May you all have a happy and enjoyable Thanksgiving, and may your table be free of propagandists for the regime.
Of course, for hunters who don’t think their hunting guns are in any real danger should note this reaction from our favorite Brady Board member, who has been on a tear of inanity lately, and who I must credit for pointing me to this video:
The thing is, he mentioned at about 2:20 or so into the video that you could see the damage done to the soft tissue. Since we all know that no one is going to “carve” a turkey by shooting the raw bird, this reference must have been for how well one can inflict soft tissue damage on a human being. Or did he mean to a deer perhaps? Does one want to do a lot of soft tissue damage to a deer? What would be left of the deer for eating? I don’t know. I’m just asking. Why would he mention this at all? A .460 Magnum is a powerful gun all right. He made his point but he had to carry on for 4 minutes showing the slow motion video of the turkey exploding over and over again. I’m sure the video was meant to be funny. It’s pathetic actually.
In the interest in developing some holiday season understanding between the two sides, I will describe all this to our pearl-clutching opponent. The “humor” is that as soon as one mentions they have a rifle chambered in .460 Weatherby Magnum, which few would disagree deserves application of the term “elephant gun,” it becomes immediately apparent to the astute viewer what is about to transpire if the intended target is a turkey. That is, what we would technically call “way too much gun” for the intended target. The end result does not disappoint. All living things have what we would refer to as “soft tissue.” Hunters are very aware of what rifle bullets do to “soft tissue.” That your brain immediately drew the analogy to “human” says a lot more about you than it does about us, or Jerry Miculek, doesn’t it?
A good argument is happening in the comment section about the kinds of things that could possibly be attached to UFA renewal. Some things to keep in mind in that regard.
The Senate is still controlled by Democrats. If you start playing those games, you open up the possibility that our House additions get stripped off, and then they start trying to make their own additions. You’re also opening up the very real possibility that it escalates to big fight in the Senate on gun control. I don’t think MAIG and Brady have had any real success flipping votes on Manchin-Toomney, despite a lot of blustering, but I don’t really want to find out. Â How confident are we that when Schumer floats the restrictions on hobbyists doing gun smithing at home, that we’ll get 40 Senators who will to stand up to him? How confident are we that the “nuclear option” won’t come into play, and they can pass it with only 51 votes? How much do we trust the conference committee process that will work out the differences between the House and Senate versions?
We cannot attach anything to legislation. You have to have friendly politicians willing to go out on a limb to do that. It presumes that we have friends in the GOP who are willing to go out on that limb over the UFA. I don’t think we do. Certainly no more than we have GOP friends willing to get out on the “Repeal the NFA” limb. They aren’t going to risk a flight on the issue.
Everything is a political calculation. There are scarce few politicians in any legislative body that are true friends because they share our ideology. The vast majority are our friends because it is in their self-interest to be our friends. Even with the ones that are ideological friends, they still understand politics is a game. No office holder wants to start playing weak hands. There might be a chance of stopping UFA, but if it happens, it’s only because Congress is completely dysfunctional. They weren’t willing to play this card in 2003, so it’s hard to see why they’d want to now. That’s largely why I’d rather dig my heels in over Chuck Schumer and Steve Israel’s expansion proposals. If UFA is going to die as a whole, it’s either going to do so quietly, or it’s going to do so because the Democrats overreached and poisoned the well.
Despite the fact that it appears Evie Hudak is going to preemptively resignÂ in order to preserve Democratic control over the Senate, her resignation is still a significant victory for Colorado gun owners. She would still have her seat had the pressure not been applied. No politician wants to be faced with the loss of a seat, and I view her preemptive resignation as an act of desperation on the part of Colorado Democrats. It is indeed time to focus on 2014. If Colorado gun owners truly seek repeal, the current Democratic leadership, who gladly sold the state to the interests of the Obama Administration and the Mayor of New York City, has to be replaced.
At the very least, now having three heads makes it unlikely Colorado Democrats will seek to embrace more gun control for the foreseeable future.Â Hickenlooper would be a choice prize himself. I don’t know how possible that is, but unfortunately the Colorado GOP has a habit of backing lackluster candidates.
Yesterday, it was rumor that only if recall organizers in Colorado managed to force a recall that Sen. Evie Hudak would resign in exchange for special perks in choosing her replacement in the Senate and on her committee in order to keep the Democratic Party in charge in the Senate. That kind of naked power grab doesn’t sit well with many people, as evidenced by even the comments here on our report from yesterday’s rumor.
This morning, the local media picked up on the rumors, and suddenly Hudak announced that she is instead going to resign before the recall petition signatures are even due.
According to the early report, part of Hudak’s initial deal with Democratic Party leaders was that they would go all out for her to keep a recall from even happening. They certainly tried that by getting quite nasty with phone calls and lit drops that implied anyone signing the recall petitions was giving their personal information to sex offenders and criminals.
While Colorado’s Senate remains in the hands of Democrats for now, this is a prime opportunity to start focusing on 2014’s political punishment for backing gun control.
Reader Adam Z. sent along this report of political gossip in Colorado that Sen. Evie Hudak, the latest Democratic lawmaker up for recall, has agreed to resign if there are enough signatures to have an election.
Having a recall election is risky because it can apparently send the Colorado Senate into GOP hands, something the party wants to stop at all costs. By having Sen. Hudak resign instead of face recall, the Democrats get to appoint a successor and keep the Senate control. In exchange for her not risking the Party’s control, she would, according to the site, get a say in who replaces her.
