They know it’s polarizing, they know it won’t get through, so the “bigwigs” are basically nixing it.
So folks… please stop hoarding ammo. Those of us that actually want, need, and use ammo would like to get some. Classes are hard to teach without it.
But this isn’t the end of the road.
First, we don’t know what Reid will actually try to present on the floor. But he believes they will be proposals that will gain more support. So I guess the question remains: who is still willing to sell us out? None of these proposals will make any difference towards achieving their stated ends.
One proposal that keeps coming up that they think could gain traction is a ban or restriction on “high-capacity magazine clips” (quote from the above article… *sigh*.
“Families in Newtown and across the country deserve a robust debate on efforts to reduce gun violence,” Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., said in a statement. “While the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 is an incredibly important part of this debate, I continue to believe that a more targeted ban on high capacity magazines is an equally effective way to reduce casualties in episodes of mass violence. I believe we need to have a separate floor vote on a high capacity magazine restriction, and I look forward to working with other senators in the coming weeks to develop a reasonable restriction on large volume magazines that can gain bipartisan support.”
Newtown… “won’t someone think of the children, because we’ll make you look like a heartless beast that wants children to be slaughtered if you oppose us”.
But the reality is, it won’t affect casualties. So many of the mass shootings have been slow and methodical. They will casually reload, and keep shooting. If they won’t reload, then they’ll just have more guns and reload by picking up another gun. And if not another gun, there’s far many more ways to inflict mass death and damage that doesn’t involve guns at all. So tell me, apart from making you feel good because you’ve “done something”, what are you actually doing towards solving root problems and not just taking a lozenge for the symptoms?
Here’s some irony out of the article.
“Our nation’s law enforcement officials know better than anyone what it takes to protect our communities from gun violence, and they know that background checks help save lives,” New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, co-chair of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, said in a statement. ”They have dedicated their lives to protecting the public, and as Congress debates our nation’s gun laws, their voices deserve to be heard.”
Yes, the LEO’s know. And that’s part of why LEO’s want “high-capacity magazine clips”. It’s part of why LEO’s are constantly exempted from these sorts of bans and restrictions. If putting 10-round or 7-round limits on gun capacity directly correlates to a reduction in gun violence, then it should apply to LEO’s as well. Else, what’s your real motivation behind such a ban and restriction?
Background checks save lives. Maybe, maybe not. I think to some extent the system has worked, because I’ve spoken with a lot of guys behind the counter and heard some crazy stories about people who have tried to buy, filled out the 4473, got called in for a background check, and then had such a rap sheet that they dispatched police to come pick the guy up at the counter. So yeah, it can work.
But do you really think that background checks are going to keep guns out of the hands of people bent on death and destruction?
I mean, consider Sudafed. Look at what Grandma has to do to get medicine for her cold. But exactly how much meth production has been stopped by this “background check”? So do you think Joe Gangbanger selling a stolen gun out of the trunk of his car is going to do an NICS check? Tell me how this will do anything useful.
And folks… one thing to remember about a lot of Police Chief’s. They are politicians. They are many times the puppet of the city council and mayor. They aren’t elected, so they tend to serve who put them there. This is why you often find the Sheriff more favorable, since they were elected by the people. It’s been quite interesting to watch the past some months and see how police chief’s come out in favor of bans and restrictions, and sheriffs are not and in fact many have flat out stated they will defy orders to do things like confiscation.
It’s the same old story. And it won’t go away any time soon.
It’s evident things are fading, and that’s good because it shows what people really want in this world: real solutions to our problems, not political agendas.
But it’s not gone. It’s not done. There’s still stuff on the Federal level, and there are still states trampling on freedoms with their emotional appeals and knee-jerk reactions. So, we cannot let up. We must still fight the fight.
But please, stop hoarding. That way we can hold more classes, and bring more people into the fold. Teach them right, teach them well, teach them safely, and allow them to go to the range to practice. This is the sort of advocacy that will benefit us most in the long run. As Jim Scoutten says, “Shoot often, shoot safely, and share your sport!”
