Category Archives: gun control

Damned weak gun laws

Home Depot’s truck rental policy is tougher than gun restrictions in many states
According to its website, Home Depot requires that truck renters be at least 21 years old, possess a current American or Canadian driver’s license and leave a $50 deposit. Additionally, proof of automobile insurance is required for Home Depot’s “Load ‘N Go” rentals.

Many gun laws in the U.S. are laxer than these three simple requirements, The Independent reports.

Laxer? Let’s see…

To lawfully purchase/rent from a dealer in my state:

  • Clean criminal record: Guns, check. Automobiles, nope. (For the record, it’s a felony even in a private sale to knowingly sell a gun to a prohibited person.)
  • Clean mental health record: Guns, check. Automobiles, nope.
  • License to operate: Guns, check. Automobiles, check. Whoa! A point of convergence.
  • Fingerprints to get license: Guns, check. Automobiles, nope. Oops.
  • Background check to get license: Guns, check. Automobiles, nope again. Hmm…
  • Background check to purchase/rent from dealer: Guns, check. Automobiles, nope. I’m seeing a pattern.
  • Unlawful to sell to underage person: Guns, check. Automobiles, nope.
  • Insurance required by law: Guns, nope. Automobiles, check only to operate on public roads. Meh.

The insurance aspect is amusing in a sick, twisted way. For years, victim disarming gun control freaks have pushed mandatory liability insurance for gun owners (even though lawful gun owners kill fewer people than drivers), as a means of making gun ownership financially difficult. But when they realized people were voluntarily getting insurance, they freaked out.

When car dealers and rental agencies have to be federally licensed, maintain bound books, are subject to federal compliance inspections, run NICS checks on buyers and block sales to prohibited persons; and mufflers require more background checks, taxes, permissions, and separate registration; and car insurance is viewed as “murder insurance” and regulators try to shut it down then these clowns can start the guns vs. automobiles comparisons.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Gun control works!

Or so says NYT’s Nicholas Kristof.


That is, of course, in reference to yesterday’s terrorist truck attack.

Rumor has it that the rented truck, obtained without a NICS check, was equipped with a engine silencer that prevented his victims hearing him come. It was fitted with an after-market high-capacity bed, too. Nobody needs more than a quarter-ton capacity vehicle except the police and military.

The alleged attacker was quoted by witnesses as yelling, “Allahu Akbar,” which is Arabic for “My motive may never be known!”.

Oh. Wait. This time time they are considering terrorism.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Disingenuous Doctor

For new arrivals, I’ve been writing to “news” outlets and the writers of published gun-related misinformation. Call it education or calling them out on lies, I’m trying to correct bad reporting. Mostly, I an simply ignored, which indicates they know they’re wrong, and are disseminating BS deliberately. Once it’s clear that the outlet/writer is not interested in allowing facts to run, I’ve been posting my attempts here.

Today’s entry is a little bit different.

A focus on gun safety – not control – leaves 2nd Amendment intact
Our civil rights are under attack, and have been for some time. The freedom to assemble etched out in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is under attack by the Second Amendment — and it shouldn’t be. Jason Aldean’s concert was a peaceful assembly ravaged by a lone gunman who, for all intents and purposes, had the right of gun ownership.

What is it with doctors lying about firearms issues lately? 744 words of misdirection and falsehoods. I sent a proposed guest column of 721 words to rebut. To the Orlando Sentinel’s partial credit, they didn’t ignore me completely, as usually happens.

They told me to pare it down to 250 words or less and they’d consider it for a Letter to the Editor.

I couldn’t do it. There were too many Levy lies for 250 words. I got it down to 444 (remember, even my original column was shorter than Levy’s offering), by leaving out some specific references, and using more abbreviations and… not-so-great grammar.

They turned it down. So here it is.


Disingenuous Doctor

Doctor Marc Levy’s October 27, 2017 column, “A focus on gun safety – not control – leaves 2nd Amendment intact,” is as lacking in candor as the very column title, suggesting that delaying and infringing on rights somehow protects them.

In bringing up the Dickey Amendment and tying it to research, Dr. Levy implies that the amendment stopped federal funding of firearms-related violence. Just to be clear, this is false. The federal government funds much firearms-related violence research. As one recent example, there is “In-State and Interstate Associations Between Gun Shows and Firearm Deaths and Injuries: A Quasi-experimental Study,” primarily funded by the NIH.

Levy attempts another bit of misdirection in noting that Obamacare has a provision that prevents the collection of information on firearms. I’m sure that a doctor in Florida is well aware that Medicare/Medicaid sidestepped the law by implementing a rule requiring doctors to use Electronic Medical Records software, produced by nongovernmental agencies, which include questions on patient access to firearms in the intake questionnaire. Any doctor with Medicare/Medicaid patients will be asking that, while the CMS innocently proclaims, “WE aren’t requiring it.”

Dr. Levy also appears to be a fan of “universal background checks” (more accurately called preemptively-prove-your-innocence”), so that criminals and other prohibited persons could not obtain guns. He avoids the little problem that most firearm-equipped criminals already obtain their weapons unlawfully, and that the Supreme Court’s HAYNES decision upholds
criminals’ Fifth Amendment rights to not self-incriminate by reporting their unlawful activity; i.e.- criminals cannot be required to undergo background checks.

Levy mentions “assault rifles” as he wonders why we don’t track firearms purchases. Either he is unaware that assault rifles are heavily restricted, regulated, taxed, and registered; or he doesn’t want readers to realize that he’s talking about semiautomatic sporting and defense tools. Perhaps he meant to say “assault weapons,” a term with no legal meaning in Florida or federal law; only a handful of states use the entirely subjective term.

The doctor claims that all “responsible” gun owners approve of his restrictions: registration, taxation, limits on ownership, prior restraint on the exercise of a right, and more. Since I do not, that is demonstrably false, unless Levy has invented his own bizarre definition of “responsible.”

Similar claims that “90% of Americans favor Universal Background Checks” don’t hold water. A few years ago in Washington state, polls alleged that 90% of Washingtonians wanted UBCs; but when it went to an actual vote (Initiative 594), fewer than 60% voted in favor, missing the claim by over thirty points, and more than 40% opposed.

Since recent research shows that background checks do not reduce firearms-related homicide rates (“Do gun laws reduce gun homicide rates?,”), the 40% had a valid point.

Levy sidesteps other questions. Estimates of American gun owners range from a ridiculous fifty-five million to a possibly overly optimistic one hundred-twenty million. Estimates of firearms range from two hundred sixty-five million to a three quarters of a billion. Given the lack of knowledge demonstrated by that remarkable uncertainty, how does Levy propose to determine who has what? How does he propose to pry “extra” firearms out of the homes of those with “too many?” Does he expect dubious owners, who won’t tell a telephone poller what arms he possesses, to self-report to a government intent on registration and confiscation? Or does he advocate searching every single, individual domicile in the country? That’s a lot of doors to kick in, and when the California legislature first proposed mass confiscations of “assault weapons” several years ago, a police union spokesman announced they’d see the largest outbreak of “blue flu” in history if implemented.

