Folks are unhappy “The Truth About Guns” Robert Farago was given an award by Second Amendment Foundation, and it’s prompting a discussion about whether gun blogging has jumped the shark. I was not pleased to see Robert Farago win an SAF award, only to turn around and mistreat Emily Miller by asking personal questions about her carry habits off the record and publishing it, nor headlining her bathroom habits, which I complained loudly about on Twitter, and which The Truth About Guns did not seem to appreciate. It is quite unfortunate that they lambast the Main Stream Media, and engage in the same kind of unethical reporting we took to blogging to escape. But I’m not certain why this should have any bearing on gun blogging as a whole. I’m certainly going to continue to do what I do without much regard to what awards the TTAG folks are or aren’t getting, and if people like what I have to say, great. To quote Uncle, “Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.”
Author: Sebastian
History of the Louisiana RKBA Ballot Measure
We Must Be Doing Something Right
New York State Senators are taking to the papers to complain that they can’t get any gun control passed because it keeps getting blocked by the “Gun Lobby.” Well, you know, maybe when you’re finding micro uzis in the Bronx that should be a pretty strong indication your gun control laws don’t work.
After Sleeping On It …
… I still think Romney owned that debate, and the Brady Campaign are still irrelevant.
A House Divided
A bit of a back and forth between Profs. Reynolds and Althouse on Instapundit over the Daily Caller’s latest video, and her own blog, is interesting. It’s very rare that I find myself in disagreement with Glenn Reynolds on a topic, but in this case I have to agree with Ann Althouse. I think to any extent that conservatives drag racial issues into this election, it will benefit the Obama Campaign, even if objectively you might have a point. The reason is, because as Prof. Althouse puts it:
Politics, like any other human endeavor, entails human emotion, and unless you want to turn away from politics altogether, you have to play within reality that exists. The emotions around race are deep and complex. I recommend not toying with them. Move to something more optimistic and positive.
If there’s anything true about how we approach issues of race in this country, it is almost never with objectivity or rationality. It is a touchy subject, because there is a lot of awful history there we’re not that distant from. I get that a lot of people want to show that Obama isn’t the post-racial President he was sold to the public as, but playing the race card is playing with fire, and we’re best leaving that topic alone. There are plenty of criticisms of the President that don’t involve Rev. Wright or issues of race.
Losing them at Self-Defense
Joe has an interesting article on outreach, when he was speaking of a former manager of his who is a foreign national. “Interesting about self defense being the place that I ‘lost him’.” That doesn’t surprise me, having spoken to a few non-American co-workers about the subject. The idea of the individual being responsible for their own security seems to be an American concept. That’s not to say they don’t believe in the morality of an act of self-defense — when you push them on it they accept that if some guy comes at you with a knife, you’re justified in using any means necessary to defend yourself.
What they don’t accept is the preparedness. In my experience there’s a view that security is a community function and not an individual function, so the job of going about prepared to defend oneself is in the view of a non-American an anti-social act. It is the usurpation of something that is supposed to be a community function. That’s a pretty fundamental difference of philosophy, and one that I think it’s hard to get past.
It’s Debate Night
Mitt and Barry go at it starting at 9PM EDT. Will guns be brought up as a topic? What are your thoughts. I’d suggest that Obama and Romney both would likely prefer it not, but I think there’s a good chance it will. The Brady folks obviously thinks this too, or they wouldn’t be making such a big deal about it. One thing is for sure, if it is mentioned, expect Brady to spin it in some way as to play up their influence on the public debate.
iTunes Ugh!
There’s a lot not to like about Richard Wagner the man. The fact that he was a jew-hating believer in the “Master Race” and a big inspiration to Adolph Hitler is plenty reason for the performance of his music in Israel to be a source of great controversy. But aside from the man’s personal failings, his music is quite often a marvel of the Romantic Era.
