The National Shooting Sports Foundation estimates that 10-12 billion rounds of ammunition are produced domestically each year, while billions more are imported.
Previously I had been inferring the total sales were in the 10-12 billion range.
Regardless, if, as many anti-gun people claim, guns are only good for killing there sure are a lot of defective guns and/or ammunition out there.
Via Kevin.
Democratic senators offer gun control amendment for cybersecurity bill:
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), a sponsor of the gun control amendment, came to the floor to defend the idea of implementing some “reasonable” gun control measures.
…
S.A. 2575 would make it illegal to transfer or possess large capacity feeding devices such as gun magazines, belts, feed stripes and drums of more than 10 rounds of ammunition with the exception of .22 caliber rim fire ammunition.
…
Schumer suggested that both the left and right find common ground.
“Maybe we could come together on guns if each side gave some,” Schumer said.
“Large capacity feeding devices” are in “common use” and as such are specifically protected by the Heller decision. The “common ground” we have is that you are willing to use force to infringe upon this guaranteed right and if necessary I’m willing to use force to defend it.
Molon Labe.
In response to Andrew Cohen in The Atlantic On Terrorism and Gun Violence, a 1,000-to-1 Spending Gap.
Terrorism isn’t a specific enumerated right to be protected. Gun ownership is. How much money is spent by the “Bureau of Religion and Speech” to license and regulate the practice of religion and book printing and distribution?
Those that want to “prevent gun violence” by restricting firearms shouldn’t have any problem with preventing violence done by religious extremist by restricting religious materials and activities.
Nor should they have a problem with preventing racial or gay bashing crimes by restricting the free association of people of different races and sexual orientation.
The infringement of everyone’s specific enumerated rights because some people abuse those rights is repugnant and cannot be tolerated. The abuser should be punished and those that exercise their rights responsibly must continue to be free to do so.
Even most pro-gun control liberals don’t think of guns and gun ownership the way the abolitionists persuaded Americans to think of slavery — as an intrinsic evil that has no justification whatsoever. They just think that the benefits, comforts, and pleasures that law-abiding, safety-conscious gun owners derive from their Second Amendment freedoms are outweighed by the dangers posed by allowing the reckless and the careless to own and carry weapons. This is not a crazy view by any means. But liberals should recognize the limits of their logic the next time they pour themselves a drink.
Ross Douthat
July 26, 2012
On Gun Control and Prohibition
[The “pour themselves a drink” comment refers to the damage done by drunk drivers, alcoholism, spousal abuse, broken families, etc. and the lost cause of prohibition.
This is from the opinion page of the New York Times!
I don’t know about “most” but certainly a lot of anti-gun people do think of guns as intrinsically evil.
He also cites the long discredited study that guns are 43 times more likely… but for the NYT this was an awesome editorial.—Joe]
He’s so proud of his Brady Campaign talking points, he sent them out in a mass e-mail today;
‘You don’t need body armor to hunt deer’
Welcome to The Michael Savage Newsletter, your daily insider report on all things “Savage.”
In this issue: Michael Savage is in distinguished company. Last week, he was virtually alone in placing partial blame for the Aurora, Colo., movie theater massacre on Hollywood.
Now esteemed director Peter Bogdanovich has joined the chorus. With that, Savage renews his call for a moratorium on violent movies, as well as a ban on body armor and certain kinds of ammunition.
________________________________________
“After the slaughter in the Aurora, Colorado, movie theater, I immediately blamed the actors, the directors and the violence in the movies,” Savage reminded listeners, adding:
Nobody paid attention to it, because I’m only Michael Savage.
I’m not a legendary movie director, like Peter Bogdanovich, who I see from this morning’s Drudge Report more or less agrees with me.
Charles Hurt of the Washington Times also mentioned the connection between movie violence and the real thing, so I put a link up to his article on my website.
His article is called “An Open Letter to Christopher Nolan, Sean Penn and Warner Brothers.”
Maybe you already read it. Maybe you want to move on. But I don’t want to move on.
