Google Chrome saves lives. Ban Internet Explorer! If it saves just one life.
Month: January 2013
Anti-Gun Bills Moving in the Senate
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) plans to mark up a gun control bill in his panel as early as February, aides said. Leahy, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) — who will play a leading role on the issue — hope to send the bill to the floor soon after that.
My guess is they want to get a bill to the House before the State of the Union, so President Obama can dare the Republicans not to pass it. What will be in the bill? I don’t know. But we’ll have our people there testifying. Interesting that a movement supposedly made up of old white guys has three people testifying, and only one of them is an old white guy.
Did Katie Glueck of Politico Even Think of Consulting Gun Experts?
This photo show is so bad I don’t even know where to begin, and even basic facts and understanding about guns and gun regulations are completely missing. . I will endeavor to educate Ms. Glueck, so let’s start with the first slide. Go ahead and pull that puppy up, and we’ll go through slide-by-slide:
1st Slide
A big photo of Mikhail Kalashnikov holding what is definitely not a Chinese-made semi-auto AK. That’s a full auto AK old Mikhail is holding. The actually Poly-Technology AK is not in danger of being “banned again,” because it has never been unbanned. There’s an embargo against Chinese military goods entering the US that’s been in place since the 90s.
2nd Slide
Semi-automatic versions of the Galil are sold on the US market, but they do not shoot “630-750 rounds a minute.” Machine guns do that, and we know that civilians can’t own machine guns. Full-auto Galils have never been lawful to import into this country for civilian use. They were introduced in 1972, four years after the Gun Control Act banned importation of new machine guns for civilians.
3rd Slide
Hey, she got one right. That looks like a carbine version of the Uzi, with the requisite 16 inch barrel, to make it lawful to have a shoulder stock on it. The should stock shown looks to be a collapsing stock, which would have made it an “assault weapon” under the 1994 law.
4th Slide
The Beretta AR70. There was a “Sport” model that was briefly available on the US market, but I don’t think Beretta ever resumed production, and they are rare as hens teeth. So yes, it was banned, a straight up renewal of the 1994 wouldn’t change anything because it’s not manufactured currently.
5th Slide
That looks about what the Colt AR-15 looked like when it was introduced in the 1960s, but unless you buy one of the totally retro models on the market today they don’t look like that. And the M203 40mm Grenade Launcher is a destructive device and highly restricted, and so is its ammunition. You can certainly, as a civilian, mount a coast guard approved flare launcher to your AR, because it looks badass and all, but you’re not getting a hold of a grenade launcher at Joe’s gun shop.
6th Slide
This is a Styer AUG. With a straight up renewal of the federal assault weapons ban, this particular rifle would not be banned. No bayonet lug, no flash hider. Good to go. Under a one feature test, it would be covered, which means this gun would be banned for the first time. It was never banned, ever. Imported AUGs are currently banned, and have been since the 90s, but they are being manufactured domestically now. So any way you look at this, it’s wrong.
7th Slide
She apparently did not know that the firearm she linked to is a restricted NFA item. It is a transferrable machine pistol, which have been banned form new production since 1986. No one is proposing eliminating the NFA grandfathering for machine guns (yet).
8th Slide
Total FAIL! What’s pictured is an FN P90, not a FAL. This does not even look like the civilian legal semi-auto PS90, as the barrel is too short. This is a fully automatic firearm that has never been available to civilians. She notes that the gun pictures is “one member of the FN family,” as in FN makes the gun pictured. But it is in no, way, shape or form related to the FAL.
9th Slide
When reporters speak of semiautomatic and “spray bullets” in the same sentence, they only reveal a glaring ignorance. And the TEC-9 is no longer being produced. The semi-automatic variants that fire from a closed bolt weren’t that reliable.
10th Slide
Total FAIL! Revolving cylinder shotguns were reclassified as destructive devices in the 1990s. They are NFA items and not easily available to civilians. As far as I know they are no longer being manufactured.
Why Gun Rights and Hating on Gays Don’t Mix
It can get you sued, and discovery is a bitch. I’m glad I’ve never had anything to do with NAGR or RMGO.
Gun Control March
I have been looking for true crowd shots to verify the media claims that thousands packed DC to call for more gun control. The closest I can find is one from NBC that shows a few hundred at most.
Interestingly, the organizers are trying to say that it was a completely grassroots event, yet it had the backing of the Obama Administration with the presence of a Cabinet member who spoke.
