No. Take it from the women of America. Should a woman, wearing poor shoes for running, or with a young child, be required to attempt escape from one or more attackers rather than standing her ground and defending herself and other innocent life with the best available tools?
Notice the overweight, small headed, “angry white male”, gun owner? The cartoonist is demonstrating their prejudice and bigotry as well as their ignorance of who actually benefits from such laws.
So, rather than allow a woman to actually defend herself, the University of Colorado believes a woman can urinate her way out of a rape or she might just have to sit there and take it.
When will this madness end? And when will feminists demand that women on college campuses be allowed to protect and defend themselves against sexual assault?
S.E. Cupp
February 23, 2015
Guns for women on campus make sense
Via a Tweet from Kevin Naugle @NaugleKevin.
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]
How much more clear can it be?
University of Michigan Activism class.
Just heard about it on Rush.
The university goes on to say that they’re not exhibiting any political bias. In Left-Speak that would be true of course, because “Bias” means any opposition to the Progressive authoritarian system.
Someone should point out to the cartoonist that guns are an evolved issue and that it is easy to demonstrate the gun is civilization. Furthermore at the time of the wooly mammoth weapons of the day were spears, bow and arrows, and clubs. It would appear the cartoonist would prefer we revert to such primitive times. I find this very confusing. But then, I frequently find people with crazy ideas confusing.
New Jersey authorities operate like the state is their personal fiefdom when it comes to gun permits and that needs to change. The rights of people like Mr. Almeida should not be subject to the arbitrary discretion of public officials for whom no reason will ever be good enough.
Alan Gottlieb
February 23, 2015
SAF Funds Challenge to New Jersey Carry Law
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]
I received a IWB holster from Alien Gear for review. I have the Ruger P89 Cloak Tuck 2.0 but they have different versions of holsters for a very wide selection of guns. I count 441 different pistols and 14 different revolvers.
I can’t ever recall giving unqualified praise for a product I have been asked to review. While I do have a minor quibble about the instructions I really like the product. As they claim on their web site, “You are not just going to like your new Alien Gear Holster – you’re going to love it. Guaranteed.”
My minor quibble with the instructions is with how they tell you to put the holster on:
First put on your pants and sturdy belt. Leave your pants unbuttoned and unzipped. Insert the holster into your pants in the front just to the right of the zipper. Then, slide the holster around to where you will be wearing it.
…
This didn’t work for me. The padding gripped the t-shirt I was wearing and slid it around with the holster. If I had not been wearing a shirt then it would have worked but why do this at all? Perhaps there is a good reason but I didn’t see it. I just rotated it into the position I wanted it and then slid it straight down sort of like I was tucking in a shirt.
The holster is very comfortable to wear. It has good retention for a holster without a locking mechanism. I could draw from it as rapidly as any other IWB holster I have worn and could reholster without a collapsed shell that needed to be opened up.
Although I found the defaults to be ideal for me the holster has a great deal of adjustment available. It has adjustable tilt angle, adjustable ride height, and adjustable retention.
It is a very versatile holster. You can even use it with a tucked in t-shirt.
Their warranty is awesome. With free shell trades for life if you change carry guns and forever protection against breakage.
Give this holster very serious consideration.
Aside from the false stereotype of the overweight, goofy looking, flannel shirt wearing, gun owner there is a fair amount of truth in this.
Well-regulated as defined by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Heller decision is close to what the cartoonist says (Heller pages 23 and 24) :
… the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule or method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights §13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a wellregulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms”).
Of course the cartoonist intended to portray the NRA as ignorant and ridiculous but instead demonstrated their own ignorance and prejudice. You should not be surprised. It is “par for the course”.
This is a demonstration of the principle represented here:
I bet your motorized wheelchair & floral colored moomoo’s are off the hook. U got any in camo?@BigFatDave big fat sloppy tub of dickless goo
Donnie Brasco @D0NNIE_BRASC0
Tweeted on December 19, 2014
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday! Via a tweet from BFD @BigFatDave.—Joe]
Guns are, in a manner of speaking, an appliance. They have a function, and they do it well, for a very long time under most usage rates. The technology is pretty straightforward, the cost is competitive, the technology generally improves with time, and they are easy to operate.
