You go, Vermont! ( I mean really; get out of America!)

This is just another instance of Liberals asserting their anti-gun platform by presenting "nuisance" laws based on magazine capacity, *

*(Typical of commentators who know nothing about firearms except they're "against them", they got the terminology wrong)

Bullet* Capacity Opponents File Lawsuit Against State | News | caledonianrecord.com:

A lawsuit was filed on Wednesday that challenges Vermont’s new law that limits the bullet* capacity of gun magazines. The Vermont Federation of Sportsman’s Clubs is among a handful of plaintiffs asking the court to declare the new limits unconstitutional. The federation claims 52 individual clubs in the state are part of its membership. The Caledonia Forest & Stream Club in St. Johnsbury is among them.

Unstated, but obvious ... it matters less to the proponents of the new rules (* how many rounds are "allowed" in a magazine) than that ANY individual is allowed to own a firearm.  The issue of "'how many rounds" is nothing more than an attempt to undermine the Second Amendment of the Constitution because ... they don't trust their fellow Vermonters.

 Anti-gun people are searching for some reason ... ANY REASON ...to circumvent the Second Amendment rights of their free people.

In their progressive movement, they will toss into the pot every and any specious argument which may undermine the Second Amendment rights of their citizens.  This is a disgusting and underhanded effort, and one which should be contested at every turn.

The sad thing about this battle is that the same people who will defend the First Amendment see no conflict in their efforts to undermine the Second Amendment

x
x

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.

.380 Pistol Banned in Ohio: Mouse Gun Is an "Assault Weapon"

Ohio Politicians are as ignorant as Oregon Politicians (and that's saying something), when it comes to "Gun Control Laws".
 
Under the bill, an “assault weapon” is an automatic firearm or semi-automatic firearm capable of accepting a detachable magazine with the capacity of accepting ten or more cartridges and a semi-automatic firearm with a fixed magazine with the capacity of accepting ten or more cartridges. 

This is why firearms owners hold politicians in such scorn disdain;
Elected officials feel the need to "do something" about the gun control problem, and anything they propose is either illogical, impossible, or inane.

Take  Kel-Tec .380 semi-automatic pistol.  It is "magazine fed", and so by the bill proposed in Ohio it is would be legally defined an "Assault Weapon"!

I don't believe that anyone currently offers for sale a 10-round magazine for the P3AT, but the standard 6-round magazine may be replaced by a 7-round magazine ... which IS currently available.   And who cares?  It's a freaking Belly Gun, inadequate even for self-defense at distances over, say ... six inches?

And it doesn't matter whether a 10-round magazine is available for the Kel-Tec.   Under the proposed Ohio bill, the gun is capable of accepting a detachable magazine with the capacity of accepting ten or more cartridges 

  Which means that if the bill is enacted, the Mouse Gun is now an Assault Weapon.

Nobody wants to take your guns? – The Writer in Black

I ran across this blog article (written a year ago), and after consideration I think the author has so thoroughly "done his homework" that nothing I can say would amount to anything more than Gilding the Lily.

Nobody wants to take your guns? – The Writer in Black:

Whenever I, or others, object to “registration” or bans on transfers, or other forms of “gun control” and firearms restrictions as steps toward an eventual complete prohibition and the confiscation that such would necessarily entail, we get told we’re paranoid and “nobody wants to take your guns.” Well, perhaps we should consider these “nobodies” ...

Take a few minutes. RTWT     (Read The Whole Thing)

Then read this.

More Americans Are Dying From Suicide, Drug Use And Diarrhea | FiveThirtyEight

More Americans Are Dying From Suicide, Drug Use And Diarrhea | FiveThirtyEight: Americans are dying in different ways than they used to. As of 2014, more were dying from drug use than in years past, even as deaths from alcohol had largely remained unchanged. Deaths resulting from interpersonal violence were on the decline, but fluctuations (and a recent increase) in deaths from suicide meant that violence was still a relatively common cause of death. Over the previous decade, deaths from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease — the main types are chronic bronchitis and emphysema1 — had steadied, even beginning to slowly decline, but it remained a leading cause of death.

