain shall meet".

People who are determined to kill innocents won't be deterred by any law; that's why they're called OUTLAWS!
------------------------------------ *the bulk of the article is below the fold* --------------

Would YOU mistake a turtle for a gun?

We're putting more trust in "artificial intelligence" to take care of our fleshy bodies in risky situations than ever before.

Researcher: ‘We Should Be Worried’ This Computer Thought a Turtle Was a Gun - Motherboard:

Self-driving cars, airport luggage scans, security cameras with facial recognition, and various medical devices all employ 'some' variation of AI ("Artificial Intelligence") systems, and more systems will do so in the future, as we become more "comfortable" with trusting our machines to do our thinking for us..

 But neural networks are easy to fool, if you fiddle with the algorithms just a tiny bit.  Or worse, if you don't!

Or worst, we don't have to "fiddle" anything.   We just have to trust the humans who designed the systems to have thought of every possible situation, and have 'programed' the systems to know the exact best response to any foreseen situation.

What about the situations which haven't been "foreseen"?

One example might be the madman who ran a rented pickup-truck on a crowded sidewalk in NYC,  killing or injuring dozens of people?

Gee, who could have foreseen that?

Oh, it's New York City ... all kinds of freaky stuff happens in that, one of the most crowded cities in the world (with the possible exception of, say, "Tokyo").   In a crowded rat-cage, anything can happen.  And eventually, it will.

As the Mayor of NYC said, we can't put a policeman on every corner.

Even if they could post a cop on every corner, it's doubtful that they could have prevented either the tragedy in NYC.  People are weird ... remember "Bump-Stock Vegas"?

What's the problem?  "People are weird."   Right, we got that.

What's the solution?  Nobody knows.
  Prince William said recently that the problem with this world is that there are too many people in it.

He may have a point, but what's the solution?  Hitler had a solution; we didn't like it.  Hitler died in a hole in the ground bunker; good choice.

Maltheusian Theory is that eventually the earth will be so over-populated that we will be unable to feed everyone.  (Prince William must be channeling his inner Thomas R. Maltheus)

Eventually (stealing from the Science Fiction Literature premise of "If This Goes On ...") we'll end up like Schrödinger's cat ... locked up in this box called "Earth", we will be both alive and dead at the same time.   There's nobody watching us from the 'outside' to know the difference; there's just us.  You and Me.

Lebensraum:

Hitler saw this coming on a smaller scale (Germany in the 1930's).  He began his conquest of Europe in order to provide "living room" (and resources) for the expansion of the German people. That ended up badly for him.  (see above).

But what can you expect?  He was a madman and a visionary at the same time.   His only solution was to kill the people he didn't like (minorities) and conquer everybody else.  He came damn close to making his "final solution" work (for various definitions of "making it work"), and frankly it was only the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor which brought the Americans into WWII.   If you cross your eyes and stare at a spinning bicycle wheel long enough, you might almost want to thank the Japanese for their contribution to World Peace!

Well ... perhaps not quite.  But you get the gist of it.

More likely, you may be a reader of Robert Heinlein ("If This Goes On"), or perhaps the maniacal ramblings of Harry Turtledove's "alternate histories", where the question of "what if the Confederate army moved to Africa and started a New World Order" may be explored in excruciating detail.  There are more than a couple of authors who imagine what our world might look like today if a powerful leader was able to impose his vision on the few of us who live lives of slavery and persecution.

No, it's not a pretty picture ... unless you're a member of the Chosen People.

Have I strayed from the subject?

Not really.

We may not live in the "Perfect World" envisioned by speculative fiction, and that's a blessing to "most of us".

Probably.

 We may not like our national leaders, but so far they haven't been able to impose their ideals on the most of us to the advantage of a privileged few.  (And yes, I'm aware that many people today who consider themselves "disadvantaged" will disagree with that statement.)

Getting back to the difference between a Turtle and a Gun ... oh, there was a point to be made; what was it?

Oh, right.  I remember now.

When we begin to put our faith in technology, we begin to lose our humanity.  A computer has no ethics.  It's just a machine.  We made it, we programmed it, and then we sit back and let the computer do all the work. 

What could possibly go wrong?

For starters: a computer can't always tell the difference between a turtle and a gun.

I was a computer programmer for 30 years.   I lived by the concept that "if anything can possibly go wrong ... it will".

People are fallible: they make mistakes, but sooner or later someone will say:
"Hey, what the heck ...?"   And then some underpaid computer programmer will pull an all-nighter and fix the program.  I know, I spend a lot of nights trying to debug a computer program that someone else wrote and had been doing things "wrong" for years, until someone happened to notice that their paycheck (for example) always ended with thirteen cents. 

True story. 

(Actually, I just made it up, but what the heck, it's my blog ... I can do that.)

People (well, most people) intuitively know the difference between a turtle and a gun.   That's important, especially if a thug points a turtle at you and says "Your Money or Your Life!"

  There's an old joke about the first passenger airplane which was  run by a computer.  Just after it took off with it's first load of passengers, it put the following message out on the Public Address System:

"Welcome to Artificial Airlines Inaugural Flight.   This airplane has no pilot, no co-pilot ... the only employees are those who will shortly be serving your lunch.  There are no humans involved in navigation or piloting this airplane.  It is completely controlled by a computer, and there is absolutely NO possibility that anything will go wrong (click) go wrong (click) go wrong (click) go wrong (click) go wrong (click) ..."

Trust me on this one:

Never trust a computer to get your paycheck 'right'!

Oh ... sorry; too late.

Politicians Presume to Instruct the public on Gun Control

(A Republican lent his weight to this travesty?  Oh ..  a New York "Republican".  Never mind.)

Thompson, King propose ‘anti-criminal, pro-Second Amendment’ gun control bill:

 U.S. Reps. Mike Thompson (D-St. Helena) and Peter King (R-NY) on Friday introduced a bill aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, domestic abusers and the dangerously mentally ill. H.R. 4240, the bipartisan Thompson-King background check legislation — officially known as the Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act of 2017 * — expands the existing background check system to cover all commercial firearm sales, including those at gun shows, over the internet or in classified ads, Thompson’s office staff said. It does so while providing reasonable exceptions for family and friend transfers, they said.

*(emphasis added)

I wonder how they propose to track private transactions. Oh ... they'll pass a law!  Sure, that'll do it!

The funny thing about Politicians is the they can't stop themselves from pontificating, even if they don't know what they're talking about.   Their job is to pass laws ... usually (as in this case) laws which regulate private transactions which are already regulated.   Well, if they don't pass a law every year or so, people won't re-elect them (or so they think).

[Personally, if I ever meet a politician who has completed his/her entire term of office without imposing another law restricting my civil rights, I'll vote for him/her every time!]

This "Second Amendment Rights Protection Act" doesn't do a darned thing to protect the Second Amendment, but it adds a "suspenders on top of belt" level of legislation to impose a background check on top of background checks which are already in place, in most states.