Perhaps Dr. Levy and the other estimated one million doctors in America will volunteer to do the door-kicking; they outnumber the FBI’s estimate of fewer than 700,000 law enforcement officers anyway.

Consider those fifty-five to one hundred-twenty million gun owners; then consider the roughly thirteen thousand firearms-related homicides. If each homicide represented an individual shooter and gun, that’s 0.01-0.02% of all firearm owners and 0.001-0.005% of firearms. While personal tragedies, statistically homicides are “black swan” events.

Those tiny fractions of a single percentage point do not point to a gun problem or gun owner problem. There is a criminal problem. Perhaps Dr. Levy should lobby for a gangbanger tax to fund criminal violence research.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Wait, What??

Ok, so just a few things here that have me scratching my head as I read along and finally you just get to a point where you say “Wait, now WHAT??”

Bear just put up a column about how he has written in and tried to explain or correct some things the media has gotten wrong in their reporting. They want nothing to do with correcting their misinformation.

Within a day I found a story that said A gun-focused news outlet on what it takes to cover firearms credibly It talks about how news outlets are not taken seriously because of their attitudes and the large number of stupid mistakes they make in reporting. Ok, maybe I paraphrased that, a little.

So for how long has the leftists told us guns are evil, if there were no guns, there would be no violence, and no abuse and no hatred and plenty of unicorn ice cream.

Ok, yes, mildly gross, and amusing. What a great segue into the next part. Mildly gross and amusing.

The left and guns. Shannon T.Watts hates women, I don’t know how many stories I see up on The Zelman Partisans twitter feed that talk about women and children who were able to defend themselves or save their children by having a gun available. But for some reason those lives don’t matter to Shannon and Mikey Bloomers, who no doubt have their very own armed guards. Why they hates those women and children, who knows, but it seems they do. So the left, the leftist groups, their public voice known as the mainstream media and their thug enforcement arm known as the Demoncratic party have done everything they can to limit law abiding gun owners ability to own guns, to practice sport shooting, to practice self defense shooting, and yes hunting.

Until now.

Now we have new LGBTQ groups that are springing up to learn to shoot. Now Pink Pistols has been around for ages, their goal has always been legal gun ownership, not with an eye towards violence and attacking others, but towards defense. The same as every other law abiding gun owner.

Now we have antifa, the tool of George Soros, who have decided that they need to learn how to fight. Not content with merely carrying baseball bats, they are training in the gym to learn to fight and they are learning to shoot. Not with an eye towards self-defense, with a goal of destroying people they disagree with. Tolerant children aren’t they?

Wait, what? But they’ve been telling us guns are evil and must be banned.

To accomplish this goal of ending fascism, meaning deposing the President and Vice-President elected by the citizens of America, antifa plans to start a revolution on November 4th. Some websites say they are not planning to be violent, but if it happens, well hey.

Others say that they absolutely are planning for the action to be violent.

And some think they are just trying to bait the right into responding.

Wait, what??

You are planning to start riots and violence against people that you think are Trump voters to resist fascism. Which if you are successful in rioting all over the country and it becomes severe enough will possibly bring about a spell of martial law? Which is going to feel like fascism to you basement dwellers.

Now, let’s see, one site says that antifa plans to kill all the Trump voters. So, are you going to ask before you bash a skull or just watch for the secret conservative handshake? If only there could be a clue, like, oh, I don’t know. Like a color or something, like the bloods and crips used to do. Hmm, oh wait! I know! All the people that voted for Trump must be white, right? Because the media said he’s a racist. So that must be it, the “white privilege” thing. I’m telling you, Charlie Manson was off by a few years, but he may have been correct.

Wait, what? Charlie Manson was correct about something?

Let’s look at this “white privilege” deal. Any guesses as to where it originated? Well, of course the left, the media, colleges and social justice warriors. But leftists would be a big clue.

This column makes a lot of excellent points, it was written in 2014, during the reign of barry.

Communism is a system that demands total and complete obedience to the state and anyone who opposes that is standing in the way of progress and needs to be eliminated. Bringing society to the point where they will willingly participate in the slaughter of their own countrymen is not an overnight process. It is a gradual conditioning of the population to get them to believe that some people are not as worthy of life as others.

The author states that there are eight steps before this can take place.

1. The first step is classification. This simply means classifying people into different groups and intentionally dividing people along ideological lines.

2. The next stage is known as “symbolization.” This is the process of attaching a negative symbol to the dominating ideology of the targeted group.

3. The next stage is known as “dehumanization.” I personally can’t think of anything more dehumanizing than being assumed to be a racist simply because I am white.

4. The next stage is “organization.” The political left is the master of organization. Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals is the organizing bible for the left and they have mastered the art of teaching minorities that they are oppressed by America’s evil white men.

5. The next stage is “polarization.” Stanton identifies this as the downward spiral of killings until the vortex of all out genocide is reached.

6. 7. 8. This brings us to the final three stages which are “preparation, extermination and denial.” I stopped with polarization because I believe that is the stage we are currently in. However, it could be argued that we are in the preparation stage as it has been reported that all Americans must be micro chipped by 2017 per Obamacare regulations or even acall for a universal I.D. can be used to justify the idea that we are in the preparation stage.

And the government does love pushing that REAL ID law don’t they. And many people would tell you that in America, we have the right to pursue our dreams, we do not have the right to have someone else work only to have the fruit of their labor taken from them and given to another group. Is there really white privilege or just more SJW bull feathers, and yet another tactic used by those trying to bring about communism and division in our Republic.

Wait, what? What happened to Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”? But this is not the “freedom” that antifa says they are fighting to bring about. Nope. Communism? Submit or die? I’m thinking some of those college profs and the media left out a few details about living under communism when they indoctrinated the useful idiots.

Didn’t the obama administration continually tell us how evil and dangerous guns are? In fact I seem to recall some schools wouldn’t even allow Police officer parents to pick up their kids if they were in uniform. And we know many schools do not want armed resource officers. I guess it’s better to let the kids be shot in a gun free zone? I don’t know. I haven’t figured that one out yet. But, back to barry’s regime. It seems some traditionally administrative agencies have armed up. To the tune of 20 million dollars.

Wait, what? This is all from one article, and there isn’t an answer for every square, but for the years 2015-2016…..