Senators Skindell And Tavares Introduce Assault Weapons Ban | Senator Michael J. Skindell | The Ohio Senate

Senators Skindell And Tavares Introduce Assault Weapons Ban | Senator Michael J. Skindell | The Ohio Senate: Columbus—Today, Senator Michael Skindell (D–Lakewood) and Senator Charleta B. Tavares (D-Columbus) introduced Senate Bill 260, which would establish an assault weapons ban throughout Ohio.��

The Latest Chicago Joke: Rahm Emanuel

Broke Ass Chicago is at war with the banks.   Guess who will lose?

Rahm Emanuel Wants to Withhold City Contracts to Punish Banks That Won't Restrict Gun Businesses:

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel (D) wants to use city contracts to punish banks that will not restrict and/or regulate clients involved in the firearms industry.

 “When it comes to fighting for stronger, smarter gun laws Chicago is putting our money where our mouth is. The private sector has a role to play in supporting public safety. Chicago should give our business to companies who share our values and want to be part of the solution to gun violence, not profit from it.”

What money? Chicago is broke! 
  They don't have any money, which is the consequence of putting all of its aldermen in the pocket of the Democratic Party.   In Chicago, that's called "putting our money where our mouth is". 

Who knew that a Chicago Politician could be so candid?

The up side is, more banks may now be willing to espouse an "involvement" in "the firearms industry" ... if only to avoid any more involvement with the irresponsible government of that once "Toddling Town".

NRA-ILA | UK Officials Continue to Push Knife/Gun/Cleaning Products Control

NRA-ILA | UK Officials Continue to Push Knife/Gun/Cleaning Products Control: On April 10,�London Mayor Sadiq Khan�held a secret “knife crime summit” aimed at “tackling violent crime on the city’s streets.” The�UK press lodged�an official complaint against the city after the press and public were barred from the meeting. Two days earlier Khan took to�Twitter to declare, “No excuses: there is never a reason to carry a knife.”

Antigunners lump us all into their own vision of Beer-Tailgating Idiots

The latest New Republic has a sad opinion of firearms owners.  As far as they know, we are irresponsible thrill-seekers who are just waiting/wishing/hoping for an excuse to shoot somebody.

The American Terror Industry | The New Republic:

In the beige scrubland of the Nevada desert, with jagged mountains in the distance jutting up like the teeth of car keys and red-dirt berms all around, I could’ve squinted and imagined myself on a forward operating base somewhere in southern Afghanistan. This illusion was aided by the gun-guy fashion so popular in the age of the AR-15

I've given up on expecting a "fair and balanced" essay on the Second Amendment from the Leftists.

It seems mandatory that when  they write about legal firearms owners, they cannot differentiate between responsible citizens and inner-city gangbaners.  They seem to see us in terms of hopeless, illiterate degenerates with "no schoolin' ner no civility".

Innocent (and "well regulated") shooting matches are perceived as an exercise in "shooting people", and while I don't deny that exercises in self-defense may appear to be assertive rather than defensive by people who don't bother to understand the genre, I tire of the need to explain ... to defend my sport against the ignorantia .. and so I am related to defending my sport agaisnt people who se no "sport' in Defensive shooting exercises.

My eyes kept falling on a black man standing outside the convenience store. He was dressed in baggy jeans and a puffy vest, clothing with plenty of room to hide a weapon. 

We are left wondering why the author singles out the subject of his screed because of his race, because of his mode of dress, or because the author is just fearful of anyone who doesn't fit his personal perception of someone he and trust.   Should this black man in baggy jeans and puffy vest have seemed more "trustable" if he wore a pink IZON shirt, Docker Shorts, and the "correct" shoes?

