Quote of the day—bitterb

Brady Campaign supporters are promising that Tony Bennett, a very old singer from my grandparents’ generation, will call me if I sign up.

bitterb (@bitterb)
Tweeted April 12, 2013
[As others have recently said and demonstrated; Bennett is confused. He thinks private ownership of “assault weapons” was the downfall of Germany:

I just believe that assault weapons, they were invented for war, they shouldn’t be on our streets here.

It’s the kind of turn that happened to the great country of Germany, when Nazis came over and created tragic things and they had to be told off. And if we continue this kind of violence and accept it in our country, the rest of the world is going to really take care of us in a very bad way.

Tony is way past his prime and so is the Brady Campaign. I think they are a good match for each other. They should share a room in a nice nursing home.—Joe]

It’s black it must be evil

We have long known that anti-gun people openly show their hatred for black rifles and handguns while sometimes giving lip service to tolerating rifles with light brown colors and silver colored handguns. But did you know they also have a bias against black ammunition too?

It’s true.

On March 12, 2013 the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco passed an ordinance stating:

SEC. 618. PROHIBITED AMMUNITION.
(a) Definition. For purposes of this Section, “Prohibited Ammunition” shall mean:
(1) Ammunition sold under the brand name “Winchester Black Talon,” or that has physical properties resulting in ballistics performance identical to ammunition presently or formerly sold under the brand name Winchester Black Talon; or,
(2) Ammunition designated by its manufacturer for purchase by law enforcement or military agencies only, unless other ammunition is available to the general public that has physical properties resulting in ballistics performance identical to such ammunition.
{b) Possession Prohibited; Exceptions. No person, firm, corporation or other entity may possess Prohibited Ammunition within the City and County of San Francisco…

It goes on to list exceptions for police, military, and a few other “special people”.

But how are you to know if your ammunition “has physical properties resulting in ballistics performance identical to…Winchester Black Talon”? They, sort of, have an answer to that:

The San Francisco Police Department shall prepare or cause to be prepared a public database of brands and product lines of ammunition meeting the definition of “Prohibited Ammunition” in subsection (a). Failure of the Police Department to create or maintain such a database, or the omission from the database of a particular brand or product line of ammunition otherwise qualifying as “Prohibited Ammunition, under subsection (a), shall not be a defense to or otherwise excuse a violation of this Section.

What? Even if your ammo is not in the database that cannot be used as a defense? Then how can you possibly know if you are breaking the law?

It gets even more interesting as C.D. Michel points out (emphasis added):

NRA’s lawyers then obtained this letter from the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD). The letter confirms not only that the the ordinance doesn’t ban hollow-point ammunition, in fact, the new ordinance applies to virtually no ammunition. The SFPD letter clarifies that ammunition must be “identical in all ways” to Black Talon in order to be prohibited under the new ordinance. Black Talon itself has been out of production for nearly two decades. Ammunition experts have reviewed the SFPD’s position, and confirmed that there is no current production ammunition that is identical in all respects or performs identically in all ways to the Black Talon cartridge. So the City’s ordinance basically applies to nothing – save for those few left over Black Talon cartridges that may still be in circulation.

This would all be funny, in a pathetic sort of way like laughing at the 10-year old kid so dimwitted they can’t tie his own shoes, if it weren’t for the fact that the imbeciles making this law can have you thrown in jail for six months and/or fined $1000 if you violate it.

In case you weren’t involved in the gun rights movement 20 years ago Black Talon ammo was on most of the television “news” shows with animations showing the expanded bullet behaving, and described as, “a buzz saw” going through a human body. Never mind that the twist rate of the barrel, for say 9mm, is on the order of one turn for every 18 inches of travel. Hence the bullet spin is so slow it it wouldn’t even make a single turn going completely through an average sized person, let alone act like a buzz saw.

My guess is that the San Francisco idiots were having drug induced flash backs and remembered “Black Talon” and decided to “do something”. The thing is that Winchester was just a little too fast for them. Those San Francisco law makers are more than a little slow. Winchester beat got the drop on them by about 20 years.

What happened, 20 years ago, was that as a result of all the negative publicity there were people in congress writing up bills to ban the ammo. This was the dark ages of gun ownership and there was a good chance they could have gotten the votes to do it. Of course the sales of Black Talon exploded but Winchester did what was probably the appropriate thing even though they had a hit product on their hands. They discontinued it. They then replaced it with what they called “Ranger” which was also “SXT”, just like the Black Talon ammo. This had the politically acceptable jacket color of copper instead of black. They also put “Law Enforcement” on the boxes but the gun shops were happy to sell it to you and probably even bumped the margins a bit in the process.