Agency Dollars Weapons # of Agents Misc
IRS 12.2 Million AR-15, P-90 tactical rifles,”other heavy weaponry” 2,300
Sm. Business Admin “Tens of thousands” Glocks
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Glocks with silencers
Veterans Affairs AR-15’s, Sig Sauer handguns, and other semi-automatic pistols 3,700 armed
Dept of HHS The same sophisticated weapons platforms used by our Special Forces “National Training Operations Center” – a facility at an undisclosed location within the DC beltway.
Dept. of Energy $49,559 M-16 rifles with extra magazines
GSA $16,568 Shotguns and Glocks
Bureau of Reclaimation $697,182 Bulk order of pistols, sights and accessories They build dams, power plants, and canals
Dept of Education Shotguns, Glocks and body armor 88
Dept of Interior $4.4 million Guns and Ammo
U.S. Geological Survey Winchester Black Shadow shotguns and G27 Glocks, shotgun slugs, and frangible ammo They “real-time data and information on current conditions and earth observations.”
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service $410,263 .308 rifles, Glock pistols with silencers, and semi-automatic rifles. They conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats
The Bureau of Engraving and Printing $100,000 “Firearms”
US Mint $179,247 “Ammunition”
The Bureau of Fiscal Services $672,424 .223 Rem 62 Grain Service Ammo, .40 caliber ammo, and buckshot. Additionally, they stocked up on Glock pistols, Remington firearms, and handgun magazine clips. They promote the “financial integrity” of the government through accounting, financing, etc.
Dept. of Ag $1.1 million Guns and Ammo
National Resources Conservation Service $10,347 “Guns through 30Mm.”
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service $22,336 Rifles and pistols plus nearly half a million dollars on ammunition including buckshot, shotgun shells, and rifle ammunition.

Wait, what? I mean obama kept telling us how fewer guns would make us safer, but all these agencies armed up while he was in office. Well, that’s scary isn’t it? Planning more Bundy and Hammond Ranch raids are they? More Ruby Ridge and Waco?

And so, right before Halloween, I’ll leave you with a little cartoon.

Freedom! Trick or Treat?
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Boundary Violation? Doctor against hearing protection

Dr. Herring is a pediatric orthopedic surgeon in Dallas who thinks hearing protection is a bad thing, and really likes gun bans and confiscations.

I have a new definition of ‘gun silencer’
A silencer is a device that is attached to a gun in order to virtually eliminate the sound of the gun and the “muzzle flash” that accompanies the bullet. If the Las Vegas shooter had used a silencer, people would have just continued to fall over with no evident cause for heaven knows how long. No one would have known in which direction to look, and no flash would have been seen.

Now that we’ve established that Herring is an ignorant twit, let’s determine the extent of that lack of knowledge. As I mentioned earlier this week, I’ve been indulging my hobby of calling out published idiots.  Since the Dallas News helpfully published the not-so-good doctor’s email address, I sent him a letter. He hasn’t responded, so here it is. Enjoy.

Dear Dr. Herring,

I must say, I’m glad you aren’t my doctor. I prefer medical professionals who take the time to gather facts.

1. A silencer is a device that is attached to a gun in order to virtually eliminate the sound of the gun and the “muzzle flash” that accompanies the bullet.”

Incorrect. Suppressors (the preferred accurate term) generally reduce the muzzle blast sonic signature by 20-30 decibels, from a level that instantly damages hearing to a level that is still loud but doesn’t result in immediate hearing loss. I’d expect a doctor writing on the subject to know that.

You want to know how suppressors work outside of Hollywood and your imagination? Here’s a video in which a suppressed AR-15 is clearly audible at 500 yards.

A doctor advocating against hearing protection is, at best, committing a boundary violation, verging on malpractice. Cheap ear muffs or ear plugs work, but reduce situational awareness; a bad thing when handling guns. Electronic muffs help with that but are a lot more expensive. Electronic muffs that give 360 degree awareness can cost more than a suppressor. A group of people shooting a rifle can spend a thousand dollars or more on electronic muffs, or one guy can spend a couple of hundred on a single suppressor (pre-$200 tax) and protect everyone.

2. “In reaction to the mass shooting, Congress quickly pulled a bill that would have made silencers legal.”

Suppressors are already legal (federally, and in nearly all states). The SHARE Act would simply remove a $200 tax.

3. “The NRA has blocked any epidemiological studies of the effect of unrestricted weapon ownership relative to murder, accidental shooting, suicides, carjacking and home intrusion.”

Wrong again. Type “firearms research” into any search engine and you’ll find lots of research. The CDC was blocked from advocating and promoting gun control, not studying firearms death/injury. The federal government pours millions of dollars in grants to such research.

4. No civilian needs a high-powered repeating rifle like the AK-47.”

The AK-47 — a select-fire assault rifle — is extremely difficult to lawfully obtain. And it is not “high-powered,” being chambered for an intermediate power cartridge with ballistics very similar to the venerable .30-30.

5. “Australia, a country with as high a percentage of gun owners as the U.S., was able to implement effective and fair gun laws that dramatically reduced gun violence.”

It was so effective that they just had to run another amnesty to convince people to turn in gun they failed to turn in back then. Their government’s estimate of compliance — including this year’s amnesty — is around 15-20%. And arbitrarily declaring lawfully owned and used property illegal, and taking it without compensation, was hardly “fair.”

6. “The number of homicides dropped 23 percent in 2013 compared to 2007, the lowest rate in 25 years.”

The Australian homicide rate was dropping before the confiscation, and merely continued. If you look at a graph of the rates, you’ll see a surprising smooth decline with no discontinuity at the time of the confiscation.

7. “Prior to the Australian law there had been 13 massacres (defined as killing of 4 or more people). In the 14 years following the new regulations, none.”

Untrue. By the “4+ killed” definition there has been at least one mass shooting (ed: knife and rifle, technically), and at least two more with seven victims (2 dead, 5 wounded; 3 dead, 4 wounded). (ed: and in 2014, another mass shooting with 5 dead.)

There have also been numerous knife, vehicle, club, and fire attacks that killed far more people than firearms murders, but I suppose you think those don’t count.

If you are truly interested in educating yourself on the subject of firearms, let me recommend The Zelman Partisans’ (a Jewish pro-RKBA organization) “Gun Culture Primer” as a starting point.

You are entitled to an opinion, but if you know something about a topic before publicly pontificating, it will boost your — currently lacking — credibility.

8. “I have patients who have committed suicide with guns.”

That seems extremely unlikely. Perhaps your grasp of English matches your knowledge of firearms and you meant that you had patients who committed suicide, or that you have patients who attempted it.

9. “There are people who are known threats who should not own guns.”

And those are called — in federal law — “prohibited persons,” and are ALREADY… prohibited from possessing firearms. And they are a tiny minority.

Consider that estimates of US gun ownership ranges from a laughable 60 million people to an optimistic 120 million. There are roughly 11,000 firearms homicides per year (and a decades-long downward trend). If each individual homicide was committed by a separate individual (which Mandalay Bay shows isn’t the case, as well as all the repeat murder offenders in cities like Chicago), then that’s 0.009% to 0.018% of all gun owners. At most, less than two hundredths of one percent. But you want laws restricting human rights of the 99.982% who didn’t do it?

Perhaps we should ban doctors: Recent research indicates that medical errors kill 200,000 to 400,000 people per year. With approximately one million doctors in America, it appears that doctors are roughly 2,200 times more likely to kill someone than is a lawful gun owner.

But wait! You might say that number doesn’t reflect the lives doctors save. Your numbers also don’t reflect the number of lives saved by gun owners; even the anti-gun Violence Policy Center says there are 338,700 defensive gun uses per year. Other researchers think the number could be as high as 2.5 million (based on the assumption that most never get reported to police, which my own experience suggests may be accurate).