Perhaps if the author had encountered the man at a Starbucks, he would not have been so easily frightened.
x

NRA-ILA | Trial Judge Mocks the Late Justice Scalia While Upholding Expansive Gun Ban

NRA-ILA | Trial Judge Mocks the Late Justice Scalia While Upholding Expansive Gun Ban: But we don’t have to guess what Justice Scalia might have thought of Massachusetts’ ban on popular semiautomatic rifles, because he joined an�opinion written by Justice Thomas�that dissented from the Supreme Court’s refusal to review a Seventh Circuit decision upholding a very similar ban from Illinois. Characterizing that and similar circuit decisions as “noncompliance with our Second Amendment precedents,” that dissent explained the proper test under�Heller�for which arms are protected by the Second Amendment.� “Heller, Thomas wrote, “asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist.” Moreover, it “draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns.” The dissent noted, “Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles,” and “[t]he overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes … .” The dissenters then concluded, “Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons.” Nevertheless, Judge Young concluded his opinion by insisting that “Massachusetts is free to ban these weapons and large capacity magazines” and that “Justice Scalia would be proud.” We can only hope that Justice Thomas and his Supreme Court colleagues will one day have a chance to review the Massachusetts ban or a similar law and explain just how wrong Judge William G. Young and his likeminded antigun activists in the judiciary truly are.

Legally Armed People Have a Murder rate similar to Japan

Legally Armed People Have a Murder rate similar to Japan: If, as those who wish a disarmed population claim, the mere presence of firearms makes criminal homicide more likely. How is it that those who not only own handguns but can legally carry them loaded most places, most of the time, have a criminal homicide rate as low as the Japanese?

Things That Make Me Wonder If Being A Range Officer Is Such A Good Idea After All

When you see something like this ... you have to wonder if you really saw what you thought you saw

SayUncle  The hot brass dance:

VFTP posted and then removed that after finding out the original posting was a private group and the poster requested it stay within the group only. Apparently the poster is a range dude there, don’t know if it’s the same one who’s lucky he didn’t catch one of those TWO FUCKING ND’s this idiot popped off directly at him.

When I first saw the video, I wondered if  the two flashes were just reflections of the overhead range lights off a chrome pistol.  Yes, he did break the 180, but ....

Thanks to the comments (above), we know that those were NGs behind the 180 degree limit of safe firearm movement.

I'm unsure about Uncle's comment request that the video "stay within the group only".

This is the sort of egregious safety violation which SHOULD be made public, if only to serve as an example to others.

If your primary duty to keep the gun facing downrange under any circumstances is forgotten in a moment of personal discomfort, you should reconsider the goals of your shooting career.

When the pin is pulled, Mr. Grenade is not your friend.

Who says the Military is humorless?

I recently revisited one of my favorite websites, and I feel like the Joker in BATMAN when I indulge in Dark Humor.

So I decided to share. 

Military Jokes Military Humor:

139. When the pin is pulled, Mr. Grenade is not your friend.

there's also "Sophomoric Humor" ...   check out BATMAN chooses his voice! 

Dems want Universal Registration of handguns

Congressional Democrats can kiss my big black Ford fenders.
Congressional Dems launch drive to bring handgun licensing to more states:

Love your Country; Fear your Government. 
That's the New American Way.  If I had any pistols, I would not tell any Democrats about it.

The sponsored legislation, H.R.5490, would promote handgun licensing programs in states by means of a federal grant program. Introduced last week by lawmakers from Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland and North Carolina, the proponents argue that requiring a person to obtain a permit before they can buy a pistol or revolver saves lives.

{start of rant}
 This is another gun-grabber movement which is bound to turn law-abiding, responsible citizens in felons.   It's an ex post facto law, and an insult to my personal integrity.   I didn't spend a year toting a gun in service to  Democrats who started the war,  just to now discover that my country does not trust me to own a gun. 
{end of rant}

Not that I own any firearms, of course.   Nor would I admit it if I did.

NRA accepted donations from 20 Russian-linked contributors

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

Read this. Bookmark this. Then read it again.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shannon Watt vs Gun Violence

Some gun owners are violent people.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They Say The Fault Line Runs Right Through Here

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

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

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

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

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

That could have been me!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or whatever.

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

File under:  (Insane Clown Posse Liberals)

See:  "The Allure of the AR-15"

Jack-booted Thugs? I think not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It all depends on the definition of "resist".   

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

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

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

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

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

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

I never owned an M14

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

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

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

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

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

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

(CHS:   "Can't Hit SHIT!)

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

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

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

Anti-gun Terrorism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is AMERICA, people!

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

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

And remember ... they fired first.