I have a serious question.
Should ignorant people be allowed to make laws and policy?
I’m sure to some it seems like a stupid question to ask. But I have to ask it, because I see so many people permitting the ignorant to make laws and policy, and I don’t understand why.
I said, “Well, you know, my shotgun will do better for you than your AR-15, because you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door.”
There’s more to the transcript, but I want to focus on the last part of Mr. Biden’s statement.
I’d like to hope one doesn’t need to understand the fundamental rules of firearm safety to understand how dangerous, reckless, careless, and potentially tragic Mr. Biden’s suggestion could be. If you have no idea what’s on the other side of that door, you have no business shooting through it.
Right now we have a terrible shooting story in the news, of Olympic athlete Oscar Pistorius being accused of killing his girlfriend. Apparently he shot through a closed door without knowing who was behind it.
There’s tons of other things wrong with Mr. Biden’s comments, both the current ones and ones he’s made in the recent past. I’m at a point where I just don’t know if Biden is that ignorant of firearms and personal safety, or if he’s that smart and is trolling.
Either way, is this a person that should be in charge of making policy? That should be in charge of writing laws? Even if he is that smart and is trolling, is that how a politician should behave?
There are those who claim men cannot speak about abortion because, as men, they cannot understand women’s health issues. There are those who would find it ludicrous for climate-change deniers to set our environmental policy. Or that fundamentalist Christians should have any say over public school science curriculum. If such demonstrable and obvious ignorance on a topic is so unacceptable, why is it acceptable here?
If we seek true experts, people truly knowledgable in the field, when it comes to solving problems… why aren’t we doing that here? I don’t think Mr. Obama nor Mr. Biden has called Massad Ayoob or Tom Givens. Why would that be? Why wouldn’t actual public safety experts be consulted here?
Just because the end may wind up meeting your agenda, I cannot see how you can condone the means for getting there. For if you set the precedent that it’s OK for the ignorant to mandate policy when the policy serves you, just remember… karma’s a bitch.
Now, 15 years later, virtually all law enforcement agencies and officers are either issued AR-15 style rifles, or have them accessible. But, that is the police. In the context of self defense, why do armed citizens need AR-15 style weapons? Because, the armed citizen faces the VERY SAME criminals that police face. The only difference is that police, because they are more often called TO the incident, face these criminals more regularly. Understand, though, criminals do not prey on police, but instead, they victimize the public.
If the armed citizen wants to have a fighting chance against criminals who are armed with high capacity rifles and pistols, they also need effective weaponry. Just like the police did back in the 1990s and today.
In reading Marty’s response, it made one thing clear: it’s about “leveling the playing field”.
I’ve often said that a firearm is a force equalizer. A petite woman vs. a 300# beast of a man? Force disparity. Old man vs. young thug? Force disparity? Fit able-bodied person vs. small gang? Force disparity. So much of self-defense is about overcoming that disparity. I mean, when some martial art talks about how it’s techniques allow that weak tiny woman to overcome and cripple a 300# man, the underlying message is that martial art allows you to overcome force disparity, and thus it’s a good thing. Rape prevention techniques talk about using tasers, pepper spray, walking in groups – all means of overcoming force disparity. It’s all about reducing the disparity, or better, becoming the one with the force advantage so perhaps no one will mess with you in the first place. However, the reality is while these measures are all useful and do overcome force disparity, a firearm is a better tool for overcoming force disparity. It’s like any technological advancement; it’s why we blog and tweet and email, and why the US Postal Service is shriveling up.