Winchester said the SXT name stood for “Supreme eXpansion Technology”. But the people in the gun shops would tell you it really meant “Same eXact Thing”.

The media and anti-gun legislators, dolts that they are, didn’t catch on. I don’t know if they were fooled by the politically correct coloring or couldn’t understand the meaning of “expansion” but they left the new ammo alone.

I have a strong tendency to buy banned books and guns. And it should be no surprise I also bought, what I thought would soon be, banned ammo. I still have a box of the evil Black Talon in 9mm I bought from Lance who was my local gun runner:

WP_20130411_002Corrected

If the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco want them they can come and get them. I’ll be glad to let them have the evil black bullets. I’ll keep the box and shell casings with me.

Update: Wikipedia has the story on famous shootings in which Black Talon ammo was used.

Quote of the day–Viewer

I don’t need a firearm; I have a no-cost inital weapon. SPEECH. Humans are too sensitive to another’s words of speech. As they even admit that, in comparison to a firearm.

viewer
April 5, 2013
Comment to Gun grab–This year’s run on guns
[As the next commenter said, “That must make sense to someone.”

Gun grabbers don’t have to make sense they just have to make themselves feel good.—Joe]

Gun cartoon of the day

TriggerFingers

Via email from Carl Z.

It’s funny but it’s a poor argument. As a counter to it try this on for size:

If God would have wanted us to run around without any clothes we would have been born that way.

Huckabee’s version of common sense

He gets everything right:

Via email from Squirrel Hunter.

Quote of the day—Mark Karlin

A gun, particularly assault weapons and lethal militarized handguns, are at least two things: a prosthetic dick and a sign that even unemployed white guys still rule the Western World and sit at the head of the kitchen table.

Mark Karlin
April 1, 2013
Many American White Men Worship Guns Because of Sexual Insecurity, Entitlement, and Profit
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!

H/T to Sebastian and Barron who both sent me emails about this post.

One might be tempted to claim this is an April Fools Joke but if you read the whole thing I’m certain you’ll come to the conclusion this guy is serious.

Even after overlooking the grammar errors that make comprehension difficult at times I had trouble figuring out what he really meant. What does “lethal militarized handgun” mean? But I don’t think it matters. It’s readily apparent the guy has no idea what he is talking about. The entire article is filled with half-truths and absurd conclusions.

I can only conclude this guy has crap for brains.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Rich Lowry

Gun control always founders on the paradox that it is possible to write new laws for the law-abiding but difficult or impossible to reach criminals who don’t care about laws.

Rich Lowry
April 5, 2013
Lowry: The great gun control fizzle
[Sincere gun control advocates are very shallow thinkers. They think of the good that might come of the laws but not of, or dismiss, the harm it will certainly will cause. “If it saves just one life” is based upon this shallow thinking.

When the torrents of emotional pain from the latest tragedy involving a firearm have receded from all but the lowest parts of the flood plain reason and facts reappear and clear thinking makes it’s appearance again.

It should be very telling the gun control advocates are most effective when emotions run deep and run aground when the tears have started to dry.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Chuck and Pat Wemstrom

America needs to grow up. No one should need Hummers, attack dogs or assault rifles to prove himself a mensch. More important are qualities of courage, integrity and thoughtfulness.

Real men don’t need guns.

Chuck and Pat Wemstrom
April 1, 2013
The Wemstroms: Gun debate and the male ego
[I guess police officers and our soldiers aren’t real men then. Or else they don’t need the guns they carry. And even if “real men” don’t need guns how about “real women”?

The bottom line is that assault rifles have nothing to do with proving oneself to be a mensch. They are tools and like any other tool do not bestow qualities upon the owners. For the Wemstroms to believe they do or for them to believe gun owners believe they do is a serious error on their part. It’s a straw-man argument.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Stuart Rothenberg

But the devil is in the details. You don’t have a lot of people feeling particularly pressured to do anything.

In the end, however, gun control advocates need to get something, he says, and will have to cooperate with the NRA to do so.

The political reality is that the NRA, surprisingly, didn’t give an inch. Now the other side needs to figure out a way to negotiate.

Stuart Rothenberg
April 3, 2013
Gun Control Prospects Recede As Politics Swamp Momentum
[Why should it be surprising the NRA didn’t give an inch? If the propose laws were severe restrictions on the right to attend the church of your choice or the right to read the books you wanted do you think the ACLU would give an inch?

