Quote of the Day — Taylor Armerding (Oct. 11, 2015)

Taylor Armerding

From his article at EagleTribune.com, "'Safety' rhetoric a thin disguise for anti-gun agenda" [emphasis mine]:

[President Obama] regularly mocks as paranoid those who suggest he wants to take their guns away. He claims nothing he would do would remove guns from those who want them to “hunt and protect their families.” Yet, he cited Great Britain and Australia as examples of what the United States ought to do to curb gun violence.

What Great Britain and Australia did was conduct a mass confiscation of guns. It is not paranoia to think the president wants to do what he says he wants to do.

Never let them get away with telling you nobody wants to take your guns.

Stay safe.

Quote of the Day — Derek Hunter (Oct. 8, 2015)

From his Townhall.com piece, "Words Matter, Or At Least They Used To (And Need To Again)":

Word choice may not seem like much, but it matters. Subtle manipulation is still manipulation. […] Marriage used to have an unambiguous meaning, as did racist. Not anymore.

He makes a lot of sense, and based on this, henceforth I will not be using the word "shooter" to reference any scumbag seeking postmortem fame with the deaths of others. These individuals will instead be referred to properly as "killers", "murderers", or other appropriate terms, and the modifier "mass" will be added as circumstances warrant.

This being a gun blog, it's likely that most of our readers can rightfully be described as "shooters", and I do not desire to conflate our good readers with the murderous scum of the earth. Let the "Progressives" fall over themselves doing that; I'll have no part in it.

Stay safe.

Five Little Monkeys — A Parable

We've all heard the children's song, Five Little Monkeys, right?

Five little monkeys, jumping on the bed.
One fell off and bumped his head.
Momma called the doctor and the doctor said,
"No more monkeys jumping on the bed!"

And repeat with four monkeys, then three, etc.

USCCA's Beth Alcazar offers an interesting "gun control" parable in her article, Five Little Monkeys … and Why Their Beds Are Not Banned.

She makes a good point. The doctor's approach is not to engage a "bed control" group to pass "common-sense" legislation to ban beds — y'know, "For the Monkeys Children!!" and "If it saves just one bumped head life!!" — but to discipline the monkeys and keep them from jumping on the furniture.

Heck, the 5½-year-old gets it, it's so simple!

Stay safe.

Teaching Our Kids What Sticks Are For

Found this article at Patheos.com. It's been making the rounds, so I don't remember who to credit for the hat tip.

"Boys with sticks", by Simcha Fisher.

My favorite exerpt:

Boys who are never allowed to be wild are boys who never learn how to control that wildness. Boys who are not allowed to whack and be whacked with sticks never learn what fighting is like. What’s so bad about that? Well, they may end up hitting someone weak, with no idea how much it hurts to be hit. Or they may end up standing by while the strong go after the weak – and have no idea that it’s their job to put a stop to it.

Either way, the weak suffer. The whole world suffers.

Read the whole thing, right down to the (also quotable) last paragraph.

Stay safe.

Gun Control Saves A Life

No, really, you read that right. Breitbart reports how how New Jersey's strict "gun control" laws have successfully (and documentedly) saved a life:

On April 21, Carol Bowne from Berlin Township, NJ, applied for a license to own a handgun, which she wanted to protect herself from a former boyfriend against whom she had a restraining order.

On June 3—while still waiting for the state to give her permission to own a gun—Bowne’s former boyfriend, Michael Eitel, allegedly stabbed her to death in her own driveway.

(See also: this article from the Courier-Post.)

There you have it! A man's life was protected as a direct result of New Jersey's strict "gun control" laws, up to and including discretionary "may issue" licensing to own — let alone carry — a handgun. It's common-sense, don't you know! For the Children!

What? You didn't seriously think New Jersey's "gun control" laws would save the innocent person's life, did you?

[UPDATE 6/8/2015 10:00 am PST:] Dave Workman (see hat tip below) has more on NJ's gun laws here and more on the mainstream media ignoring the story here. The image on the second article gives me an idea for a form of silent protest. [/UPDATE]

Stay safe.

(Hat tips: Ian Argent at Shall Not Be Questioned for the Breitbart link and Seattle Gun Rights Examiner Dave Workman for the Courier-Post link.)

Hey, It's Not a "Gun Ban"....

Inspired by these two posts, I decided to make a little map of my town: Salem, Oregon.

The first post, by Sebastian over at Shall Not Be Questioned, goes over a petition at Change.Org to prevent a strip mall property owner from leasing a space for a gun store, on account of the space being "too close" (two city blocks) to a school. Part of the description mentions that four other schools are within five miles.

The second link looks at how a "five-mile rule" (wherein guns cannot be bought or sold within five miles of a school, even from/to retail FFL dealers) would affect Houston, Texas. There's no legal space left to buy/sell/trade guns, anywhere in town!