I’m going to say this again: Last Friday I said they should ban body armor for civilians, and they should ban drum magazines of ammunition.
Yet my point was missed by almost everybody in the media
I’m a gun owner. I was on the rifle team in high school.
I absolutely would defend the Second Amendment. But let me tell you something: There’s a huge difference between the right to bear arms and the right to carry around a weapon that could shoot a hundred bullets at police.
You don’t need body armor or drum magazines to hunt deer.
We conservatives must take the high road and say we are in favor of banning body armor and drum magazines.
That’s because unless our side controls what gets banned, we’re liable to see things happen that we don’t want to happen, because we have a communist in the White House who’s capable of doing anything.
(Emphasis mine) This man clearly has what I’ve come to call the “Beltway Disease” or the “Republican Disease”. “We’ve lost and we’re going to lose more, so lets lose more in a way that’s a little bit more palatible by losing in a way of our choice. It would be wise, my friend.” Typical Republican– pretend to be on the side of liberty so you can woo us into submission. Michael; go bang your head against a wall. That, I would pay to see.
Oh, and; you do realize that city, county and state LEs are civillians, don’t you? Just checking, Michael, being as you tell us on a regular basis that you are ever so highly educated. Never mind that the CO shooter wasn’t wearing body armor, and that you’re asking us to be unprotected while the criminals could always get their armor, and their drum magazines, illegally under any “ban”.
Talk show host Michael Savage went on a tirade today, using many of the left’s anti-gun talking points while calling for a ban on drum magazines. To paraphrase; “Do you need something like that to hunt rabbits? Enough is enough!” He used multiple hunting references, and said multiple times that he is a gun owner and a 2A “supporter” (more of the antis’ talking points). I didn’t hear any of the callers’ responses (because I work for a living and can’t be glued to a radio) but here is my own.
First, Michael, the second amendment has nothing to do with hunting. This “need” test of yours is so obviously foolish that I won’t glorify it with a response other than to say; anything you have that you don’t absolutely “need”– turn it all in, sucker, or quit using a stupid argument like the “need test”.
Why would I want a 75 or 100 round magazine? Deterrence, for one thing. Mob control for another. Are you familiar with the concept of suppressive fire? The assault rifle (full automatic) isn’t typically used in battle for mowing down hoards of enemy, charging up a hill at you. More often than not it is used for “suppressive fire”– pinning down opponents while you or your partners maneuver against them, or while others escape. A semi-auto (especially one with a large magazine) can be used effectively for suppressive fire. Remember the LA riots? Suppressive fire is a legitimate tactic even against a lone attacker.
Overall deterrence is an important factor in an armed society. That Switzerland hasn’t been attacked in over 500 years is some testament to that. The American founders spoke of the deterrent effect when they started that an armed population would hold any government in awe. “You’re never going to fight the government, and if you did, you’d lose” says Savage. Not the point, says I. Sure, you may lose, but when it is widely known that millions of Americans have the ability and the equipment to make any armed conflict a very costly one for the government, you have effective deterrence. That is an extremely important point.
And Michael, seriously, I know you are aware of the fact that prohibitions make things worse. When alcohol is prohibited, only outlaws will have alcohol, and things go all to hell– gangs get rich and powerful, corruption is rampant, and a general disrespect for the law is fostered. When drum magazines are outlawed, only outlaws will have drum magazines. That’s what you want? Really? I think you’ve been in San Fransicko for too long.
I don’t suppose you heard that the CO movie theater killer’s drum magazine jammed. Be sure to get a good one. The all-steel European 75 round AKM/RPK magazines with the ratcheting loading lever are very good. I think I’ll get another one, in your honor, Michael. We also use them in our high round count “torture testing” of our gun accessories, but as I indicated, I don’t need any reason to own them other than the fact that I damned well feel like it, Skippy.
Lastly; I’ve wondered for years whether the things you say on your show are from the heart, or if a lot of it just a shtick– playacting to what you think of as a dumb audience, for ratings. I still wonder.
