Category Archives: Guns
An overview of some things for “new shooters” (maybe even experienced shooters) to consider.
Vice President Biden has been giving some silly advice recently regarding self defense. Jay shares a political cartoon that sums it up nicely:
Sebastian also tweets #BadAdviceFromBiden:
You don’t need any of these fancy Automatic Defibrillators. Punch them in the chest with your fist a few times instead. #BadAdviceFromBiden
— Sebastian (@SebastianSNBQ) March 1, 2013
— Sebastian (@SebastianSNBQ) March 1, 2013
Maybe Biden should take a cue from Obama and stay teleprompted.
HOUSTON –A 21-year-old man sprang into action to protect his family Thursday night when three suspects barged into their northwest Harris County home.
The young man was home with his mother and father in the 3900 block of Brook Garden when the armed men forced their way into the house around 8 p.m., according to Harris County Sheriff’s deputies.
The anti-gun crowd wants this family disarmed. I guess the antis are just trying to protect the criminals? These choir boys planned an attack on a middle aged man and his wife. Luckily, their son was home and had access to the proper tools to protect his family.
Could you imagine what would have happened if a “safe-storage” law had required the gun and ammunition to be stored in different rooms, and for the firearm to be fitted with a trigger lock? The family truly would have been victims and the choir boys would be running free.
Would basically allow someone to steal your firearms and turn them in to the Police for “safe keeping” if they think you are an “immediate threat.” The police can then destroy the firearm if the owner does not claim it within 60 days.
This has passed out of committee and will move to the House for a vote.
No thank you.
First, Nancy Pelosi said, “We have to pass the bill before we know what’s in the bill.” We’re all seeing how that is turning out. Then, Colorado Democrats told their constituency, “We’re going to vote on these bills and hear public comment afterward.” Colorado’s House has now passed a magazine ban, by narrow margins.
Magpul has threatened to leave the state if the ban passes. I know Utah would love the $85 Million in taxable revenue. We have the workforce and our tax incentives should be a good fit. Come on over, Magpul!
Anyway, answer me one quick question: at what point do representatives become dictators?
Earlier today, I tweeted Sebastian’s post regarding the House Democrats’ 15-point gun safety plan. One of my closest friends responded on Facebook:
So, I’ve been quiet on a LOT of gun stuff lately, because I’ve felt that things needed to settle a bit–that I should wait until some actual plans ere put forth rather than speculation about what plans would be. Can I ask you a question now?
Looking at these 15 points, with the important exception of numbers 3 & 4, which I grant are easily infringements on the 2A, how is this a bad plan? Allowing sales among the law abiding, strengthening background checks, cracking down on illegal purchasing…how are these things bad or infringements? The Fathers did’t write, and i don’t mean this with any sarcasm, “the right to easily purchase arms,” (I know there’s still the problem of the AW ban…but let’s put that aside for now), a law that slows but does not prevent purchase of a gun doesn’t seem to me to be an infringement.
The gun rights activists that I hear all say that we cannot in any way keep guns from the hands of law-abiding citizens, and I agree with that. But we must find ways of at least TYRING to keep them out of criminals hands. And the mentally incompetent. How is “Clos(ing) the holes in our mental-health system and make sure that care is available for those who need it” a reduction of the Second?
And I must say that the blogger’s opinion that democrats don’t support the First because the want to “Address our culture’s glorification of violence seen and heard though our movie screens, television shows, music and video games.” That’s not a ban. That’s not a restriction. Wanting to talk about the problems that these kinds of speech create is not against the First, it’s addressing the use of the First–it’s having a dialog about how we as a society view and value violence and in what ways. Is talking about that a breach of an amendment?
These and similar questions are ones that I want to understand the answers to. I believe I”m simply operating on a different paradigm that prevents me from seeing how these things are troublesome. Honestly, it seems that the problem is that it came from the mouths of Liberals.
For the sake of these arguments, let’s say that there is NO way of getting a ban passed, and that it’s a non-issue. I know it IS an issue, and I’m against that ban mostly, but I”ve heard so many of the other things attacked that I can’t understand why.
I am answering his questions here because my response is too long for Facebook. I also want to broaden the discussion. If you choose to participate, please be courteous to all parties involved. Discourtesy is not only unproductive, it also shows that you are not yet ready for the discussion.
Here are the 15 points and my response to each:
- Support the 2nd Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans
Appears okay, on the surface. However, when laws become too restrictive, you can instantly turn the “law-abiding” into criminals.
- Support citizens’ rights to possess firearms for hunting, shooting sports, defense, and other lawful and legitimate purposes
Again, sounds okay. Comes back to your definition of “lawful” and “legitimate.” As I understand the antis, there is no legitimate reason, or purpose, to own a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds. In the case of New York, 7.
- Reinstate and strengthen a prospective federal ban on assault weapons
- Reinstate a prospective federal ban on assault magazines
Violation of the Second Amendment, as previously mentioned.
- Require a background check for every gun sale, while respecting reasonable exceptions for cases such as gifts between family members and temporary loans for sporting purposes
Ah, the much discussed “gun show loophole.” The argument usually goes as follows: “Who could possibly be against a universal background check? What are you afraid of? Or what are you trying to hide? Background checks will prevent criminals or the mentally ill from getting firearms.”
Except, they won’t. Background checks didn’t prevent Newtown, Virginia Tech, or Columbine. One can always wonder how many shootings have been prevented, but that’s all one can do is wonder. A concern arises in that a right can be removed simply by bureaucratic fiat. All it takes is the stroke of a pen to declare that anyone who has taken or is taking an anti-depressant to be determined “mentally ill” and thus unfit for firearm ownership.