I’ll leave you with a final thought. A particular incident stands out in my memory from my law enforcement days. A group of convicted felons was watching a news program about a push for gun control. The criminal group consensus was that gun control was good, because as one violent felon (assault with a deadly weapon, as I recall), “Yeah, pass it! Then I’ll know they ain’t got nothing, and I can always get a gun.”

Sincerely,

Carl “Bear” Bussjaeger
Author: Net Assets, Bargaining Position, The Anarchy Belt, and more
www.bussjaeger.org
NRA delenda est

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Trolling for sensible fishing laws.*

Apparently the old “regulate guns like cars” argument has worn out. Now…

Fishing for sensible gun laws
As the West’s elected officials wrestle with how to protect us from gun violence in the aftermath of the Las Vegas nightmare, two things come to mind. First, these leaders are not actually wrestling with the issue of how to protect us from gun violence. If they were, the solution would be as clear as a mountain stream: Treat people more like fish.

Marty Jones is somehow under the impression that firearms are less regulated than fishing.

Perhaps he should take a little time to educate himself on the subject of firearm lest he continue to sound like a foolish kook. The Zelman Partisans “Gun Culture Primer” is a good place for him to start.

If Jones believes fishing and firearms should be subject to the same laws, then let’s try applying gun laws to fishing and its gear.

Manufacturers of fishing gear would require federal licensing, and would be subject to no-notice compliance inspections. All equipment would be individually serial numbered and otherwise marked under standards right down to the font size and stamping depth. Failure to so mark equipment early enough in the manufacturing process could be punished as a felony and the company could lose its license and be fined hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Retailers would also be federally licensed (this is in addition to any state or local licensing, of course). All fishing gear inventory would be tracked in a bound book. That book and inventory would also be subject to no-notice inspections. Misprints in the book could result in fines, loss of license, and even prison time.

Thanks to special tackle store zoning restrictions, you may do some traveling to find one. Exposure to fishing implements would be damaging to youth psyches, so tackle stores can’t be within 1,000 feet of any school or daycare facility (even Miss Sally’s after-school place in her house next door to you). They probably can’t be near churches either. Nor any place selling alcohol.

When selling a fishing pole, the retailer would have to guess if the buyer might be a prohibited person (we’ll get to that in a moment), or if he’s making a straw purchase for another person.

The buyer would be required to fill out a multi-page form in which he discloses various legal and health conditions. He’d have to tell his race. He has to have a government issued photo ID, which the retailer will photocopy for his records (the ones subject to no-notice inspection and copying by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Fishing. I wonder why they need to know what race you are?

The retailer would then request a background check through NICS. If a “proceed” is not given immediately, the buyer would have to wait days before taking possession of the fishing pole. If the transaction is denied, the sale cannot complete. Roughly 95% of denials are in error, and those that are correct almost never result in prosecution — much less conviction — which may make the fisherman wonder why they bother with the check.

That form the buyer and retailer fill out? The retailer better check it closely, because if you or he makes a typo (or mark “Y” instead of “Yes” in full he can lose his license and be fined.

The check is to make sure the buyer is not a prohibited person. There is a long list of disqualifying conditions, but basically no more fishing for anyone convicted of a crime potentially punishable by 24 or more months in prison, even if you got off with a fine and no jail time. Some misdemeanors will render you fish-free for life, too. Unlawful use of drug, or alcoholism make you a prohibited person. Being adjudicated mentally deficient also does the trick.

You’d have to be at least 18 years of age to buy a long pole, and at least 21yo to buy a short pole.

If a former buddy’s widow wanted to sell you her hubbie’s old fishing pole, you’d both have to go to a Federal Fishing Licensee to go through the background checks.

Want to buy a fishing pole from mail order company? The seller will have to ship it to your local FFL, where you go through a background check. If you travel to another state, you can buy long pole but not short ones.

Reels capable of holding more than 15 feet of line would be banned.

Denver would ban reels altogether, and limit you to 15 feet of line tied to the end of a pole.

Unless licensed to possess a fishing pole, it would be a felony to posses a pole within 1,000 feet of a school. Using the pole inside city limits would be at least a misdemeanor, possibly a felony. Oh, and there would be no more youth fishing licenses.

When setting off on a fishing trip, you’ll need to store your pole in a locked container, separately from you line and hooks. If passing through certain states (and look it up before leaving because state laws on fishing poles will vary, and may ban your possession outright- instant felony i New Jersey), you may have to disassemble your pole, rendering it inoperative. (And for folks that think guns and cars should be regulated the same, consider taking your car apart for a road trip.)

Jones claims there is no bag limit on people, unlike fish. That’s because with the exception of self defense, bagging humans at all is illegal. And even a self defense shooting is likely to get you prosecuted. So even having jumped through all the other hoops, if you attempt to use your fishing pole, you’d better be able to prove in a court of law that a fish was necessary to your survival.

As it happens, contrary to Jones’ assertion, there are caliber limits on firearms. Anything over .50 caliber — half inch, as measured from rifling groove to rifling groove — is a “destructive device” and requires special law enforcement approvals, licensing, and taxes; and the owner is subject to no-notice inspections. I think a similar half inch hook restriction for fishing is in order; right, Jones? Unlicensed DD hook possession would be a major federal felony.

Want to practice casting? Not in town, nor in built-up county areas. You may be restricted to a dedicated “casting range” which will require membership in the National Fishing Association to use.

Jones should join Fishing Pole Owners of America, to help protect himself against further fishing control regulations and bans on reels, and evil black assault poles; and limits on how many poles or hooks he can own; not merely how many he can use simultaneously on a fishing expedition- how many he can own. “Nobody needs more than two poles, without reels.”

Aside from laws and regulations, Jones can expect to be demonized in the media. Columnists who clearly know nothing about his sport and equipment, nor the laws and regulations in place, will write ridiculous articles making nonsensical comparisons to make fishermen look like unreasonable jerks opposing commonsense fishing safety laws. He’ll be called a racist for wanting to own poles. People will make disparaging remarks on his Facebook page saying that he only needs that long pole to compensate for a short penis. Irrationally, those fishing control advocates will make the same penis-compensation argument against female anglers, making Jones wonder if they’ve ever gotten laid and know the anatomical differences between men and women.

So, sure. Let’s regulate fishing and shooting the same way.


* This was sent to the Denver Post in rebuttal to Jones’ silly column. They declined to publish it, so I’m posting it here as I will be doing with other rebuttal attempts.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Training Wheels

In my recent spare time, I’ve been amusing myself by sending rebuttals to various columns by confused writers. For some strange reason, outlets that print ignorant rants don’t seem to want to run my responses. So I’ll take advantage of my position with The Zelman Partisans to post here.

First up, we have a young Virginia Tech college student who probably wasn’t ready for college.

Ambiguous gun laws trigger grave consequences for public safety
“You have to know something really well to hate it, and guns haven’t been much of a part of my life”

Mr. Redman should have stopped right there, and gone to someone who knows a little about firearms, because…

“That might be scary enough, but he had also obtained 12 bump-fire stocks to make his semi-automatic weapons function more like automatic weapons.”

