Friday, January 11, 2013
But this is good news
Whitehouse throws in towel, throws DiFi and her AWB under the bus, according to NYTimes.
Pentagon
The Pentagon has plans, with the help of the NRA, to confiscate all privately held firearms in the United States. In conjunction with UN peacekeeping forces, naturally.
That's not so bad
I heard on NPR that the 'Executive Orders' being contemplated aren't so bad at all, and, in fact, if this is all it is it's something Gun Owners and the NRA can support.
I will watch them closely...
- Get denied in a NICS check because you are a felon and get arrested. Thousands of these a year, 4 dozen prosecuted.
- Some states never update the "adjudicated mentally defective" list. Some do very few of the total percentage. Encourage them to do better (dunno how an Exec order does this but...)
I will watch them closely...
Thursday, January 10, 2013
Travelling Tips
Running on fumes now after a hot few weeks. But I did see this helpful information that I thought I'd share on Balloon Goes Up in case you missed it.
So, a day of big linky, little thinky.
Based on traffic, I am starting to think most of my 'readers' are spam bots.
So, a day of big linky, little thinky.
Based on traffic, I am starting to think most of my 'readers' are spam bots.
Wednesday, January 9, 2013
When the dust settles
When the dust settles, what will the enemy get?
They are shooting for the moon and want to roll back a few decades of advances in civil rights and get whole acres of stuff actually banned, but it looks like they will settle for the incrementalism of 'only' action on the so-called gun show loophole.
In other words, they will merely settle for gun registration.
No.
What does registration do beside be a pre-cursor, historically*, for a gun? It does nothing to stop people getting shot by bad guys, that's for sure.
We have this, already, in my State. Pistols and anything the State thinks is an Assault Rifle. No action has been done with it, yet. And THIS is also why its a good idea to keep the gun culture bipartisan. It's a way to make inroads to the Blue states and secure our rights forever. That is not in the interest of the Elephants or Donkeys, which often thrive on issue wedges, from one side or the other or both.
[* Like, California, UK, Australia, 1770 American Colonies... just for SOME English speaking bans]
They are shooting for the moon and want to roll back a few decades of advances in civil rights and get whole acres of stuff actually banned, but it looks like they will settle for the incrementalism of 'only' action on the so-called gun show loophole.
In other words, they will merely settle for gun registration.
No.
What does registration do beside be a pre-cursor, historically*, for a gun? It does nothing to stop people getting shot by bad guys, that's for sure.
We have this, already, in my State. Pistols and anything the State thinks is an Assault Rifle. No action has been done with it, yet. And THIS is also why its a good idea to keep the gun culture bipartisan. It's a way to make inroads to the Blue states and secure our rights forever. That is not in the interest of the Elephants or Donkeys, which often thrive on issue wedges, from one side or the other or both.
[* Like, California, UK, Australia, 1770 American Colonies... just for SOME English speaking bans]
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Candidate For Gov
Clinton crony McCauliffe bought a duck gun at Dick's Sporting Goods. That means he's Ok, right? And all for 2nd Amendment rights? Because 2A is all about duck hunting.
Are people in Virginia insulted by this performance? He wants to be elected for governor but he thinks you are stupid.
Are people in Virginia insulted by this performance? He wants to be elected for governor but he thinks you are stupid.
Terminology
I've notice in this latest ban attempt that the meaning of words have shifted again.
VPC's Josh Sugarmann coined a term in the late 80s out of thin air: "assault weapon." An assault rifle was what the military used and was a 'machine gun' select fire type carbine rifle. Already controlled, since 1934 and 1986. So Josh needed something that would include semi-auto rifles that looked like assault rifles but didn't operate select fire. They looked like assault rifles, and scared people that would then assume they were the same thing. His intention was to muddy the waters with lower information voters using the new phrase assault weapon. And he then got his ban of same.
You all know that story, mostly. But most of you know guns.
Fast forward to today.
Well, the vast majority of voter still misuse the terms. But it's different now. All those years of us gunnies informing folks, then those folks inform other folks... it has started to stick. People are still confused with the exact granular difference between the terms assault rifle and assault weapon, but they are now confused in our favor. People are now conflating the term assault weapon with machine gun, and not including *not-automatic rifles in the grouping. At least from what I see in comments. And people seem to know it is expensive and difficult to get a machine gun, which are scary and not needed in their eyes, and that *not-automatic guns are what people have and those are much more ok.