6 Underreported Reasons Why The NRA Are Just The Worst

I really enjoy reading CRACKED.com

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

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

6 Underreported Reasons Why The NRA Are Just The Worst:

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

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

I've been shooting guns for over 60 years.

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

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

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


(5) Promoting Dumbass (And Dangerous) Conspiracy Theories

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No?

I didn't think so.  Cheap shot, dude!


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gun Control Game Plan Revealed

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

Who are "They"?

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

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

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

Arms Arbitrarily Designated as "Assault Weapons" Judicially Restricted

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

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

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

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

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

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

What in the Second Amendment defines "Assault Weapons"?

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

The Pussification of the British Male

I regret to announce that I am obliged to add a new category to these blog articles:

"The Pussification of the British Male"

There have been so many articles from the British, enumerating instances of "Home Invasions" which have been resolved by the resident (and which resulted in the wounding or death of the uninvited stranger in the home ... and persecution of the defending resident) ... it becomes apparent that British Law will no longer allow a Citizen to defend hearth, health and home.

(This is not a situation endemic to The Brits: there was once a blogsite titled "The Pusification of the Ameriican Male" which seems to have been deleted ... but dealt with similar circumstances where Americans who defended themselves were subsequently persecuted.  It also relates to at least one popular George Carlin comedic routine.)

The latest incident (H/T: NeverYetMelted) involves yet another British Resident who defends himself against a Home Intruder, resulting in the serious injury or demise of  the intruder.

Pensioner, 78, arrested for murder after 'stabbing burglar to death in his home': A pensioner has been arrested after a suspected burglar was killed during a violent tussle at his home. The 78-year-old was held on suspicion of murder after the 38-year-old died of his wounds in hospital in the early hours of Wednesday morning. Police said the struggle broke out after the pensioner, named locally as  Richard Osborn-Brooks, found two men inside his home in South Park, Hither Green, south London shortly after midnight. One of the burglars, who was armed with a screwdriver, forced the homeowner into his kitchen while his accomplice went upstairs. Detectives believe a struggle then took place between "one of the males and the homeowner" and the 38-year-old intruder was stabbed in the upper body.

Further details of the invasion, and resistance by the home-owner, are not immediately available.

My personal opinion is that any "home-invader" who enters an occupied residence has already demonstrated that he has no qualms about confronting the resident with violence.  The home owner is fully justified in taking what ever actions which seem best to defend himself, if not his possessions, because nobody can know the mind of a home invader.   It seems that the best defense is one which renders the invader least capable of inflicting injury or death to the residents.

Apples and Oranges

Both European and American gun-control agencies just can't imagine why America is a much more violent country:

What no politician wants to admit about gun control - Vox:

Think about it this way. In 2013, the US had 106.4 gun deaths per million people. That same year, the UK endured 144 gun deaths total — or 2.2 gun deaths per million people. To get to UK levels, we'd need to reduce gun deaths by over 98 percent. 

Think of it this way: European countries (generally speaking) have homogeneous populations.

America is unique in it's primary identity as a "nation of emigrants": Homogeniety is limited here to everyone has an opinion and feels free to express it. 

Americans don't always get along; and those nationals who choose to leave their home country and come to "The Land of the Brave and the Home of the Free" bring their internecine biases with them. 

(Liberals think this 'dichotomy of world view'  adds to the flavor; conservatives are grumpy about "outsiders".   What would we be if we all agreed with each other ... and so this is perhaps the most perfect world view.)  ... not a quote; an opinion.

This makes it much more difficult to confiscate guns in America (Second Amendment), but not impossible; if a sufficient number of Americans can be convinced that the right to possess a gun is "not just not a good idea, but a BAD idea!", it should be relatively easy for laws to be passed which ignore the "Embarrassing Second Amendment".

(Note: reserve some private time before clicking on Sanford Levinson's uncomfortable screed on 2nd Amendment Rights: you may find it ... discomforting.)

Fortunately the NOQ REPORT has compiled a list of measures which

x
x
x

Leftist Gun Confiscation: Whatever It Takes!

Prologue:  I encourage any 2nd Amendment researcher to follow the reference links included in this article.   Many of them are new to me.