To be more emphatic, the awkward (and inaccurate) title assigned to the bill doesn't do a damn thing to "protect" our Second Amendment Rights; but what it DOES is impose another layer of oversight on  transfers of firearms ownership which are already regulated on a state level.

Now, what do you think the National Instant Check System (NICS) does?

People who own firearms know that EVERY GUN SHOW IN THE COUNTRY already processes firearms transactions through NICS.

And "private transactions"?

"Gee, officer, I never knew that if I sold my shotgun to my neighbor, I needed to ask permission from the Guvmint!"

Bunch of self-righteous, smirking politicians. They haven't had a good day at the office until they've patted their secretary's fanny or infringed the civil rights of their constituents.

(Those Fat Bottom Girls have no idea how much they contribute to America's Freedoms ... a helluva lot more than their bosses, that's for sure!)

Appendix Carry for USPSA/IPSC

It was cold, with moments of  "chilly"(46 degrees with wind and occasional sprinkles of rain) at the range today when I conducted my monthly Introduction to USPSA class.


I had only two students, which is approximately two more than I had expected to show up because of the "iffy" weather. 

But I think I may have learned as much as my 'students' did, although I haven't had time to think through the lesson.   I'll call them "Arnold Appendix" and "Kevin Kydex" for convenience.

One ("Arnold") was using an "Appendix Carry" holster, concealed carry ... his t-shirt covered his pistol.  The other ("Kevin") had a 'standard" belt-mounted Kydex holster which he had fastened to his belt at the hip ... not 'concealed' at all.

Arnold was very subtly concealed, and Kevin was open-carry.  Both seemed to be familiar with their firearms and performed adequately in terms of being accurate and 'fast' shooters.

But neither of them were able to re-holster their pistols without actually looking to see where their holster was at.

I had mentioned to Arnold that his holster was not particularly "competitive", in terms of being able to get it into action quickly, but both shooters managed to get their first-shot on the target with some consistency, even at targets placed at 20 yards distance, in about a 3 second draw-time.   So I guess the difference between "concealed" and "convenient" was dependent on how they had become accustomed to accessing their guns  (I doubt that Kevin went "open carry" as much as Arnold went "concealed carry", which speaks well for Arnold.)

Most of the targets I set up for them were at 7-10 yard distance, so it was perhaps a learning moment when they realized that they had to take more time to get hits at longer distances.  (Both were shooting DAO firearms.)

It was rewarding to me to process shooters who were experienced (although not in competitive pistol shooting) and familiar with their handguns.  Often, I find that I spend more time on 'weapons familiarity' than teaching competitive tactics.

The only criticism I can suggest is that both participants demonstrated difficulty in finding their holster when they had completed the stage and needed to re-holster their pistols.  They often had to look down to find their holster.  And of course Arnold had to pull his t-shirt up to reveal his holster.

Which is why I made the "not particularly competitive" comment to Arnold.  It was not a criticism, because both shooters were competent, and I didn't get the feeling that I had to teach them the basics of gun-handling, but only focus on the competition factors.   And to be entirely honest, Arnold managed to draw and fire from his appendix carry as quickly as Kevin did from his side-holster.

(Observation #1: it's curious that I seem to be 'teaching' experienced shooters who are familiar with their firearms during the cold months more often than during the clement periods.)

(Observation  #2: It was especially educational when they were faced with the "Mandatory Reload" exercises ... I don't think that they had actually contemplated that performing a reload during a shooting exercise might be a valuable part of their skill-set.  Nice that I could teach them something.)

The Best part was that they were having fun. 

I cut them off short at 4pm because of cold, rain, and I was running out of new challenges for them.  Also, in The Great "Northwet" at this time of year the light fades quickly after that hour.   They were not exactly 'happy' about having to stop playing, but they were almost as ready to get in the truck and crank up the heater.

We were all chilling, and we didn't do enough "shoot and move" exercises to keep all of us warm; when you're one of only two shooters, it's uncomfortable to just stand and watch your partner get the run&gun play.

I was happy to award both of them with their Certificate of Completion for the class.  They already had the skills, needing only the occasional tweak in technique to accommodate bizarre Competition requirements.   And I think that is ... or should be ... the point of this class.  I don't mind teaching students the basics of gun handling, but that isn't really my job.

See: Teaching Nubies:

Teaching Nubies: Herding Cats

I teach a class in Introduction to USPSA (see: previous post).

The very first class I taught (about 8 or 10 years ago ... seems like longer) I had no NO experience in teaching a class but I had a decade or two of competition experience, so I thought I knew everything I needed to know to teach people how to shoot in USPSA competition.

I didn't know how little I knew, and neither did my home club (Albany Rifle and Pistol Club in Oregon).   So when I was approached by the club president to teach this class, I had no idea how little forethought had gone into the proposition by the club president.  He wanted to encourage people to participate in club matches (a money maker for the club) and thought it was a fine idea to find a willing sap member to teach the class. 

I was the Willing Sap. 

I had full control over the class; nobody else was willing to touch it.

The people who signed up for the class (there were 13 of them) were typically people who were not  ... through no fault of their own ...competent to shoot a pistol in any venue, let along in competition.  I had no help, no assistant, and I accepted anyone who showed up at the date and time and place designated.

Some of the people not only didn't know that they had to keep their pistol on 'safe" from time to time, they didn't even know that their pistol had a "safety catch"!

And it got worse from there; fortunately, nobody actually fired their pistol until they thought they were on target.  Other than that, it was like herding cats.

Some didn't know that part of IPSC-style competition involved reloading their pistol.  Others didn't know when, how or why to reload.  Of the 13 students, at least a few didn't know that when their pistol stopped working ... they didn't need to have permission from their instructor (me) to reload.

Some only had one or two magazines; there was no agreement among them about how many rounds they should load into their magazines.  Most expected the Range Officer (me) to tell them what to do next, why, or how. 

(I take back that comment about "herding cats"; Cats at least know how to yowl and run away.  There were times when I wished I was as wise as a cat; I stuck around, and tried to learn faster than my students.)

Since then, the club has initiated a number of 'supportive' classes, not the least of which have been "introduction to pistol shooting" where the students are taught all of the controls on their pistols, when why and how to use them, and what those 'controls' do.

I am very grateful that my club has been willing to learn as fast as they can.  The folks who pay for instruction on such courses as "Introduction to Pistol Shooting" get their money's worth.

More important, when they show up at my "Introduction to USPSA" class, they have been taught the rudiments.

Unfortunately, that class has often been scheduled immediately before the "Introduction to USPSA" class, which I teach.   People who take two classes "back-to-back" are sometimes overwhelmed by the instruction,

It may be a better plan to allow "new shooters" at least a week to assimilate the instructions that they have already been taught, before they are advanced to more complicated competitive techniques such as those which I teach.

ARPC might take notice of this, and consider rescheduling classes.  But I doubt it will happen.

Hotter than Hell, and twice as frightening!

California fires are getting WAY out of hand.

  Link to latest news (in case you don't  have a television) ...