I don't mind the confusion on terms if the fake term assault weapon now means machine guns only, and not the rifles most available to the public at gun stores, to the majority of voters. We win if regular folks are thinking that a ban on assault weapons is a buncha baloney.
(* I'm trying to use not-automatic in lieu of semi-automatic now. But heck, if people have already grokked this, maybe I won't have to long.)
VPC's Josh Sugarmann coined a term in the late 80s out of thin air: "assault weapon." An assault rifle was what the military used and was a 'machine gun' select fire type carbine rifle. Already controlled, since 1934 and 1986. So Josh needed something that would include semi-auto rifles that looked like assault rifles but didn't operate select fire. They looked like assault rifles, and scared people that would then assume they were the same thing. His intention was to muddy the waters with lower information voters using the new phrase assault weapon. And he then got his ban of same.
You all know that story, mostly. But most of you know guns.
Fast forward to today.
Well, the vast majority of voter still misuse the terms. But it's different now. All those years of us gunnies informing folks, then those folks inform other folks... it has started to stick. People are still confused with the exact granular difference between the terms assault rifle and assault weapon, but they are now confused in our favor. People are now conflating the term assault weapon with machine gun, and not including *not-automatic rifles in the grouping. At least from what I see in comments. And people seem to know it is expensive and difficult to get a machine gun, which are scary and not needed in their eyes, and that *not-automatic guns are what people have and those are much more ok.
I don't mind the confusion on terms if the fake term assault weapon now means machine guns only, and not the rifles most available to the public at gun stores, to the majority of voters. We win if regular folks are thinking that a ban on assault weapons is a buncha baloney.
Monday, January 7, 2013
Peace Between Our Peoples
I think I got it.
It is ok to pass as many laws as you like (not that I think you need many) that makes it illegal, with the full jeopardy of the criminal justice system, to commit an act of Predatory Violence, as long as that law does nothing to impede Protective Violence. I await your proposals Diane Feinstein.
[Make Believe Violence is a whole separate category and beyond the scope of this post.]
I don't think anyone of our side has a problem comprehending this. Murder is illegal and Predatory, but in an effort to bubble wrap the country the Liberals like to encroach on Protective Violence too. Part of it is their desire for guaranteed safety and security as though that were possible, part of it is their desire to Control others and bend them to their whim and will, and a BIG part of it is they do not know the difference between Protective and Predatory.
This would explain their violent tendencies, like calling for the road hauling of members of Congress that do know the difference and refuse to infringe on the Protective side of the equation. To Liberals it's all just Violence. And with single-stage thinking they don't remember what they are summoning with 911 to come save them from bad guys trying to hurt them that instant. There is a disconnect there. And they can't see themselves with a gun because they assume they'd snap and use violence in a Predatory manner. When you don't know the difference, I can see this as a possible outcome. Perhaps all Liberals should avoid personally refraining from exercising their 2nd Amendment rights until they get this little detail straight in their head. They are confused and conflate, or willfully obtuse and conflate. Either way...
A man with a badge and a duty belt with holster is nothing special. Just a contractor the people have hired to do the policing job they do not have time to do. It is his or her sworn job to commit Protective Violence for their bosser, Us. The ones that do Predatory Violence are certainly not doing their job and in a just world are treated the same as any bad guy scumbag stickup artist or murderer. We should be no less well-armed than police officers. And, in fact, We the People take our cue from the police when selecting the means to protect ourselves. In fact, maybe the police have gone to far when they start arming themselves like soldiers. Who are these civilian police officers going to go to war with? Why do they need machine guns? Why are they exempt from rules other civilians have to abide by? Are they really under-armed compared to the bad guys with something like a .30-30 lever gun?
Prosecute predators, but make no law that hamstrings my ability to protect myself and my family.
This is also an answer to the Rectro ad Adsurdium fallacy that Lefties like to trot out. "No gun control?! You'll only be happy if everyone has their own M1 Tank and Maverick Missile armed Drone!" No. Those are weapons that are use to prey on the enemy. Just because they now call it the Department of Defense doesn't mean the War Department really deals in defense or defense only. The military initiates violence on the enemy. The whole 'the best defense is a good offense' and is not the purview of civilians, either badged or not.
