Category Archives: Gun Rights

Karma

Posted on by

Via Milo Yiannopoulos @m

YourNext

While I got a chuckle out of this it’s quite misleading. There is a big difference between the gun owner protests which leave the streets cleaner than when they arrived with the most “violent” exchanges are spirited legal briefs compared to the riots, looting, and destruction of the Marxists of the last few weeks.

They can’t honestly believe we would be on their side. You almost have to start looking at elderly nun demographics to find a group of people more law abiding than people who have concealed carry licenses.

The only thing that I know of which we have in common is the skill set and tools to quickly create a lot of damage. It’s just that no one has flipped our switch yet with a valid target. There are a number of scenarios where the rioting Marxist change that. But in all the futures I see the police will give the gun owners a slight nod and turn back to engage the remaining commies.

Common Barrel Thread References

Posted on by

From Silencer Shop:

One question that has always been a mainstay in our most-questions-asked category is whether a specific silencer will fit a specific gun. With threading looking similar, and acronyms being thrown around like hot tamales, we understand your plight. As the suppressor industry grows, it seems thread pitch options have too.

While some thread pitches are more popular than others due to military use or it being made common by specific firearm manufacturers, the last thing you want to happen is to finally get your suppressor in and realize that it doesn’t match up with your host firearm’s threading.

The list that we are providing you is to serve as a reference for quickly locating how your barrel may be threaded. Remember that factory barrel threadings and after market threadings aren’t always the same.

Details, which are kept up to date, are here.

Interesting demographics

Posted on by

It’s time for me to renew my Arizona concealed weapons permit (so I can carry in Nevada). While looking for the renewal application I found this:

Chart
last updated: 07/19/2020

  ACTIVE SUSPENDED REVOKED
PERMITS 360666 4834 1259

PERMITS 19-20 21-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80+
ASIAN 0 147 412 548 498 273 95 8
BLACK 0 186 492 651 562 333 105 9
INDIAN 0 97 194 225 266 188 90 14
UNKNOWN 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
WHITE 4 4270 8979 11539 18469 21471 12639 1698
FEMALE TOTAL 4 4700 10077 12963 19795 22265 12930 1729

PERMITS 19-20 21-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80+
ASIAN 3 777 1926 2595 1974 1176 429 79
BLACK 5 903 1888 2415 2399 1650 754 133
INDIAN 1 251 520 522 544 506 326 90
UNKNOWN 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
WHITE 32 15051 31188 39480 52869 62273 52958 13343
MALE TOTAL 41 16982 35522 45012 57786 65605 54468 13645

Notice the peak age category for both female and male?

I would not have guessed that would be the case.

Quote of the day—Rawhide Wraith@olddustyghost

Posted on by

Democrats want to eliminate the electoral college, the Senate, the 1st amendment, the 2nd amendment for sure, and the rest of the constitution, our borders, citizenship, carbon based fuels, cars, cows.

And the first step in their scheme is to eliminate Trump.

We better fight like hell or those of us who aren’t shot during the disarmament or who don’t starve when fuel and food are eliminated are going to be slaves.

Rawhide Wraith@olddustyghost
Tooted on September 28, 2019
[There’s far too much truth in this.—Joe]

Why can’t the U.S. be more like England?

Posted on by

Ever since I can remember anti-gun people have used England as an example of how guns should be regulated/banned. Here is what you get, UK Knife Crime Hits Record High, Murder Surges in Khan’s London

Knife crime in England and Wales reached a historic high in the year leading up to the end of March, as murders climb again in Sadiq Khan’s London.

…

London Assembly Member David Kurten said in response to the surge in crime: “There must be an end to politically correct policing — more stop & search, more arrests of burglars and violent gang members, less hassling people for having the wrong opinions.”

Former Brexit Party MEP Martin Daubney added: “All this while London’s dismal Mayor, Sadiq Khan, orders an urgent review into… ‘racist’ statues.”

