Quote of the day—Robin L. Kelly

Posted on by

What the Kelly Report is NOT is a manifesto against guns or gun owners. Let me be clear: I am not anti-gun. I am pro common sense. I believe America is capable of striking the right balance between protecting our Second Amendment rights and promoting public safety by keeping guns out of the wrong hands. This report strikes that balance. I trust that people on both sides of the gun reform debate will find in the Kelly Report legislative and policy proposals that their communities can get behind.

…

Reauthorize the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (H.R. 437—Rep. Carolyn McCarthy). The Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 would extend and reauthorize the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, an expired federal law that prohibited the manufacturing, transportation or distribution of semi-automatic weapons and ammunition feeders.

…

If every gun had an irremovable tracking number, it would be significantly easier for law enforcement to minimize gun trafficking and track illegal gun transfers. Similarly, inclusion of RFID (radio frequency identification) tags on guns that allow them only to fire if read by a corresponding chip worn by the owner would prevent gun violence that results from gun theft or wrongful use. The technology for smart guns currently exists.

Robin L. Kelly
Member of U.S. Congress
Kelly Report 2014: Gun Violence in America
[Don’t ever let anyone get away telling you that no one wants to take your guns. This is another member of Congress that specifically supports a ban on the most popular rifle in America. She says she wants to protect Second Amendment rights but does not give us any clue that she knows what right to keep and bear arms means. I don’t believe this is an accident. I believe she included those words only to defuse some of the criticism.

The stupidity, and/or ignorance, and/or arrogance, and/or deliberate deception is astounding in this “balanced report”. The report gives credit to over a dozen contributors but not a single one is identified as supporting gun owners or the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms. They are all anti-gun. Yet she says, “I trust that people on both sides of the gun reform debate will find in the Kelly Report legislative and policy proposals that their communities can get behind.” Strictly speaking she is probably correct. I can find proposals in her report that I don’t oppose. I don’t see anything wrong with the following non-legislative proposals:

Promote the Understanding of and Attention to the Mental Health Needs of Students. Too often mental health issues are either misunderstood or ignored, often resulting in tragic consequences. School teachers should receive mental health training to help them better identify potential warning signs so they’re able to intervene earlier. Similarly, community groups, medical and mental health professionals should be better supported in public education and mental health destigmatization efforts that encourage people to seek mental health treatment.

Change the Social Dynamic in Urban Communities and Increase Proactive Prevention Programs in Schools. Nothing stops a bullet like a job, or a quality education. After school programs, job training programs, mentoring programs with local business leaders and community recreational programs, such as Chicago’s “Windy City Hoops,” keep kids off the streets and working towards productive futures. Additionally, alternatives to violence and conflict resolution can be promoted through mentoring programs with former gang members that inform young people of the perils of gang association and gang violence. Similarly, programs connecting urban youth with police officers will help bridge the gap and provide sensitivity and awareness training that will improve community trust of law enforcement, and assist in decreasing gang violence and police brutality.

Support Smart Policing. Proactive initiatives by police departments to prevent criminal activity, paired with an increased visible police presence in some of the most dangerous neighborhoods, are an effective means of preventing crime and gun violence. Similarly, police departments can work with local schools to target high-risk individuals—both victims and criminals—to prevent them from being placed in dangerous situations. For example, the Chicago Police Department has joined with Chicago Public Schools to promote early intervention by determining which students are most at-risk and encouraging them to enter mentoring programs and other positive activities.

But that is a minuscule part of her “balanced report”. Where is the gun safety training? Or training on the legal and moral aspect of self-defense? It doesn’t exist in her world. She can only see benefit in restricting the rights of people rather than in enabling people to protect themselves.

But what really got my attention is the last paragraph quoted above about “smart guns”.

“Irremovable tracking number”? I think we call those serial numbers and have been required for decades. But “irremovable” is an impossible (or at least extremely impractical) requirement.