It is ok to pass as many laws as you like (not that I think you need many) that makes it illegal, with the full jeopardy of the criminal justice system, to commit an act of Predatory Violence, as long as that law does nothing to impede Protective Violence. I await your proposals Diane Feinstein.
[Make Believe Violence is a whole separate category and beyond the scope of this post.]
I don't think anyone of our side has a problem comprehending this. Murder is illegal and Predatory, but in an effort to bubble wrap the country the Liberals like to encroach on Protective Violence too. Part of it is their desire for guaranteed safety and security as though that were possible, part of it is their desire to Control others and bend them to their whim and will, and a BIG part of it is they do not know the difference between Protective and Predatory.
This would explain their violent tendencies, like calling for the road hauling of members of Congress that do know the difference and refuse to infringe on the Protective side of the equation. To Liberals it's all just Violence. And with single-stage thinking they don't remember what they are summoning with 911 to come save them from bad guys trying to hurt them that instant. There is a disconnect there. And they can't see themselves with a gun because they assume they'd snap and use violence in a Predatory manner. When you don't know the difference, I can see this as a possible outcome. Perhaps all Liberals should avoid personally refraining from exercising their 2nd Amendment rights until they get this little detail straight in their head. They are confused and conflate, or willfully obtuse and conflate. Either way...
A man with a badge and a duty belt with holster is nothing special. Just a contractor the people have hired to do the policing job they do not have time to do. It is his or her sworn job to commit Protective Violence for their bosser, Us. The ones that do Predatory Violence are certainly not doing their job and in a just world are treated the same as any bad guy scumbag stickup artist or murderer. We should be no less well-armed than police officers. And, in fact, We the People take our cue from the police when selecting the means to protect ourselves. In fact, maybe the police have gone to far when they start arming themselves like soldiers. Who are these civilian police officers going to go to war with? Why do they need machine guns? Why are they exempt from rules other civilians have to abide by? Are they really under-armed compared to the bad guys with something like a .30-30 lever gun?
Prosecute predators, but make no law that hamstrings my ability to protect myself and my family.
This is also an answer to the Rectro ad Adsurdium fallacy that Lefties like to trot out. "No gun control?! You'll only be happy if everyone has their own M1 Tank and Maverick Missile armed Drone!" No. Those are weapons that are use to prey on the enemy. Just because they now call it the Department of Defense doesn't mean the War Department really deals in defense or defense only. The military initiates violence on the enemy. The whole 'the best defense is a good offense' and is not the purview of civilians, either badged or not.
Sunday, January 6, 2013
Contrarian Tries His Luck
Last Saturday, a work buddy I've referred to as Contrarian on this blog, when gun shopping. He went to the Nations Gun Show and tried some gunstores closer to home.
What's he looking for? He LOVES 100 round mags. And needs mags for his Saiga. And he really wants and FN FiveSeven. Oh, needed ammo for his AR, too.
You can guess how his day went. Bupkis.
He described the Fun Show as a "polite Black Friday" shopping experience. The ammo avaliable was $450 a can, best price. Most of it was just gone. The cheapest 30 round mags were $20 a piece and looked a dog's breakfast.
At Bass Pro, he had to take a number. He was 106th in line, so he found an easy chair and read for a few hours. When his turn was up, anything worth having was sold. Semi-auto pistols? Please. The revolvers were starting to take a hit. Even the CROSSBOWS were getting bought up. They weren't even let customers place an order and wait for it to come in stock, regardless of price or patience.
And remember, this is Maryland. If it's gone last Saturday it was 'bought' the Saturday before, or earlier.
ALL my work buddies that had a gun purchase in mind now know they dragged their feet too long. They will still buy, and will wait til the stock comes back and be purchase with alacrity when it does. So this mass wave of buying still has guaranteed movement on the back end.
So, one magazine for $40 (30 rd) and one box of 5.7 ammo for $70, was all he scored.
What's he looking for? He LOVES 100 round mags. And needs mags for his Saiga. And he really wants and FN FiveSeven. Oh, needed ammo for his AR, too.
You can guess how his day went. Bupkis.
He described the Fun Show as a "polite Black Friday" shopping experience. The ammo avaliable was $450 a can, best price. Most of it was just gone. The cheapest 30 round mags were $20 a piece and looked a dog's breakfast.