The proportion of crimes actually being solved in England and Wales also fell to a record low, with just 7 per cent of criminal acts resulting in a court appearance for a suspect, down from 8 per cent last year and 16 per cent in 2014-15 when such records began to be compiled.

The Home Office report said that the fall represented some 33,460 fewer offences resulting in a criminal charge or court summons compared to the year prior. The number of sexual offences that resulted in charges fell from 5.2 per cent two years ago to just 3.2 per cent last year.

The number of rapes that ended in prosecution was just 1.4 per cent.

This is why we have the Second Amendment.

Just say, “No!” to gun control.

What are the odds?

Posted on by

The gun owner rights community has been frustrated by SCOTUS not accepting any significant 2nd Amendment cases other than NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL., PETITIONERS v. CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK in 10 years. And that case which was declared moot four months ago when the city and the state changed the law once the court accept the case.

I still claim, “We have SCOTUS decisions, they have childish insult.” But that claim has been vigorously disputed:

You talk about SCOTUS decisions. At this point SCOTUS is firmly anti-gun. They stand by idly as the states run all over it.

The courts are NOT on our side Joe. They are either openly hostile at most or do not care. So stop using that fucking excuse. In less than four years they will siding with the government when the government just bans all guns With mandatory buyback or simply door-to-door confiscation.

THEY are the ones that will have court victories. They have far more than we do right now. Banning of private gun sales? Legal. Banning open and concealed carry? Legal. Banning magazine capacity? Legal. Banning entire classifications of firearms? Legal. Banning all semi automatic rifles? Legal. Confiscating all rifles? Legal.

And these are things that have already happened. So no, Joe. They have the court decisions. We have nothing. I will not be surprised when the Supreme Court overturns Heller And McDonald.

There’s some truth to that. But it’s not entirely true. And I’m of the opinion it can be considered mostly false. Let me explain.

First there is the “strictly speaking” definition of words argument. The court refusing to hear as case is not a court decision. It does not make precedent such that they would have to overturn the “decision” as some later time if a substantially similar case was brought to the court. So, “strictly speaking”, I’m pretty certain, we have all the SCOTUS decisions on our side for at least the last 20 years.

Agreed, that’s not at all that comforting when it takes months to buy a gun in D.C, “red flag” laws are showing up all over the country such that your guns can be taken away from you based on a false allegation and you have to prove your innocent to get them back, common firearms and magazine capacities are outlawed, you can’t purchase a handgun in a different state, you and/or your guns have to be registered, you need permission from the FBI to transfer ownership, you have to be 21 years old to purchase a firearm, and hundreds of other infringements which would not be tolerated if you were buying a book or even getting an abortion.

So, with that concession, I’ll go on to the next argument.

What are the odds we will get soon get a SCOTUS which will take a 2nd Amendment case and throw out a bunch of the laws infringing our rights? As nearly everyone in the community knows it’s about Justices Roberts and Ginsberg.

Roberts has long been a point of speculation and even evidence of being subject of outside influence on important cases. If, as some people have suggested, Roberts is impeached due to his poor decisions then a replacement justice with a character similar to Thomas or Kavanaugh would fix the problem. I put those odds at about 2% and dismiss them as unimportant as a stand alone event.

It’s also possible, as has been suggested many times, that there are people with black mail evidence. The one elaborated on at the link is just one of the figurative suggestions. More plausible ones involve a possibly illegal/irregular adoption. Discovery of such a blackmailer could lead to impeachment and/or elimination of that threat and subsequent better alignment with the constitution. I see these odds as a little better, say 5% and also don’t place much hope in it.

But since these two outcomes are essentially independent of each other the odds of one or the other coming true can be estimated at about 7%. It’s not great but I wouldn’t bet my life on a game of Russian Roulette with those odds. And of course you have to take into account that scenario is conditioned on the Roberts removal scenario is resolved while Trump is in office and Republicans hold the Senate. That conditional reduces the likelihood to insignificance again.

We are left with the Ginsberg replacement scenario. For years people have been wishing her a long and healthy retirement starting “tomorrow”. But the reality probably is, as friend Mike B. told me a few weeks ago, “She has made it clear the only way she will leave the court is in a hearse.”