Leftists Demanding Gun Confiscation – The short List updated to March 2018:

In order to execute the necessary steps to confiscate guns, the Left must first take control of private property with Intergalactic Background Checks [Universal, Enhanced, etc.] But they need to Lie about their ultimate goal so that the people will accept this drastic intrusion into their personal lives.

Fortunately for the Leftists, their definition of "Morality" includes saying anything which advances their agenda, with no qualms about "persiflage" as a defense against any charge of "lying".

The Right, on the other hand, is held to a higher standard.
Which is not difficult to accommodate, as long as they always tell the truth.

Which nobody believes, because it's not as interesting.

(emphasis added)

This is an abbreviated list [which] shows they are openly lying when they deny their intentions, it also shows they have developed some clever euphemisms for the taking everyone’s firearms.

The Other Side of the Constitution

"What Crime Have I Committed, Officer?"

I recently posted an article in support of teenagers who were marching for Gun Control.
My thesis was, this is their Constitutional Right, and although I do not agree with all of their arguments, I admire them for standing up in public for their free exercise of the First Amendment.

Nobody interfered with their peaceful protest.

Now we have a clear issue of whether the Second Amendment should be equally as supported and BOY HOWDY! was I surprised that it didn't receive the same public support!

Olmos Park PD Terrorize Lawful Texans - YouTube:

Equivalent Constitutional Rights of PEACEFUL PROTESTS (First and Second amendments) are being exercised in both instances, but when the SECOND AMENDMENT is the subject, the police are all over the protesters

The protestors were openly carrying firearms (which is legal under Texas law).
Police arrested 2nd Amendment protesters, because ....

"How can I tell if you're the bad guy?

(Maybe, if they're not shooting anybody, they haven't broken a law?)

I can't find the law, I'm just telling you to obey me 

James Freeman
Olmos Park PD Terrorize Lawful Texans

"You're the only one threatening people, Officer"

(14) Olmos Park PD Terrorize Lawful Texans - YouTube

(14) Olmos Park PD Terrorize Lawful Texans - YouTube:

 8:58 Olmos Park Tx Reject Texas Constitution Open Carry Tx P and P News 31K views 15:25 Olmos Park, TX=*POLICE Dept* Attention Needed News Now Houston 64K views FLAT EARTH DEBATE | Jacob Wohl vs. Ryan Zehm The BA Experience 273 watching LIVE NOW 6:17 Olmos Park Update CJ from Open Carry Texas P and P News 19K views 40:15 City of Olmos Park TX - Makes up their own laws overriding TX Law and the Constitution SAEXTAZYPREZ 18K views 40:15 Texas open carry laws modified by the City of Olmos Park, Texas TXSHEEPDOG72 16K views 16:14 1st Amendment Audit: NJ State Division of Taxation Building, City of Trenton POLICE STATE: NEW JERSEY 36K views 5:17 Florida Cop Says I must Conceal My Spare Pistol Magazine martinrps13 28K views 9:49 Olmos Park Police Chief Phone Call ( Full Call ) BLACKLAB3L COPWATCH 10K views 14:57 BUC G VIOLENTLY ASSAULTED BY OLMOS PARK PD - TXSHEEPDOG72 ARRESTED SAEXTAZYPREZ 23K views 2:18 Beloved Olmos Park police appeals firing WOAIVideo 11K views 7:04 OLMOS PARK COP Assaults Woman for filming TXSHEEPDOG72 BLACKLAB3L COPWATCH 11K views 7:32 CJ Grisham At Olmos Park Open Carry P and P News Footage P and P News 26K views New POLICE CHIEF IN OLMOS PARK TEXAS THINKS HES ABOVE THE LAW SAEXTAZYPREZ 21K views I can't find the law, I'm just telling you to obey me James Freeman 211K views SHOW MORE Olmos Park PD Terrorize Lawful Texans

(14) Olmos Park PD Terrorize Lawful Texans - YouTube

(14) Olmos Park PD Terrorize Lawful Texans - YouTube: OCT Founder CJ Grisham was terrorized and arrested by the Olmos Park Police Chief for Open Carrying on a public sidewalk. This comes a day after the chief told CJ that people could open carry in Olmos Park, that they would not be drawn on, and that they wouldn't be forced into the pavement. Others were arrested as well, and the extent of the violence and abuse against all victims is still unclear. The Police Department BANNED the fire/ems from attending to the victims. March 27, 2018 around 6:15pm. See the video of Monday's phone conversation with the police chief: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_X21... SHOW MORE

Why give face-time to the British Glory-hunter?