The right to keep and bear arms is no different. Over a hundred million people were murdered or killed in wars in the 20th Century by people who read and took to heart the works of Karl Marx. And I expect there will be millions more death in the conflict over communism in this century. Yet I have never once heard of anyone advocating for the banning of his books. 20 kids murdered by a nut case with a gun is a huge tragedy but millions of kids murdered by leftist monsters is just a number.

I want the people at large to own guns so the risk of genocide and mass murder due to advocates of communism or any other totalitarian government is pushed to near zero. Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom to bear arms are a package deal. And there is nothing to negotiate.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jim of Pennsyltucky

Quote of the day–Ed Pietruszka Jr.

There is no crisis of rifle violence in this state, only a crisis of fear driven by opportunistic legislators.

Ed Pietruszka Jr.
March 31, 2013
Don’t be fooled by gun control lies
[Pietruszka was referring to Maryland but the statement is true in many other states and at the Federal level as well.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Andrew Rosenthal

On Thursday, President Obama renewed his call for legislation, including a ban on some of the most lethal guns (so-called “military-style” assault weapons designed for the singular purpose of killing as many people as possible as quickly as possible.)

Andrew Rosenthal
March 29, 2013
What Now for Gun Control?
[Many millions of these “singular purpose” guns are in use all over the U.S. yet only a few hundred people are killed each year using a rifle of any type yet alone a “assault weapon”.

It’s long past time for the New York Times (Rosenthal works for the NYT) to openly state they are nothing more than a propaganda machine and have concern for, and perhaps no awareness of, facts.—Joe]

Random thought of the day

While I agree with the sentiment “Because F*$k you!” when asked something along the lines of “Why do you need X?” where X is a firearm, ammo, book, religion, speech, encryption, or any other freedom I think there may be a more productive answer.

I think my answer would be:

That is a totally inappropriate question. The proper questions are:

  • Where does the government get the power for infringing upon this right?
  • What justification does the government have for infringing upon this right?
  • Where is the evidence that this infringement will be a net benefit?

Make them prove their case. It’s not up to us to prove ours.

CA gun laws violate Sikh religion?

Interesting slant. Basically, the guy claims that the Sikh religion require him to be able to defend himself and his family against criminal attack and injustice, and the CA assault weapon and standard capacity magazine ban violates that religious requirement.

Gun law vs exercise of religion

That is an interesting twist – could be a good thing to follow.

(There is a reason one of my characters in The Stars Came Back is a Sikh.)

Quote of the day—Edward J. Erler

For Progressives then and now, the welfare of the people—not liberty—is the primary object of government, and government should always be in the hands of experts. This is the real origin of today’s gun control hysteria—the idea that professional police forces and the military have rendered the armed citizen superfluous; that no individual should be responsible for the defense of himself and his family, but should leave it to the experts. The idea of individual responsibilities, along with that of individual rights, is in fact incompatible with the Progressive vision of the common welfare.

Edward J. Erler
March 2013
The Second Amendment as an Expression of First Principles
[H/T to Dwight M. from the gun email list at work who brought my attention to this quote.

There are some excellent insights in this article.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jay Carney

There’s not a single measure in this package of proposals the president has put forward that in anyway violates the Constitution. In fact, they reflect the president’s commitment to our Second Amendment rights.

Jay Carney
White House Press Secretary
March 26, 2013
White House to Sheriffs: Follow Law in Enforcing Gun Control Measures

[Why yes! They do, in fact, reflect the president’s commitment to our Second Amendment rights. Never mind that the sign on the level of commitment is negative.

This really gets my blood pumping. They must think we all have crap for brains.

If there was ever a more blatant example of doublespeak I am not aware of it. While arbeit macht frei was far more sinister it was not nearly so transparent to observers on their first viewing.

This example is like the kid with his or her face and hands covered in cake frosting insisting they didn’t eat the cake. I wish Carney and those he is attempting to cover for could be spanked and sent to their room (prison cell) for the next 10 years.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Malcolm X

Concerning non-violence, it is criminal to teach a man not to defend himself when he is the constant victim of brutal attacks.

Malcolm X
March 12, 1964
[For the record and to keep people from getting themselves caught with a misquotation please beware that I have seen this misquoted and falsely attributed to Martin Luther King Jr. as “It is criminal to not teach a man to defend himself when he is the constant victim of brutal attacks.”—Joe]

Quote of the day—Robert Gebbia

If you can make it difficult at that moment when they are serious about taking their lives, you get that chance to intervene.