- Strengthen the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) database
Strengthen how? I say let the states coordinate with each other. The Federal government does not need to be involved in this any more than it already is. When I purchase a firearm from a dealer, the state of Utah runs a background check on me through both the state and federal databases. A firearm cannot be legally purchased by an out-of-state resident without the firearm being transferred from one FFL (Federal Firearms License) to another, and a background check must be passed before the FFL can release the firearm to the purchaser.
- Prosecute those prohibited buyers who attempt to purchase firearms and others who violate federal firearm laws
Is this not currently being done? While we’re at it, we should prosecute every single person in the BATFE, Justice Department, Legislative Branch, and Executive Branch who knew about Operation Fast and Furious.
- Pass legislation aimed specifically at cracking down on illegal gun trafficking and straw-purchasing
Oh, I know, let’s make it MORE ILLEGAL! Also, see #7
- Restore funding for public safety and law enforcement initiatives aimed at reducing gun violence
Like the funding of school resource officers that the Obama Administration cut.
- Support initiatives that prevent problems before they start
What does this even mean? Hopefully, it means that the Federal government will start supporting initiatives like the National Rifle Association’s Eddie Eagle GunSafe Program.
- Close the holes in our mental-health system and make sure that care is available for those who need it
Something that probably shouldn’t have been taken away from the states. Too late now. I’m sure that they’ll find a way to leverage this through the Affordable Care Act, which will continue to push premiums and costs way up. I’d like to know what the “holes” are.
- Help our communities get unwanted and illegal guns out of the hands of those who don’t want them or shouldn’t have them
This just sounds like a massive smoke screen. “Hopefully, if we keep screaming nonsense about ‘assault magazines’ (I don’t even know what that is), and scare people enough, they’ll demand that we do something.”
- Support responsible gun ownership
What does “responsible” mean? Is keeping firearms disabled and locked away “responsible?” Are mandatory trigger locks “responsible?” Are magazines with no more than 10 rounds “responsible?”
- Take steps to enhance school safety
- Address our culture’s glorification of violence seen and heard though our movie screens, television shows, music and video games
If they are serious about this, then I applaud them. Unfortunately, our country would have to admit that our two largest economic drivers are pornography and small arms, and by small arms I mean arms sold to foreign military establishments; comparatively, civilian sales are just a drop in the bucket.
“Talk[ing] about the problems that these kinds of speech create…” does not necessarily equal addressing the issue. Addressing may be discussion. Addressing may be doing something because well, it’s what you do instead of something (as SayUncle says). A constructive dialogue is the place to start. Unfortunately, this issue will not be solved legislatively. Not until the people have said, here, this far and no further, will the issue begin to change culturally.
As to some other points. “A law that slows but does not prevent purchase of a gun doesn’t seem to me to be an infringement.” A right delayed is a right denied. Apply this logic to other rights protected by the Bill of Rights.
- Needing to pass a background check before you can practice your religion, practice free speech, peaceably assemble, or petition the government for a redress of grievances
- Needing to pass a background check before you can be tried by a jury
When states try to enact voter ID laws, those laws are attacked. All the state is trying to do is run a background check, to verify that person can legally vote.
In the end, this 15-point plan appears to be little more than House Democrats saying, “We support the Second Amendment, but…” and that’s the problem. When you say but, then you don’t support it. Take a look at your significant other. Look deep into his/her eyes and say, “I love you, but….”
This cuts across both political parties and across the political spectrum and forces us to call into question what we truly believe. I encourage us all to do so.
“Assault weapons”. “High-capacity magazines.” “Military-style rifles”.
The Department of Homeland Security buys 1.6 billion rounds of small-arms ammunition in just a little over a year, and 7,000 fully automatic machine guns for “personal protection”. Police departments all over the country have tanks and drones, and you can’t tell the difference between a police SWAT team and a Marine infantry section at first glance anymore. One guy threatens the LAPD personally and kills a cop, and they piss all over the Fourth Amendment and make the whole city a free-fire zone in search of the suspect.
I suggest we just call them “police-style weapons” instead.
Sebastian says the fight is shaping up in the Senate. I echo his call:
Every gun owner’s voice must be heard…STARTING WITH YOURS!!!
Call the Capitol Hill switchboard at 202-224-3121 and ask for your Senators by name. Or, email your Senators by going to NRA-ILA’s “Let Your Voice Be Heard” webpage.
We are not facing the anti-gun crowd, save Bloomberg. We’re facing the left-wing of the Democratic Party, and they mean to destroy us. They are betting this trend is real, that the country will be increasingly urban, left of center, and more in favor of gun control. They are betting the farm that we’re on our way to extinction. Are we?
Do. Your. Part.
Bitter says, “Plenty of gun owners haven’t contacted their lawmakers because they believe they are nice, safe red states.” I have to agree with her. My own congress critter, Chris Stewart, has already stated that he’ll infringe upon the Second Amendment under the right circumstances.
Contact your representatives and tell them in no uncertain terms how you feel about 2A issues.
One of my big concern is the hoarders are making it very difficult for new shooters who are just getting their feet wet with this stuff. If those rifles, pistols and shotguns end up going into closets for lack of ammo, they may never come back out again.
It’s a valid concern. How much damage to the at-large cause are you doing by hoarding ammunition? And don’t excuse yourself by saying, “Well, if I don’t, the next person will.” That excuse got old in third grade.
Well this looks interesting. Rather than jumping on the bonded bullet bandwagon, Remington simply bands the brass jacket to the lead core.
A lot of people like Golden Sabers. I wonder if they’ll readily accept this modification/improvement.
Seen over at Oleg’s:
Back in the 1980s and 90s, comblock guns referred to weapons produced in the Warsaw Pact countries and China. Given the changes in our world since, we may soon be able to apply that term to Armalite rifles produced in Illinois and Bushmaster carbines made in New York, along with Henry lever actions made in New Jersey.