H/T -- The G-Man

What Happens In Vegas ...

I'm not saying that everything that happens in Vegas is weird.

I'm just saying that it should stay in Vegas.   And it doesn't matter if the politicians involved  are Democrats or Republicans, they all have one single priority: to get their name in the newspapers.

Unfortunately, this tendency toward over-reaction seems endemic to the area; even editorial writers get caught up in the excitement.

CASE IN POINT: Recent article in the Vegas newspaper (edited here for brevity):


Rosen-backed gun control bill goes too far – Las Vegas Review-Journal:

By Victor Joecks Las Vegas Review-Journal

October 21, 2017 - 10:19 pm

It was entirely predictable that Democrats would use the horrific Las Vegas Strip shooting to renew their push for gun control. It was also entirely predictable that they would go too far. In the days after the shooting, it looked like a rare consensus had emerged on gun control. ...
 Rep. and U.S. Senate candidate Jacky Rosen, D-Nev, jumped on the opportunity to do just that. She recently bragged in a news release that she is an original co-sponsor on “legislation to ban bump stocks.” The bill would ban bump stocks. It would also ban all semi-automatic rifles. Here’s why. It makes it illegal “to manufacture, possess, or transfer any part or combination of parts that is designed and functions to increase the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle.” There’s a part on every rifle that’s “designed and functions to increase the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle.” You may have heard of it. It’s called a trigger.

[emphasis added]

Over-reach?

The author [Joecks] of the Review-Journal article declares that Rosen's proposed legislation is too "broad", and would ban all semi-automatic firearms because a "trigger" can be used to increase the rate of fire.  Even if it is activated only by the firearm user's trigger finger without the addition of a 'device'.

The bill cited in the article has the following text:

(a) PROHIBITION.—Section 922 of title 18, United 9 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: ‘‘It shall be unlawful for any person— ‘‘(1) in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, to manufacture, possess, or transfer any part or combination of parts that is designed and functions to increase the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but does not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun; or ‘‘(2) to manufacture, possess, or transfer any such part or combination of parts that have been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.’’. 

(edited to remove line numbers and other confusing detriti)

Joecks seems to suggest that the bill would result in triggers being outlawed by the bill.

I'm not a professional journalist, like Joecks seems to be, but I can't believe that a bill which specifically mentions "parts or combination of parts" can be so grossly misconstrued to suggest that a trigger is designed to INCREASE the rate of fire.   Not even a Democrat can be so dumb as to think that ....

oh.




Never mind.

"Sensible" gun control ?

An Op Ed "Letter to the Editor" style opinion article in The ADVOCATE (Baton Rouge, Louisiana) offers an ... interesting ... mix of Gun Control suggestions.   Some of which are reasonable (which means I don't necessarily disagree with them), some of them are a not-so-subtle support of registration of guns and gun-owners, and a few of them are outrageous. 

(NOTE: Reader Op Eds links are not necessarily permanent; I've added a copy of the original text "under the fold".)

Letters: Some ideas for sensible gun control | Letters | theadvocate.com:

 1) Guns purchased legally, according to laws in effect at time of purchase, and not used illegally since, are private property and cannot be arbitrarily confiscated by federal, state or local authorities. 

<ME: concur ... it's in the Constitution?>

2) The Second Amendment does not need reinterpretation or revision. Private gun ownership and possession is a constitutional right.

<ME: Sneaky, since he's just about to "infringe" on that right?>

 3) All gun sales need to be accompanied by an efficient background check of the purchaser. This includes gun show, private and online purchases.
<;ME: Disagree ... always includes both buyer and seller identification, as well as description of the firearm; which is tantamount to  registration of the gun and identification of both buyer and seller as firearms owners.  And yes, this is an increasingly common practice and I'm still against it because the firearm serial number is invariably included!  Protests that the records of such a transaction are permanently deleted after a certain period of time are not convincing; nobody has said that the identity of buyer and seller, and firearm, are deleted; just the transaction record itself.>

 4) Carry, both concealed and open, should be prohibited with exceptions for hunters and recreational shooters. If you are going hunting, going recreational shooting, carry the gun. If you are going to church, the store, a demonstration and gun-free-zones: Leave the gun at home. 

<ME: Disagree ... and so does the Supreme Court.  re: HELLER> and MACDONALD>

 5) Gun manufacturers must be regulated to include the requirement to imprint permanent, non-erasable serial numbers on multiple parts of any gun. This regulation would also require a serial number or code imprint on all bullets sold. Reloaders, who don’t sell, are exempt. Letters: Congress should strengthen gun control I hope my U.S. senators, John Kennedy and Bill Cassidy, along with my U.S. representative, C… 

 

Disagree, with bells and whistles.   You see what the author has done, lulling you to sleep with the first couple of paragraphs and then he trots out his unrealistic Liberal philosophy.   Reasons: inadequate definition of terms such as "bullets" (one assumes he means "loaded cartridges" rather than components), but the idea of serialized ammunition has long been debunked as unrealistic, impractical, and ultimately without redeeming value.  See: "Connecticut">
6) Manufacturers of so-called “smart guns” would be encouraged with substantial tax breaks and/or other federal/local financial incentive to create guns that cannot be randomly fired.

<ME: Disagree, if only because the idjit author introduces terminology ("randomly fired") without context or definition.   If nothing else, this 'minor error' demonstrates the  basic incompetence/inexperience of the author.>

 7) Conventional gun purchases would accrue extra taxes, added to both gun and ammunition, with the proceeds dedicated to implement gun control. 

<ME: Disagree, not only because this "extra taxes" clause is undefined (though an increasingly "common practice", but if Gun Control is everybody's problem, then everybody should chip in.   Asking law-abiding gun owners to bear the burden is like a Fascist state executing dissidents, and then requiring the surviving family members to pay for the bullet.>

 8) Weapons classified as “assault” guns (as commonly understood) and all rapid-fire guns or guns capable of automatic fire are prohibited to private owners. They may be owned by clubs to be used by members and cannot be moved off site. Shooting clubs possessing these guns must carry liability insurance. Collectors (to be defined) and museums may also own these automatic weapons. These type of guns already in private hands are private property and cannot be arbitrarily confiscated. 

<ME: Disagree, because (A) the term "assault" is not commonly understood or defined, (B) "rapid fire" and "automatic fire" not defined , (C) under the broadest terms, constitutes over 50% of firearms in America, (D) under only slightly narrower terms, protected by the Constitution in most cases.   Note also that true "Assault Rifles" are rifle-caliber, capable of 'selective fire', and are already closely regulated since the 1930's.>

 9) Who is barred from gun ownership? Violent felons, those accused of domestic violence until the accusation is dismissed, anyone deemed by psychiatric experts to be mentally unstable and anyone refusing to take a gun safety course and/or refusing to demonstrate safe handling procedures. This is not an all-inclusive list.