RFID tags cannot stop a gun from firing. The sentence, “…inclusion of RFID (radio frequency identification) tags on guns that allow them only to fire if read by a corresponding chip worn by the owner…” is nonsensical. A RFID tag is little more than a fancy bar code. RFID tags cannot inhibit the firing of a gun. RFIDs can be made more secure than bar codes and hence less likely to be copied but at best she has thing backwards. If she had said a chip in the gun read the RFID tag worn by the owner then it would have least made sense. But that does not get around the issue brought up by NSSF (see below). The gun then clearly has to have a power supply which is subject to failure.

I am convinced these people believe in magic. Engineering is limited by the physical laws of the universe. They believe we can just cast some spell and make something happen. I understand the (especially supersonic) flight of airplanes, internal combustion engines, electric motors, GPS, the near instantaneous communication of email, television, and cellphones are all beyond the comprehension of most people. And I can understand guns could easily be dumped into the same mental magic box. Most people seek out experts and many of them actually respect the opinions of the expects. These people don’t. They did seek out the opinions of some gun manufactures and the NSSF. They even quoted them:

Beretta issued the following statement regarding smart guns:

As the leading designer and manufacturer of high-quality firearms in the world, Beretta has recently been asked by several news organizations about the feasibility and advisability of making handguns that include so-called “smart gun” technology or “personalized” internal locks. Beretta has considered this issue for several years and has concluded that existing design concepts of this type are neither advisable nor feasible.
Although the concept of a “smart gun” or “personalized gun” has received public attention recently, we believe that careful consideration has not been given to potentially dangerous risks associated with these concepts. In our opinion, such technology is undeveloped and unproven. In addition, Beretta strongly believes that “smart gun” technology or “personalized” guns… could actually increase the number of fatal accidents involving handguns.

And:

The National Shooting Sports Foundation in the United States, which is the trade association for the gun industry, still claims on its website that personalized guns are ill advised, citing the 1996 Sandia report that focused on police weapons:

“Personalized” or “smart gun” technology, while in development stages, is neither reliable nor available. A U.S. Department of Justice-funded project, researched by Sandia National Laboratories, concluded, “There is not currently a perfect smart gun technology.” Owner recognition technology, such as fingerprint recognition or a radio transmitter, requires a power source to work. Any technology that relies on a power source will fail, possibly at the worst time imaginable.

They then go on to dismiss these experts without addressing the fundamental issues of concern. That is demonstration of either crap for brains or deliberate deception. Hence this report and Congresswoman Kelly should be treated accordingly.—Joe]

Quote of the day—David Yamane

Posted on by

Hence, the Brady Campaign’s claim that “people who keep guns in homes are almost 3 times more likely to be murdered.” From this, Kellerman and colleagues concluded, “In the light of these observations and our present findings, people should be strongly discouraged from keeping guns in their homes.”

…

Of the total number of homicides committed in the study area, only 1.6 percent (30 of 1,860) were gun homicides committed in the victim’s home using a gun kept there. 98.4 percent we either outside the home, were not gun homicides, or did not use the victim’s gun. People in the case sample are 62 times more likely to be killed under these other circumstance than to be killed in their own home with a gun kept there.

David Yamane
July 18, 2014
Scrutinizing Claims About Guns in Homes as a “Risk Factor” for Homicide in the Home
[This is the 1993, long discredited Kellermann study. But this is, to me, a novel approach to discrediting the paper. And it seems to be much more powerful than the other approaches.

It makes it all the more obvious that the anti-gun people have to deliberately lie and deceive in order to get their way. Whatever their motivation it is not for the good of society and it is particularly bad for people that own or want to own firearms. These people are evil.—Joe]

Quote of the day—GunFreeNJ

Posted on by

You gun loons are all the same, nothing but hot air….come elections, you’ll see that both the voters of CT will stand together with the voters of NJ, and come out on top, and finally be finished with people like you, and the NRA.