I also find it notable that for political purposes, it seems rather silly to have hosted their march the day after the March for Life which really does draw thousands to march on DC. Of course, I won’t interrupt the anti-gunners in their attempts to make their own numbers look even smaller than they really are.
Anti-Gun Folks Still Want to Believe NRA’s Numbers are BS?
NRA reaches 2.1 million “Likes” on Facebook:
Not bad for a movement composed of a bunch of old fat white guys, eh? So either the antis have to believe that a lot of OFWGs are on Facebook, or that perhaps this movement is a bit more diverse than is often credited.
We Bring You This Public Service Announcement…
A Democratic Sheriff is running a PSA in Milwaukee on the need to be ready to defend yourself. From Firearms & Freedom, who actually heard the ad yesterday, we get this kind of message:
Consider taking a certified safety course in handling a firearm so you can defend yourself until we get there.
You have a duty to protect yourself and your family.
Go read the entire transcript.
UPDATE: You can also go listen to the whole PSA.
How We Got Here, Part II: The Political Struggle
This is the second part of my “How We Got Here” here series. You can read part one here. The first series covered the cultural reasons we find ourselves in the present situation. While the cultural situation goes in-part with the political situation, the two are distinct enough I thought they warranted separate posts.
The gun movement went into the 1990s weak. Despite having won a major overhaul of the Gun Control Act in 1986, the movement suffered a number of setbacks on the cultural front and suffered from internal divisions. It emerged out of the 1990s much stronger and more unified, in large part because of spending most of the decade under unrelenting attack. But being attacked has a way of sharpening people’s focus, and giving them clarity. Bill Clinton acknowledged the assault weapons ban cost him Congress. The Democrats believed, with merit, that Al Gore lost in part because of his calls for even more draconian gun control. Then John Kerry, despite actually being a lifelong hunter (though in favor of gun control), became the dog that don’t hunt. The 2004 victory convinced many Democrats that gun control was a lost cause and a losing issue.
The Democrats would crawl their way back to a majority in 2006 using the Blue Dog strategy; the idea of running candidates that were suited for their local districts, which included being pro-gun if that was a necessary factor. The Democratic takeover in 2006 did not become an immediate harbinger of gun control because the progressives had Blue Dogs at the right flank of their majority that needed protection. As long as this was the case, progressives were going to lay off gun control. The Heller victory only added to the momentum. I think the Blue Dog strategy would have held, and been a viable means of keeping their majority. But then came the 2008 elections.
I think not turning out for McCain was probably the biggest mistake gun owners have ever made politically. Was McCain with us 100%? No. But he was consistent with where he wasn’t with us and as much as I might have disagreed with his stance on private sales and gun shows, he was far and away better than Mitt Romney. McCain has consistently opposed gun bans. McCain’s defeat got us Mitt Romney in 2012, and it also got us Barack Obama, who is indeed the transformative figure he claimed to be. McCain’s defeat also ensured that we failed to pick up two more votes for the Second Amendment on the Supreme Court.
The first act of Barack Obama was not gun control. In fact, Obama signed two easements of gun control, though they were attached to “must pass” pieces of legislation. We achieved this because the Blue Dog strategy was working for us. With a Democratic Congress, we were getting around an anti-gun Democratic President. But unfortunately, Obama decided to start spending the country into bankruptcy, decided that the middle of all this debt, coupled with a financial crisis, it was a great time to ram a massive new, and highly unpopular entitlement through Congress. This pissed off enough people that the Blue Dog strategy was doomed, an outcome I think the President was fine with as long as he got his bill. In 2010, despite NRA endorsements for many pro-gun Democrats, most of them got taken down on other issues. Harry Reid didn’t receive an endorsement, despite helping us legislatively, largely because of pressure from members who were angry at Democrats for reasons completely unrelated to guns. The tidal wave that came crashing down on Blue Dogs was beyond NRA’s ability to stop. Obama had eaten the Blue Dogs to get health care.
After 2010, with Blue Dogs an endangered species, the dynamic changed, but not greatly. We suddenly ran into trouble getting pro-gun legislation through the Senate, but that was it. We still did not see gun control because Obama was well aware of our political clout, and he would soon face re-election. The 2012 election was a watershed event because not only did Obama win re-election, but he won with a coalition that was composed mostly of the progressive left. He didn’t need moderates anymore. With the Blue Dog Democrats largely extinct, Obama was, and is, counting on having built a winning progressive-left coalition that can openly embrace gun control and not have to fear NRA at the polls. But is Obama correct?