We seem to put great stock in “leveling the playing field”. Why do we drug test in sports? Because we don’t want someone to gain “unfair advantage”. Why is there large political movement to change this country’s legal and economic structure? To stop few people from gaining unfair advantage and control over the rest of us. We want the field level, or whether people want to admit it or not, if the field is going to be tilted they want it tilted in their favor. So why should self-defense be any different? Why should we put ourselves at a disadvantage or force others to be at a disadvantage? That’s akin to telling the petite woman to not fight back against her rapist. To use force of law to deny her effective tools? That’s akin to tying her hands behind her back. Doesn’t it sound stupid to suggest “Hey ladies, the most effective way to keep from being raped is to lie there and take it! Just give him what he wants!”? So why do you suggest solutions that effectively create this situation?
There are numerous reasons why someone would “need one of those”, be it an AR-15, a modern semi-automatic firearm (rifle or pistol or shotgun), a firearm that could hold more bullets than you deem to be “necessary”. Fundamentally it comes down to overcoming force disparity and ensuring that “level playing field”. It’s about allowing the weak to stand strong. And yes, YOU are weak. There is always someone stronger than you: physically, mentally, economically, politically. And if not today, tomorrow you may be weaker (if nothing else, someday you will be old and frail). Are you willing to resign yourself and your fellow man to being crushed? Or would you prefer to stand strong?
And they’re pretty much right:
This action has caused a division of the people into classes: Those the government deems valuable enough to protect with modern firearms, and those whose lives have been deemed as having less value, and whom the government has decided do not deserve the right to protect themselves with the same firearms. Olympic Arms will not support such behavior or policy against any citizen of this great nation.
And I agree with their final statement:
Olympic Arms invites all firearms manufacturers, distributors and firearms dealers to join us in this action to refuse to do business with the State of New York. We must stand together, or we shall surely fall divided.
So come on industry people. You got the Eastern Sports and Outdoor Show cancelled . Imagine if no firearms company wanted to do business with the State of New York (or California, given bills currently in their legislature… or Colorado, just ask Magpul). What would it be like? The police would be without firearms, without ammunition, without duty gear, without anything. Should they reap what they sow?
I need some enlightenment. Friends, please help me for I do not understand.
I’m reading through Sen. Feinstein’s bill.
By name she explicitly bans the Ruger Mini-14 Tactical Rifle. Later in the text, she exempts the Ruger Mini-14 (w/o folding stock) and the Ruger Mini-30.
Could you please explain to me the logic behind this? Truly, I am curious. I’d like to know how this qualifies as a “good law” founded in reason, facts, and logic. Is it not reasonable to expect our laws to be based upon such things? Is it unreasonable to want to know what those reasons, facts, and logic are? What Feinstein proposes here defies all logic and reason — towards the supposed goals of “stopping the mass murder of innocent children” — but if you know how such wording and logic achieves the goal, I would love to know.
And if you don’t understand what the problem is with the wording of her ban and exemptions, then I’d suggest taking an honest step back and admitting you don’t understand, that you are, well, ignorant about the topic. It’s not a bad thing to admit ignorance — but it is bad to willfully remain as such.
David B. Kopel, of the CATO Institute, takes a look at the Second Amendment in the scope of today’s political and legal environment.
While some will dismiss this out of hand because it’s Kopel and CATO, it presents a great deal of factual information about the federal legal structure that we presently operate within. It looks at the National Firearms Act of 1934. It looks at Executive Orders. It looks at magazine capacity restrictions. It talks about recent SCOTUS decisions. Given our current legal environment, what can be done? what can’t be done? What stands up to Constitutional scrutiny? This is a fair discussion, and I’m sure some of the things Kopel says will make pro-gun people cringe as much as other things he says will make anti-gun people cringe.
Kopel also makes a sound point about solutions that work now, that have immediate impact. Sure, maybe we can have greater solutions that may bring about greater change in time, but a solution that fixes things 5 years, 2 years, 2 months from now… is that too much time to let pass? too large a window of opportunity for the next madman spree? You may not agree with Kopel, but if you know anything about dealing with active shooter situations and how law-enforcement has changed their own procedures for dealing with active shooter situations then well… it’s tough to refute the present law enforcement tactics and the reasoning behind them. Thus, if you wish to offer up other solutions, that’s fine. If your solution is successful, how long will it take before it is? What do we do between now and then? Can you offer a solution that brings about immediate results, especially given the context law enforcement works within and why? It’s a fair point to consider when discussing solutions to this problem – the timeframe in which a solution will have the positive, desired impact.