At Bass Pro, he had to take a number. He was 106th in line, so he found an easy chair and read for a few hours. When his turn was up, anything worth having was sold. Semi-auto pistols? Please. The revolvers were starting to take a hit. Even the CROSSBOWS were getting bought up. They weren't even let customers place an order and wait for it to come in stock, regardless of price or patience.
And remember, this is Maryland. If it's gone last Saturday it was 'bought' the Saturday before, or earlier.
ALL my work buddies that had a gun purchase in mind now know they dragged their feet too long. They will still buy, and will wait til the stock comes back and be purchase with alacrity when it does. So this mass wave of buying still has guaranteed movement on the back end.
So, one magazine for $40 (30 rd) and one box of 5.7 ammo for $70, was all he scored.
Saturday, January 5, 2013
Friday, January 4, 2013
You Shouldn't
Decide to be a victim, either...
Fight KICKING and screaming when they take you to the secondary crime scene. Better yet, foil the primary crime scene by ruining the bad guy's day.
Hat tip to Snarkybites
Fight KICKING and screaming when they take you to the secondary crime scene. Better yet, foil the primary crime scene by ruining the bad guy's day.
Hat tip to Snarkybites
*UPDATE* Help.
To the post below...
I coulda swore I saw an overlay of a similar graph. This one with a graph measuring the same thing but for Australia. The line was eerily parallel. Which is odd because while there are somethings about our two cultures the same, we are different enough that that sort of tracking is funky.
I just don't remember where I saw it.
Has anyone else out there better memory than mine? My Google-Fu has failed me.
I coulda swore I saw an overlay of a similar graph. This one with a graph measuring the same thing but for Australia. The line was eerily parallel. Which is odd because while there are somethings about our two cultures the same, we are different enough that that sort of tracking is funky.
I just don't remember where I saw it.
Has anyone else out there better memory than mine? My Google-Fu has failed me.
Math
So, if this is a sine curve...
We are due for a cyclical rise in the murder rate coming up in the next decade or so. By 2025
Better get CCW everywhere before that. To be better able to protect ourselves everywhere. Including rolling back so called Gun Free Zones.
Not that there is really any REASON to believe it is an actual cyclical graph, but just in case.
We are due for a cyclical rise in the murder rate coming up in the next decade or so. By 2025
Better get CCW everywhere before that. To be better able to protect ourselves everywhere. Including rolling back so called Gun Free Zones.
Not that there is really any REASON to believe it is an actual cyclical graph, but just in case.
Thursday, January 3, 2013
Ya Know...
2012 was a record year for gun sales, with a record number of NICS checks in December at 2.8 million. Gun sales went up in every state except Iowa and Utah.
And I didn't buy a single gun...
I should do something about that.
Hey, OldNFO? Can I drop you a line via email? I have some questions you might be able to answer.
And I didn't buy a single gun...
I should do something about that.
Hey, OldNFO? Can I drop you a line via email? I have some questions you might be able to answer.
Falsely Imprisoned
On gun charges.
Seems they got a problem figuring out what a crime is in North Caroline (maybe elsewhere?) and wrongly charged and imprisoned almost 200 people.
It sounds like they were charging petty criminals that didn't commit a big enough crime for gun possession when they weren't actually prohitted persons. For instance, a shoplisting crime when you were 18 and stupid and paid a fine and could have done up to a month in prison does not prevent you from getting a gun when you are 35 and a solid citizen. But that's me guessing
Now these 200 probably ain't choirboys. But they also don't belong in prison convicted of a crime they didn't commit.
[UPDATE: Further information from Sean in the comments]
Seems they got a problem figuring out what a crime is in North Caroline (maybe elsewhere?) and wrongly charged and imprisoned almost 200 people.
It sounds like they were charging petty criminals that didn't commit a big enough crime for gun possession when they weren't actually prohitted persons. For instance, a shoplisting crime when you were 18 and stupid and paid a fine and could have done up to a month in prison does not prevent you from getting a gun when you are 35 and a solid citizen. But that's me guessing
Now these 200 probably ain't choirboys. But they also don't belong in prison convicted of a crime they didn't commit.
[UPDATE: Further information from Sean in the comments]
Wednesday, January 2, 2013
Me, Personally
I am a responsible gun owner. Or I like to think of myself as such. I happen to agree with the reasonable restrictions placed on gun ownership. Specifically, people that are adjudicated crazy, convicted felons, traitors, or substance abusers should not have access to guns.