This british commentator has created a career by taunting Americans who support the Second Amendment.  He deliberately publishes opinion articles designed to taunt American readers to react ... and everytime someone posts an accusatory comment, or (worse) refers to him in an article, he sleeps to the soothing sound of the cash register enhancing his readership.

Piers Morgan Displays Ignorance Over Gun Rights, Yet Again:

Piers Morgan isn’t a fan of guns. By now, any of us familiar with the television host understands that. He’s long been on a crusade to try and make American gun laws mimic those of his beloved home country of England. Yet, once again, we pesky Americans refuse to disarm because some pompous Brit demanded it of us. Yesterday on Twitter, however, Morgan illustrated just how little he understands our constitutional rights

My small comments here will only encourage him.  I hope this is the last time any blogger will pay any attention to the sassenach who espouses views unpopular to Americans in hopes of enhancing his own quasi-celebrity status.

Gun Violence Studies Biased, Used to Force Agenda | National Review

Gun Violence Studies Biased, Used to Force Agenda | National Review: So, why are gun-control advocates up in arms (rhetorically) about the CDC? Cue the 1996 Dickey Amendment, regularly renewed by Congress, even after its author, Jay Dickey, left Congress and changed his tune on the issue, according to his 2015 interview with NPR’s Steve Inskeep. This amendment was attached to the funding of the CDC and provided a restriction: “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” But the CDC does still collect its own empirical data, published regularly as part of its National Violent Death Reporting System.

If the Second Amendment falls, our entire Bill of Rights falls | Fox News

I grew up with a naive affection for our government: America is the fairest country in the world.

But that has all changed now.

If the Second Amendment falls, our entire Bill of Rights falls | Fox News:

The startling new proposal by 97-year-old former Supreme Court Associate Justice John Paul Stevens calling for the repeal of the Second Amendment to our Constitution’s Bill of Rights is unwise, dangerous and totally unrealistic. For 227 years, the amendment has guaranteed that “the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” We should not abandon it. 

I believe that the Constitution is an unique document in the history of the world; it defends the rights of "Everyman", and limits the degree to which an arbitrary government may impose restriction on our rights.

Today, we discover there is a fox eating the belly out of our Constitution.  But unlike the Spartans, Americans are not 'trained' to accept the disembowelment of our natural rights.  Instead, we are encouraged to "Cry Havoc" and protest those who would have us Go Along to Get Along.

 I don't choose to heed the  unreasoned opinions of a nonagenarian jurist whose grasp on reality seems fleeting.   It's a terrible thing, to watch an honored gentleman of the law as he espouses a path which would undermine the freedoms of his fellow Americans.

I doubt this is a path he would have chosen in the reasoned years of his youth.

OSU policies restrict firearms on campus, only of individuals affiliated with university | The Daily Barometer | orangemedianetwork.com

OSU policies restrict firearms on campus, only of individuals affiliated with university | The Daily Barometer | orangemedianetwork.com: From state and federal laws to Oregon State University policies, courts have ruled that restrictions on firearms must be balanced with the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms. Oregon law and the State Board of Higher Education give the university authority to control its ground and buildings, including limiting firearms from handguns to rifles like the AR-15. The university’s firearms policies restrict the possession of any type of firearm on all university property, said OSU Department of Public Safety Chief Suzy Tannenbaum. “These policies are communicated to OSU students, employees, vendors, OSU contractors and members of the public, who attend paid admission events and sporting activities,” Tannenbaum said in an email. “As well, the university communicates its policy regarding firearms on the Oregon State University website and on signage on exterior doors of many university buildings.”

Hillary Clinton: Australia Gun Ban 'Worth Looking At'

We are SO HAPPY that The Hillary-Ceast was not elected President!

During the 2015 Presidential Campaign, Hillary Clinton ( in a response to a question) suggested that "The Australian Solution is worth looking at".