Biden, doing a Google+ “hangout” to promote President Barack Obama’s proposals for battling gun violence, had been asked whether a new assault weapons ban might infringe on the Second Amendment rights of those who want one “as a last line of defense” to fend off looters after “some terrible natural disaster.”
“Guess what? A shotgun will keep you a lot safer, a double-barreled shotgun, than the assault weapon in somebody’s hands [who] doesn’t know how to use it, even one who does know how to use it,” the outspoken vice president, a shotgun owner himself, replied. “It’s harder to use an assault weapon to hit something than it is a shotgun. You want to keep people away in an earthquake? Buy some shotgun shells.”
This is one of those things that is so stunningly misinformed and full of terrible advice that you just don’t know how to respond. I’ll try tho.
I am an NRA Certified Instructor (Home Safety, Pistol, Rifle, Personal Protection Inside the Home, Personal Protection Outside the Home). I am an NRA Certified Range Safety Officer. I am certified by the Texas Department of Public Safety as a Concealed Handgun License Instructor. I have been an assistant Instructor with KR Training for four years. I’ve received hundreds of hours of instruction in firearms and self-defense, with a large stack of certifications. There’s more, but this is enough to make my point. And no, I’m not as awesome as Tom Givens or my mentor, Karl Rehn, but I’ve learned a thing or two.
Joe Biden’s credentials: owns a shotgun.
Maybe Mr. Biden has more credentials that would permit him to speak as an authority on this topic. I haven’t seen them, and even if he showed me a list, after hearing the above I couldn’t believe him.
Let’s see here…
First I will agree that a shotgun is a formidable weapon. It can do devastating things. I do keep shotguns as part of my personal defense plan. I find them to be a solid small armament. They can be the right tool for the job.
I’m curious how Mr. Biden’s statement holds up.
A double-barreled shotgun. So that’s 2 rounds. What if you miss? What if there’s a need to fire more than 2 shots? If the statistical average of a gunfight is “3 shots, within 3 yards, within 3 seconds” then 2 rounds leaves you below-average and behind the curve. Is it legally and morally sound to put good people at a disadvantage from bad people?
A shotgun is harder to hit something with than a shotgun? Um… I’m not sure about that. Well, perhaps. The point of a shotgun is to hit small flying objects, like birds (ducks, doves, pheasants, etc.) or clay discs (skeet, trap). It does this by using lots of little tiny pellets and has them spread out in a cloud. And yes, compared to trying to hit a small flying thing with a single bullet (rifle, pistol) well sure, a shotgun will improve your chances of success.
But we’re not talking about hitting small flying objects. We’re talking about personal defense — even Mr. Biden is speaking in the context of personal defense. In such a case, not only is the target much bigger and moves much more slowly, it needs a far different payload. It’s one thing to take down a 2 pound bird, it’s another to take down a 200# violent criminal actor. You still have to aim. A shotgun is not some “cloud of death”. The spread is not as vast as you think. In fact, you actually do NOT want your pellets to spread out because 1. less pellets on target means less ability to stop the attack, 2. less pellets on target means more pellets where you didn’t intend them to go, which could be bad.
Let’s continue with Mr. Biden’s statements:
“This town listens when people rise up and speak,” Biden said
I’m not sure what town he’s talking about. Lots of people are speaking in other ways, and then it’s not like y’all listen when it comes to other topics. It really sounds like you’re pushing a personal agenda.
Biden noted that “it’s not about keeping bad guns out of the hands of good people, it’s about keeping all guns out of the hands of bad people. There should be rational limits.”
Then I guess it’s just “collateral damage” that this also will keep the guns out of the hands of good people?
Or are we considered bad people too?