Major home appliances? Not so much. Continue reading
Ry sent me an email with a link to this collection of gun cartoons. A few are duplicates of my collection but there a bunch of new ones as well. I’m going to be posting the ones I’m fairly certain are new to this blog starting with:
Not-so-smart? So perhaps our brainiac cartoonist could answer the following questions:
The answers are:
And furthermore the NRA and most gun owners don’t have a problem with the existence of “smart guns”. They have a problem with and correctly do object to the mandating of “smart-guns” on Second Amendment grounds.
“Smart guns” aren’t smart except in some very limited circumstances. This cartoonist isn’t very smart and should seek help for their prejudice.
This isn’t me. I can quit any time I want.
I shot in another USPSA match today. The results for my division are as follows:
Place |
Name |
USPSA |
Class |
Division |
PF |
Lady |
Mil |
Law |
For |
Match Pts |
Match % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Hong, Andrew | A83199 | A | LTD | MAJOR | N | N | N | N | 376.4578 | 100.000 % |
| 2 | LeRoux, Scott | L3253 | M | LTD | MAJOR | N | N | N | N | 292.5846 | 77.720 % |
| 3 | Gillaspie, Brent | A89049 | U | LTD | MAJOR | N | N | N | N | 255.9800 | 67.997 % |
| 4 | Denton, Charis | A79746 | U | LTD | MINOR | N | N | N | N | 237.9736 | 63.214 % |
| 5 | Mc Nees Jr, Donald | A52430 | C | LTD | MINOR | N | N | N | N | 227.0105 | 60.302 % |
| 6 | Sherman, Todd | TY37515 | C | LTD | MAJOR | N | N | N | N | 215.8692 | 57.342 % |
| 7 | Huffman, Joseph | TY29386 | B | LTD | MAJOR | N | N | N | N | 213.4978 | 56.712 % |
| 8 | Feucht, Alan | A72439 | C | LTD | MAJOR | N | N | N | N | 212.2518 | 56.381 % |
| 9 | Fischer, Sarah | A77996 | C | LTD | MAJOR | Y | N | N | N | 199.2419 | 52.925 % |
| 10 | Adams, Bryan | A85106 | U | LTD | MAJOR | N | N | N | N | 189.7108 | 50.394 % |
| 11 | McClure, David | A71541 | C | LTD | MAJOR | N | N | N | N | 180.8689 | 48.045 % |
| 12 | Baleros, Rae Arsen | A53054 | C | LTD | MAJOR | N | N | N | N | 169.9922 | 45.156 % |
| 13 | Cook, Jason | A85741 | U | LTD | MINOR | N | N | N | N | 124.4949 | 33.070 % |
| 14 | Mathena, Lee | A54215 | D | LTD | MAJOR | N | N | N | N | 120.5627 | 32.026 % |
| 15 | Domingo, Noel | A85786 | C | LTD | MAJOR | N | N | N | N | 106.1564 | 28.199 % |
| 16 | Daniels, Stephen | PEN | U | LTD | MINOR | N | N | N | N | 101.9012 | 27.068 % |
| 17 | Reibman, Ryan | A84564 | U | LTD | MINOR | N | N | N | N | 95.8378 | 25.458 % |
I really need to practice more. I’m not shooting at a ‘B’ level like I used to.
This match was all classifiers and the “National Percentage” from these stages are, according to the classifier calculator, probably as follows:
It takes 60% to be in class ‘B’. I had problems with each of the stages which accounts for some it. The best example of this was that I shot a no-shoot target and got a miss on “Both Sides Now #1”. If I had achieved the same time and got the A-zone hit I would have had a 72.9621% percentage. I hit another no-shoot target with a miss in “The Roscoe Rattle” which would have translated into 62.9157% had I been a little more careful.