That is incorrect. An automatic weapon — a machinegun — is designed to fire multiple rounds per trigger operation. Bump-fire stocks in no way affect that operation/rounds relationship. If you put a bump-fire stock on a semiautomatic rifle, you still individually operate the trigger for each round fired. Bump-fire stocks don’t make the weapon fire faster. The theoretical rate of fire of the rifle is determined by the physics of the internal parts.

Now, some people often say that bump-fire stocks help the shooter pull the trigger faster. No; that isn’t the case.

“However, bump-fire stocks existed neither when the law was initially passed, nor when it was updated in 1986;”

Bump-fire stocks are a relatively recent innovation, but bump fire has been around as long as there have been semiautomatic rifles. I have bump fired rifles (when I had a safe location and the ammunition to waste) but I’ve never even seen a dedicated bump-fire stock in person.

Redman has admitted that he don’t know firearms very well, so allow me to explain that, and elaborate on my comment that such stocks don’t help you shoot faster.

To fire a rifle with reasonable expectation that the round will hit the target, you normally hold the rifle firmly with both hands, and pull it against your shoulder. This provides a stable shooting stance.

A rifle has recoil. When fired, it pushes against your shoulder.

But let’s trying hold that rifle a little differently. With your off hand (the hand you don’t use to pull the trigger) grip the rifle. Your trigger hand does not grip the rifle. Nor do you pull the rifle butt snug against your shoulder. It isn’t a stable stance, and accuracy will suffer.

When your rifle is on target, extend your trigger finger into the guard. Now, with your off hand grip, push the rifle forward until your trigger finger pulls the trigger.

The rifle fires. Recoil pushes the rifle back so your finger disengages the trigger. Your rifle-gripping off hand acts like a spring and pulls the rifle forward again. If your shooting finger was held steady, the trigger is pushed against the finger again, firing.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

A silly way to waste ammunition because, as I’ve mentioned, accuracy suffers due to the unstable shooting platform. Personally, I prefer to use a normal stance and just pull the trigger rapidly.

But some folks feel otherwise. Enter the bump-fire (or slide-fire) stock.

The bump-fire stock is simply a device that can be pulled snugly to the shoulder, and provides a grip to help keep the trigger finger in position. The rifle proper just recoils back in a channel into the stock. It is training wheels for folks who have trouble bump-firing. And since it’s a bit more stable, it helps with accuracy compared to normal bump-fire. However, accuracy even with the stock is poor compared to conventional stance with conventional stock. Folks who don’t want to bother with silly, expensive bump-fire stocks also hook the rifle to belt loops on their pants to the same effect.

Training wheels. A bump-fire stock no more makes a rifle work like a machinegun than training wheels turn a child’s bicycle into a high performance motorcycle.

Note the subtle differences.
Note the subtle differences.

 

If you want to see fast shooting, go to a 3-gun match. You’ll see people who can make a pump-action shotgun sound like full auto, much less a semiautomatic rifle. In 3-gun, speed matters. But you won’t see a competitor using a bump-fire stock because accuracy matters, as well.

The alleged use of bump-fire stocks in the Mandalay Bay shooting is one of the most perplexing aspect of a puzzling case. The shooter, a multimillionaire who could certainly afford several real machineguns — and had the clean record to obtain such — who, based on the timeline of weapon purchases, began planning this at least a year prior didn’t use those resources to obtain automatic weapons or spend the range time learning to pull the trigger quickly? Instead, he bought and used a novelty toy that would degrade his accuracy?

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Hawaii

Hawaii gun laws hit target
“I believe Hawaii is a model for the rest of the country,” said state Rep. Nadine Nakamura. “We have one of the lowest gun-related deaths (rates) among all 50 states due to many factors.”

Well, I’m glad to here that your state is such a crime-free paradise. And how did you manage that?

Those factors include the low rate of gun ownership, strong gun control laws and firearm permit issuing, a gun safety education requirement, and mental health affidavit with medical record accessibility being required at the time of registration.

“Hawaii also has a 14- to 20-day waiting period, (and) bans handgun magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition and semi-automatic handguns with certain features,” Nakamura said.
[…]
Fully automatic firearms, shotguns with barrels less than 18 inches long, and rifles with barrels less than 16 inches long are prohibited by state law.
[…]
Permits are valid in the issuing county only, and Hawaii does not recognize concealed carry permits issued by other states.

“Currently, all firearm buyers must undergo a criminal background check, a mental health background check and subject themselves to active monitoring on an FBI-sponsored crime database,” Bryant said.
[…]
All firearms, including those brought into the state by new residents, must be registered.

That’s… draconian. Still, they say it paid off.

Sort of.

Let’s compare darned gun-free Hawaii to another state. Hawaii has a population of 1,428,557, so I’ll run with New Hampshire, which is close at 1,334,795 (2016 numbers). New Hampshire is also a good test of the effectiveness of those victim disarmament laws because it’s the virtual polar opposite of Hawaii: high rate of firearms ownership, CCW licenses available (shall issue) but not required to concealed or open carry, background checks only when purchasing from an FFL, no registration, NFA items are allowed, no weapon-type bans, no magazine limits, no waiting periods, CCW reciprocity is moot because visitors don’t need licenses either, no specific mental health check, and the cops don’t get to read your medical records without a warrant.

New Hampshire must be a crime-infested hell, right?

Well…

Crime Rates per 100K (2016)
Violent Crime Property Crime Murder
Hawaii 309.2 2992.7 2.5
New Hampshire 197.6 1512.9 1.3

Oops.

Hawaii ranks 30th in violent crime. New Hampshire ranks… 48th.

Hawaii ranks 8th(!) in property crime. New Hampshire ranks… 50th.

Hawaii ranks 41st in murder. New Hampshire ranks… 50th again; go figure.

I’ve never been to Hawaii, and don’t want to. I used to live in New Hampshire. Other than winter, it’s a nice place. The road I lived on had several shooting ranges; roughly 1 in 3 houses had a range, possibly more.

Everybody didn’t open carry, but it wasn’t all that unusual. I often did, and offhand I only recall three times someone said something. 1) A woman from Taxachusettswas  outraged that I carried a gun in the grocery store. I told her that based on the statistics, I was more worried about her killing someone with her car, than me having to shoot someone. She rushed to the front of the store, presumably to warn the manager that an armed man was in there. Since I’m not the only person who open carried in there I was unsurprised when nothing happened.

2) A little boy whose family moved in down the road asked why I had a gun. I started listing the wildlife in the area — starting with the ubiquitous bears. I told him that I’d probably never need it, but it’s like a fire extinguisher.

3) I was headed to the mailbox when the guy running the local police department drove by. He stopped to chat. He glanced at my gun and said, “I’m glad to see that. I wish more people would carry.”

Hawaii regulates the heck out of what firearms they even allow, yet has significantly higher crimes rates than heavily armed New Hampshire.

I think the real difference is the people, not the laws. And if all those laws are holding down crime rates in Hawaii, what the heck are the people like?