That said, the odds of that happening appear to be noticeably increasing every few months. Again, the significance of her leaving the court is conditioned on Trump being in office and a Republican controlled senate at the time it happens.

Let’s estimate some numbers and see what we come up with for odds of that happening.

There are two scenarios of primary interest for each of two variables. 1) Does Ginsberg leave the court before or after the end of this year? And 2) Does Trump get reelected and do Republican hold the senate or not? I claim Trump and Republicans holding the Senate are correlated strongly enough that they can be considered a single event rather than somewhat independent.

I claim that the Ginsberg variable and the Trump/Senate variable are independent and hence the probabilities calculations are further reducing the complexity of the probability calculation.

If Ginsberg leaves SCOTUS by the end of the year (realistically say, the middle of November) my bet is that Trump will appoint a replacement and the Senate will consent regardless of the election results.

You might protest that that’s too short of time and the Democrats will protest too much. Really? The Democrats have been screaming obscenities at Trump and Republicans since the evening of November 8th, 2016. If Trump and/or the Republican senate lose this election my bet is they will rush the candidate through just as payback for all the abuse they have taken for the last four years. I say that with an estimated probability of 0.75.

My bet is that Ginsberg will take her hearse ride in less than four years from now. I say that with an estimated probability of 0.95. For ease of computation let’s just say it’s a certainty with the slack taken up by the chance Roberts or another “problem” justice is replaced in the next four years.

In order for the anti-gun forces to win SCOTUS Ginsberg has to show a pulse until the end of the year AND they need to defeat Trump. This makes the probability of them winning SCOTUS very easy to compute. It’s the simple multiplication of the two probabilities.

This leads to some very interesting results. Suppose the probabilities are 0.70 that Trump loses and 0.70 that Ginsburg “wins” in 2020. The probability of a gun owner SCOTUS loss is 0.49. Yes, the odds are slightly with us even if the Trump only has a 30% chance of winning the election and there is only a 30% chance of Ginsberg taking her hearse ride.

Just for the sake of more examples, so you can easily follow along at home, if the odds are 0.5 and 0.5 then the gun owner odds of a loss are down to 0.25. If the odds are 0.5 of a Trump loss and 0.7 of a Ginsberg win in 2020 gun owners are at 0.35 chance of a loss. Drop in your estimates and see what you come up with.

My estimates are a 0.25 chance of a Trump/Senate loss. I don’t believe the polls are any more accurate than they were in 2016. The enthusiasm/turnout seen at the political rallies in 2008, 20012, and 2016 were excellent predictors of who would win. I expect the same will be true in 2020. I think Trump has enough enthusiasm he can beat the margin of fraud with a 0.75 chance. Also, every day the riots go on and Democrats don’t lift a finger to stop them, let alone appear to encourage them, the more likely it is that Trump and Republicans will win.

I give Ginsberg a 0.5 chance of holding on through the end of the year.

This results in a 0.13 chance of a gun owner loss of SCOTUS. In other words, I believe we have a 0.87 chance of getting a SCOTUS friendly to gun owners within the next four years.

I have been hesitant to elaborate on this because, and Glenn Reynolds says, “Don’t get cocky kid.” There are things gun owners must do to increase/maintain those odds. But it’s important people not get depressed/demoralized too.

I want this to be a call to help win a fight which is quite winnable. Please find ways to support a continued Republican Senate and a Trump presidency. NRA-ILA can help you support pro-gun candidates even if you don’t want to give money to the NRA.

With the caveat that this is a probability, not a certainty, I still say we have SCOTUS decisions on our side, we will continue to have SCOTUS decisions on our side, and our opposition has childish insults.

Quote of the day—Bleeding Heart Liberal Marine @zaharako

Posted on by

Anytime “AR-15” is trending, it triggers an intense reaction from the micro-penis community. Can’t wait for Trump to lose in November so all these morons have to hide in their survival bunkers again. Like the cowards they are.