I had some minor equipment problems too. In “Can You Count” I loaded five rounds into each of my magazines because I can’t count as fast as I can shoot. In both strings the magazine did not lock the slide back. In the first string I was a bit confused and it took a while to reload and rack the slide. It happened in the second string as well but I was better prepared for it and it two seconds less than the equivalent first string. Had the slide locked back like it should have I probably would have had something like a time of about three seconds less. This would have resulted in a percentage of 61.6266%.
But I didn’t shoot like that. I made mistakes and my shooting represents that of a solid ‘C’ shooter (40%->59.9%), not ‘B’.
Think of the state as a band of thieves, and you will not be far wrong.
Glenn Reynolds
December 28, 2014
TINKER, TAILOR, STALKER, SPY
[And thugs.—Joe]
As late as 1733 gentlemen of Virginia were said to be naked when they went in public without their swords. They appear not to have gone naked in this sense very often.
David Hackett Fischer
1989
Albion’s Seed: Four British Folkways in America (America: A Cultural History)
[What does this tell you about the original intent of the Second Amendment?—Joe]
The worst part of the US is that even though the mass voices arguing against you have the combined IQ of a toddler, their votes are worth just as much.
That country needs some actual leadership to remove the guns and violence. Let the retards revolt and shoot them down with the very weapons they love so much and save countles innocent lives for the future.
Sir Malta
January 6, 2015
Comment to 3D-Printed Guns Are Only Getting Better, and Scarier
[I would like to suggest Sir Malta improve his spelling, grammar, and measurements before he insists those opposing regulation of 3D printed guns “have the combined IQ of a toddler”. But perhaps if he persists in his desire to murder us it is better that he just keep thinking that.
Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.
Via email from Jack M.—Joe]
Conflating crime and individual rights is a sign of hoplophobia, a serious mental illness. This calls for an intervention and medical treatment for PBS staff, not propaganda film production. Maybe they could show good faith and publicly sign up for a permanent personal felony-level gun ban, just to be safe.
Alan Korwin
January 12, 2015
PBS scraps ethics, assaults civil-rights group (NRA)
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]
Via the Firearms Policy Coalition:
In another victory for Second Amendment civil rights by attorney Alan Gura, a United States District Court found a provision of the Gun Control Act of 1968 unconstitutional as applied to some people who, like the plaintiff in the case, are currently law-abiding and not felons, adjudicated as mentally defective, or have a violent criminal history.
This is the second ruling striking down parts of GCA ‘68 in as many weeks.
It’s taken us 47 years to do this but we are finally making progress.
Some revolutions bear fruit, and some kill the tree, but revolutions spring from poison that is already killing the tree.
kchrisc
February 8, 2015
Comment to The Paradox Inherent in Any Slave Nation Revolution
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]
Height over bore, that is.
I’ve only half jokingly mocked other “future weapon” designs in the past, saying that the trend is toward an ever more clownishly high sight axis. My educated guess is that this is in fact a psychological problem.
With the lower velocity of the grenade/shotgun, it would make actual sense to put it on the bottom, with the flatter trajectory rifle barrel closer to the sight axis.
The new terms like “Soldier integrated such and such” (which obviously turn ordinary warfare into something totally new and different) are also the result of psychological problems. Years ago, while reading one of the supposedly big cheese U.S. military publications, I found that such a thing as an “army” is, technically speaking, no more. No, ladies and gentlemen; we now have a “Soldier-Centric Force Structure” instead, don’t you know, which no doubt changes EVERYTHING.
The advantage you see is that people who have actual experience in stuff are no longer needed, and can therefore be safely and conveniently brushed aside. Who needs an Army General when you can have a shiny, new, Soldier-Centric Force Structure Command and Control Engineering Specialist? Hmm? Was General Patton a Soldier-Centric Force Structure Command and Control Engineering Specialist? I don’t think so. All he did was lead an Army to kill a bunch of folks and break things. Feh!
And who needs a stupid old rifle when you can have something that looks like it came out of a bad Sci-Fi movie written by an ignoramus, and having the ergonomics of a cinder block?