GunFreeNJ
July 14, 2014
Comment to Conn. Gov. Molloy: Chris Christie missed chance to save lives
[And just how will the voters be “finished” with the “gun loons” and the NRA? Does that mean prisons? Reeducation camps? Death squads?

I would like to suggest that Mr. GunFreeNJ check his calculations again. There are five million NRA members and nearly 100 million gun owners in this country that consume several billion rounds of ammunition each year in practice. His plans to be “finished” with us could come with a very high price tag.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn

Posted on by

In the Criminal Code of 1926 there was a most stupid Article 139 – “on the limits of necessary self-defense” —according to which you had the right to unsheath your knife only after the criminal’s knife was hovering over you. And you could stab him only after he had stabbed you. And otherwise you would be the one put on trial. (And there was no article in our legislation saying that the greater criminal was the one who attacked someone weaker than himself.) This fear of exceeding the measure of necessary self-defense lead to total spinelessness as a national characteristic. A hoodlum once began to beat up the Red Army man Aleksandr Zakharov outside a club. Zakharov took out a folding penknife and killed the hoodlum. And for this he got….ten years for plain murder! “And what was I supposed to do?” he asked, astonished. Prosecutor Artsishevsky replied: “You should have fled!” So tell me, who creates hoodlums?

Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn
The Gulag Archipelago, Volume 2: An Experiment in Literary Investigation, 1918-1956.
[This is just one of many similarities of Solzhenitsyn’s USSR to present day in the U.S. that sends chills up my spine.

The USSR created hoodlums just as the UK is creating them now and our political opponents in the U.S. appear to want to create. What is even more chilling is that in the USSR the political leaders openly wrote about how the thieves “were allies in the building of communism”. This was because they were the enemy of those who owned property.

I’ll have another QOTD on this topic another time but for now ponder whether our enemies of freedom came to the same conclusion as the communists of the USSR independently, through influence from them, or are only dimly stumbling into the same situation.—Joe]

Gun cartoon of the day

Posted on by

ToyGunToSchool

This is one of those things that makes me think our opponents have mental health issues. They think in terms of “messages” being sent rather than in facts and logic. While I recognize there is value in “messages” the problem is they find whatever they want to find rather than the obvious direct messages. In the case of having armed people protecting our children the obvious messages are that we are willing and able to deliver predators a copper jacketed hollow-point message of “Don’t hurt our children!” This sends a message to the children of, “We can and will protect you.”

I dealt with someone for decades that would, in extreme cases, repeatedly insist there were hidden messages in email that communicated something completely different from what was actually written. Verbal exchanges were frequently like walking into psych ward. I would ask a question and they would respond with something that was only tenuously connected to what I asked. Repeating the question would get something again only tenuously related to my question and unrelated to their previous answer. Asking them to repeat my question back to verify they heard the question would result in them insisting they heard and understood my question but they would not be able to repeat it or even summarize it. They didn’t need to be able to do that because, “I know how you think.” They literally insisted they knew what I was thinking and my words and actions were not necessary for them to act upon “what you really mean”.

The people that relate to the cartoon above are like that person. They live in a world that only intersects with ours enough that we can catch a glimpse of their alternate reality.

These people want to control us because their world is chaotic and they desperately want stability. Having a higher authority exercising control over others brings the sense of the stability they seek. For us to say, “No! We will not be unconstitutional controlled by you or anyone else.” increases their anxiety and insistence that we need to be controlled.

I don’t know how this can end well.

Halbig vs Burwell

Posted on by

The DC Court of Appeals handed down it’s decision in Halbig vs Burwell, an ObamaCare challenge. The crux of the challenge is that the law, as written, says that people on exchanges established by a state can get the subsidies, people using the Federal exchange established by Uncle Sam cannot. This was done (they said at the time) as an incentive to encourage states to set up their own exchanges, and it was estimated that only a small number of knuckledragging states would fail to do so (so screw them)… (OK, so the last part was my words for their actions).