<ME: Convicted violent felons and convicted domestic abusers are already denied their Second Amendment Rights (and some other civil rights as well).   "Accused" persons cannot be permanently denied their civil rights under the Constitution.  Refusal to "take a course" or "demonstrate safe handling procedures" is not grounds to deny a legal American his Constitutional rights, nor should it be.    The author might consider whether his right to vote should be obviated because he refuses to, or is unable to, define the Bill of Rights.    The comment "not an all-inclusive list" smacks of tyranny; if you're not prepared to define all the things you don't like about the Second Amendment, Bucky, then you're no better than a petty third-world dictator.>

10) Controversial gun accessories prohibited: high-capacity magazines. This accessory is not for private ownership, but for shooting clubs only. Current owners of high-capacity magazines have property rights to them. Bump stocks — no private ownership. Current owners have property rights. This is not a complete list of controversial gun accessories.

<ME: It doesn't matter whether you provide a 'complete list', it's sufficient that you are of the mind set of Dictators through-out history:    "IF it is not specifically permitted, it is prohibited.":

This is America; we don't work that way any more.  A bunch of guys in Concord and Lexington laid down their lives to start the ball rolling.  Are you sure you're not British?

ME: And by the way, "shooting clubs" have no absolute need for "high-capacity" magazines.  During the shameful era when magazines of greater than 10 rounds were outlawed, shooting competitions which previously allowed "high-capacity magazines" (here, >10 rounds) adjusted their rules.   Those of us who competed with guns were disgruntled, but obeyed the law.   The "high-capacity magazine" was not designed for competition ... I've been shooting competitively for sixty years, and I've dealt with all the rules. 

"High-capacity magazines" were designed for non-competitive purposes.  Are they used in competition?  Sure .. some varieties of competition.   But if you have to do a reload in competition, it's because the rules require it.  Everybody abides by the same rules, so it merely adds an interesting complexity to the shooting problem.

But when you're alone in a dark parking lot and you're waylaid by a gang of thugs, you don't get a 'time penalty' when you have to reload; you get hurt.  Badly.


 11) Finally, manufacturers, research institutes and universities must be encouraged with grants and favorable laws to design safer, less-lethal guns intended for use by the general public. 

<ME: There is no way to design "less-lethal guns", because a gun is, by definition, a "lethal weapon".  (Look it up, it's in the book.)   We do have "less-lethal" alternatives to guns, such as pepper-spray, whistles, cell phones.  You strike me as a man who has never been attacked by someone who is bigger, stronger, more aggressive ... more violent than you.>

 Gun control in the U.S. is far too complex and emotional an issue to be settled quickly. Compromise is essential. Fanatics and extremists on both sides must not be allowed to commandeer the debate. We must plan for the future and accept the idea that it will take more than a generation to reach consensus.

<ME: That's the funny thing about "Gun Grabbers" (and you are one); they always talk about "COMPROMISE".In Lib-Talk, "COMPROMISE" means: "Gun Owners Give Up Something Important To Them, And We Move On And Ask Them To Compromise On The Next Reasonable Gun Control Safety Item On Our To-Do List".>

 What's the compromise here?  What are "people like you", who always know what I should do to undermine my Constitutional Rights, willing to give up in return to my sacrifice?
Never mind, I already know that this is a one-way street, and for you it's "my way or the highway".>

[NOTE: the original article was submitted by "Greig Olivier retired fabricator".   Because links to opinion editorials are not necessarily "permanent", I've included the full text below the fold]

Murder Insurance?

The NRA has shot itself in the foot ... again.  And it's their own damn fault.  (My annual membership dues are paid up for this year, so I can say this.)

A recent "Hello Giggles" article accuses the National Rifle Association of offering "Murder Insurance":

Why the NRA’s new “murder insurance” is so alarming to gun control activists:

Gun lobbyists have been working tirelessly to protect gun owners and their “right to bear arms.” In a move that has left many gun control activists absolutely appalled, the National Rifle Association is now putting its weight behind insurance coverage for NRA members who may find themselves dealing with lawsuits that stem from shooting someone. In other words, the NRA-sponsored insurance policy will provide “clean-up costs for any covered claim resulting from the use of a legally possessed firearm — including an act of self-defense.” The NRA’s “Carry Guard” sells itself as the “most complete self-defense insurance program and training for those who carry a gun.” But some are calling it “murder insurance.” This move is prompting many to ask: Why implement better laws to regulate guns when someone can shoot first and show their “murder insurance” card later?

Why call it "Murder Insurance"?

Good question;  the NRA website (see below) doesn't present the details in a manner as obvious as it might have, and that makes it reasonable to misunderstand the conditions. 

The "Carry Guard" insurance policy will NOT reimburse the insured if the firearm was not legally possessed, is not used in self-defense, or if the insured is otherwise found guilty (of a felony).

Which is to say, it specifically does not pay if the insured murders somebody.

But anyone who casually visits the NRA website might be forgiven for not having noticed the "fine print".  I think that the NRA has deliberately (or on the advice of shysters lawyers) buried the details deep in the webpage which offers the insurance plan.  Well, that's what lawyers do; give bad advice.

So when someone criticizes their policy, and automatically assumes that the policy will recompense "murderers" ... it may be somewhat naive, but it's politically useful!

The NRA has nobody to blame but themselves for this misinterpretation.

IN CASE YOU DIDN'T READ THE FINE PRINT:

Here's the applicable FAQ text from the NRA Carry Guard website:

Each NRA Carry Guard member’s insurance applies to four components: Civil suit liability, civil defense legal costs, criminal defense reimbursement and supplementary payments. When an NRA Carry Guard member uses a legally possessed firearm in self-defense, the member will have immediate access to their insured supplementary payments. This amount is up to 20% of the criminal defense reimbursement limit. Any criminal defense costs incurred by the member are reimbursed when their case is dismissed or are found not guilty. If a civil suit is presented by the alleged victim(s), the remaining policy limit will apply. Supplementary payments and related criminal defense reimbursement expenses will reduce the amount of insurance available for civil suit damage awards.

Side Note:

Hello Giggles was co-founded by Zooey Deschanel, an actress from a family of actors (including sister Emily Deschanel, "Doctor Temperance Brennan" in BONES).   I like BONES more than I like the people who run the NRA.   I think Zooey appeared on one episode.

But sometimes, like today ... the NRA is almost as entertaining as Television.

"I Fought The Law, and The Law Won"

Good for you, Judge Benitez; at least one high court officer understands his obligation to support the Constitution!

(The Judge denied California Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom's petition for a magazine ban.)

Gavin Newsom Asks Court to Allow 'High Capacity' Magazine Ban: Breitbart

Note that Newsom’s claim contains an admission that the ban will not stop “high-fatality” attacks altogether. Rather, it is yet another in a long list of California controls that is promulgated in the name of safety, only to result in diminished freedom. The loss of freedom would result from the fact that only law-abiding citizens would follow a “high capacity” magazine ban, like any gun law, and law-abiding citizens are the very people who are not misusing “high capacity” magazines to begin with. This was not lost on 

note again:
(Judge Benitez) ... blocked the ban because its implementation would have meant “hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of otherwise law-abiding citizens [would] have an untenable choice: become an outlaw or dispossess one’s self of lawfully acquired property.”