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Tolerance

Tolerance-According to Merriam-Webster:

1 :capacity to endure pain or hardship :endurance, fortitude, stamina

2 a :sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one’s own

b :the act of allowing something :toleration

3 :the allowable deviation from a standard; especially :the range of variation permitted in maintaining a specified dimension in machining a piece

4 a (1) :the capacity of the body to endure or become less responsive to a substance (such as a drug) or a physiological insult especially with repeated use or exposure developed a tolerance to painkillers ; also :the immunological state marked by unresponsiveness to a specific antigen

(2) :relative capacity of an organism to grow or thrive when subjected to an unfavorable environmental factor

b :the maximum amount of a pesticide residue that may lawfully remain on or in food

Ok, that last one kind of made my eyebrows go up a bit.

There’s tolerances involved in all sorts of things. Sewing, you can be off by like a ¼ of an inch sometimes, gapping spark plugs, there is a set gap, it can be off a little, reloading bullets, ok, so I don’t actually know how to do this, but I’m guessing there is a tiny bit of play. But a lot of things involve a certain amount of give. There is tolerance in how long my horses will stand to have cockleburrs picked out of their manes and tails, this can be influenced with horse cookies, so things can have an effect on the amount of tolerance given or acceptable. There is tolerance in activity, running, reading, tail brushing, for example. Today I was listening to a radio show in the morning. They were talking about the NFL, the national losers and their behavior. The caller thought that since the left seems to be determined to destroy anything in this country with the least bit of masculinity to it, maybe people should just wait for the kneeing phase to blow over as if they were a bunch of spoiled 3 year olds acting out….which, well. Yeah. But the host made his point, the NFL, as a manly sport is gone. The owners by not keeping things professional have allowed it to basically die as the beloved American sport where kids could look up to the felon players. And that the previous things known as “football fans” tended to be pro-America, pro-Military, pro-Law enforcement and they are tired of antifa, tired of rioting, tired of being told to just ride it out, it will get better because it isn’t and this anti-American unprofessional crap is getting on their very last nerve and they are tired of being “tolerant” and fighting by Marquess of Queensberry rules and losing because the left never does fight by the rules, anyone’s. The right has tried to be the grown-ups and be tolerant of other lifestyle choices, beliefs and everything else and they’ve had it. Yep, I hear that.

Then driving home tonight, I was listening to Joe Pags, I like him. He was talking about the security guard from the Mandalay Bay. Actually he was probably more like a parking valet because he was unarmed. An unarmed “security guard”. Huh. Nope, a parking valet that doubles as a walk around bell boy, or regular valet. After the “incident” a few pictures of Jesus Campos made it onto the internet, the heroic security guard. And then he went missing. He was suppose to be on Sean Hannity, and had some other interviews lined up. And he supposedly went to a walk in clinic and then more or less vanished after having canceled all his interviews. Huh. He has since reappeared on The Ellen DeGeneres show. Huh. Well, I suppose it’s a logical choice. Ellen is known for her hard hitting, in depth investigative journalism. Oops, sorry, no, I was thinking of Sharyl Attkisson. So in addition to the baffling choice of venues for his one and only interview, it appears Jesus has been doing some stress eating. So the things Joe was pointing out were pretty interesting. After Jesus went missing, a reporter, Laura Loomer decided after finding that Jesus’s name had been scrubbed from the Mandalay employee list to pay a visit to his house. Which is being guarded by an armed guard working for a security company with a “virtual” address and a business license that expired in January of this year. Huh. Something else Joe pointed out, from the pictures of the guy that were posted on the net right after it happened it appears that Jesus has gained about 70 pounds, in two weeks. It seems that most of his answers on the Ellen show were very well rehearsed. No word if he was auditioning for Harvey Weinstein.

Now I’m a reasonably tolerant person, I think. In my job, I try hard to be nice and kind and helpful to my co-workers and to people I need to interact with. Really, I do. However, I have what is known as a low, and it’s getting lower all the dang time, B.S. tolerance. I will try very hard to be a team player, but, do.not.mess.with.me. It makes me cranky.

And as I’m listening to Joe, and thinking we’re on like the 3rd or 4th timeline now of how and when things happened, the B.S.-O-Meter pegged out.

B.S.-O-Meter

 

 

 

 

 

 

You have a lot of people that were killed, more wounded, theories abounding, immediate calls for more restrictions on the Second Amendment, cases made for gun confiscation, faux Second Amendment groups joining in the chorus for infringement like a bunch of demented Stockholm syndrome victims and the actual knowledge of what really happened and what this was really about is pretty dang thin. I mean, these fools want to bring our country to a point where only the government has guns, or at least regular American Citizens are only allowed a registered .22 single shot if they can prove need, keep it locked up and can only buy one box of registered ammunition every other month.

B.S.-O-Meter

 

 

 

 

 

 

So I thought a short walk down memory lane might be in order. In Chronological order.

Wounded Knee-December 29, 1890.

Republican President Benjamin Harrison

December 28, 1890 a detachment of the U.S. 7th Cavalry Regiment commanded by Major Samuel M. Whitside intercepted Spotted Elk’s band of Miniconjou Lakota and 38 Hunkpapa Lakota near Porcupine Butte and escorted them 5 miles westward to Wounded Knee Creek, where they made camp. The remainder of the 7th Cavalry Regiment, led by Colonel James W. Forsyth, arrived and surrounded the encampment. The regiment was supported by a battery of four Hotchkiss mountain guns.

On the morning of December 29, the U.S. Cavalry troops went into the camp to disarm the Lakota. One version of events claims that during the process of disarming the Lakota, a deaf tribesman named Black Coyote was reluctant to give up his rifle, claiming he had paid a lot for it. Simultaneously, an old man was performing a ritual called the Ghost Dance. Black Coyote’s rifle went off at that point, and the U.S. army began shooting at the Native Americans. The disarmed Lakota warriors did their best to fight back.

Wounded Knee, the aftermath

 

 

 

 

But this is far from the only massacre of unarmed Indians by the government.

The US Army killed about 250 Shoshone during the Bear River Massacre in southeastern Idaho in 1863. As recently discussed in Smithsonian, “200 soldiers under Colonel Patrick Connor’s command killed 250 or more Shoshone, including at least ninety women, children, and infants. The Shoshone were shot, stabbed, and battered to death. Some were driven into the icy river to drown or freeze.”

In eastern Colorado in 1864, the Sand Creek Massacre occurred. There, US soldiers attacked peaceful, unarmed Cheyenne and Arapaho Indians “with carbines and cannon, killing at least 150 Indians, most of them women, children and the elderly. Before departing, the troops burned the village and mutilated the dead, carrying off body parts as trophies.”

In 1870, the US Army accidentally killed the “wrong” group of Indians, in the Baker or Marias Massacre. In north-central Montana, along the Marias River, Major Eugene Baker ordered his soldiers to attack a village of peaceful Blackfeet. When informed by a subordinate that this group was not the one the troops were looking for, Baker responded, “That makes no difference, one band or another of them; they are all Piegans [Blackfeet] and we will attack them.” About 175 unarmed Blackfeet were murdered, the great majority children and women.