An Idaho women used gun to prevented her own rape twice in the span of a few days:
Twin Falls police were called to the woman’s house shortly after midnight Thursday and again Saturday afternoon to reports that two different men had broken into the home.
The woman told police a man rang the doorbell early Friday, asked her name and then said: “I’m here for you,” before forcing his way into the house.
The woman said the man chased her through the house. She went into the bedroom to grab a 9 mm gun, but the man grabbed the weapon. The gun went off during the struggle. No one was injured, but she said the man fled.
The woman also fired a shot Saturday and held the uninjured man at gunpoint until police arrived, court records said.
According to one report:
The woman called police several times as her house was broken into.
The police can’t always protect you even if you do get a call through to them as you are being attacked.
Another report says the gun she used with the first guy was taken by the intruder:
Police say a shot was fired during the struggle, but it didn’t hit her or the intruder. The wife says the man then took the gun from her and fled the home.
It is good thing that she had a second gun and/or there wasn’t a waiting period to purchase a replacement.
Had she known the whole story a week earlier she might have prevented the attacks with a divorce lawyer:
An Idaho man is charged with soliciting men to rape his wife through a posting in the “casual encounters” section of Craigslist.
…
Prosecutors say that without his wife’s knowledge or consent, the man posted a classified ad posing as a woman who fantasized about being raped, and then exchanged emails with the men who responded to arrange the assaults.
But 20/20 foresight isn’t an option. Multiple jacketed hollow-points are.
The Brady Campaign, named after Ronald Reagan assistant James Brady, wants to reboot the national conversation and part of that, it seems, means taking its name off the masthead. The group will launch a new website later tonight called wearebettterthanthis.org (it’s not live yet) that will play down its sponsorship by the Brady campaign.
The idea, he said, is rescue the debate from the poles on either side of the gun control issue.
Z. Byron Wolf
July 23, 2012
In Wake of Colorado Massacre, Gun Control Supporters Seek Reboot
[Interesting…
As an American who was shocked and horrified by the mass shooting in Aurora, Colorado, I am committed to joining a meaningful conversation about how we can prevent the future loss of innocent life.
I appreciate the very appropriate expressions of sympathy for the victims from both of you. However, I think anyone seeking the highest office in our nation is responsible for doing more.
I am asking you to offer to the American people specific solutions that will prevent tragedies like this from continuing to happen in our nation — because, I firmly believe, we are:
[Image of people holding a sign saying “BETTER THAN THIS”.]
Compare the above to this from 1997 when they called themselves Handgun Control, Inc.:
Although 31 states have now denied their law enforcement officers discretion in the issuance of concealed weapon licenses, the gun lobby lost every attempt to further liberalize these systems last year.
Handgun Control, Inc. and their supporters were able to block shall issue in every state legislature that year.
Since then:
It should be very telling that we don’t see the NRA, SAF, CCRKBA, or any other pro-gun owner rights organizations changing their names to get more support.
If this were a business they would sell out to one of their competitors for about a fourth their annual gross sales and close up shop. But I suppose that isn’t really an option in this case. The only thing of value the Brady Campaign has these days is a few names on a mailing list and I suspect a good percentage of those are NRA and Second Amendment Foundation members trying to keep a watch on the anti-gun people.
Update: The link to their web site had a typo in it (in my original source). The statement about the domain being owned by someone else is not true. Whois reports the correct one was registered by Domains By Proxy, LLC via Go Daddy.—Joe]
Sorry u are full of Krap and to allow guns everywhere makes u a target in a good poker hand. U lose the element of surprise.
Make my day. Carry a gun and I will slap your face in disgrace.. Guns are unamerican and unpatriotict. The NRA wants to sell guns and ammo not for a revolution but for enjoyment and protection. Our law enforcement will shoot or arrest your ass. Who is to tell the difference from the good gun totters and the bad gun toyters . We want to protect a democracy not a republic or a neo nazi idealogy or anarchy . We whom are born in america and sreves the country under a commander in chief are truly americans.
jacksonsam2
Comment sent to www.GunLaws.com
Via email from Alan Korwin July 23, 2012.
