What had been a somewhat quiet week on the gun scene changed this morning with the latest attempt to instate a so-called “assault weapon ban” in Washington. My take is posted below.
There’s still a huge discussion going on over at Northwest Firearms about the NRA. Right now I’m in a bit of a death match over how a 501(c) should work and what the NRA does with its money.
Another interesting thread details an order for being filled by Winchester for 40 million rounds of .40 S&W ammo for the Department of Homeland Security. Wish they’d send me some. My poor Glock is hungry!
Speaking of Glock – the Glock Talk fundraiser results have been announced. Congratulations to all of the bast... errr... lucky winners. I was skunked again!
Just received the stuff I won from Greg Martin Auctions. I’m pleased overall. The Arisaka turns out to be matching. It was a “take a chance” gun, as GMA still has problems properly describing Japanese firearms. I’ll post pictures just as soon as I get my camera back.
Until next time!!!
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Lies, Damn Lies, and Washington Ceasefire
If you have a strong stomach, go ahead and check out the press release by Washington Ceasefire on their efforts to pass the Washington Assault Weapon Ban detailed earlier today. Some of the “highlights”:
“Semi-automatic assault weapons are designed and intended for military purposes to kill as many people as quickly as possible in a designated area. These guns can fire over 200 bullets a minute. Even avid hunters acknowledge that semi-automatic weapons have no sporting purpose other than target practice which this bill would accommodate within designated shooting ranges. Significantly kits are readily available that can convert semi-automatic weapons to automatic “machine gun” status in just a few minutes. The risk of assault weapons is made worse by the so-called gun show loophole which allows gun purchasers, as young as eighteen, to purchase unlimited quantities of these dangerous weapons without a background check, record keeping or waiting period at various gun shows held almost weekly in this state.
“Both national and state polls show overwhelming support for the ban by similar 5 to 1 majorities. But passage for this common sense gun control measure is by no means guaranteed. Former Police Chief Norm Stamper said recently the people are far ahead of the politicians on this issue. Last year the U.S. Supreme Court validated the right of individuals to own handguns and sporting rifles but specifically gave the green light to state regulation for things such as mandatory background checks or a ban on military assault weapons.”
I actually hit the “add a comment” to the announcement, but doubt it will get published. So here’s my take:
How many lies can you tell in one article?
1) Conversion of a semi-auto into a full-auto is neither "simple" nor are there readily available conversion kits. The BATFE must approve all receivers for semi-automatic weapons, and they do so with this in mind.
2) I’m an avid hunter, and the AR-15 is a spectacular hunting platform with a wide array of cartridges available
3) I seriously question 5 to 1 support for an assault weapon ban. Please cite source.
4) The Department of Justice found that the 1994 Federal ban had no effect on crime because so-called “assault weapons” were used in a small portion of crimes
Go ahead and admit that this is the tip of a larger wedge to invalidate not only Section 24 of the Washington State Constitution, but the Second Amendment as well.
I stopped there with my comments, but I could have gone on for quite some time. It also wasn’t my most “politic” response, but there’s a time for civility and there’s a time for directness. This seems to be a case for the latter rather than the former.
It seems to be commonplace for these anti-civil rights groups to simply heap lies and distortions as high as possible in the smug belief that either no one will check their “facts”, or won’t be able to refute all of their “facts” in a seven second sound bite. The hubris of these groups knows no bounds, nor does their hostility toward the right to keep and bear arms. Given these groups are attacking our civil rights, I personally consider them to be hate groups, and I long for the day when we can prosecute them as such.
Until next time!!!
“Semi-automatic assault weapons are designed and intended for military purposes to kill as many people as quickly as possible in a designated area. These guns can fire over 200 bullets a minute. Even avid hunters acknowledge that semi-automatic weapons have no sporting purpose other than target practice which this bill would accommodate within designated shooting ranges. Significantly kits are readily available that can convert semi-automatic weapons to automatic “machine gun” status in just a few minutes. The risk of assault weapons is made worse by the so-called gun show loophole which allows gun purchasers, as young as eighteen, to purchase unlimited quantities of these dangerous weapons without a background check, record keeping or waiting period at various gun shows held almost weekly in this state.
“Both national and state polls show overwhelming support for the ban by similar 5 to 1 majorities. But passage for this common sense gun control measure is by no means guaranteed. Former Police Chief Norm Stamper said recently the people are far ahead of the politicians on this issue. Last year the U.S. Supreme Court validated the right of individuals to own handguns and sporting rifles but specifically gave the green light to state regulation for things such as mandatory background checks or a ban on military assault weapons.”