I can’t find any photos of what the press said about the massacre at Wounded Knee, how they explained or presented it. I did however find a line in an editorial of the Aberdeen Saturday Pioneer,

“The Pioneer has before declared that our only safety depends upon the total extermination of the Indians. Having wronged them for centuries, we had better, in order to protect our civilizations, follow it up by one more wrong and wipe these untamed and untamable creatures from the face of the earth.”~~L. Frank Baum

L. Frank Baum was the author of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. Wow, so along with yellow brick roads and flying monkeys L. Frank was totally cool with some genocide. But, at least as a member of the press, he covered the massacre fairly and explained why it was totally necessary. /ticked off sarcasm.

Ruby Ridge August 21, 1992. And from Wikipedia.

Demoncrat President Bill Clinton, Attorney General Janet Reno

So the Sheila synopsis of this is the government wanted Randy Weaver to do some informant work for them. He declined, they wanted him to do a bit of gunsmithing. He declined initially and finally gave in. Yeah, I’m leaving out tons, but there’s a link above. But the circumstances lead to a stand-off between the jackboots and the Weavers and a family friend. The brave ATF, US Marshals Service, and the FBI found it necessary to shoot an unarmed dog, a 14 year old boy in the back and an especially brave FBI HOSTAGE RESCUE TEAM sniper named Lon Horiuchi scored a major victory when he shot 43 year old Vicky Weaver in the head as she stood at the back door of the cabin holding her baby. I don’t think that the FBI has a good grasp on what HOSTAGE RESCUE means. Cause that sure as hell isn’t it. The Boundary County, Idaho, prosecutor indicted sniper Lon Horiuchi for manslaughter in 1997. Both the Weaver family and Harris brought civil suits against the government over the events of the firefight and siege, the Weavers winning a combined out-of-court settlement in August 1995 for $3.1 million, and Harris being awarded, after persistent appeals, a $380,000 settlement in September 2000.

And this is how the media reported what was happening at the time.

Ruby Ridge Press Reports
Ruby Ridge Press Reports

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Waco Texas, April 19, 1993 The Davidian Massacre

Demoncrat President Bill Clinton, Attorney General Janet Reno

If they wanted to arrest Koresh, why didn’t they just do it when he went into town every morning?

On February 28,1993 overly aggressive and highly militarized agents of BATF set out to put on a “big show” to increase their budgets and prestige by attacking the Branch Davidian religious group outside of Waco, Texas. Six months earlier, agents had spurned David Koresh’s attempts to cooperate with their investigation of his gun business by inviting them to see his guns. On February 28, when he came to the front door and tried to cooperate, reckless agents shot him and mortally wounded his father-in-law. Other agents started shooting from helicopters, killing four Davidians. Agents probably assassinated another Davidian who approached Mount Carmel later that day. And so began a 51 day standoff.

So apparently Clinton, Reno and Congress saw no need for a overhaul of how to handle, or not escalate situations in the year since Ruby Ridge.

Now we’ll just move up to more recent history.

Does anyone remember a couple years ago the country seemed to have a spate of outlaw ranchers that the DOJ, BLM and a host of federal alphabet soup felt the immediate need to bring to heel?

Bundy Ranch April 5, 2015

Demoncratic President Barry Sotero aka Barak Obama (so does anyone know, did he finally ever legally get his name changed? Yet?) Attorney General Eric “Gunwalker” Holder

We’ll start with Cliven Bundy. This is actually a good synopsis of the situation at the Bundy ranch in Nevada. The Real Story Behind The Bundy Ranch Harassment

The pared down version is a 67 year old cattle rancher in Nevada has been running cattle on the same land his family has for over a 100 or so years. He is actually the last rancher in Clarke county these days due to the “management” practices of the BLM. The BLM-g* demanded he cut his 900 head herd to 150 head. Well, I don’t suppose a obama headed BLM-g would have any better idea of business than anything else he had anything he touched. Besides, they had to save the desert tortoise. The same desert tortoise the BLM-g was killing. Of course, the BLM-g was also killing Bundy’s cattle. BUT NOT ON PURPOSE!! They screeched! No, they just separated the calves and cows and the calves starved to death. And they “might have had to put down a few of the cows” for humane purposes, no doubt. This time, as opposed to Ruby Ridge and Waco Texas, patriots have been getting a belly full of seeing the government obliterate their neighbors for some reason. And they showed up. And the BLM-g went after them as well. Although in most of the court cases the charges were thrown out.

So why did it happen? Well, short answer is Cliven Bundy and his family were not big Harry Reid donors. Read the above link, a big donor wants the land, and Harry got him made head of the BLM-g. Another possible use, but someone else wants the land.

People were attacked at this government siege,but no one died. A pregnant woman had attack dogs set on her, Ammon Bundy was tasered twice, many of the Bundy’s cattle were killed and stolen by the BLM-g, but no one died. First Amendment zones were set up, which were the only places citizens were allowed to film and were located far enough away no one could film what the BLM-g was doing. The Governor of Nevada was not happy about that, but well. And those attacks I mentioned? They occurred on public lands. The public was attacked on public lands by the BLM-g and their law-enforcement cronies. That being said, the local sheriff and his deputies refused to take part in attacking citizens or stealing cattle. But, no one died.

The Hammond Ranch January 4, 2016

Demoncratic President Sotero? Obama? Fluffernutter? Attorney General Loretta “Tarmac” Lynch

Well, this one just makes my head hurt. Basically the Hammonds like the Bundys, are the last Ranchers in the area. They own a chunk of land in the middle of an area where the BLM-g have managed to run out all the other ranchers. For those that don’t know this, it’s common to burn off a pasture from time to time. It gets rid of growth you don’t want and your crops or grass will come back better and stronger, with fewer weeds. It also keeps the undergrowth and trees burned off. So when something like a lightening strike hits you won’t have the massive fires like what we are seeing in California right now. And that’s partly why we’re seeing them in California. Because of “environmentalists” people aren’t allowing people to keep things burned off and clean, so when you get a fire, you get a doozey. So in the course of burning off some fields, the fire jumped onto BLM-g land that the Hammonds were leasing. This happened a couple of times, a total of 140 or so acres were affected. The 73 year old Dwight and his son Steven were sentenced under a terrorism act. I’ve read enough to know that the BLM-g have also set fires, including back burn like what the Hammonds set in one instance to try to stop a fire started from a lightening strike burning even more. And the BLM-g fire has gotten out of control and cause large amounts of damage and no charges were ever brought in those cases. A judge reduced their sentence from five years to a few months for both of them, stating he didn’t think the anti-terrorism statute they were sentenced under applied. They served their time. And then the government decided they hadn’t served enough, and so the case went back to the 9th Circuit and the 9th Circus judge said the Hammonds had to serve the whole thing. No BLM-g ever served time for causing far more damage.

People showed up to the party. The Malheuer Wildlife Refuge was taken over.

This is some good background on the area.