Hillary Clinton: Australia Gun Ban 'Worth Looking At':

The Australian government as part of trying to clamp down on the availability of…weapons offered a good price for buying hundreds of thousands of guns and basically clamped down going forward, in terms of having more of a background check approach–more of a permitting approach.

In the actual event, although the Australian government seemed to offer "a good price", there was no good price; since the firearms (previously legal) were soon to be "no longer legal", the firearms were confiscated at a pennys-on-the-dollar price because ... they were arbitrarily "illegal", and nobody could legally buy them.    There WAS no market.

So the expectation that they were bought "at a good price" was just a politically mandated confiscation.

Nothing more, nothing less.

And this was what Hillary Rodham Clinton expected to impose on the (previously free and constitutionally protected against "confiscation without compensation" American Public.

During her 2015 campaign, "The Hillary Beast" made it a part of her political platform that firearms confiscation from legal gun owners seemed to be A Good Idea ... one which was legitimized by the Australian Confiscation.

Had hillary been elected, honest Americans who possessed firearms would have been treated like criminals.  Their property would have been confiscated, they would have been held up to public ridicule by the Liberal Press when they protested, and America would have sunk deeper into the liberal abyss.

This was an unconstitutional action which has been espoused by liberal websites, including:

The Daily KOS

The Huffington Post

 ... and every other Liberal anti-gun website which believes that the4 Second Amendment is SOoooo 19th Century!


One wonders whether the same people would be so eager to undermine the FIRST amendment, which allows them to publish unpopular essays.

(This one is a good example)
x
z

\\PS:  Yes, I'v aware that the timing of publication is inappropriate.  Sometimes something gets stuck in your craw, and it takes a while to spit it out.  That don't make it wrong.
x

Second Amendment: Individual Gun Rights Have Strong Historical Support | National Review

Second Amendment: Individual Gun Rights Have Strong Historical Support | National Review: The right to keep & bear arms has always been an individual right, not a collective one. This week, retired Supreme Court justice John Paul Stevens wrote an op-ed in The New York Times that advocated a position most liberal pundits and activists have been incrementally working toward for a long time: repealing the Second Amendment. And while many liberal columnists argued that Stevens had only given fodder to gun advocates — because his position is unfeasible right now — not one whose piece I read argued that Stevens was wrong on the merits. Not one claimed that American citizens do, in fact, have an inherent individual right to protect themselves with firearms.

Who Runs March for Our Lives?

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

The following article may provide some answers:

Sultan Knish: Who Runs March for Our Lives?:

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

Here is CNN's version.

Yes, we DO want to take your guns

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

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

Read The Whole Thing.

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

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

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

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

No Lawyers - Only Guns and Money: Loophole Here, Loophole There, Everything's A Freaking Loophole: Sen. Richard "I served in Vietnam (not!)" Blumenthal (D-CT) and Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL) have come up with a new loophole that MUST be closed. That is the ammunition sale loophole. To that end, they have introduced the Ammunition Background Check Act (S.2627 / HR 5383) The bill would require instant background checks for the purchase of ammunition.

You never know what's going to happen next.

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

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

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

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

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

The Way Things Are Going:

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

Perhaps never.

Perhaps tomorrow.

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

Why?

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

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

Blumenthal and Wasserman Schultz Introduce Ammunition Background Check Act | Press Releases | United States Senator Richard Blumenthal:

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

Referring to the previous statement:

Federal law does not require a background check to prevent the illegal purchase of bullets.

(By that, one assumes that the ignorant author of the article refers to "loaded ammunition", not the "bullets" themselves.  One would wish that the press would get their terminology correct to prevent misunderstandings.)

It's curious that a law is imposed to restrict the purchase of ammunition by the people who are restricted from purchasing firearms.  Do members of the Federal Government think that the laws they have already passed are likely to be disobeyed

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

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

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

The Second Amendment has often

Want to stop gun violence now? Regulate bullets

As if we don't have enough idiotic ignorant liberals in America, now the LA TIMES is importing them from foreign countries on their Opinion Pages?