Robert Gebbia
Executive director of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention.
March 21, 2013
New Colorado gun control law could help prevent suicides
[This was while referring to the requirement that there be background checks for all firearm transfers.

Governor Hickenlooper came in a close second for QOTD in the same article with:

However many homicides we have each year with handguns, we have about 20 percent more suicides. That number drops significantly when you have universal background checks.”

Citation needed.

If that were actually true then it would be parroted by every anti-gun person in every debate. It hasn’t been. I attribute the statement to Hickenlooper doing what politicians do, which is making up stuff to fit their agenda.

But let’s look at Gebbia’s statement and indirectly show why Hickenlooper statement is almost for certain false.

The only way Gebbia’s statement makes sense is if all of the following are true:

  • A significant number of suicides are committed by people with a gun.
  • Those people only had possession or access to a single gun.
  • That gun was obtained via a private transfer.
  • The private transfer occurred in the previous few hours or at most days.
  • The FFL doing the background check also does a mental health evaluation at the same time.
  • The FFL has some sort of authority to intervene and turn them over to mental health professions before they pursue an alternate suicide method.

Will FFL’s be required to have suicide detection training? Or will the ATF just add another check box on the 4473?

My hypothesis is that neither will happen. All that is going to happen already has. And that is that Robert Gebbia just demonstrated he has crap for brains.—Joe]

Biden’s brain cell still lonely

Vice President Biden keeps demonstrating his profound ignorance and stupidity:

Biden also suggested that [Newtown school shooter] might have been killed sooner had he had to spend more time reloading.

“Think about Newtown,” Biden said. “Think about how many of these children or teachers may be alive today had he had to reload three times as many times as he did.”

The transcript of that speech doesn’t report anything about Biden saying the shooter was killed by police so Washington Post blogger Aaron Blake may be solely responsible for that sentence. In the transcript Biden does claim the police responded in two and a half minutes. That is probably false unless you want to claim one or more cars having started to move in the direction of the school qualifies as “responded.”

The shooter started his attack at about 9:35 AM and stopped about 9:46 AM to 9:49 AM after firing 152 rounds. See also this report.

The shooter killed himself at least 10 minutes after beginning his attack. Some reports have it as police arriving 20 minutes after the attack started. I have also used this number but recent reports indicate it was significantly less that that. Biden is either purposely ignorant and/or stupid if he thinks what he said is true. And even if it was true two and a half minutes is enough time to fire a lot more than 152 rounds even with 10 round magazines.

Reloading an AR-15 takes a bit longer than it does for my STI Eagle but I got 40 rounds on target in 16.8 seconds which included three reloads and clearing a malfunction:

Extrapolating to 152 rounds and you get 63.8 seconds for trigger time and magazine changes. When shooting dozens of passive “targets” the thing that takes the most time is the target transition and acquisition. This includes moving to a new position to view the next target and getting an appropriate sight picture. It’s not the trigger or reload time which can frequently be done in parallel with the target transition and acquisition.

Even if the police did arrive two and half minutes after receiving the first call the number of magazines required simply doesn’t matter. Many of the magazines he used were dropped after firing only 15 of the 30 rounds they contained. If he had been required to use 15 magazines instead of the approximately 10 that would have only added another, at most, 15 seconds. And that assumes he wasn’t doing something else at the time he made the magazine changes such as moving to a new shooting location. If he was doing the magazine changes in parallel with moving it could be that it would have made zero difference in time.

I can only conclude Biden’s brain cell is still lonely and/or he is deliberately attempting to deceive the public.

At first I cringed

When I saw the title “The five minute NRA speech that would change the gun control debate forever” I cringed. I expected the article to be something along the lines of advocating the NRA saying, “We were wrong. Assault weapons are evil.” I was wrong:

The time for partisanship is over; now is the time for action. And that’s why the NRA is requesting the assistance of the ACLU.

The Sandy Hook tragedy, the Virginia Tech shooting, the Aurora “Batman” shooting, the Tucson shooting – all of the killers had something in common: They were all mentally unstable young men who were prescribed mind-altering psychiatric drugs.

The only thing I disagree with is that speech would change the gun control debate. For most politicians and many activists their gun control agenda isn’t about saving lives. That isn’t even debatable anymore. It’s about control, money, and security theater.

Addressing the extremely difficult problem of how to appropriately deal with mental illness isn’t something that lends itself to simple, even if false, answers and sound bites. Politicians don’t get elected by getting people to think about complex issues. They get elected by offering simplistic “solutions” to distressing emotional events and/or situations.

Don’t expect pigs to fly and don’t expect politicians to advocate people thinking.