But when 34 states failed to set up their own exchange, it caused a problem. Millions of people don’t want to have their promised subsidies “taken away.” So, the HHS said “well, it really means any exchange, including the Federal one.” The DC Court of Appeals just said “No, state means state.” And, as an added bonus, just a few days ago the HHS itself said that in the ACA, “State” means “State,” not “state and/or territories.” A bit more than a week ago, Obama’s law professor said it would likely turn out this way.

This is potentially a nuclear bomb in the heart of the law. Next stop, en banc review on the (packed?) court, or the Supreme Court. Only downside is finding out how the Rs will manage to shoot themselves in the foot with this news (with the media’s willing help, of course.)

UPDATE: the 4th Circuit just ruled the other way on the same thing. Wow, that was timely.

Another good analysis.

Another one from Forbes. If upheld, it would cancel the subsidies, AND the tax for not buying insurance (i.e., kill the mandate).

Quote of the day—Italian Rose

Posted on by

The AR 15 along with other repeating firearms and handguns are terrorist grade weapons that need to be eliminated from the American landscape at any and all cost. I have proof that all repeating firearms are terrorist grade. In the first video that I am showing is the prelude to a 1958 TV show The Riflemen that my grandfather probably watched. You could see that the lever action rifle used can be shot from the hip to be spray fired just like a semiautomatic military grade rifle.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOEozi95TjQ.

Italian Rose
July 19, 2014
Comment to Federal bill to restrict the content of gun advertising

[H/T to Ted N. who sent me the link via email.

I used to watch this show when I was a kid. It probably wasn’t until 1962 or or 1963 though. I’m tempted to watch an episode or two. I found what appear to be full episodes on YouTube. Here is the first one:

Don’t ever let anyone get away with trying tell you that no one wants to take your guns. Italian Rose is a strong counter example.

It’s clear from the complete rant that revolvers also qualify as “terrorist grade weapons” in this persons eyes.

One has to wonder about their opinion that these type of guns “need to be eliminated from the American landscape at any and all cost”. Just how strongly do they believe in this cause? Are they willing to die for their beliefs? I ask this question because I know quite a few people willing to kill if the Italian Rose were to be able to convince the government to start the “elimination process”.—Joe]

Quote of the day—John Loos

Posted on by

The bigger the gun, the tinier the penis, and while that may be absolutely, 100-percent true in every single case, there are other things guns compensate for.

John Loos
June 24, 2014
8 Things Guns Compensate For (Besides Your Penis)
n-GUN-large570
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday! Via Say Uncle.

The entire article is stereotyped bigotry and prejudice. Supposedly the article is funny but would anyone think it was funny if stereotypes of blacks/gays/Jews were used instead?

And is that a real gun tucked into the front of his pants? It looks odd to me.—Joe]

Electronic Marques

Posted on by

Interesting idea. The US Constitution authorizes operations against pirates. Article 1,Section 8, Clause 10 “To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;”

It also covers issuing letters of Marque and Reprisal, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 “To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;”

Why not do the suddenly obvious and issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal to private corporations to go after international electronic pirates, foreign agents who are attacking our corporations and infrastructure electronically? Makes sense to me.

Quote of the day—Tom Dugan

Posted on by

One thing the gunnies all have in common, besides aversion to dental work, is the “shall not be infringed” crap. It is time to get the guns out of our lives!

Tom Dugan
Comment to a Facebook post by Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
[So, Mr. Friend of The Brady Campaign is saying the Second Amendment is crap, all gunnies have an aversion to dental work, and it’s time to confiscate all the guns.

My response is that if the first item is true it shouldn’t be that tough to repeal it then. He has crap for brain if he really believes the second item. Molon Labe in regards to the last item. And Mr. Dugan should take point on that campaign.

Don’t let anyone get away with telling you no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]

Gun cartoon of the day

Posted on by

FloridaConcealedCarry

It would be far more accurate if the date were 10 years ago and headline was “Chicago and Washington D.C. have banned handguns.