[It’s nice to know the quality of the anti-gun people is being maintained at an appropriate level. I just wonder what drugs they are self-medicating with.—Joe]
Paul Barrett at Business Week has weighed in on the Aurora theater shooting. I was pleased with what I didn’t see but expected. In the past and as recently as last Friday he as pushed for a 10 round maximum on magazine capacity. This is despite me showing him a video of me shooting 35 rounds in less that 16 seconds with 10 round magazines.
In his most recent editorial he suggests something else:
If you really want to stop mass shootings in public places, demand that owners of movie theaters, supermarkets, playgrounds, and you-name-the-venue hire armed security guards to keep watch for people dressed in body armor and carrying weapons. We know how to do this. We do it at airports. It’s not foolproof: Remember the would-be underwear bomber and the shoe bomber, stopped not by X-ray machines but by their own incompetence and alert fellow passengers? Still, rent-a-cops are a step toward greater security. Heck, every major professional sports venue checks fans for outside alcohol and weapons. Why couldn’t every movie theater?
If there had been a guard at every door of the multiplex in Aurora, the killer would not have been able to stroll out and back in through the emergency exit. This mass killing would not have taken place.
Barrett is a smart guy and acknowledges it’s not foolproof. Obviously the security guards are wearing “shoot me first uniforms”. There is a reason Air Marshals are always in plain clothes. But this obvious loophole in the idea is not the biggest problem. The problem is economics. Since Occupy Wall Street did their thing last fall with ground zero Seattle being across the street from where I work the sidewalks and lobbies of many of building have unarmed security guards. What does it cost for one security guard per year? I can’t imagine that after all the overhead it would be less that $50K/year. Add training and equipping guards and insurance for what probably would be higher risks would probably add another $5K per year.
Does anyone think every playground, market, and theater is going to be able to afford that?
But the suggestion is a step in the right direction. If people accept the concept it’s a smaller step to accept “volunteer” security guards wearing plain clothes. Signs stating “Concealed Carry Welcomed Here” and discounts for people open carrying might be a bigger deterrent than the unaffordable, easily defeated, uniformed security guards.
Guest post from Rolf.
“Let’s Roll!”
Or
Re-defining the “no-win” situation and dealing with sociopaths intent on mass shootings and murder
The “Kobayashi Maru” scenario has become a famous “no-win” situation. It is presented as a situation where no matter what choice the person makes, lots of people die, and they “lose.” Facing a “no-win” isn’t anything a person ever wants to face, but seeming no-wins do happen, so, what DO you do? Lie down and die, already? That, to my mind, is never the right answer, so then… what IS? Is it possible to think like Kirk and change how things play out, so something like a win is possible in a seeming no-win situation?
The first thing to do is to re-evaluate how you define “win,” particularly in light of the perpetrators likely goals. If “all the bad guys get caught/killed, and no innocents get hurt” is impossible, then what is the best you can aim for? Maybe all that is possible is to make the final outcome suck less. Maybe it is laying the groundwork for a future win – after all, the battle of Thermopylae was a loss for the Greeks (with the 300 Spartans and another thousand or so Greeks dying to a man, and their king butchered), but it laid the foundation for major defeats of the Persians later. Maybe it is nothing more than reducing number of total casualties, even at the possible (or perhaps likely) loss of your own life. Todd Beamer and the passengers of Flight 93 stormed the cockpit after it had been taken by hijackers, knowing that they were already headed for near certain death after hearing of the WTC crashes – their actions likely reduced the total number of deaths by denying the hijackers on their flight the opportunity to crash into a crowded target. His last known words in the counter-attack were “Let’s Roll!”
Looking at many of the modern mass shootings, such as Columbine, Stockton, Virginia Tech, Aurora (Batman), Luby’s Cafeteria, Ft Hood, and more, there are some similarities that may help change how we think about responding to them:
Essentially, anything that denies the attacker HIS goals should be considered a point on the defenders score-card. If he wants to see immobilizing terror, let him face the fury of righteous anger instead.