Compare that decision to this story (see below).

"Dude ... he's got a gun too!"

Detroit CPL holder unloads on armed robber caught on video - Story | WJBK:

Cynthia Quinn rushed to Henry Ford Hospital when she heard her son Sanchez Quinn had been shot. She called FOX 2 upset because she didn't know why she was not allowed to see her wounded son.

Reason why the cops wouldn't let her see her son was because he was shot while attempting an armed robbery ... against two men who were CPL holders (Concealed Pistol License).

The intended victims drew their weapons and shot the son and his cohort. (see video at the link above).

Some folks don't understand why innocent people "need" to carry a concealed weapon.

At least in Detroit, there are two sorry (and wounded) young men who now understand the rationale all too well.

Gnome Count: +2

(Hat Tip: thetruthaboutguns)

Confiscation: "There Ought To Be A Law ...

What's old is new again.

NRA-ILA | Anti-Gun Congresswoman Introduces Magazine Ban, Aims Slippery Slope at the Gun on Your Hip:

Last week Rep. Elizabeth Esty (D-CT) introduced H.R. 4052, a ban on what she is calling “large capacity ammunition feeding devices.”
 Esty’s bill would ban any “magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition … .” It exempts firearms with “an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.” Mere possession, as well as import or transfer, would be prohibited by the bill.

Did you see what she did there?

She is requiring that legal devices be disposed of ... or confiscated, certainly not with the hope of compensation.  (And if they have to come get them, you can expect to pay the penalty.)

What other personal possession (with the possible exception of Drugs)  is subject to such draconian illegality?   Especially those possessions which were entirely legal when purchased.

She didn't even offer to kiss you.  (I'm given to understand that 'her kind' never kiss their 'clients'.)\

Gun Laws in Connecticut are already strict:

"Eat It!"

Termed the "Keep Americans Safe Act",  co-signed by at least 57 Members of Congress, the bill prohibits simple possession "or transfer" of a "large capacity feeding device" (etc. etc. etc.).  Terminology prohibits, you will note, selling the magazines.  Should the bill pass (chance are somewhere between SLIM and NONE, considering that the bill is unconstitutional in light of recent Supreme Court decisions), law-abiding Americans would have no choice but to destroy or "lose" said infernal devices.

Or have them confiscated ... and serve hard time for simple possession!

See ... this is why Firearms owners voted unanimously (or near enough to make no-nevermind) against the Hillary-Beast last November.

Elizabeth is equally anti-gun.  She has a reason.   From her House biography:

Elizabeth also serves as Vice Chair for the House Gun Violence Prevention Task Force. As the Representative for Newtown, CT, Elizabeth believes it is critical for our country to address gun violence and make a strong commitment to keeping families safe. That means sensible gun policies – expanded criminal background checks on all commercial gun sales, stricter penalties for illegal gun trafficking and straw purchases, a ban on high-capacity magazines, and a firm and lasting commitment to mental health services.

Gun Laws in Connecticut are already strict, and their Representative Esty seems determined to impose them on the rest of the country:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

Location of Connecticut in the United States

Gun laws in Connecticut regulate the sale, possession, and use of firearms and ammunition in the U.S. state of Connecticut. Connecticut requires training, background check and permitting requirements for the purchase of firearms and ammunition; and a ban (with exceptions) on certain semi-automatic firearms defined as "assault weapons" and magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds. Connecticut's licensing system for open and concealed carry is relatively permissive.

That red dot in the upper right hand corner of the map of America (continental U.S.) is the tiny state of Connecticut.

It's a weekend get-away for denizens of NYC ... when folks want to escape America for a couple of days but don't feel like driving all the way to Canada.

I'm sorry.  I'm sure it's a wonderful part of the country and the folks who live there love it, and are equally wonderful. Perhaps they don't feel they're "stuck with Esty".   They keep electing her.


My own home state continues to elect the Insufferable Earl Blumenaur to Congress.  Old Earl knocked on my front door one day about 30 years ago and asked me for my vote for him as one of Oregon's representatives.  He had been a council member in Portland, where I lived at the time.  I told him I wouldn't vote for him for the office of dog catcher, because I didn't dislike dogs that much.  My friends and neighbors have continued to keep him in office ever since ... GOD ONLY KNOWS WHY!

And yes, Ol' Earl is a co-sponsor of this bill.

And no, I have STILL never voted for him; yet he gets elected every year.

The world is full of Insufferable Twits; these are only two of them.

There ought to be a law ...

Steven Crowder... not his best journalistic contribution to the Second Amendment!

Steven Crowder Challenges College Students To Change His Mind On Guns - Bearing Arms - college students, Gun Control, ill-informed voters, Steven Crowder:

 Steven Crowder is one of the more interesting personalities on YouTube, mostly because he’s funny while also providing some pretty smart commentary. He recently tried something new. He set up a table at Texas University and challenged students to change his mind. In the process, he challenges their points of view. Check it out:

"Pretty Smart Commentary"?

It's pretty smarmy commentary.

Even if I agree with Crowder, he hasn't provided any valid discussion of the Second Amendment. 

Challenging College Frosh on campus in front of a camera is apparently nothing more than a publicity stunt.   And I always thought Crowder was better than that.  But I was wrong.

I found the miniscule count of dialogues interesting, but one-sided.  I would have preferred to see what happened when the students who sat in his visitor chair were more than "Bobble-Heads".   But he didn't have the guts to publish any encounters where he had to actually WORK to defend the Second Amendment.   The most intelligent response from any of the few college-age adolescents he "interviewed" was HUH? 

Unfortunately, it's impossible to comment directly on the article without a FaceBook page.  Like that's going to happen!

Over-all?

Two Thumbs Down for obvious editing of responses to make the Host look good.

... and a Third Thumb Down (if I had one) for restricting comments to FaceBook. 

Crowder has done some decent journalism in that past (not much, but some). But this is nothing more than Ambush Journalism, and clue-less college frosh are his unsuspecting targets of choice.

"Smart Commentary"?   I call it "Smarmy Commentary", and that's being generous.

BOO!

Moms Say The Darndest Things!

[Video] Oops! 'Moms' say laws would not have prevented Vegas shooting - The Gun Feed: [Video]

Just because you're a "Moms Opposed" doesn't mean you're not a Racist.

* See the last video clip* (18 minute video ... it's the same feed you would find by clicking on the title marked [Video])

(Obvious Hat Tip: The Gun Feed)

Slam Fire

I just read a blog article by Kathy Jackson at "The Cornered Cat" which pulled together a bunch of 'things learned', but I had never taken to heart.