But accuracy doesn’t further their agenda so don’t expect it anytime soon.

Quote of the day—Luke O’Neil

Posted on by

All women should, in fact, be armed. Where I part ways with the right here, however, is that I think if we’re going to agree to that, then we’ll need to disarm all men. Men, as the DOJ numbers point out, commit 90% of all homicides. As we’ve seen in nearly every sensational mass shooting that’s been in the news in recent years, men are simply far too emotionally unstable to be trusted with such a powerful tool of violence. If we can’t agree to get rid of the guns, then it’s time we put our collective protection in the hands of those who we can likely trust to make more rational decisions about where to point them.

Luke O’Neil
July 15, 2014
Liberal Compromise on Guns: Arm All the Women
[H/T to Brian Anderson with his post More Gun Control Lunacy: Arm All Women, Disarm All Men.

Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you no one wants to take your guns.

I find his mindset very telling. He doesn’t seem to have a concept of “let people do what they want”. It’s “arm the women” and “disarm all men”. It’s always the collective forcing some decision they made upon individuals.

Another point to be made is that he is an advocate of collective guilt. All men should be disarmed. How about laws aimed at all Jews, blacks, or gays? Collective solutions without regard for the individual.

While I think women have as much or more to benefit from firearm ownership than men I think it is far better they make their own decisions. Their bodies their choice sort of thing. But it seems the irony of such words is completely lost on these people.—Joe]

IF by Rudyard Kipling

Posted on by

Via the late Jeff Cooper.

No wonder we were not introduced to Kipling in school.

Gun cartoon of the day

Posted on by

GunCrimeData

Wow!

That’s some serious projection on the part of an anti-gun person. Gun ownership and sales have been increasing while violent crime has been decreasing. But they say we don’t want to look at the data?

Yeah, right. Someone has mental problems and it’s those people who want to restrict our specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms. Facts get in the way of their agenda.

Quote of the day—Thomas Massie

Posted on by

It is time for Congress to step in and stop the D.C. government’s harassment and punishment of law-abiding citizens who simply want to defend themselves.

Thomas Massie
U.S. Representative.
July 16, 2014
Was the House Right to Block D.C.’s Gun Control Laws?
House Republicans green-lighted a budget rider that essentially nixes D.C.’s gun laws.
[It’s a good start. Now if we could somehow get Federal Prosecutors to file charges against the politicians involved in the conspiracy to deny people their specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms we would see a lot more progress.—Joe]

Gun cartoon of the day

Posted on by

85

Grenades, a RPG, multiple guns, discharging into the air, and the crazy face on the NRA guy.

No bias there.

That is what they think of you. They think you have mental issues if you are a NRA member or own guns.

Sadly perfect gun case?

Posted on by

In order to advance gun law in the right direction, it is often (sadly)  necessary for bad things to happen to good people in order to create the “correct” circumstances for a compelling court case that can overturn stupid laws. There may be one in New Jersey now. Short version: a Pennsylvania nurse with a concealed carry permit drove into NJ, got busted during a traffic stop, charged with second degree handgun possession, faces three to ten years if convicted. She has no criminal history, a good job, and two kids, and prosecutors are passing up every opportunity to lighten the charges or penalty. If the facts of the case are as presented in this article, this would be a case to take to the supreme court to strike down such idiot laws. For her sake, I hope the Governor steps in and slaps some sense into the prosecutor and she gets off with a warning- but it shouldn’t have to need that. Anti-gun people like to compare concealed carry permits to driver’s licenses. Well, here’s their chance to see how well that works.

Quote of the day—Lothar

Posted on by

Anyone who objects to real background checks for ALL gun purchases is an IDIOT!

And, yes I own guns, and was a member of the NRA back in the 1950’s before it was taken over by survivalist unregulated white trash militia nuts.