I meant to post this yesterday, but forgot. For anyone who hasn’t yet heard about the video of the Monticello, NY Mayors Against Illegal Guns member who was arrested recently, well, you should go check out some of the video at Miguel’s blog.
However, for those of you who don’t have the time to run a video that runs about an hour and a half, I watched it for you. Here are the extra special highlights:
When the first officer comes in, Mayor Gordon Jenkins (who identifies himself several times in the video) reminds the officer that he got the officer his job in the first place and that he knows his family. It’s not really a coherent attempt at intimidation since the Mayor, to me, comes off as quite belligerent at this point.
Then, it gets really weird. He goes on about how he doesn’t care if he dies tomorrow before issuing a warning to the officer: “Be careful how you f***in f*** with people…just be careful how you f***in f*** with people.” That still falls into the belligerent territory in my opinion. However, when it starts getting into what people might interpret as real threats is where it gets interesting: “Down the road, you’re going to say, ‘Why did I do that to that man?’ and you’re going to pay for it.”
After ranting about the time he might serve in jail, he says this about his plans for his release: “Mayor or dog catcher, I’m going to be on your ass.”
The Mayor is held for a long time because they wanted to notify the Police Chief about his arrest so he could handle it. Unfortunate, the Chief was out hunting. When the Mayor is informed that the Chief is unavailable at that very moment, the Mayor’s response is this: “The chief’s got to pay for this.”
After a bit more time talking about how the officers “got to pay for this,” an officer finally asked him if he was issuing a threat. The Mayor claims he was not issuing a threat. However, the next major action in the video is the Mayor getting up out of his chair and using his free arm to rip a clock off the wall and throw it rather violently toward the front desk just outside of the room he’s held in. Seconds later, he kicks the chair he was sitting in across the room. According to an officer who came in to check on him, the clock was broken during the Mayor’s fit.
Keep in mind that this Mayor is actually due in court soon for his 2012 arrest for hitting and injuring a local police officer in an altercation outside of his beauty supply store. And, yet, MAIG still proudly boasts him as an ally as of today on their website.
Then again, this is apparently what Mayor Gordon Jenkins thinks about the importance of his public service as an elected official: “The f***in’ mayorship don’t mean nothing.”
The Undetectable Firearms Act was introduced into the 100th Congress back in the year 1988 by our good friend William Hughes. Yes, that Hughes. It was in response to the big plastic gun scare that was whipped up by Handgun Control Inc, former name of the Brady Campaign, back in the days when they were relevant. NRA opposed the original bill, but dropped opposition to the bill once its requirements no longer met the the criteria of any actual guns currently in production. In other words, the bill had no actual, practical impact.
If nothing is done, the UFA will expire on December 9th. This is not the first time it has has been set to expire. The first expiration date was ten years after the first enactment, in 1998. In 1998, it was extended for five additional years. In 2003, it was again extended for an additional ten years. Given that it’s been readily extended by both parties, I have no expectation that we have a prayer of stopping extension. The big threat is that the UFA will be expanded to include a ban on manufacturing a polymer receivers or magazines by non-FFLs, even if the polymer used is doped with a chemical that renders it radiopaque, or is made from a polymer that is dense enough to be easily x-ray detectable. This is because it also must contain enough metal that it sets off an x-ray machine calibrated to the security exemplar.Â The existing UFA law regarding metal content only applies to the entire firearms, minus grips, stocks, and magazines. By creating a separate requirement, applicable only to non-licensees, it effectively bans home fabrication, or smithing done under the auspices of a dealer FFL, which is typically sufficient for gunsmiths. Additionally, it also creates a requirement to have a manufacturer’s FFL to create magazines, which is not currently the case.
I am not optimistic we have the juice to stop UFA renewal outright. We haven’t any time in the past, when this outlawed what only existed in the imaginations of our opponents. But 3D printed plastic guns have been all over the news. Even people at work are asking me about it the topic. We might all know this is really nothing new, and that a plastic gun is about as much of a threat to the person pulling the trigger as it is to the person it’s being pointed at, but the public does not generally know these things. This law getting expanded to restrict hobbyists is a very real possibility, and something worth contacting your congress critters over.
Dave Hardy looks at the history books and finds the term well-regulated being used in contexts where it unambiguously means well-functioning, orderly, and organized.Â One of the big turds that Dick Metcalfe stepped on, was to parrot the other side’s distortion that “well-regulated” meantÂ “tightly controlled and subject to much regulation.” Research on this matter has clearly shown that it was not understood that way at the time the Bill of Rights was ratified. It goes back to the analogy, almost a tired one at this point:
“A well-educated electorate, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to print and read publications shall not be infringed.”
But our opponents don’t want to accept the plain English, even now, long past the point where well-regulated could possibly be interpreted as a tactic endorsement for controls by anyone who actually has honestly done the research.
Growing up, I never had any ideas that the Second Amendment meant anything other than what it plainly says, because I can read. I didn’t find out the words were a controversy until I was an adult, and the audacity of those on the other side, to subvert the plain language, is part of the reason I got into activism. I went through most of the Clinton years not understanding how the Assault Weapons Ban was even remotely constitutional, and wondering why nothing was done about it. When I found out, I became angry.
They now want air guns to come in translucent colors, so they look like toys. The only problem with his is air guns are not toys, and should be not treated like toys. They are capable of causing serious injury. What got that 13 year old kid killed was the fact that he was treating something that was not a toy as if it were. The solution is for parents to teach their kids to treat air guns with the same respect they would afford regular firearms.
I’m really surprised that California hasn’t figured out a way to generate electricity from all those jerking knees. It’d solve all the state’s energy difficulties if they could.