Bleeding Heart Liberal Marine @zaharako
Tweeted on July 12, 2020
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!

SCOTUS decisions versus childish insults and delusions… hmm… I’m going to side with SCOTUS.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Cam Edwards

Posted on by

If those academics are actually interested in addressing the issue of violent crime, as opposed to trying to demonize gun owners who are 2A activists, they should delve into the subculture of gun ownership that doesn’t care about the law; criminals who use firearms in the commission of violent crimes. The fact that the team from Boston University doesn’t even acknowledge that subculture is just more proof that this study is nothing more than a junk science attempt to vilify those gun owners who are lobbying lawmakers and speaking out against threats to their Second Amendment rights.

Cam Edwards
July 11, 2020
New “Study” On Gun Culture Really An Attack On 2A Activism
[Via email from JPFO.

One of the excerpts from the article Edwards gives special attention is this one:

Those of us in public health must acknowledge the positive aspects of that culture and stop blaming law-abiding gun owners for the problem of firearm violence,” he says. “Instead, we need to address one very specific aspect of gun culture that the NRA has created that does not represent the overwhelming number of gun owners in this country

According to the “researchers” the “aspect of gun culture that the NRA has created“ and needs to be addressed is “Second Amendment activism”.

Really! How interesting.

Am I missing some interpretation in this?

First off, they have it just backward on the causation. They didn’t bother to do much research or they would have known about the NRA Revolt at Cincinnati in 1977 where the members of the NRA told the leadership activism was required.

Would they think people advocating for support of the right to freely associate and assemble also are a group of people someone “needs to address”? If so then they should be writing papers on the Black Lives Matter activists which people “need to address” instead of non-violent people using the legislative and judicial systems to protect specific enumerated rights.—Joe]

Quote of the day—MTHead

Posted on by

The morons at Brady still think if they can get a law passed, everyone is going to just obey it?

When everyone with a gun knows no one else is obeying the law? Imagine their surprise when we start playing Cowboys and Communist!

Were going to defeat Trump and pass a law! And that’s going to stop radical Hadji’s from making suppressed 22’s and assassinating people! It’s like watching Special Olympics Politics.

MTHead
July 11, 2020
Comment to Lies and deception—It’s their culture
[“…playing Cowboys and Communists” got a laugh from me.—Joe]

Stalin, Hitler, or McCarthy?

Posted on by

I’ve been looking at the parallels of the cancel culture, riots, and looting of today in the U.S. to other times and places in history.

Numerous times I’ve mentioned Gulag Archipelago both on this blog and in private conversation with my children and others. The survivors of those times wrote of the truth not being “politically correct” and to speak the truth could result you being “reeducated”, sent to a slave labor camp, or being executed. But, as far as I know, they lacked the riots, thuggish mobs, and looting.

In Nazi Germany the removal of all Jews from government jobs and universities warrants at least a mention. The Brown Shirts, thuggish mobs, and looting ignored by the government certainly are a good match for what we are seeing today in some locations. But the removal of people from their jobs wasn’t because of their political beliefs and/or speech.

After reading Bari Weiss’s letter of resignation from the New York Times (via email from Paul K. and Reason Magazine which has a good article on the topic) another potential parallel was brought to my attention. From Weiss’s letter* (emphasis added):

The paper of record is, more and more, the record of those living in a distant galaxy, one whose concerns are profoundly removed from the lives of most people. This is a galaxy in which, to choose just a few recent examples, the Soviet space program is lauded for its “diversity”; the doxxing of teenagers in the name of justice is condoned; and the worst caste systems in human history includes the United States alongside Nazi Germany.

Even now, I am confident that most people at The Times do not hold these views. Yet they are cowed by those who do. Why? Perhaps because they believe the ultimate goal is righteous. Perhaps because they believe that they will be granted protection if they nod along as the coin of our realm—language—is degraded in service to an ever-shifting laundry list of right causes. Perhaps because there are millions of unemployed people in this country and they feel lucky to have a job in a contracting industry.