The link is provided below, along with the two most salient paragraphs.  But I want to add a couple of paragraphs describing my own experiences:

(1) Several years ago, I and my Significant Other ("She Who Must Be Obeyed", or SWMBO) were competing in a USPSA/IPSC match at *Un-named Gun Club*, when during a reload with her STI Race Gun her firearm discharged.  She had held her pistol tilted dramatically high, and I KNOW it was a "Slam Fire" because I was the Range Officer and I was watching her carefully.   I Disqualified ("DQ") her, not because I thought she had her finger on the trigger during a reload (which is a DQ-able offence in IPSC/USPSA ... and she did NOT!) but because her muzzle was pointed high and I was sure that the round had left the range. Read: Went Over The Berm

(2) Moving forward a decade or two, I now teach a class in "Introduction to USPSA" for new competitors, and I tell this story to every class.  However, I don't make an effort to emphasize the lesson learned ... always keep the muzzle below the berm.

(3) Significantly, the same range where SWMBO had her Slam Fire episode has in the past few years added a new Range Rule: "Thou Shalt Endeavour to Keep Thy Muzzle Below The Berm, else suffer the Consequences of the Match DQ" (or words to that effect).  Call this "Rule #3".

Local competitors who attended USPSA matches at *Un-named Gun Club* have addressed this to USPSA, which organization has 'disenfranchised" the club from holding "USPSA MATCHES" because the club enforces a rule which is not supported by USPSA.  Or IPSC.

[So *Un-named Gun Club* continues to conduct "USPSA-TYPE" matches, but they call it something else.  I'm told that they *generally* follow the conventions of USPSA competition (many of which are shared by Defensive Concealed Carry Competition), plus their own local rule, but they don't send the results in to USPSA and competitors are not compelled to shoot a "classifier" stage.   Since USPSA doesn't acknowledge the club rules, and USPSA intellectual property (classifier stages, the rule book, and the name of the organization) are not involved, competitors are not credited with competing in an "organized" match.
Essentially, it's just a Fun Match.
It's also an opportunity to spend a pleasant day at the range with your friends, and to get some good solid gun-handling practice under your belt.]

Now, I had thought that Rule #3 was a bit of overkill (forgive the expression), but I had never actually thought it through ... despite my own personal experience.   However, considering the lesson provided by Kathy Jackson (link, and some text, below) I think it's something that I ought to emphasize in future Introduction to USPSA classes.

NOW read Kathy Jackson's comments, or preferably follow the link to the full story (Read The Whole Thing).

Keep the Muzzle Below the Berm | Cornered Cat:

There are far more instances where a gun fires upon slide forward (eg, “slam fire”) than I thought, and many instances where people in a hurry or new to the gun suffer a sympathetic squeeze reaction and fire the gun when they intend to either drop a slide or release a magazine. In most of these cases, the only thing that prevented serious injury or death was that the user fortuitously (sometimes deliberately, but more often fortuitously) pointed the gun in a safe direction. \

 Why are so many instructors and accomplished shooters encouraging people not to keep the gun pointed in the safest possible direction — at the berm — during the reload? What benefit could possibly outweigh the risk of deliberately, repeatedly, and habitually violating one of the fundamental safeguards against death or injury while handling live firearms?

*(Again, go RTWT)

Where The Shooting Is At

Why do teens keep getting murdered in Richmond? Inside the gang violence in the city's public housing communities | City of Richmond | richmond.com:

"If you isolate a community for three generations and remove community services, this is what it look likes," said Art Burton, who has spearheaded a variety of nonprofit and community groups that put him in close contact with teens in Mosby.

Alternate Title:  "Gun Control Only Works On People Who Obey The Law"

"Optimism about gun control"

Gun Owners and Gun Control Advocates will never agree.

Gun Control Advocates believe that all guns are bad, and should be banned.  Anyone who disagrees with them is considered to be a tool of the National Rifle Association.

 Moms’ group’s tactics show there is cause for optimism about gun control - San Francisco Chronicle:

 There’s an old tweet from 2015 that’s resurrected after every mass shooting in the United States, and it resurfaced again after the Las Vegas massacre. 

 “In retrospect,” tweeted Dan Hodges, a political commentator, “Sandy Hook marked the end of the U.S. gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over.” I believed the sentiment wholeheartedly — that the National Rifle Association had won and there wasn’t a damn thing we could do about it. 

Law-abiding Gun Owners believe that they are exercising their Constitutional Rights,
 and we wonder why Gun Control Advocates can't understand the difference between ourselves and Mass Murderers (and Inner City Gangs and other purveyors of illegal drugs, whose participation in "turf wars" are exacerbating the toll of firearms murders in America).

As a law-abiding gun owner, and only incidentally a member of the NRA, I take personal exception to the accusation that "killing  children (is) bearable" to me.

Besides being a hunter, competitor and collector of heirloom firearms, I'm also a father, and a grandfather.  Soon I expect to be a great grand-father.  I love my family.  I respect people. I stand proud for my rights to protect them, and myself. 

How am I so different from the authors of the cited article? 
(Other than that I refuse to be intimidated by violent felons who may threaten me and my family, and I have the means and will to resist.)

Unfortunately, on a national level ... the Gun Control Movement" is in danger of tearing this nation apart!

Somehow, the Gun Control Movement feels justified in portraying supporters of  our constitutional rights as irresponsible, unthinkingly selfish, and immoral avoiders of legal restrictions on firearms.   That is absolutely not true; most firearms owners are more cognizant of gun control laws, and are punctilious in their observance.

This kind of faux journalism serves no noble purpose.  Instead, it actively serves to widen the gap between legal firearms owners and readers, who may have no experience or understanding about people who champion their Second Amendment rights.

Exercise:
Using any search argument you choose, look up the number of Concealed Handgun Permit owners convicted of a felony.

Then search for the number of Law Enforcement Officers convicted of a felony.

Feds Fox California ... maybe

In a surprising decision (surprising to people who don't expect "common sense gun laws" in California), a Federal Judge has BLOCKED the California Gun Magazine Confiscation Law!

District Judge R.T. Benitz "... said in his ruling that the law, which would make it illegal to possess any gun magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition, likely violates the Second Amendment rights of the plaintiffs in the case."



The judge went on to say .. oh, just read the whole thing:

Federal judge blocks California gun magazine confiscation scheme | Fox News:

A federal judge granted a preliminary injunction on Thursday that blocks California from enforcing their gun magazine confiscation law. U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez said in his ruling that the law, which would make it illegal to possess any gun magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition, likely violates the Second Amendment rights of the plaintiffs in the case. He ordered that California immediately stop enforcing the law pending further legal action. "The Court does not lightly enjoin a state statute, even on a preliminary basis," Judge Benitez said in the ruling. "However, just as the Court is mindful that a majority of California voters approved Proposition 63 and that the government has a legitimate interest in protecting the public from gun violence, it is equally mindful that the Constitution is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. Plaintiffs' entitlements to enjoy Second Amendment rights and just compensation are not eliminated simply because they possess ‘unpopular' magazines holding more than 10 rounds." 

OMG ... a Federal Judge actually cites the Second Amendment!

Coming up:  Madonna bears child, sings "Like A Virgin!"   and means it!

I've got to post this quickly, before it disappears!