Mr. Biden, I am not sure upon what credentials you speak, but your words don’t make much sense.
I’ll just say this. If a double-barreled shotgun is all someone needs, then start by equipping your Secret Service detail with nothing but double-barreled shotguns. Your actions will speak far louder than your words.
Some people keep asking “why would anyone need one of those?”
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. needed “one of those”. From the HuffPo:
Most people think King would be the last person to own a gun. Yet in the mid-1950s, as the civil rights movement heated up, King kept firearms for self-protection. In fact, he even applied for a permit to carry a concealed weapon.
A recipient of constant death threats, King had armed supporters take turns guarding his home and family. He had good reason to fear that the Klan in Alabama was targeting him for assassination.
Granted King and his supporters didn’t use AR-15′s; they used the current technology of the time, as the AR-15 hadn’t been invented yet. But if it was today, they certainly would have because it’s the current technology of the time. Just like we use the Internet and iPhone’s, instead of black-and-white TV’s and hand-written letters.
In fact, you can see some of the racist roots of gun control because of Dr. King:
As I found researching my new book, Gunfight, in 1956, after King’s house was bombed, King applied for a concealed carry permit in Alabama. The local police had discretion to determine who was a suitable person to carry firearms. King, a clergyman whose life was threatened daily, surely met the requirements of the law, but he was rejected nevertheless. At the time, the police used any wiggle room in the law to discriminate against African Americans.
Lordy no! We can’t be letting them filthy niggers have guns! that might allow them to stand on equal footing with us! That might enable them to stand up to our tyranny! Hooray for gun control and its racist roots. *sigh*
T.R.M. Howard, the Mississippi doctor and mutual aid leader who founded the pioneering Regional Council of Negro Leadership, slept with a Thompson submachine gun at the foot of his bed. During the murder trial that followed the horrific lynching of 14-year-old Emmett Till, Howard escorted Till’s grieving mother and various others to and from the courthouse in a heavily-armed caravan.
Similarly, John R. Salter, one of the organizers of the famous 1963 sit-ins against segregated lunch counters in Jackson, Mississippi, said he always “traveled armed” while working as a civil rights organizer in the South. “I’m alive today because of the Second Amendment and the natural right to keep and bear arms,” Salter said.
The original HuffPo article ends with:
Whether a broader acceptance of the King’s later pacifism would have made us safer than choosing guns, we will never know.
Nothing said Dr. King was aggressive about his use of guns. He used them to stay alive in the face of obvious danger to his life. Granted his life was cut short, but how much sooner could he have been taken from us? Might we never have heard his “I Have A Dream” speech? No, we will never know.
But this is why some people need guns. It may be that woman with a crazy ex, because a piece of paper called a restraining order will not keep him away from her. It may be the elderly couple that just cannot stand up to a strong young thug. It may be the black man in fear of his life because as far as we’ve come, we’ve still a long ways to go.
Most gun owners I know are not violent people (conversely it seems lots of anti-gun people are rather violent). They do not wish violence, they do not want violence. They are peaceful people and try to undertake actions and options of peace and avoidance. They would prefer to just go through their lives peacefully and being left alone, and leaving you alone to live your life. The difference is we accept ugly things may happen to us, and we wish to be prepared to contend with them if they do — just like Dr. King was.
Now it appears Travis County officials have accepted that:
AUSTIN (KXAN) – Travis County Commissioners on Tuesday voted to honor the existing contract with the organizer of the gun shows at the Travis County Expo.
The unanimous vote came after the five-member body met with its lawyers and heard from people with an interest in the topic.
Full story (h/t Tim)
As far as I can tell, it wasn’t a question of if they wanted to or not, but merely a question of if they had any legal ability to do so. And they do not.