I actually hit the “add a comment” to the announcement, but doubt it will get published. So here’s my take:
How many lies can you tell in one article?
1) Conversion of a semi-auto into a full-auto is neither "simple" nor are there readily available conversion kits. The BATFE must approve all receivers for semi-automatic weapons, and they do so with this in mind.
2) I’m an avid hunter, and the AR-15 is a spectacular hunting platform with a wide array of cartridges available
3) I seriously question 5 to 1 support for an assault weapon ban. Please cite source.
4) The Department of Justice found that the 1994 Federal ban had no effect on crime because so-called “assault weapons” were used in a small portion of crimes
Go ahead and admit that this is the tip of a larger wedge to invalidate not only Section 24 of the Washington State Constitution, but the Second Amendment as well.
I stopped there with my comments, but I could have gone on for quite some time. It also wasn’t my most “politic” response, but there’s a time for civility and there’s a time for directness. This seems to be a case for the latter rather than the former.
It seems to be commonplace for these anti-civil rights groups to simply heap lies and distortions as high as possible in the smug belief that either no one will check their “facts”, or won’t be able to refute all of their “facts” in a seven second sound bite. The hubris of these groups knows no bounds, nor does their hostility toward the right to keep and bear arms. Given these groups are attacking our civil rights, I personally consider them to be hate groups, and I long for the day when we can prosecute them as such.
Until next time!!!
Washington Semi-Auto Ban Proposed
The forces of tyranny are hard at work in the state of Washington. A new statewide semi-auto ban is being proposed by three Democratic representatives (Rep. Ross Hunter, D-Medina; Sen. Adam Kline, D-Seattle; and Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles, D-Seattle). The proposed legislations, called the “Aaron Sullivan Public Safety and Police Protection Bill, would prohibit the sale of such weapons to private citizens and require current owners to pass background checks.” The excuse this time is one murder allegedly involving an “assault weapon” and the slaying of one police officer with a .223 caliber “semi-automatic rifle”. The gun banners hit all of the normal talking points, so let’s look at their “arguments” one by one:
“The ban would cover semiautomatics designed for military use that are capable of rapid-fire and can hold more than 10 rounds. Semiautomatics designed for sporting or hunting purposes wouldn't be banned.
“"If they're used in the army, used in the war — that's what this ban is about," said Ralph Fascitelli, the board president of Washington Ceasefire.”
How many glaring issues can you see at this point? First off, what is “rapid fire”? There is no such term outside the twisted ignorance of the gun banner mentality. All semi automatic weapons, whether they are magazine fed or internally fed fire at exactly the same rate – i.e. just as fast as you can pull the trigger. Furthermore, virtually NONE of the semi-automatics available for sale today are “used in the army” as they aren’t capable of fully-automatic or burst fire. It’s interesting that under this definition, the World War II vintage M1 carbine would also be illegal in Washington since it WAS actually “used in the army”, “used in war”, and is a semi-automatic designed for military use. Ironically the Federal Government has supplied M1 Carbines to the general public through DCM and now CMP for decades. Of course, this also ignores the fact that the Second Amendment ISN’T about hunting, which is the most common mistake made by the anti-gun crowd.
Representative Hunter states:
"We don't allow people to own tanks or bazookas or machine guns, and very few people think that that's an unreasonable restriction."
Well, that’s not entirely correct. First off, you CAN own a machine gun in many states as long as it is registered with the BATFE. You can also own many “destructive devices” again, if they’re registered with the BATFE. However, the capability of a fully automatic machine gun or large caliber gun outstrips the capability of a semi-automatic firearm by orders of magnitude. Another fact that’s interesting to note is, for example, the M1 Garand would be allowed under this ban, and in terms of stopping power, the M1 Garand completely outstrips the semi-automatic AR-15 and AK-47. So this clearly isn’t about the level of effectiveness of the weapon.
“Kohl-Welles said the lawmakers are trying to be practical and aren't suggesting guns be taken from current owners.
"What we're trying to get at is there's no place to have sales of military assault rifles or weapons in this state," she said.
“She also said she doesn't believe such a ban would violate the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms.
"Did the framers of our Constitution ever envision something like a semi-automatic weapon?" she asked.”
Perhaps not, but the framers of our Constitution did envision corrupt politicians seeking to disarm the populace to ensure absolute control over their lives. THAT’S what the Second Amendment was all about. The Framers feared government run amok, and saw an armed populace as the surest bulwark against that eventuality. Kohl-Welles’ comments demonstrate the hubris of those opposed to our right to self defense. She clearly sets herself up above the populace by deeming what does and does not have a “place” in the state of Washington. Her half-hearted “we’re not trying to take away anyone’s guns” comment also reeks of deception and hypocrisy. That is, quite frankly, exactly what they’re trying to do.
If you live in Washington, I strongly urge you to stand up to these petty tyrants first by encouraging your state representatives and senators to vote this legislation down. Second, I urge all eligible voters to begin a recall campaign on all three of these individuals as they are in criminal violation of Section 24 of the Washington State Constitution. It’s clear to me that the only way to end the abuses of these "officials" is to ensure that there are consequences for their illegal power grabs. To those of you in Washington, I wish you all the best as you ward off yet another attack on your inalienable rights.
Until next time!!!
“The ban would cover semiautomatics designed for military use that are capable of rapid-fire and can hold more than 10 rounds. Semiautomatics designed for sporting or hunting purposes wouldn't be banned.
“"If they're used in the army, used in the war — that's what this ban is about," said Ralph Fascitelli, the board president of Washington Ceasefire.”
How many glaring issues can you see at this point? First off, what is “rapid fire”? There is no such term outside the twisted ignorance of the gun banner mentality. All semi automatic weapons, whether they are magazine fed or internally fed fire at exactly the same rate – i.e. just as fast as you can pull the trigger. Furthermore, virtually NONE of the semi-automatics available for sale today are “used in the army” as they aren’t capable of fully-automatic or burst fire. It’s interesting that under this definition, the World War II vintage M1 carbine would also be illegal in Washington since it WAS actually “used in the army”, “used in war”, and is a semi-automatic designed for military use. Ironically the Federal Government has supplied M1 Carbines to the general public through DCM and now CMP for decades. Of course, this also ignores the fact that the Second Amendment ISN’T about hunting, which is the most common mistake made by the anti-gun crowd.
Representative Hunter states:
"We don't allow people to own tanks or bazookas or machine guns, and very few people think that that's an unreasonable restriction."
Well, that’s not entirely correct. First off, you CAN own a machine gun in many states as long as it is registered with the BATFE. You can also own many “destructive devices” again, if they’re registered with the BATFE. However, the capability of a fully automatic machine gun or large caliber gun outstrips the capability of a semi-automatic firearm by orders of magnitude. Another fact that’s interesting to note is, for example, the M1 Garand would be allowed under this ban, and in terms of stopping power, the M1 Garand completely outstrips the semi-automatic AR-15 and AK-47. So this clearly isn’t about the level of effectiveness of the weapon.
“Kohl-Welles said the lawmakers are trying to be practical and aren't suggesting guns be taken from current owners.
"What we're trying to get at is there's no place to have sales of military assault rifles or weapons in this state," she said.
“She also said she doesn't believe such a ban would violate the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms.
"Did the framers of our Constitution ever envision something like a semi-automatic weapon?" she asked.”
Perhaps not, but the framers of our Constitution did envision corrupt politicians seeking to disarm the populace to ensure absolute control over their lives. THAT’S what the Second Amendment was all about. The Framers feared government run amok, and saw an armed populace as the surest bulwark against that eventuality. Kohl-Welles’ comments demonstrate the hubris of those opposed to our right to self defense. She clearly sets herself up above the populace by deeming what does and does not have a “place” in the state of Washington. Her half-hearted “we’re not trying to take away anyone’s guns” comment also reeks of deception and hypocrisy. That is, quite frankly, exactly what they’re trying to do.
If you live in Washington, I strongly urge you to stand up to these petty tyrants first by encouraging your state representatives and senators to vote this legislation down. Second, I urge all eligible voters to begin a recall campaign on all three of these individuals as they are in criminal violation of Section 24 of the Washington State Constitution. It’s clear to me that the only way to end the abuses of these "officials" is to ensure that there are consequences for their illegal power grabs. To those of you in Washington, I wish you all the best as you ward off yet another attack on your inalienable rights.
Until next time!!!
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Hunters Feed Hungry – PETA Cries Foul
The Washington Post recently ran an article on how hunting groups are donating deer meat to feed the hungry at homeless shelters. Unfortunately they felt compelled to include the opinions of so-called “animal rights” extremists as a counterpoint into an otherwise excellent example of hunters giving back to the community. With the Department of Agriculture reporting that upwards of 50 million people are struggling with hunger in America, I think it’s a credit to hunters everywhere that these organizations are donating meat.
According to the article:
“One doe can feed up to 200 people," said Richard Satterfield, a hunter and supporter of the food ministry. "They are high-protein, low-fat, very nutritious. And there are plenty of them, so there's no reason for anyone to go hungry in this country."
In fact, much of the donated meat comes from hunts approved to reduce out-of-control deer populations in urban and suburban areas. PETA argues that sterilization would be more ‘humane” and “effective” – though numerous reports have shown that such measures are not only ineffective, but prohibitively expensive as well.
It just goes to show the sort of unbalanced extremist mentality espoused by the “animal rights” groups. In their mind it’s okay for millions of human beings to go hungry, but it’s not okay to kill a prey animal. I honestly wonder if they realize how many rabbits and other 4-legged pests have to be killed for their “organic” and “vegetarian” diets to actually reach the table. Something tells me they have no clue. . . period.
Honestly, there is no group that has done more to preserve wildlife and preserve wildlife habitat than the American hunter. When the wild turkey was nearly extinct, it wasn’t legislation that brought it back – it was hunters - not the WWF, not PETA, not the Sierra Club. At some point these groups are going to lose their ability to fool people, but until then the American hunter will continue to act as steward of the land.
Until next time!!!
According to the article:
“One doe can feed up to 200 people," said Richard Satterfield, a hunter and supporter of the food ministry. "They are high-protein, low-fat, very nutritious. And there are plenty of them, so there's no reason for anyone to go hungry in this country."
In fact, much of the donated meat comes from hunts approved to reduce out-of-control deer populations in urban and suburban areas. PETA argues that sterilization would be more ‘humane” and “effective” – though numerous reports have shown that such measures are not only ineffective, but prohibitively expensive as well.
It just goes to show the sort of unbalanced extremist mentality espoused by the “animal rights” groups. In their mind it’s okay for millions of human beings to go hungry, but it’s not okay to kill a prey animal. I honestly wonder if they realize how many rabbits and other 4-legged pests have to be killed for their “organic” and “vegetarian” diets to actually reach the table. Something tells me they have no clue. . . period.
Honestly, there is no group that has done more to preserve wildlife and preserve wildlife habitat than the American hunter. When the wild turkey was nearly extinct, it wasn’t legislation that brought it back – it was hunters - not the WWF, not PETA, not the Sierra Club. At some point these groups are going to lose their ability to fool people, but until then the American hunter will continue to act as steward of the land.
Until next time!!!
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
My Letter on McDonald
Just in case you’re wondering – here’s the letter I’ve sent to my Representatives and Senators on McDonald:
McDonald v. City of Chicago, a pivotal civil rights case, is coming before the Supreme Court in March 2010. The Framers recognized that the right to self-defense is as fundamental a human right as freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Unfortunately, years of misguided legislation has led to that right being infringed upon in many parts of our nation. McDonald provides a unique opportunity to restore this inalienable right to all Americans.
Several briefs have been filed in support of incorporation of the Second Amendment under the Fourteenth Amendment. One of these has been submitted by the NRA, and it is currently backed by an overwhelming bi-partisan majority of both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Unfortunately, I do not see your name as a supporter of this critical brief. I strongly encourage you to join your peers and make a strong stand in support of the Second Amendment by signing the amici curiae brief.
This issue is incredibly important not only to me, but to America as a whole. Your stance on this issue will factor heavily in my electoral choices in 2010 and beyond.
Until next time!!!
McDonald v. City of Chicago, a pivotal civil rights case, is coming before the Supreme Court in March 2010. The Framers recognized that the right to self-defense is as fundamental a human right as freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Unfortunately, years of misguided legislation has led to that right being infringed upon in many parts of our nation. McDonald provides a unique opportunity to restore this inalienable right to all Americans.
Several briefs have been filed in support of incorporation of the Second Amendment under the Fourteenth Amendment. One of these has been submitted by the NRA, and it is currently backed by an overwhelming bi-partisan majority of both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Unfortunately, I do not see your name as a supporter of this critical brief. I strongly encourage you to join your peers and make a strong stand in support of the Second Amendment by signing the amici curiae brief.
This issue is incredibly important not only to me, but to America as a whole. Your stance on this issue will factor heavily in my electoral choices in 2010 and beyond.
Until next time!!!
Merkley “Responds” on McDonald
Further cementing my opinion that Merkley is merely a party mouthpiece with absolutely no business being in the Senate, I’ve received a response to my email regarding the upcoming McDonald case. Unlike Representative Wu who actually responded to the issue, this is what Merkley’s automated system mailed back:
“Recently, I received the email you sent to my office through a third-party organization. I appreciate you taking the time to get in touch and please be assured that I closely review the thoughts expressed in such emails. I know that these third-party emails can be a useful tool to communicate your opinions.
“If you would like to expand on the email I received through the third party, please feel free to contact me directly by using the webform at http://merkley.senate.gov/contact to send me an email. I value your personal stories and insights into the issues facing our state and the nation.
“You can also visit my website at www.merkley.senate.gov for more information about my positions and to learn how my office can further assist you.
“It is an honor to serve as your Senator, and I look forward to hearing from you again in the future.”
Translation – I didn’t read your mail. I don’t care about what you said. I don’t care what you think. I’m not beholden to you or your views.
I have a half mind to resubmit the letter using his form and see if I get a different response. It’s clear that Merkley filters his mail and only accepts emails from sources that are deemed ideologically pure by his party masters. Quite frankly, I’m disgusted.
Until next time!!!
“Recently, I received the email you sent to my office through a third-party organization. I appreciate you taking the time to get in touch and please be assured that I closely review the thoughts expressed in such emails. I know that these third-party emails can be a useful tool to communicate your opinions.
“If you would like to expand on the email I received through the third party, please feel free to contact me directly by using the webform at http://merkley.senate.gov/contact to send me an email. I value your personal stories and insights into the issues facing our state and the nation.
“You can also visit my website at www.merkley.senate.gov for more information about my positions and to learn how my office can further assist you.
“It is an honor to serve as your Senator, and I look forward to hearing from you again in the future.”
Translation – I didn’t read your mail. I don’t care about what you said. I don’t care what you think. I’m not beholden to you or your views.
I have a half mind to resubmit the letter using his form and see if I get a different response. It’s clear that Merkley filters his mail and only accepts emails from sources that are deemed ideologically pure by his party masters. Quite frankly, I’m disgusted.
Until next time!!!
Monday, December 14, 2009
Police Shootings Up in 2009
According to a recent article on MSNBC, the number of police officers killed in the line of duty by individuals wielding firearms has risen roughly 24% from 2008. The actual raw numbers are, thankfully, still fairly low. To date 47 officers have been killed in 2009 as compared to 38 at this time last year. Given the article was from MSNBC, I expected the rest of it to be a hit piece calling for sweeping gun-control legislation, but I honestly was pleasantly surprised. According to the article:
“The availability of guns compounds the problem, criminologists say. But Pennsylvania, the state with the most gun-related officer deaths so far this year, has among the strictest gun laws in the country, according to a ranking by the pro-gun-control Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. Other states, like Louisiana, Oklahoma and Kentucky, have very little oversight and had few, if any, officer gun deaths this year.”
I honestly don’t believe that those numbers are an aberration. Time and again we see the worst murder and violent crime rates in areas with the strictest gun control. Strict gun control only emboldens violent offenders. The article goes on to state:
“Kevin Morison, a spokesman for the Officers Memorial Fund, which keeps the statistics, said he sees people on both sides of the gun debate using the numbers to prove points.
"But folks who are willing to intentionally target police officers seem to be able to find a way to accrue guns regardless of what the laws in those state would be," Morison said.”
That’s a refreshing dose of honesty, and it underscores the point that criminals do not, have never, and will never care about the law. They see themselves as above the law, at best, or simply use the law to further their aims.
The article credits bulletproof vests and other life-saving techniques for the general decline in police officer fatalities over the past several years. The police have a very dangerous job, and hopefully this year’s increase in fatalities is an aberration. The current state of the economy with rising unemployment can’t be helping the situation either!
Until next time!!!
“The availability of guns compounds the problem, criminologists say. But Pennsylvania, the state with the most gun-related officer deaths so far this year, has among the strictest gun laws in the country, according to a ranking by the pro-gun-control Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. Other states, like Louisiana, Oklahoma and Kentucky, have very little oversight and had few, if any, officer gun deaths this year.”
I honestly don’t believe that those numbers are an aberration. Time and again we see the worst murder and violent crime rates in areas with the strictest gun control. Strict gun control only emboldens violent offenders. The article goes on to state:
“Kevin Morison, a spokesman for the Officers Memorial Fund, which keeps the statistics, said he sees people on both sides of the gun debate using the numbers to prove points.
"But folks who are willing to intentionally target police officers seem to be able to find a way to accrue guns regardless of what the laws in those state would be," Morison said.”
That’s a refreshing dose of honesty, and it underscores the point that criminals do not, have never, and will never care about the law. They see themselves as above the law, at best, or simply use the law to further their aims.
The article credits bulletproof vests and other life-saving techniques for the general decline in police officer fatalities over the past several years. The police have a very dangerous job, and hopefully this year’s increase in fatalities is an aberration. The current state of the economy with rising unemployment can’t be helping the situation either!
Until next time!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