I’m always struck my how I either think Wager’s works are genius, or completely uninspiring. There’s not much in between for me. In the uninspiring realm, I recently got a hold of modern recordings of his Symphony in C Major and uncompleted Symphony in E Major. I suppose I should not be surprised by this, as Wagner wrote his only completed symphony at age 19 before the Romantic Era had firmly taken root. The classical influence to it can probably be attributed to the times, and the lack of real direction attributed to youth. I think it’s safe to say that most of us were not composing symphonies at the age of 19. But Wagner definitely found his compositional voice later in life, to become one of the great Romantic Era composers. I think it’s safe to say if we had just known him for his symphony, we would not have known Richard Wagner at all.
Company Demands Return of Leased 3D Printer
They got wind it was to be used to make a gun, and terminated his lease, suggesting legal issues. We talked about this some here. I’m not sure the company is wrong, as a matter of law, even if the concern is absurd technically:
Wilson’s plans may have fallen under this review, which could have provoked Stratasys to pull the lease. There’s also another law, the Undetectable Firearms Act, which could mean a fully plastic pistol would be illegal regardless of how it was made. Guslick’s partly plastic AR-15 seemed to have circumvented this law by only building one component of a mostly metal rifle with 3-D printed parts.
This was passed in the 80s during the Glock scare, where people bought the myth that the Glock was some kind of undetectable plastic gun. A plastic receiver is certainly legal, but a completely plastic gun (an impossibility, with current materials, if you ask me) would need to have enough metal in it to set off a metal detector calibrated to the “security exemplar” in order to be legal, no matter who manufactured it. However, I think a completely plastic gun would be a grenade rather than a firearm.
The security exemplar is legally 3.7oz of 7-14 stainless steel shaped like a gun. In addition, the “major part” of the firearm would need to appear on an x-ray to be readily identifiable as that major part of  a gun. The law is very ambiguous on what “major part” means. My understanding is that, for a gun like the Palm Pistol, the problem was dealt with by making the frame such that it would spell out “GUN” to any airport screener, despite the shape of the device being non-conventional.
You will note that the Undetectable Firearms Act is an exercise in poor lawmaking, and is represented in the United States Code under Title 18, USC 922(p):
(p)(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to manufacture, import, sell, ship, deliver, possess, transfer, or receive any firearm –
(A) that, after removal of grips, stocks, and magazines, is not as detectable as the Security Exemplar, by walk-through metal detectors calibrated and operated to detect the Security Exemplar; or
(B) any major component of which, when subjected to inspection by the types of x-ray machines commonly used at airports, does not generate an image that accurately depicts the shape of the
component. Barium sulfate or other compounds may be used in the fabrication of the component.
(2) For purposes of this subsection –
(A) the term “firearm” does not include the frame or receiver of any such weapon;
(B) the term “major component” means, with respect to a firearm, the barrel, the slide or cylinder, or the frame or receiver of the firearm; and
(C) the term “Security Exemplar” means an object, to be fabricated at the direction of the Attorney General, that is –
(i) constructed of, during the 12-month period beginning on the date of the enactment of this subsection, 3.7 ounces of material type 17-4 PH stainless steel in a shape resembling a handgun; and […]
It continues beyond here, but this is the meat of it. You will note that it specifically forbids considering only the receiver or frame of a firearm from being considered the firearm. But it does allow the frame to be considered as a major component when considering the whole. So the way I understand it is, you can’t consider the frame itself to be considered a “major component” unless it’s coupled with the rest of its part, in which case the frame may be considered. Clear as mud?
Remember, our opponents tell us firearms are less regulated than teddy bears. The reality? I think this basically says the frame or receiver itself doesn’t matter, so polymer receivers are OK. But considered as a whole, minus grips stocks and magazines, it sets off a magnetometer calibrated to the exemplar. Further, when considered as “major components”, that the the components don’t obscure themselves to an x-ray screener. In other words, that they look a gun or the major components of a gun they are meant to represent.
Quote of the Day: Tyranny of Cliches Edition
From Jonah Goldberg’s “Tyranny of Cliches,” talking about the phoniness of many who abhor political labels:
The same goes for the fake nonideologues of the No Labels crowd. Michael Bloomberg is a nannying, statist bully who, much like Napoleon, hurls around charges of ideological ensorcellment as a way to delegitimize political opponents he cannot defeat in open debate.
Yeah, I’d say that about accurately describes the situation.