Obviously, if you are carrying a gun and you are close enough for it to be practical, drawing and returning fire at an appropriate time would be a great option, but what if the situation is more complicated? Most teachers are not allowed to carry guns on school grounds; in a crowded theater, cafeteria, office, or mall, there may be LOTS of moving no-shoots; and so-forth.
In a case where a nut wants a body-count and associated media attention, what might constitute a “win?” I’d say anything that meets one or more of the following (in no particular order):
I can only think of one course of action that would apply in most lone-gunman mass shooting cases: EVERYONE on the scene channel the inner Super Hero, Marine, mama grizzly, Todd Beamer, or whatever amps up their kill instincts to 11, and as a group do a mass “charge the ambush!” with the express intent of taking his screw-cap off, ripping off his arm and beating him to death with the bloody stump, or stopping him in any way possible. Grab, bite, hit, pull down his pants, pull his hat over his eyes, jam a finger in the action of his gun, blind him, throw things at him, shine a flashlight in his eyes, do anything and everything you can to slow him down, tie him up, foul his vision, screw up his aim, distract him, cause him pain or disability. Assume others are coming and doing the same. If just one person does this, sadly, it may just hasten their demise; but if even a handful do it, he’s done for, he can be dragged down and halted.
In a true worst case scenario, like the Beslan Siege (dozens of heavily armed religious fanatics not only willing but almost eager to die, with large quantities of explosives, suicide vests and fully automatic weapons) there are going to be a lot of bodies in any case. In a “nearly” worst case scene, such as the Aurora Batman shooting, where he was well-armed, in a crowded theater in the dark, wearing some body-armor, used gas/smoke bombs, and he started shooting during an action scene, the transition will be hard to recognize. But if everyone, once they recognized the threat for what it was, had yelled out, thrown cell phones, flashed lights at him (such as cell phone camera flash), and CHARGED, he could have been dragged down, and many innocents saved. It would have been ugly, but possibly over quickly; it is extremely unlikely that it would have been worse than the 70 killed or injured that occurred.
In a typical school “gunman seen, lock down!” scenario, normally they have all the teachers close and lock classroom doors, draw the blinds, turn off the lights, and hunker down and wait… but there is NO plan for what to do if the gunman actually comes in your door, beyond pray, comply, and hope you get shot last! The best course is to follow procedure as far as it is, but then make sure you surround the door a little ways back, with the teacher and biggest / strongest closest. Everyone picks up something they can throw – textbook, chair, can of soda, laptop, or whatever (my favorite is the big heavy iron three-hole punch). The “front row” around the door has chairs or desk handy. If the gunman comes in, then everyone throw what they have and CHARGE! The front row holds their desks/chairs in front ( or up high in front of their chests) and CHARGES, with intent to batter, beat, rip apart, and disassemble the gunman. This sort of training and mindset MUST start in the schools
What does this do?
It has been known at least since the early Greek phalanxes 2500 years ago that massed infantry charges can be very effective, especially when they outnumber their opponents. Even heavily armored mounted knights feared to enter into a mass of infantry standing their ground with simple weapons, because once they were dragged off their horses the mass of grasping hands and clubs would crush them. Many on the political right will see this as common sense; many on the left may find it abhorrent (even though THEY are always the ones talking about solidarity and collective action). While the average man-on-the-street is not to be confused with a hoplite of yesteryear, I believe that the average American IS capable of learning that sometimes individuals taking collective action for the common good really IS the best course.