Federal judge blocks California gun magazine confiscation scheme | Fox News:
Federal judge blocks California gun magazine confiscation scheme
By Stephen Gutowski Published July 03, 2017 Washington Free Beacon

A federal judge granted a preliminary injunction on Thursday that blocks California from enforcing their gun magazine confiscation law. U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez said in his ruling that the law, which would make it illegal to possess any gun magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition, likely violates the Second Amendment rights of the plaintiffs in the case. He ordered that California immediately stop enforcing the law pending further legal action.
 "The Court does not lightly enjoin a state statute, even on a preliminary basis," Judge Benitez said in the ruling. "However, just as the Court is mindful that a majority of California voters approved Proposition 63 and that the government has a legitimate interest in protecting the public from gun violence, it is equally mindful that the Constitution is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. Plaintiffs' entitlements to enjoy Second Amendment rights and just compensation are not eliminated simply because they possess ‘unpopular' magazines holding more than 10 rounds."

[I tried to post this without comment, but BLOGGER dot com locked up.  It took me a while to recover the original text, so I'm posting it without much comment just to get it online before some other ...  bizarre circumstances  .. locked me up again, and this time loses my content.]

LATER:

Glad the post was published.

This is a significant judicial decision, not only because it challenges the "10 round magazine" limitation (which is common in most gun-unfriendly states}, but also because it established an "At Least" standard for magazine capacity which most states are bound to follow.

There are other significant ramifications of this judicial ruling:

First, it acknowledges the protection from the tyranny of the majority  ... which is always an issue when discussing Second Amendment Freedoms.  That the opinion was issued by a sitting judge is significant; it's not the errant rambling of a gun-guy, but the judicial opinion of a respected member of the court.

Second, there is a controversy between pro-gun and anti-gun forces which are generally considered to be nothing more than a matter of opinion; the judicial ruling cited here resolves the controversy, at least in terms of whether a 10-round magazine ought to be established as a minimum "load limit" (for want of a better expression).

One of the more obnoxious issues in gun-control controversy has been "what is a legitimate legal limit for magazine capacity".  I've always opined that there is no legitimate limit, if only because pro-gun and anti-gun forces have been unable disinclined to reach an agreement.  By this, we have established a minimum legitimate magazine capacity.  It's not much, but it's a start!

Third, (and I'm admittedly expanding on an issue raised in the preceding paragraph), there is another issue: when the "Other Side" of the issue enters into a discussion as to how many rounds in a magazine should be accepted as "optimal", they have already tacitly accepted that individual firearms ownership is a legitimate situation, and not subject to further discussion.  But some of those kind folk are adamant about the number of rounds should be permitted in a magazine, to all acceptable performance in the limited applications of firearms force they are willing to accept.

There is an old joke about prostitution, which ends with the punchline:

"We have already established 'what kind of girl you are';  Now we are only bickering about the price".

Not to belie the (perhaps inappropriate) discussion: nobody knows, or can make a definitive argument for, exactly "how many rounds" are appropriate for a magazine to define the difference between "not enough for defense" and "too many for sport".

My personal opinion is "you can never have too much ammunition, nor too many magazines!". 

But I'm guilty of using competitive criteria (USPSA competition allows an unlimited number of rounds and magazines in a variety of competitive classes) and some critics of the sport complain that the usage of 25+ round capacity magazines is, at best, "unrealistic".

My invariable response is: "It's a GAME, Sport!  If you can't pay, you shouldn't play."

Who says that gun ownership is only about self defense?  Shooting is fun because ... it's fun!

UBC ... the slippery slope to gun owners who can't prove their innocence

Don't be fooled about UBC (Universal Background Checks).

The problem isn't about knowing who has what guns;  the problem is about who has a gun which the state may unilaterally decide to confiscate.

"Oh, they wouldn't do THAT!"

Bullshit.  California did exactly that in 2015/2016:

REDDING, Calif. - A new California law takes effect January 1 that allows legally-owned guns to be confiscated if family or friends believe the owner is a threat to themselves or others.
It's called AB-1014 and it comes after the mass shooting in May 2014 that claimed six lives in Isla Vista, California.

(And by the way, Oregon is toying with the same legislation ... it's so NICE to live in a Liberal State!)

Why would your 'family or friends' turn you into the Confiscation Cops?  Because they love you!

And you're going to jail, Buddy.  Isn't love wonderful?

The Problem with Universal Background Checks *(UBC)* is that it is tantamount to Universal Registration ... which is the first step to Universal Confiscation.

Lawsuit Filed Over Unimplemented Universal Background Check - Bearing Arms - Anti-Gun Laws, Gun Control, Nevada, universal background checks:

The problem with universal background checks is that nothing about them is particularly enforceable. The transfer of a firearm to a family member is just one example. Unless the state maintains a full database of who has which guns, it’s impossible to determine just when a gun was transferred and to whom. 

That's not a 'problem'; that's a FEATURE!

Why do you think The State needs a "full database of who has which guns"?

Because they want to know just which doors to knock on, and which guns they can confiscate there.  And if they don't find the guns their registration database tells them they should expect, you're in a heap of trouble, Bubba!

Oh, someone stole your gun(s)?

Guess what ... there's a companion law requiring you to report gun  thefts within x-number of days.   You didn't notice they were gone?  Sorry ... put your hands behind your back, and tell your wife and children goodbye.   You're going to jail, Bubba.  You'll have to prove your innocence.

Personally, I couldn't tell you how many guns I own, let alone how many of which type.  Serial numbers?  Some  most ALL of them don't have serial numbers. 

"I don't need no stinking serial numbers!"

This isn't America.  It's California, and now Nevada, and (coming soon) it's Oregon.

I didn't vote for this, in Oregon, my Native state.  It's to be a 'regulation', not a state constitutional issue.   Second Amendment be damned.   "We don't need no stinkin' Second Amendment."

"Liberal Politics" isn't politics;  it's "Hi!  I'm From The Government and I'm Here to make sure that you understand that we own your a**!"

Some folks don't appreciate their efforts.

A two-guns-per-person limit would protect Americans’ lives and liberty.

I love SLATE!    They use the most bizarre arguments to bolster political opinions which are indefensible, which makes them vulnerable to a simple statement of fact to discredit their opinions.

A case in point:

SLATE: A two-guns-per-person limit would protect Americans’ lives and liberty.:

The 27 words of the Second Amendment don’t say anything about how many guns someone can own in America. Neither do the other 7,564 words in the Constitution. Yes, this is a facile point to make. A lot of things—including rights, responsibilities, and government powers we take for granted—aren’t itemized in the Constitution. While saying you can’t find something doesn’t necessarily mean anything, conservatives use this trick all the time.

The conclusion which SLATE derives from this 'logic' is undermined by their own acknowledgement that 'this is a facile point to make"  Slate has committed a Prima Fascia argument which is easily refuted.   Liberals use this trick all the time. 