Full Story About What’s Going on In Oregon – “Militia” Take Over Malheur National Wildlife Refuge In Protest to Hammond Family Persecution…

Two members of Oregon’s Hammond family to serve time in prison after burning 140 acres of BLM land

But in this stand-off, someone did die. LaVoy Fincum. While the press often portrayed the protesters and wild eye lunatics, this article is a bit more sympathetic to Mr. Fincum. His death still raises many questions as some people feel he was basically shot in cold blood as he had his hands up.

This BLM-g seizure of ranch land is going on all around the country now. These grazing fees they talk about are not piddling little fees, and if the BLM-g wants your land, they raise them to unaffordable.

But the press does not side with the citizen if there is a Demoncrat President at the time. No word on how they would side if it were a Republican President in office.

There has also been speculation that there is uranium on the ranches and that the BLM-g wants to gain control of the mineral resources on the ranches. Here’s a hint, think about Mrs. Pantsuits. And since all the other ranchers have been run off from the surrounding ranches, the holdouts must go.

These are unelected government agencies that are ruining lives, and seizing control of valuable farming and ranch land. Where is the recourse?

And so now we have Las Vegas, a myriad of questions and few answers coming from the government. Many are dead, or wounded and the predictable full throated cries for more gun control, gun confiscation and no one even asks “And if there had been other assailants in the crowd you don’t think having some concealed carry holders in the audience would have saved lives?” Nope, just demands to take rights from people that have committed no crimes. And this little walk down memory lane is by no means exhaustive. How the media explained and portrayed it to the public seldom told what was really happening. So excuse me please if I choose to “cling” to my gun and my Tanakh/Bible a little bit closer right now….these sorts of situations tend to bring that out in me. Because right now?

B.S.-O-Meter

 

 

 

 

 

 

*BLM-g is Bureau of Land Management as opposed to Black Lives Matter. Both are rouge organizations where pain and suffering at the set goals. But this column concerned the “government” version so BLM-g as opposed to BLM-a which is Black Lives Matter-“antifa” version.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Belling the cat

As seen at Slate:

Two Guns Per Person
Why is this legal? I’m not talking about why we don’t require reporting multiple sales of long guns to federal authorities (which we don’t). I’m not talking about the bump stocks the shooter used to make his semi-automatic weapons fire like machine guns. I’m talking about why people are allowed to own more than, say, two firearms without a really good reason.

TL;DR: The Second Amendment doesn’t say how many guns you can have. Nobody needs more than two guns. If someone wants a third gun, it’s full NFA procedures and taxes.

Doug Pennington notably does not address how to figure who might have more than two firearms. Nor does he explain how the powers that be will go about collecting the extant extras. Certainly he isn’t volunteering to collect them; possibly he’s seen my observation regarding the wisdom of kicking in millions of door because the occupants are well-armed.

Perhaps he believes all the government has to do is pass a law and everyone will meekly “turn them all in”.

That doesn’t seem to be working in Chicago where repeat felons — prohibited persons who lawfully shouldn’t have any guns — are found with… guns. It’s almost as if they don’t obey laws.

In 1990, California instituted “assault weapon” registration and got a whopping 2.33% compliance rate.

The NY SAFE Act yielded a slightly better 4.45% compliance rate.

Connecticut gun owners are a little more obedient. That state saw a huge “assault weapon” registration 13.44% compliance rate, although they must have been disappointed with the “high capacity magazine registration 4% compliance rate.

Come on, Pennington; you can’t even get people to comply with universal preemptively-prove-your-innocence checks.

Conclusions The enactment of CBC policies was associated with an overall increase in firearm background checks only in Delaware. Data external to the study suggest that Washington experienced a modest, but consistent, increase in background checks for private party sales, and Colorado experienced a similar increase in checks for sales not at gun shows. Non-compliance may explain the lack of an overall increase in background checks in Washington and Colorado.”

(That was funded in part by the anti-rights Joyce Foundation and they still couldn’t show compliance.)

If blue states like California, New York, and Connecticut have such poor participation rates with simple registration, imagine how places like Georgia will respond to door to door confiscation.

So, Mr. Pennington; who is going to bell your cat? You haven’t volunteered. When California toyed with the idea, a police union spokesman declared that if confiscation were ordered they’d see the largest outbreak of blue flu in history. And we bloody well won’t kick in our doors.

Let’s pretend law enforcement will play. Consider:

  • The FBI estimates a total of 698,460 law enforcement officers in America (federal, state, local).
  • Estimates of gun owners range from 60 million to 120 million.

Let’s use the conservative gun owners number: 60,000,000. For the sake of argument, let’s pretend that The Pennington Edict magically reverses the usual compliance ratios and only 10% don’t turn in their extra guns.

6,000,000 vs. 698,460

The cops are going after heavily armed Americans, so they’ll use SWAT teams. This suggests a typical team size of 12, for 58,205 teams (sure, we’ll also pretend every cop is put on this, ignoring all real crime).

Each team will have to conduct 103 raids. Figure 8 hours for the standoff (remember, you’re going after cantankerous curmudgeons already proven to be uncooperative), and another shift to do the paperwork: 16 hours per raid. 16 x 6,000,000 = 96,000,000 man hours. Better give the guys time to sleep, another 8 hours. So each team runs a one raid per day

Assuming 58,205 teams (-giggle-), the snatch and grab is going to run well over three months. With 8 hours of overtime per day per 698,460 officers. This not only going to take a while, it going to be expensive.

And that doesn’t even factor in attrition, funeral costs, and death benefits. In reality the Pennington Patrols are kicking in doors of heavily armed, noncompliant SOBs. I wouldn’t be surprised to see an average of one officer lost per raid. Which means Pennington runs out of suckers before the HANSOBS run out of people and guns.

Fewer door-kickers, fewer teams, more raids per team… Suddenly this is taking longer than projected. Oh, well. At least there’ll be fewer officer drawing expensive overtime. Those pensions and death benefits though…

Maybe Pennington can bring in the military, too. Activate the Reserves alongside the active duty folks, add them to the cops…

And they’re still outnumbered by HANSOBs by more than 2 to 1.

I wonder how many of those LEOs and mil-folk are multiple gun owners. And how compliant they are.

That’s a best case scenario for the Pennington Proposal. What if there are 100 million gun gun owners, and they have a compliance rate closer to historical rates of 10%?

Now the 2,791,360 police and military are outnumbered by 90 million pissed off, noncompliant heroes. They’ll be outnumbered 32 to 1.

Sure, a lot of hold-outs will fold when the cops show up. But a lot won’t. The average won’t be pretty, or conducive to long-term police survival. Blue flu, Pennington; try to keep up.

If even one-half of one percent of the noncompliant shoot back, that’s 30,000 to 450,000 shooters (depending on the scenarios above).

Please recall that Pennington’s little trip down Tyranny Lane started with — as of latest claims — a single shooter killing 58 and wounding hundreds — in approximately ten minutes.

So tell us: How will you achieve your two-gun goal?

Who will bell the cat?


Ed. note: This commentary appeared first in TZP’s weekly email alert. If you would like to be among the first to see new commentary (as well as to get notice of new polls and recaps of recent posts), please sign up for our alert list. (See sidebar or, if you’re on a mobile device, scroll down). Be sure to respond when you receive your activation email!

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail