So Sebastian posted an NPR show where Robert Levy debated Paul Helmke, and a “Pro Gun Blogger” that happened to be an anti-gun shill. I noticed when listening to the interview that Helmke and his plant Tracee Larson, said the word “Clip” every single time they talked about firearm magazines. Even when they said the word magazine, they corrected themselves with the word “Clip”. Carolyn McCarthy talks about “Clips” when pushing her legislation, Then and Now. You can also see an incessant use of the word “Clip” even over at Joan Peterson’s web page.
Well with all this talk of banning High Capacity Clips, I decided to stop at the gun show and stock up on high-capacity 30-round Clips for my SKS
Ban them all you want antis, I’m stocked up!
Thanks to Graphical Wizard Robb Allen for making my dream come true!
Some people have said that anti-rights activists aren’t stupid but mentally ill. I respect both these bloggers, and I respect their opinions, but I must say that I think the only explanation is stupidity.
Or ” How many deaths will it take ’til he knows that too many people have died”? This verse as sung by Peter,Paul and Mary in “Blowin’ In the Wind” still has meaning today.
She even links to a live performance of Peter Paul And Mary where they sing the lyric:
How many times must the cannonballs fly, before they are forever banned
Pat caught it, and Joan Responded:
Pat- I should have known that one of you would distort the message.
heh, can you argue that she’s anything but stupid? Also I must say you need to totally be zonked out on Goof-Balls (or reflect on a time when you were) to like that horrible Peter Paul and Marry bullshit. The Origonal Dylan Version is where its at!
Bob has a post up showing how the gun lobby puppet-blogs claim to be blogging for a common-ground. First up they only talk Brady and Joyce boilerplate, and while they claim they are not blogging directly for the organization they are members of, and their commentary is their personal words only, you’ll be hard pressed to find stated differences of opinion or independent discussion with commentators. And while they talk common ground and compromise, they seem to have nothing of the sort to offer.
Frankly I think the blogs are a fishing expedition (maybe phising, because it IS a scam afterall). they are looking to see where WE are willing to compromise. In 1994 the Federal Assault Weapons ban passed with bipartisan support. Why? Well guns like the AR-15, and Kalashnikov rifle weren’t terribly common in the civilian world. there were semi-auto rifles, but they were military surplus guns like the M1 Carbine and M1 Garand, as well as various auto-loading hunting guns. The ban didn’t touch these guns. Also Guns like the Glock 17 and Beretta 92 were gaining popularity, but they hadn’t yet surplanted the common workhorse handguns at the time that were guns like the M1911, various revolvers like the S&W Model 10, and the Colt Detective special, and Python, or the massive stable of H&R revolvers, or the Walther P38, PP, and PPK, or the many FN Browning auto-pistols, and their colt copies. Really the only “High Capacity” pistol that had been around, and in wide circulation at the time was the Browning Hi-Power, and its standard capacity of 13 rounds.
It also appeared the the vast majority of gun owners in America were hunters, who were comfortable with walnut stock bolt-actions, and magazine restrictions.
So there it went, a Pistol grip was considered a “Dangerous Feature” and was distinguished from the more traditional stock of the rifles of the time (They later made up their reasons for this restriction by citing some nonsense of “Spraying from the hip” which makes no sense to anybody who has ever held one of these guns) They added bayonet lugs, even tho it invoked jokes of “Drive-by-bayonettings”, but made sure it wasn’t a disqualifier alone. You’d hate to vilify those M1 Carbines, and M1 Garands, people might start questioning the law. There was talk of grenade launchers, but they didn’t clarify that they weren’t the ones you’re thinking of.
The list goes on and on, but along with confusion on what semi-auto vs. Full-auto meant, overall the gun owning community of 1994 agreed that we didn’t really NEED guns like AR-15s floating around…I mean its not like you can shoot ducks with them, and it would do more harm than good to “Machine Gun” a deer.
To some extent the ban was a GOOD thing, as it woke up many shooters. Some people decided that if something was going to be illegal tomorrow, they might as well buy a few today. People started shooting guns like the AR-15 and found that not only are they fun to shoot, but they’re pretty darn accurate. The modular industry has even gone so far as to build variants specifically for hunting.
Also hunters have noticed that things like lead ammo bans, and bans on “Armor piercing” ammo, as well as restrictions on who can hold an 01 FFL has lead to great harm to their sport even in its traditional sense.
This has lead groups like the Brady Campaign down a trail of tears of major political losses, and massive budget shortfalls. Also it has often landed them in severe disadvantages when speaking with their former darlings in the media.
I suspect these new blogs are an attempt to fish for the new Gun-owner preferred ban. Maybe they can get us to complain about “Armor Piercing ammo”, or maybe lead in the water supply, or maybe they can get us to admit its no big deal if we have to go into an FFL to buy and sell our guns. Or how about things like this notice how this guy passes off the 15 round magazine (one that was restricted by the previous ban) as a contrast to the 33 round magazine. Maybe we like our 15 or 17 round magazines, but we might be willing to give up our 20 and 30s?
Of course if this is the plan it’s backfired! Instead of us offering more of our freedom, we have stood unified that we’re done giving, and now is the time to take back our rights. The only consistent statement for a new law would be opening up the NICS system to the general population, taking power away from the FFLs, and giving it to us.
And they point out that they are not interested in compromise, and aren’t interested in saving lives, or making us safer. They say they aren’t here to ban guns…..because they don’t want to take ALL the guns….of course they won’t say which guns they think are OK to use….
Good work, and keep fighting.
There’s a well known Troll who likes to move the goal posts, and has often declared we can’t compare cars and guns. We just can’t, no reason given we just can’t.
An 80-year-old central New York man who served prison time for a beating death in the 1960s is facing up to 18 years behind bars for killing a man in a road-rage accident…In November 2009, authorities said LeVea was drunk when he used his vehicle to repeatedly ram the pickup truck driven by 41-year-old Christopher Spack of Camillus, causing him to crash into another truck. Spack was killed in the collision.
So much right in that one story. We have a violent ex-con who was sentenced for a beating death (another story for the “Gun Death?” files), he’s 80 years old…it ain’t just the young ones. He was driving drunk, also illegal, and he used his vehicle to kill another man.
This is the world the Anti-Rights activists want for us. I don’t want to live there!
h/t Zercool
man a great monologue, too bad you didn’t use a single fact when writing it!
Nothing like a Comedian who can’t stimulate and laugh, huh?
For those who have been reading me for a good while you’ll note that this is a Redux of an older post I did back on my Livejournal. Of course Livejournal sucks for blogging, and that post is difficult to find, plus this subject is getting a lot of play given the talk about “High-Capacity” magazines in the aftermath of the Arizona Shooting.
As a general rule most gun laws are redundant, like banning carry to curb violent acts that are all read criminal, or banning private sales to keep criminals from getting guns which is already a crime. Or what I call “The Numbers Game”.
The best example is magazine restrictions. One of the greatest examples of this is the S&W4006 handgun. It was introduced in 1990 and was the debut handgun for the .40 S&W cartridge. I may be mistaken but I believe it was based on the 5906 Pistol The 5906 pistol was a 9x19mm pistol that had a standard capacity of 15 rounds. Because of the larger size of the .40 S&W round, the 4006 pistol had a standard capacity of 11 rounds.
I pick this gun because it was designed at the exact wrong place and wrong time, because in 1994 the Federal Assault Weapon ban was passed, which in part banned the sale of new magazines over 10 rounds to civilians. Given that the 4006 was a popular pistol for the 4 years it was unrestricted, there were lots of 11-round mags in the wild, that being said S&W overnight went from being able to sell 11-round magazines to the general market, to having to stamp “Law Enforcement Only” on the 11 rounders, and producing 10-round magazines for civilian sales.
Now let’s talk about the logistics of this. A 10 Round magazines is legal, but a magazine that holds ONE more is now a crime to own. Care to tell me what difference that new magazine causes? Here’s a better one, the person who bought a “Ban compliant” 4006 could load the 10-round magazine up, chamber a round, then drop the magazine and top it off. So the magazine holds 10, but the gun now is holding 11…
Of course this doesn’t make sense. Also it cost S&W a ton of money because they had to tool up new magazines that simply made it impossible for the owner to seat the last round. Today the 4006’s replacement is the M&P 40, which has a 15 round magazine in the full-size, and 10 rounds in the compact variant. The M&P 45 holds exactly 10 rounds. These numbers are intentional, S&W has prepared for a new ban so that if they are going to make a non-compliant magazine, they’ll make the “High-Capacity” a significantly higher number than 10, or exactly 10.
This example can go on. How about the NFA ban on firearms with bores larger than .50 Caliber, or the similar California ban which expands the limit to .50. First up I’m curious what the exact definition is because the venerable .50 BMG actually has a bore of 0.510″. But let’s take that as an example, let’s say I make a wild-cat cartridge that blows out the case neck of a .50 BMG to 0.520″. A different of 1/100th of an inch, and a difference I don’t think anybody could tell without a micrometer, but one rifle is totally legal, while the other is illegal without a Federal Tax Stamp, and goofy paperwork. In California a similar idea actually exists. .50 Caliber firearms are banned for sale there, so Ron Barret invented the .416 Barret cartridge, which is ballistically VERY similar to the .50 BMG, but a slightly smaller bore. But we could technically go between them and still have a legal firearm. Even sillier, the ban makes no distinction on muzzle energy. So a new production rifle in the old .50-70 Buffalo cartridge, or Marlin’s Guide gun in .50 AE are illegal, but something in .416 Barret, or .460 Weatherby Magnum would be OK. You couldn’t buy a Desert Eagle in .50 AE, or a S&W .500 Magnum Revolver….but the same guns in .44 Magnum, or .460 Magnum respectively are perfectly legal.
What do these laws accomplish? Nothing, they picked an arbitrary line in the sand and somehow want you to respect it.
How about another NFA law. Rifles with barrels shorter than 16″, or shotguns shorter than 18″. First up why different barrel lengths for different long-arms? And why is a 16″ shotgun a crime, when a 16″ rifle is not? What’s the harm in a rifle with a barrel with the length of 15″? To further blur the line, it is perfectly legal to buy Pistols built off of rifle receivers that have short barrels, but no shoulder-stock. Of course this is ONLY legal if the receiver has NEVER been assembled as a rifle before. What does a piece of metal’s past have to do with anything?
Again an arbitrary line in the sand chosen for no scientific or logical reasons.
Don’t you think it would be common sense to follow laws that are drawn to do nothing but restrict freedoms?
So the office is closed, but somebody needs to check on the critters, and this weekend it’s me. I’ve decided to do a few sundry tasks while the office is empty, and while waiting for the machines to warm up its given me some time at my desk. So I decided to tidy up a bit. Look what I found.
I think the previous owner was makings a statement about apple products. I didn’t put the sticker there, but I don’t think I can disagree with them. 🙂
As I mentioned here Bob is given Joan Peterson of the Brady Campaign a beat down of…may I say “Biblical Proportions”? (And no, Bob isn’t making the rivers turn to blood, or turning people into pillars of salt…wouldn’t that be cool? FYI Bob, I’m rather partial to the raining of Frogs!) But Joan’s thrashing cries of submission are just too awesome.
Yes, Bob, all right. Killing happened in Biblical times. God tested some people by asking them to kill to see what they would do. I am not a literal interpreter of the Bible. I can see that you are. Please, stop asking me this. Go look after those little ones. There’s nothing better than that on a Sunday afternoon.
Let’s just pick at it a bit, because I was so amused by what was said here. First she openly admits that God Condoned killing in the Bible…but somehow implies that this no longer applies today. Does she belive that God no longer tests people? Or maybe God tests people only on more trivial levels, like to see if they’ll give the cashier back money when given improper change? She says she’s not a literal interpreter of the Bible, but she quotes this.
“The problem with Gundamentalism is that it is a distortion of the Biblical message. Gundamentalism creates suspicion and divides us one against the other. Rather than seeing every person as a child of God, created in God’s image and worthy of our respect and love, Gundamentalism encourages us to see each other as ‘the other’ someone against whom we must be armed, someone against whom we must be protected.”
Given that people in the bible DID walk around armed, and DID defend themselves from attack, as well as engage in war, and there is certainly no part of the bible that says these Biblical heros were in the wrong, who exactly is misinterpreting the Bible’s message?
Then comes the passive-aggressive nature of the Pro-Igorance Anti-Freedom lot. She doesn’t actually address Bob’s question, and In my opinion contradicted herself, then asks him not to ask again, and tells him he SHOULD be enjoying his Sunday afternoon away from her blog.
…but she approved his comment (as well as several others) and penned her response (As well as several others) on a Sunday Afternoon. Heh!
One of the greatest political speeches of all time, and one that rocked the world. Today is a day to reflect on these words, and also to note what some people have twisted these words to say.
I believe that his dream has 90% been achived, but its that other 10% that seems to be a sticky lot indeed. 100% is an impossibility, but here’s hoping for as close an achievement as we can.
If I may sully this day with pointing out some major flaws. The fact that this was simply a minor footnote in history, and something likely soon forgotten by most, I believe would have Doctor King spinning in his grave.
Let us heal, rather than harm.