Or perhaps it is because they know that, nowadays, standing up for principle at the paper does not win plaudits. It puts a target on your back. Too wise to post on Slack, they write to me privately about the “new McCarthyism” that has taken root at the paper of record.

McCarthyism certainly cost a lot of people their jobs (watch The Front, if for nothing other than the credits at the end which are incredibly sobering). And it was about political correctness of a type. But the thuggish mobs, riots, and looting are missing as well as the political persuasion of the villains being anti-Marxist rather than pro-Marist as we have in the circumstances of today.

The fictional dystopia of 1984 could be considered a match in many ways but it takes place deep in the depths of the fierce suppression of speech, written word, and even many thoughts are forbidden. Something closer to our present circumstance and non-fictional is preferable.

I’m left with less than great matches. Sunday evening I suggested to my children they read Gulag Archipelago. Kim eagerly asked for the spelling but Jaime protested that unless it offered a solution then she didn’t want to get even more depressed and upset by our current situation. That’s a valid point. And furthermore, without great parallels how can I shed light on what to expect next or what to suggest as a remedy? And then there are so many variables such as our technology lending itself to vastly superior suppression of free speech than the previous examples. On the other side of that coin is that same technology also can also be a tool for the enabling of free speech and punishment of the evil doers. And, of course, 100s of millions of guns and billions of rounds of ammunition in the possession of the persecuted also is a variable not present in any of the historical scenarios.

The McCarthyism parallel is by far the least tragic of the outcomes, but it is also the worst match so I’m going to dismiss it.

The conclusion am am left with is that the all the reasonably good historical parallels lead to really bad situations. We must do our best to avoid going in that direction.

I keep thinking that with more and more evidence such as Weiss’s letter, the lessons learned from CHAZ/CHOP, and the continuing destruction in other cities, Portland Oregon in particular, that there is a good chance of a political turn around in the November elections. We should work at making a political solution the most likely outcome while ensuring a 2nd Amendment solution is a last resort and crystal clear that if needed it will be used and will be overwhelming successful.

* I intended to extract a paragraph of the letter for a QOTD but nearly every paragraph would have qualified. I would like to suggest you read the entire letter.

Quote of the day—Alan Cohn for Congress @AlanMCohn

Posted on by

This is sick. Nobody in America should own an AR-15. PERIOD. The sale and transfer of all assault weapons needs to be banned. It is one of the most important steps we can take to reduce mass shootings in this country.

Alan Cohn for Congress @AlanMCohn
Tweeted on July 12, 2020
[Via a tweet from Law Firm of SolitaryPoorNastyBrutish&Short
@AubreyLaVentana.

This could only be partially true, at best, if the mass shootings Mr. Cohn is interested in preventing is that of rioters threatening to harm innocent people and their property.

I suppose that’s possible.

More likely is that Cohn is just a common liar advocating for evil like most other anti-gun politicians.

Just remember, “No one wants to take your guns”.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Moa

Posted on by

They are not ‘liberals’. They are Leftists. The same people who slaughtered over 100 million of their fellows citizens in the last century once the Leftists gained unchallenged power.

Of course, the reason the Left has been working for decades to disarm you is so they can send the leftist-controlled mob to kill you and loot what you worked so hard for. Which means this is all well premeditated.

The Left are not accidentally incompetent, they are not confused, they are not mistaken. They are evil. You are their enemy and they will lie about their intentions until you are defenseless and then they can reveal what they really want to do to you and your family.

Moa
June 29, 2020
Comment to Leftist Lunatics Dox and Threaten Armed St. Louis Couple Who Protected Their Home From Black Lives Matter Mob During Protest
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Lies and deception—It’s their culture

Posted on by

From The More You Know.

From Brady United (formerly The Brady Campaign):

Steve Kerr thought bad things happened to other people – that his life was impenetrable, and that his family was immune to everything. Steve was consumed by basketball, but his life changed forever instantly when his father was senselessly shot and murdered outside his office.

