Shall Not Be Questioned

Rustmeister had some fun last week with an Australian blogger who had some issues with America’s gun culture.  Gun bloggers descended on his comment section, and, as would be expected, Reasoned Discourse ensued.  It looks like Rustmeister is talking again about this latest post by our intrepid Aussie, where he ponders why we hate our country.

I’ve talked to more than a few people from other countries who really have a very difficult time wrapping their heads around the idea of America’s gun culture, and why we think it’s so important to preserve it.  I think ones position on the issue depends on who you believe should be responsible for security, the individual or the community.  Americans, in general, aren’t entirely thrilled with the idea of being completely reliant on government for their personal security, and are willing to tolerate a higher level of social disorder in order to preserve their right to defend themselves and their families if the community at large fails to protect them.

Other societies place a higher value on community protection than they do on indivudal protection, and are willing to tolerate failures in community protection in order to maintain the primacy of the community in the role of protecting individuals.  Even if they will concede that individuals have a right to self-defense, they won’t agree that it extends to being able to arm themselves in order to exercise that right.

Needless to say I’m not willing to risk my own personal security for the sake of someone else’s sense of community, but it’s the reason it’s difficult to have discussions on gun control with people who come from other more community oriented cultures; they don’t start with the same fundamental assumptions that most Americans do.  Certainly there are many Americans that share a more community orientation, and who also favor disarming individuals in order to make them reliant on the community for protection, but American culture has always been more distrustful of the idea of surrending more individual automony and responsibility to the community at large, and our gun culture is probably the most prominent example of that.  It’s why those of us who fight for the individual right to be armed are as passionate as we are; it’s not just about guns, or maybe not even mostly about guns, it’s about preventing the individual from being sacrified on the altar of community.

Of course, it’s also hard to have a conversation with wankers who resort to insults and personal attacks rather than actually trying to talk and understand each other.

Looks like Larry Suffredin is up to no good again:

Rabid freedom-hating zealot, Cook County Commissioner Larry Suffredin and the Cook County Board are conducting a telephone poll where callers can voice their opinion on ordinances which would close all gun shops as well as ban and confiscate most firearms owned by citizens of the county.  

The number is 312-603-6400, and you don’t have to be a resident to call.  It’s Option 1, Option 1 and then Option 2.  Bitter and I called the line, and the call dropped first time I tried it.  Give it a try and report in whether you have any problems.  I think it’s important we help out folks in IL, and people like Chucks Gun Shop, who Jesse Jackson and Michael “Snuffy” Pfleger have repeatedly tried to shut down.

I’m going to start loading .44 Magnum and .44 Special.  I’ll be doing this for silhouette shooting, so I won’t want a load that will tear my arm off.  I already ordered 240 grain bullets.  Heavy to ensure sufficient energy to knock over the animals, but I will be mostly shooting field pistol, so only out to 100 yards.  So what would be a good .44 load?   Good powder to use?  Good primer to use?  Should I be using a lighter bullet maybe?

Also, does it make sense to load 44 magnum brass as if it were 44 special?  Or is that a no no?

Looks like another case is going to court based on the whole “character and reputation is such that you would be likely to act in a manner dangerous to the public” escape clause in our almost-but-not-quite-shall issue licensing system.  Looks like they are raising a constitutional issue as well, in which case I hope the attorney, Michael McCormick, is well experienced in firearms law at the appellate level.  These kinds of cases have to be handled with the utmost care.

This is really good news.  Machine guns and other firearms subject to regulation under the National Firearms Act are already heavily controlled by the federal government, and are effectively outside the reach of ordinary gun owners.  Kansas doesn’t have anything to fear from loosening this restriction:

Jordan Austin, lobbyist for the National Rifle Association, clicked off the laundry list of requirements for someone to be able to own an automatic weapon — a background check, local law enforcement approval, fingerprints, photographs, a $200 fee and a dictionary-sized book of regulations to follow.

“These are the most law-abiding citizens in the country right now,” Austin said.

Tim McGill, whose Cine Specialists in Wichita provides firearms for the movie industry, said it isn’t unusual for a machine gun to cost upwards of $30,000, well out of the financial reach for most people.

“The idea that people are going around willy-nilly shooting is probably not a likelihood,” McGill said.

I’m happy to see the NRA standing up for NFA collectors, even if it’s only in a small way.  It’s progress, and any progress is good.