Would I snitch on a neighbor that I knew had a gun and I knew was one of those things? Maybe. Probably. It would feel oogy, but I'd do it. If I trusted the cops not to then inform said crazy criminal drug dealer neighbor that I was snitch.
If I happened to be living with a prohibitted person, I would not have one of my own guns in the house. Period. The responsible thing to do is totally disarm, I feel. Maybe, maybe, I'd get a VERY good safe and keep one or two in there.
You know what else? If I was living with person that I knew SHOULD be adjudicated crazy but hasn't yet, or was living with a person that I knew commits real felonies but hasn't been convicted yet, I'd also not have any guns. (Truth? I wouldn't keep a felon in the house either. Not even a relative. But a crazy relative? That might cohabit with me in some hypotheticals I can think of.)
But that's just the precautions I'd take. Totally disarmed (I wouldn't like it) or a Fort Knox quality vault and only enough guns that I could safely keep track of on the rare occasions I opened it. Two. Maybe. I might own other guns but keep them offsite.
I am thinking of that mom of the shooter in Connecticut. She certainly knew her son was crazy. And I am having a hard time believing her guns that he absconded with were really secure to a level I'd be comfortable with if I had a son like that.
Would I snitch on a neighbor that I knew had a gun and I knew was one of those things? Maybe. Probably. It would feel oogy, but I'd do it. If I trusted the cops not to then inform said crazy criminal drug dealer neighbor that I was snitch.
If I happened to be living with a prohibitted person, I would not have one of my own guns in the house. Period. The responsible thing to do is totally disarm, I feel. Maybe, maybe, I'd get a VERY good safe and keep one or two in there.
You know what else? If I was living with person that I knew SHOULD be adjudicated crazy but hasn't yet, or was living with a person that I knew commits real felonies but hasn't been convicted yet, I'd also not have any guns. (Truth? I wouldn't keep a felon in the house either. Not even a relative. But a crazy relative? That might cohabit with me in some hypotheticals I can think of.)
But that's just the precautions I'd take. Totally disarmed (I wouldn't like it) or a Fort Knox quality vault and only enough guns that I could safely keep track of on the rare occasions I opened it. Two. Maybe. I might own other guns but keep them offsite.
I am thinking of that mom of the shooter in Connecticut. She certainly knew her son was crazy. And I am having a hard time believing her guns that he absconded with were really secure to a level I'd be comfortable with if I had a son like that.
Tuesday, January 1, 2013
Contact Your Congress Critter
I mailed actual letters last week. One was even typed on a typewriter, so they know I took some time and didn't copy paste. I even got Archie to send an letter, and this isn't his issue.
Today I sent emails.
Have you? A letter is worth more than a $25 donation to the Second Amendment Foundation, but I did that too. More than $25 actually.
I was polite but insistent. I made it known that further restrictions were unacceptable, and if they insist on doing something, take a look at ditching the dangerous-to-victims Gun Free zones and how we treat our severely mentally ill.
Today I sent emails.
Have you? A letter is worth more than a $25 donation to the Second Amendment Foundation, but I did that too. More than $25 actually.
I was polite but insistent. I made it known that further restrictions were unacceptable, and if they insist on doing something, take a look at ditching the dangerous-to-victims Gun Free zones and how we treat our severely mentally ill.
This also concerns me...
When political expediency consigns groups of people to the 'crazy' category, AFTER reforms in gun laws to try to weed out the truly troubles, whole new categories of people are deigned too crazy to own a gun.
Like all liberal Dems.
Everyone knows that Socialism is a failure. Some GOP regime could declare that adherents to this backwards dead-end failed philosophy is the definition of crazy. After all, "doing the same fool thing over and over expecting a different result" is crazy. The Palin administration may decide it justifies the confiscation of all firearms kept by registered Democrats. And that's not what I am talking about.
A stricter standard may be called for, but it better be air tight to avoid such abuses by politicians.
Like all liberal Dems.
Everyone knows that Socialism is a failure. Some GOP regime could declare that adherents to this backwards dead-end failed philosophy is the definition of crazy. After all, "doing the same fool thing over and over expecting a different result" is crazy. The Palin administration may decide it justifies the confiscation of all firearms kept by registered Democrats. And that's not what I am talking about.
A stricter standard may be called for, but it better be air tight to avoid such abuses by politicians.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