“The first thing we ought to do is huddle with legal counsel in executive session for a follow up legal briefing,” Travis County Judge Sam Biscoe said before the vote. “We discussed it in part last Tuesday, and the preliminary determination was that we probably did not have the authority — which is why we didn’t take any action. ”
The angle I took with the Travis County Commissioners as well as the Austin City Council wasn’t that of guns — because it’s evident they have their minds made up on that topic. So, it was better to take the approach of what a politician cares about: money and re-election. If they tried this, they would have lost hundreds of thousands of dollars in simple rental revenue, and they would have likely lost hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars from the resulting lawsuits. Given “these tough economic times” and how it’s been tough for the City and County to manage a budget, all the other cuts they’ve had to make, all the tax increases they’ve done well… to invite revenue loss through severed contracts and lawsuits, that would simply be irresponsible.
Seems they realized this:
Opponents argue the county would lose $128,000 in rental-fee revenues from the pending contracts of the nine Saxet Gun Show events scheduled this year.
[Travis County Judge Sam] Biscoe said if they were to cancel those contracts, it’s more than likely the county would face legal battles for damages.
I doubt this issue has been put to rest, but it seems at least a dose of reality has been taken.
Updated: I need to ammend this.
First, it seems the devil is in the details. They are going to honor the existing contract. The implication is future contracts will be “considered”, and you can bet they’ll reject them for whatever reason. And in some respects, that’s their prerogative.
Second, it seems the City of Austin is still going to figure out what they can do regarding city-owned properties. So yeah, the issue hasn’t been put to rest.
The Biden task force has “presented me now with a list of sensible, common-sense steps that can be taken to make sure that the kinds of violence we saw in Newtown doesn’t happen again,” he told reporters. “I’ll present the details later in the week.”
He added, “My starting point is not to worry about the politics. My starting point is to focus on what makes sense, what works, what should we be doing to make sure that our children are safe and that we’re reducing the incidence of gun violence. I think we can do that in a sensible way that comports with the Second Amendment.”
I hate the phrase “common sense”. Any time anyone drags that phrase out, what they mean is “something that I like, that I agree with”. As humans, we are born knowing nothing. We must learn everything. Consequently, we all can not and will not know the same things. Nor will we have the same experiences in life that will color our perceptions. If “common sense” is defined as “equating to the knowledge and experience which most people already have, or which the person using the term believes that they do or should have”… well, the emphasis is on the latter part, because it’s what people believe you should have.
We’re back to the same old thing of “agrees with me”. That if you don’t know the same things I do, if you don’t hold the same view that I do, then you lack common sense and you are a moron, to be looked down upon and shunned.
How sad that we behave in such a manner. But one people trot out the “common sense” line, this is what the mean, and often it’s meant precisely to demean “the others”.
Not worry about politics? Ha! This is precisely about politics. If you wanted to do things that actually worked, then you would. But you won’t, and you aren’t. You need to show some proof and data that your proposals actually do lead towards reduction in violence — because all the ones the gun control groups tend to trot out endlessly have a demonstrable record of failure.
And a sensible way that comports with 2A? Well, hopefully you remember what 2A actually means — it’s about tyranny, not hunting.
But will Congress adopt proposals like renewing the assault weapons ban? “I don’t know,” Obama acknowledged. Lawmakers opposed to such steps must “examine their own conscience.” In some cases, Congress won’t act but he will, the president said.
Gee… way to make it seem like anyone that doesn’t agree with your proposals must be some sort of unfeeling, heartless bastards.
He added that “responsible gun owners—people who have a gun for protection, for hunting, for sportsmanship—they don’t have anything to worry about.”
Bullshit. First, this shows you don’t know what 2A is really about. Second, there are those of us that use AR’s for protection, for hunting, and for sportsmanship. So yeah… we’ve got a LOT to worry about.
True, we haven’t seen precisely what the proposals are. But the track record so far, the words, the actions, the efforts of folks so far, it reeks. Sure, I do think it’s be wonderful to be pleasantly surprised if they actually proposed measure towards reduction of crime. I’d love it! But I doubt that would happen.
I mean, for a start… if you want to stop the senseless killing of innocent children… why not start with banning abortion?