When a psycho is looking for sheep to slaughter, intending to see terror in their eyes and ready compliance at gunpoint, hoping to have his twisted ego stroked by his control over them, let him instead see the blazing rage of righteous anger, and feel the pain of furious defense ripping at his flesh, and know the pain and fear he had hoped to inflict on others. Let his battered and beaten face be shown on the screen, swollen and without arrogance or contempt, because HE GOT BEATEN TO A BLOODY PLUP BY THE VERY PEOPLE HE DISPISED. That will knock his psyche down more than a crowd of cops taking them would, where he can brag about how tough he was to stop. Let the sociopaths have no more than a moment of victory, like the Japanese at Pearl Harbor, before suffering a crushing, absolute, and total defeat at the very hands of those they wronged. Deny them any hint of a win in the final score. The next psycho will decide it might be safer and less humiliating to choose another path.
Is the reason conservatives are in love with guns they are a phallic symbol?
Repeal the 2nd Amendment
July 21, 2012
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!—Joe]
It can happen anytime, anywhere. Even on an Army post like Fort Hood, or a police station, as happened in Washington D.C. back in the 90s.
Are YOU ready?
Armed?
Proficient?
Or is it your day to play sheep?
Joe Waldron
July 21, 2012
Email to the Yahoo WA-CCW list: Reporting and preparedness.
[I’m expecting a guest post for tomorrow that will amplify greatly on this theme.—Joe]
Gun control advocates sputter at their own impotence. The National Rifle Association is politically ascendant. And Barack Obama’s White House pledges to safeguard the Second Amendment in its first official response to the deaths of at least 12 people in a mass shooting at a new Batman movie screening in suburban Denver.
Jennifer Agiesta and Jack Gillum
July 21, 2012
Calls for gun control stir little support
[This is good but we need to keep pushing while the enemies of freedom are on the defensive.
Why do you need a gun in the mall, the restaurant, or the movie theater? Because the mentally ill and others with evil intent know no boundaries.—Joe]
I’m over a 1000 miles away and as far as I know don’t know anyone that was in the theater that was shot up last night. But still it’s very upsetting and my sympathy goes out to all those who were injured, killed, and/or had family and/or friends there. I’m just glad the murderer didn’t think past getting and using guns to do his evil deed.
The following is from putting on my “black hat” to do a threat assessment of our vulnerabilities to mass murders in public spaces.
It could have been much worse had the murderer chosen to use something other than guns as his weapon of choice. In a sense we could say that it’s a good thing guns are readily available because if had he used other tools the carnage could have included everyone in the theater.
There are indications the guy that shot up the theater in Colorado had mental health issues so we may never know and/or understand what the motivations might have been. Trying to make sense of the actions and/or thoughts of the mentally ill is a fools errand. But assuming the goal was maximum carnage there were better ways to accomplish this.
What follows is one way that someone could have killed more people in the same exact location. This is modeled on the plan used for the Happy Land Fire (87 dead) and by the Columbine murderers. The Columbine bombs failed so they made up an alternate plan on the spot when the first plan failed. The first plan was actually pretty good but really needed more people and they should have tested their explosive devices. Read the book Columbine for a much better understanding of what happened and the motivations. Had “Plan A” worked there could have been thousands dead.
If the murderer was able to get long guns into the theater then getting multiple backpacks into the theater should have been possible too. For example one could prevent the emergency exit from latching (duct tape for example) and then make multiple trips to the parking lot to retrieve a set of backpacks. Place the backpacks at each of the exits. The backpacks contain a timer, thermite, and propane tanks. Set the timers for simultaneous ignition of the thermite. The thermite (easily made from iron and aluminum) will melt a hole in the propane tank and ignite the propane. The theater patrons are trapped in a fiercely burning room. If the fire doesn’t get them the smoke inhalation and/or mass panic will.
Using easily available materials the murderer could have been a mile or ten away when the event happened and may have never been caught. When using a gun the odds of them getting caught are much greater and they are much more likely to be stopped before they run out of victims.
People that care about the victims should be glad we have guns in this country and encourage more sane and law abiding people to carry them almost wherever they go. It gives the crazy and the stupid an easy path to being caught and/or stopped before they can do the maximum damage.
give them 1 day to turn in the guns, then anyone caught with one would be shot on site.
Answerer 1
July 13, 2012
In response to the question, “If you were in charge of gun control for your country what would you do?”