Lothar
July 7, 2014
Comment to Editorial: In competing gun measures — Yes, on I-594; No on I-591 Support universal background checks for all gun sales. Initiative 594 moves Washington ahead. Initiative 591 is on the ballot to inhibit progress.
[This is what they think of you. Don’t forget that. This is not “reasoned discourse” in the sense of polite company. These people regard you as a “white trash” idiot. And they think you need to be “regulated”. I know where this sort of contempt leads. I won’t be going there. It will be far better for everyone concerned if this initiative is soundly defeated at the polls.

I also find it “interesting” that the Seattle Times editorial board considers it “progress” to criminalize taking a new shooter to the range and letting them use my guns for a few minutes without a background check and transfer paperwork each time the gun changes hands. It also applies to my loaning a gun to friend for a few days even if the friend was in fear of her abusive ex carrying out his death threat. That’s “progress” from the “progressive” mindset.

This incredible burden on gun owners and the right to keep and bear arms is very similar to I-676 in 1997 (it required “a valid handgun safety license” instead of a background check) . We used that screw up against them in the campaign and defeated them (see also here). I would say these people just don’t learn, but to the best of my knowledge none of the high level people who were active in I-676 are involved in I-594. Many of our people are veterans of that fight.

But I’m nearly certain this fight will be tougher than the I-676 fight. We were able to outspend our I-676 opponents. This time Bloomberg can easily dump whatever it takes to outspend us. Our strengths will be tens of thousands of volunteers, the veteran leaders, and millions of gun owners who will come to the polls.

The last fight was nasty. Our people had yard signs stolen every night from their yards and signs on public property in the Seattle area had to be replaced every week. Even though this was against the law the anti-gun people openly encouraged people to removed them because they were “unsightly.” Cars with pro-gun bumper stickers were vandalized.

The anti-gun people lied to the media. The media nearly ignored our 3000 person rally and gave “equal coverage” to the four counter protesters. The media used video of our assembly line making materials for doorknob hangers with a voice over saying the anti-gun people were a grassroots organization.

This fight will be just as nasty. The quote above is just the tip of iceberg. Expect vandalism. Expect to be called terrible names and be accused of terrible things. These people do not regard you and I as worthy of politeness or respect. They want you “reeducated” or eliminated.

Remember the words of Charlton Heston, “It is evil, and we must defeat it.”—Joe]

The good, the bad, the ugly

Posted on by

The last few times I used my AR it would occasionally “double”. I thought maybe it was just dirty and cleaned it. It didn’t do it for a while then it did it again. I cleaned it then when I had the private party last month it did it when it only had a few rounds after being cleaned. I set the gun aside and used a different one.

About three weeks ago I removed the trigger group and was going to replace the springs. That surely was the problem, right?

I was dismayed at the state of the important surfaces.

This is a known good hammer and trigger:

IMG_0739IMG_0740

And cropped down to just the interesting parts:

IMG_0739CroppedIMG_0740Cropped

This is the bad hammer and trigger:

IMG_0741IMG_0743

Again, cropped to just the interesting parts:

IMG_0741CroppedIMG_0743Cropped

Do you see the difference? That’s some ugly wear on those critical surfaces. I believe that was the source of the problem.

It would have been really ugly if the ATF took a dislike to me. A gun malfunctioning like that can result in a prison sentence. It’s not right. The law should be fixed. The ATF should abolished or at least have it’s “claws trimmed”. But that is the way it is.

I’m pretty sure the known good trigger group parts fixed the problem. I have probably 300 rounds through it without issue now.

Random thought of the day

Posted on by

If putting serial numbers on bullets is a good idea to help solve crimes involving guns wouldn’t it also be a good idea to put them on prescription pills to track down whoever is supplying those who abuse those drugs? Or how about serial numbers on cigarettes to help prevent cigarettes from getting into the hands of underage smokers? Or tracking the serial numbers on paper money to combat the recreational drug trade?

The answer is no to all these ideas. Anyone that suggests serial numbers on bullets is as stupid and/or ignorant as someone who suggests serial numbers be tracked on the other items.