Well, Bill Clinton, whose political instincts I think are keener than Obama’s, certainly isn’t sure. If NRA was weakened, it was weakened by politicians largely ignoring the gun issue, and also by having two lackluster candidates (on guns, at least) at the top of the ticket the last two elections. There wasn’t a whole lot of reasons for gun owners to get excited, or worried, until now. But is Obama only awakening a sleeping giant? It’s my opinion that he is, and he might be crazy, but is he crazy like a fox?
If more Democrats vote with us in this current struggle, but lose anyway, well, that’s just another example that NRA is useless at protecting pro-gun Democrats. I don’t think Obama would object to that narrative. If more Democrats vote with us and win, well, he wins there too because his party’s majority might hold in the Senate. If he gets a few Republicans to join him on gun control? Those Republicans will be weakened by it. Win there too. If Republicans block all his measures? He’ll use that issue in swing districts in 2014 to try to pick up some house seats current occupied by GOP reps in Democratic leaning, liberal districts. Pressing the issue is easier when there’s money behind it, and many of us are about to find out for the first time what happens when there is.
Obama is betting his coalition will, long term, drive Democratic left-wing majorities that don’t have to give a crap about what the rednecks and rubes in flyover country think. The Blue Dog strategy is dead, and we are reliant on the Republicans to protect our rights. We would have been far better off with a bipartisan consensus on this issue, and I think it was within reach, but in the age of Barack Obama, it wasn’t going to be possible. Ultimately, we are here because the Blue Dog strategy was not going to work for where Barack Obama wants to take America, so he laid waste to it and then won re-election. Gun rights is the only coalition Barack Obama and his machine have not really tangled with seriously. Will he beat us too? That remains to be seen, and largely depends on us.
The Evolving Definition of “Assault Weapon”
Reason posted a video highlighting the stupidity of Congressional hearings that try to squash pop culture via things like rock music and video games that will harm our kids – like the 1992 version of Mortal Kombat.
I watched it with a laugh, but then I caught a key moment from a 1993 hearing where former Sen. Joe Lieberman defined assault weapon. When shown a Nintendo Super Scope, Sen. Lieberman said, “To me, that looks like a, it looks like an assault weapon of some kind.”
That is what Sen. Lieberman believes a so-called assault weapon looks like. A giant tube of plastic that has no real shape was lumped in as an “assault weapon” in 1993. And don’t think that it was just commentary of an old out-of-touch man rambling to no one. This was a lawmaker looking to ban the giant tube of plastic and the games it was used with at the time.
The Fallout from the Eastern Sports & Outdoor Show Cancellation
At this point, the headline about the British company that tried to force American hunters to give up showcasing their guns at an outdoor show has made a nationwide splash and managed to make a few headlines overseas. Here in Pennsylvania, the fallout is huge. It’s even spreading into the political world with condemnations of Reed’s decision.
Rep. Tom Marino, who represents the area around Harrisburg, put out a statement that chastises Reed for their attack on the Second Amendment and notes how much it hurts the local economy. It’s estimated to be a loss of about $74 million in the local economy and in support of the non-profits that raise money and sign up memberships at the ESOS.
…despite the assertions by Reed that the decision to exclude modern sporting rifles and certain magazines only “affected a small percentage of more than 1,000 exhibits,†its impact is in fact far greater than that. The decision represents yet another attempt to undermine protections guaranteed to all Americans under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and it restricts the ability for law-abiding citizens to purchase legal firearms that are increasingly being used for hunting in a number of states.
He’s not the only lawmaker speaking out. State Rep. Tommy Sankey submitted an op-ed on the situation and noted that it’s the free market at work.
While I am not happy with this development, the show is a result of free market capitalism, one system in America that thankfully is not broken. In organizing the event, Reed Exhibitions has every right to limit the sale or display of modern sporting rifles (also referred to as ARs). Its officials call the shots (no pun intended) and must do what they feel is best, keeping in mind their bottom line.
The vendors who consider participation in the show also have a right – the right to withdraw and not participate for whatever reason they see fit. In this case, they used their wallet to speak out against Reed Exhibitions’ policy. The result was obviously enough to impact the show’s viability. …
In the case of the Eastern Sports and Outdoor Show, the system worked. It’s a simple case of supply and demand. The people have spoken, as they should.
It did work. Now, hopefully, someone will see a significant profit motive to offer up a nice alternative that pulls the community together in the same way, but without the gun bans that Reed endorsed.
That said, we have now also learned that Bass Pro Shops in Harrisburg will apparently host a set-up the non-profits who were screwed over by Reed’s decisions the entire time the ESOS was scheduled.