[And by the end of day two the police and military would have rounded up all the anti-gun people and have them hog-tied, sheared, deloused, and ready for deportation to North Korea.—Joe]
I didn’t know there was this much interest in the history of underwear:
A revolutionary discovery has hit the world of underwear: Women 600 years ago wore bras.
The University of Innsbruck said Wednesday that archeologists found four linen bras dating from the Middle Ages in an Austrian castle. Fashion experts describe the find as surprising because the bra was commonly thought to be little more than 100 years old as women abandoned the tight corset.
I have always wondered about the motivation for bras. I’ve always been skeptical of the claim that “it hurts to have them bouncing around unsupported all the time”. I can see that being an issue once a woman wore a bra for any length of time but the same claim would be made about your arm if you carried it in a sling for a few years.
If it were true unsupported breasts were painful even for women that had never worn a bra it would have been an evolutionary handicap 10’s or 100’s of thousands of years ago. Under those circumstances “Darwin” would have selected for breasts that met the nutritional needs of the young while not inhibiting mobility.
So I have always thought there must be some other evolutionary point to bras. Was it some sort of sexual attractant to change the shape and make a woman appear more youthful and/or healthy like red lipstick and other makeup? Or perhaps it could have been just the opposite; A means of suppressing visible clues as to the gender of potential victim in situations where the risk of assault was high.
And even more intriguing is that the latter hypothesis could mean that the invention and acceptability of the easily concealable firearm will reduce and/or remove the need for bras. We can only hope and keep teaching our women to be able to effectively defend themselves.
I just might attend this. I have a life membership at the gun range and it’s only a few miles away:
As Seattle and the state weigh tighter gun control measures the King County Sheriff is locked and loaded. He’s ready to take the gun control debate to the firing range.
It’s an upcoming campaign event called, “Shootin’ With the Sheriff,” and some say the timing couldn’t be worse.
…
Strachan’s “Shootin With the Sheriff” campaign fundraiser happens July 27 from 6-8pm at Wade’s Gun Shop in Bellevue.
And that the anti-gun people are wringing their hands and whining makes it all the more attractive to me.
Lawmakers in Prince George’s County, Md. hate guns so much they want to brand anyone convicted of violating one of the state’s convoluted firearm statutes. Stab someone with a knife, and the county won’t care or take notice of you after you serve your time. Sell a handgun that’s not on the state’s list of approved firearms, and the Washington suburb will mark you as a criminal and hold you up to public ridicule.
Emily Miller
July 18, 2012
MILLER: A scarlet letter for guns: Prince George’s public registry shows county’s priorities are misdirected
[A scarlet letter is a mild way to describe a number of gun laws. The original “scarlet letter” was for adultery which is generally looked down upon and even considered a criminal act in some places. Unless of course you are the President and have a ‘D’ after your name. But gun ownership in our country is a specific enumerated right.
The Second Amendment, as ruled by the courts, should be treated like the First Amendment. Is there a state approved list of religious books? Does the state require a background check for each book purchased? Does the state require records on the purchaser be kept for 20 years for each book sold? Such laws have a chilling effect on gun ownership and they need to be treated as such by the courts and gun rights activists.
We are winning but we still have a long way to go. Maryland is as unenlightened in regards to gun ownership as societies that stone adulterers.—Joe]
New shooter Julie from last week and her mother invited me out to dinner on Sunday night. Julie said she wanted to go shooting again—soon!
We went to the range again last night and she shot 200+ rounds through my Ruger Mark II. I had her doing timed drills such as a modified Bill Drill. From the first timed exercise to the last she cut her time, while getting equivalent hits, by about 25%.
As I was giving her a ride to the bus stop she asked about the laws in regards to purchasing and carrying a firearm. She expressed puzzlement as I told her about Seattle (where she lives) law banning the carrying of non firearm guns (including Airsoft and slingshots) but real guns are okay. But for the most part didn’t see significant obstacles to her getting a gun of her own.
Today she sent me a text message asking for a link to buy cheap ammo online.