 What the 2nd Amendment says (in so many words) is "... shall not be infringed ...".   The Second Amendment has been clearly defined as NOT endowing American citizens with a right; that right antecedes the Constitution.  The 2nd Amendment exists solely to enumerate rights which pre-exist the Constitution.   When SLATE decides to re-interpret the Constitution, it demonstrates either an immature comprehension of the document, or a willing mis-interpretation to support it's own political position.

To deliberately misconstrue the Constitution in this manner is an egregious effort to sway ill-informed readers toward the SLATE's author's own personal bias.

Limiting the number of an object which 'may' legally be owned is awkward and unlikely in the instance of any object; in the specific instance of firearms ownership, it is explicitly forbidden by the Constitutional admonition: "... shall not be infringed ..." and this limitation is obviously an infringement. 

The argument "you don't need more than one gun to hunt deer" is facile and quite beside the point.   Even if it were not: I own firearms for several purposes:  Competition *(RIFLE, SHOTGUN, PISTOL)*, self-defense, Deer hunting, Antelope hunting, Elk hunting, Rabbit hunting, Bird hunting (several varieties), plinking, TEOTWAWKI ....there are the reasons for my ownership of at least a dozen firearms! 

And I own heritage firearms, passed down from father to sons for at least three generations.  I've passed some of them down to my son ...and would pass them down to my daughter, except she's not interested.  I love her anyway.

Not that I need to explain my "need to own firearms: but a lot of people don't understand that their life style is not comparable with my own.   For example, I don't live in a Major Metropolitan Area.  And I don't have children or 'untrained individuals' sharing my residence.

Note that the Second Amendment was originally objected to by many of our Founding Fathers, because they believed  that to provide specifications was to invite contest of a basic 'inalienable' right.  They couldn't imagine why anyone would want to refute the simple RIGHT to defend nation, family, home, self, possessions.

In retrospect, they seem to have been correct in predicting that Liberals (a term which definition has been reversed since the 18th Century) may use that single amendment to justify their opposition,

I don't know why they *(anti-gun folks, which term I admit I use interchangeably with "Liberals")* continue to rant and rail against the Second Amendment; it simply affirms that firearm ownership is a right for Americans, regardless of any another restriction except those which are "proven factors" that an individual is not legally, mentally or emotionally competent to exercise their Constitutional rights in this area.

According to Liberals, there are no citizens who are competent to exercise this right.  I suspect that this may be a "projection", because they don't think that they are personally capable of rational thought or civil exercise of their rights.

The single exceptions , according to Liberals, are Law Enforcement Personnel, and active duty member of the Armed Forces. Personally, I have known both LEOs and Soldiers that I wouldn't trust with a gun. (I've served with a couple of soldiers who were mentally, emotionally and physically incompetent.)   As a consequence, I'm somewhat dubious about the whitewash for "police and military" as being universally competent.

SLATE apparently thinks that the "clear intentions" of the authors of the Constitution is passe', and no longer applicable to current American thought.

There are millions of responsible firearms owners who will take personal exception to SLATE's pompous assumption of moral and civic authority.

"High Capacity Magazines"

 I can reload my pistol from magazine carriers on my belt  in two seconds.  That's almost the time it takes me to draw my pistol from my belt holster and engage a target ... and hit it ... at point-blank range.

Which makes this Democratically (of course!) proposed law " even more laughable:

Democrats propose ban on high-capacity magazines in wake of Las Vegas attack | US news | The Guardian:

 Democrats are planning to introduce legislation to ban high-capacity ammunition magazines in the wake of the Las Vegas attack that left at least 59 people dead and nearly 500 more injured. The proposed ban on the transfer, importation, or possession of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition follows separate legislation to ban “bump stocks”, the novelty device that Stephen Paddock appears to have used to make semi-automatic rifles mimic the rapid fire of a fully automatic weapon.

I currently own magazines of over 10 rounds ... had them for decades.  They're legal today.
Am I going to be subjected to ex post facto laws?  That's simple possession, right?

The Guardian Article:

Gun rights advocates say the pause to reload when changing magazines is very brief and unlikely to have a significant impact on casualties, and that arbitrarily restricting magazine size to 10 rounds would be costly and inconvenient.
These advocates say it is not hard to make larger capacity magazines by hand, even if they’re not available for legal purchase. Chris Koper, the researcher who evaluated the 1994 assault weapon ban, estimated that renewed limits on the size of ammunition magazines might contribute, in the long-term, to a 1% reduction in shootings each year. This was only a “reasonable ballpark estimate”, he cautioned.

Every thing old is new again, and that's especially true of the "latest" (and 'oldest") proposed Democratic ban on "high capacity magazines".  Various states have imposed bans on sale or transfer of magazines capable of retaining more than six, eight or ten rounds.  This is the first time I'e heard that simple possession might be illegal

If they can't even agree on magazine limits, why should we presume that the various states understand the consequences of their arbitrary laws?

What's the "right" number of rounds which should be permissible in a magazine?  For decades, Anti-Second Amendment activists have grappled with this quandary, and they can't quite seem to get the "right number" of rounds which will stop mass shootings.

The funny thing is:
,,, this is not the first time this "law" has been suggested.  It didn't meet any arbitrarily determined criteria the last time (because it was difficult to define, and impossible to enforce) and it won't accomplish any imaginary goal of "preventing gun crime" this time.

These people, who know nothing about guns and gun-users, have brought back a question that they don't know how to define and that nobody knows how to  accomplish.

In the example of the Las Vegas shooting, the "sniper" was not operating under a time constraint: nobody knew where he was, and he could reload under absolutely no pressure.  He had magazines which are (unreliably) reported to be of "100 round capacity" (which I doubt), but that was never an issue.

Using that specific instance to justify the rejuvenation of an historically fallacious argument toward a provably unproductive end is just a bunch of horse doodie.   People will do what they do, and will always  find ways to get around any arbitrary restrictions which serve no legitimate purpose.

Ex Post Facto Laws:
There are too many (literally .. MILLIONS!) "High Capacity Magazines" in private hands today to make any arbitrary restriction viable; and people who own  them will not give them up, because it's a stupid law to try to impose on people who already own them. Do the states which impose these arbitrary limits intend to confiscate "illegal" (previously owned legally) magazines without compensating their owners for their investment? Doesn't the fifth amendment* of the Constitution have something to say about that?

*(|No confiscation without compensation")

What are they going to do?  Track down everyone who own a 30-round magazine?  They can't do it: magazines are not identified by serial numbers ... it's not a matter of record who owns what  magazines!  And trying to enforce such a law is a waste of time for people (Law Enforcement Offers) who have better things to do with their time.   It's not enforceable, and cops know that!

Politicians who think they have to pass laws to show their constituents that they are "doing something" are idiots and/or fools; politicians who even suggest such an unenforceable law are the object of ridicule from the Law Enforcement Officers who would be required to enforce it.

Are the politicians going to require the cops to go from door to door to search for "illegal magazines"?  Good luck with that!

It makes you wonder how idiots are elected to office.   But I suppose it's in the 'usual' way:  Graft.