Want to stop gun violence now? Regulate bullets: Robert Muggah is a co-founder of the Igarap Institute, headquartered in Rio de Janeiro, and a co-director of the SecDev Group in Ottawa.

Here's a quick recap of his unworkable "solutions" (all of which we've seen before"):

Because bullets are so widely available, people often wonder whether ammunition can be regulated at all. The answer is yes.

"AT ALL"?   Sure.   Realistically, considering the volume?  No way!

A good place to start is the factories where bullets are manufactured. Strict control on the production and sale of unusually dangerous ammunition would be straightforward, since such sales can now be monitored digitally.

(Would you please define "unusually dangerous ammunition"?   All ammunition is dangerous ... but then, you know that.  Don't you?)

It's also cheaper than ever to mark and trace bullets with microscopic codes or serial numbers, which help law enforcement solve gun-related crimes. This data can be registered with the buyer's personal information at the time of purchase.

(Can you cite a single instance where 'serialized ammunition' has ever been used by law enforcement to solve a 'gun-related crime'?   I didn't think so)

What's more, there are far fewer producers of ammunition than there are producers of firearms, according to Small Arms Analytics, a research firm. This makes the ammunition industry easier to regulate.

Give me strength ... and a strong stomach!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Want to stop gun violence now?

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

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

NRA Blunder?

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

NRA Created the March for Our Lives That Now Threatens It - Bloomberg:

... The marches against gun violence would not have been as big without the undercurrent of rage that liberals, Democrats, good-government activists, racial minorities, ethical conservatives and others carry through daily life under President Donald Trump’s regime. And they wouldn’t have been as big without the cathartic breakthroughs of #MeToo and the Women’s March that preceded them.

(At a guess, an "ethical conservative" is a RINO.)

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






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


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

He should have asked them to define "Roofie".

They know what that is.

Protesters say ban assault weapons…whatever they are

When a second-grader pointed a gun at me, I'm glad I wasn't armed

When a second-grader pointed a gun at me, I'm glad I wasn't armed - Chicago Tribune:

(A teacher recounts the story of when a student pointed a gun at her ... and she wonders how she responded had she been armed.)

IN THE EVENT, she talked the child down and carefully removed his gun from his hand.

When I first read this story, I wondered why it was news-worthy; then I realized that the casual reader probably expected that the teacher would have over-reacted.

Teachers don't do that; and neither do armed citizens.  This is a point which many people do not expect, because they assume that the immediate reaction to presentation of a gun would be violent.

They think that anyone who presents a gun, intends to shoot it.
They think that the only valid reaction to threatened violence is real violence.

That's not true.

There are three scenarios when you may find yourself confronted with a gun:

1:  when it is someone you know personally, and you have established a relationshiop;
2: when it is someone you know personally, and there is no relationship;
3: when it is a total stranger.

(1) when it is someone you know, they may not have your death as their primary goal.  DO NOT ATTEMPT TO TAKE THE GUN AWAY FROM THEM!

They are making a statement, and your best approach is to ignore the gun.
It isn't there.  They are not threatening your life.  They don't really want to shoot you.

Ignore the gun.  Speak to them calmly, rationally, and don't talk about the threat which they have interposed in the dialogue which has not yet been identified.

They don't want to shoot you; they just want to emphasize that their interpersonal issues with you are so severe (to them), they feel the need to catch your attention.

The gun is just a tool; it is not a threat.  Listen to them; the issues they bring up may not seem significant to you ... but that may be part of the problem.   They just want you to listen to them, so listen to them!

(2) when it is someone you know, but there is no "interpersonal problem" as far as you know ... the same thing; don't try to take the gun away from them. 

They want to talk, and your best response is to listen to them.  Agree with then if you must, but do not agree that violence is a valid response.   It's not a time to enter into an argument, but it may be a time when their issues are more important to them than your life.

(3) when it is a stranger, who has a goal which you may not yet know  ... allow yourself to enter into a conversation.  Are they trying to rob you?  Give them your money; you can get more.
Do they have societal issues?   Be gentle with them; you may not agree with them, but arguing is not A Good Idea!

Instead, allow them to "vent" their frustrations.   It's not necessary for you to agree with them ... they just want to have their moment to express themselves.