That’s why Steve is working with Brady to elect gun safety champions. He knows that preventing pain and devastation for thousands of families across the country depends on stopping Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump’s inaction on gun violence.

From John Richardson:

Now you may be thinking that Kerr’s dad was the victim of a robbery or a school shooting given he was murdered outside his office.

And you would be wrong.

Kerr’s father, Professor Malcolm Kerr was a political scientist whose specialty was the Middle East. He had taught at the American University of Beirut. Professor Kerr continued his career at UCLA where he went on to become chairman of the political science department and then dean of the division of social sciences. Then in 1982 he returned to the American University of Beirut as its president.

…

1980s Beirut was a dangerous place with Maronite Christians, Druze, Sunni Muslims, and Shiite Muslims all vying for power. You could throw in the Palestinians, the Syrians, and the Iranians into the mix as well for good measure. If you were an American or other westerner in Beirut, you were a target. Kidnappings were rife along with murders and assassinations.

Professor Malcolm Kerr was just such a target as he was the head of one of the most prestigious institutions affiliated with America in Lebanon. On January 19, 1984, two gunmen fired two shots into the back of his head from a silenced pistol as he walked to his office.

Can anyone explain how “gun safety champions” elected in the U.S. could have prevented this tragedy?

Actually, don’t bother. It’s just another example of their their culture of lies and deception.

Quote of the day—Frank J. Fleming @IMAO_

Posted on by

One of the most revealing bits of left-wing racism is how they think they can scare 2nd Amendment advocates with pictures of black people exercising their gun rights, i.e., they think the right will be as scared of minorities with guns as they are.

Frank J. Fleming @IMAO_
Tweeted on July 2, 2020
[I suspect another fear is that if black people realize they need to own a gun to protect themselves and their property from rioters and looters and it is leftist politicians who are blocking them from doing so they will become “woke” in a manner which is not favorable to the left.

A reminder; I provide free ammo and gun use for new shooters of any color and sexual orientation when they go to the range with me for the first time. Examples include:

Contact information is available via the “Contact” tab at the top of the blog.—Joe]

Quote of the day—BJ Campbell

Posted on by
  1. If you’re on the Red Team quit worrying so damn much. You hold all the cards, and by cards we mean guns, and perhaps also tanks, so chill out. Give the Blues enough room to play so things don’t turn violent, but throwing around the brinkmanship card on silly stuff isn’t doing anyone any good, and may risk the “democracy” in general.
  2. If you’re on the Blue Team, for Christ’s sake don’t incite violence! Seriously. Antifa is the worst possible thing that could ever happen to the Blues, because they’re risking everything for basically nothing. In short: (again) Chill. Out. Play your cards slowly, please.
  3. If you’re like me, and don’t have a team nor do you wish to join one, maybe consider doing a little preparing. And lord help us all, if the actors make suboptimal choices and the thing does go hot, do what the Afghans do. Say “yes sir, no sir, he went that-a-way sir,” to whoever shows up to your door carrying a rifle, be their uniform Blue or Red.

BJ Campbell
July 6, 2018
Game Theory on the “Second Civil War”
[Via daughter Jaime.

Yes. This was published two years ago today.

Read the whole thing.

One of the unspoken takeaways I have from it is that the current violence by the political left, despite the warning by Campbell two years ago, is because of the realization they are losing. One should always change what your doing when you are losing. It may make you lose faster. But it offers a chance of breaking out of a situation you know is lost.—Joe]

Quote of the day—MTHead

Posted on by

Ask yourself this. If some person was standing in front of you calling you a racist. Would you believe them? Now, between you and the person saying something like that. Who is better trained at arms? You going to let that person hurt you or your family? Especially with no police to restrain you? Americans are only going to play this game so long. Their not buying all those guns and ammo to make a profit on a shortage. They understand full well. I don’t think the AOC’s of the world do.

The only nightmares I have lately is of my gun jamming.

MTHead
June 29, 2020
Comment to Quote of the day—J. KB
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]