So today we're going to examine what even a paltry "one-mile rule" would do to the gun business in sleepy little Salem, Oregon*.

Here's a map of Salem with a bunch of schools — "certified" pre-K, K-12, and higher; public and private — marked out by red dots (and graduation caps; Google fills those in for some schools for some reason):

Click to embiggenate

Note: The initial Google search was "public schools", but I added several more dots by hand to cover private, post-K-12, and pre-K campus locations. I won't claim to have gotten them all, but as you'll see next, it really doesn't make much difference.

Here's the same map, with a 60-pixel-radius (which represents one mile, judging by the scale in the lower right; I counted) red circle superimposed over each dot:

Again, click to embiggen

Remember that this map, unlike the map of Houston, is filled with one-mile circles, not five-mile circles. But do you see many places where gun shops could legally be located? Envisioning a two- or five-mile ban is an exercise I'll leave to the reader.

The anti-rights crowd claims they don't want to ban guns; they just want to enact "common-sense, reasonable" restrictions on where and when guns can be bought, sold, traded, stored, transported, carried, and used. Including within X distance from schools, churches, public buildings, parks, playgrounds, shopping malls, movie theaters, homes, offices, and parking lots. For the children, don't you know.

But we're supposed to believe it's not a gun ban.

Don't ever let anyone tell you they're not trying to take your guns.

Stay safe.
------------
* - Salem, despite being the capital of Oregon, is not a big city. It's about 12.5 miles north-south and maybe 8 miles east-west, at the longest/widest points (and that's if you include West Salem, which is in another county and is therefore technically a different city. A "five-mile rule" on just the six public high schools in the district would effectively cover the whole town.

Be Sure to Check Your Facts...

Alternate title: Why Good Research is a Requirement When Advocating an Issue.

Read this.

Once you've stopped laughing (I had tears coming down my face!), realize that this is why anti-gun writers and bloggers are so consistently unbelievable. They repeat pre-written and pre-approved talking points — which are often based on false assumptions and/or poor logic — carry no credibility or accountability of their own, and when caught in a mistake lie they (sometimes) issue a minor correction and double down their original argument.

This is why we can, and do, do better.

Stay safe.

(Hat tip: Borepatch)

Quote of the Day — Sheila Stokes-Begley (April 15, 2015)

Writing, as she often does, at The Zelman Partisans:

For people to live in freedom, freedom from slavery, from poverty, from annihilation, the first thing we need to do is to quit committing suicide.

She's referring to the Jewish people, in honor of Yom HaShoah — the Holocaust Remembrance Day* — and how Jews and others likely voted for the very politicians and laws that would eventually be used in an attempt to destroy them.

In the modern era, American Jews overwhelmingly vote Democrat and support the same "common sense gun laws" that disarmed their forebears and enabled the lawfully-elected government of the time to exterminate them. The relevant German laws were the 1928 Law on Firearms and Ammunition, which did relax prior restrictions but created a mandatory licensing and registry scheme for all firearms; the March 1938 German Weapons Act, which further relaxed some regulations for some people (mostly government workers), but tightly controlled handguns and completely prohibited issuing firearm manufacturing licenses to Jews; and the November 1938 Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons, which removed all gun rights from all German Jews.

Do I need to say that, because of the 1928 law requiring full licensing and registration, the government workers charged with collecting Jewish-owned firearms knew exactly where to find them?

Or that America's Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA'68) was rooted in the German example and copied nearly verbatim from their March 1938 law?

At this point, I don't think it's hyperbole to say that the Jews of the time (or now, for that matter) were/are assisting in their own suicide.

American conservatives and gun owners, generally, aren't any better. As a group, we're so easy to divide into warring factions too busy fighting each other to mount an effective resistance to lock-step "Progressives" and their collectivist agenda. Libertarians don't trust Republicans, and vice versa, and refuse to work together consistently. "Gun Culture 1.0" (generally older folks, mainly hunters and "sport shooters", shotguns and bolt-action rifles) doesn't stand up to help "Gun Culture 2.0" (generally younger crowd, focused on self-defense, prefer semi-auto pistols and modern rifles) when the gun-grabbers go after "assault weapons". The "concealed carry all the time" crowd doesn't tend to support the "open carry all the time" crowd.

Here's the reality, as stated by Benjamin Franklin: "We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately." We are here to defend our rights. How we choose to exercise our rights is not anywhere near as important as protecting our rights. All of our rights. We must cease the in-fighting; it only serves the "gun control" and "Progressive" agendas by making us easier to defeat politically.

In short, in order to continue to live in freedom, we must quit committing suicide.

Stay safe.
------------
* - I'll be reminding my pastor about this day, too. We're not Jewish, but we do support Israel, and the historical parallels are numerous. As they say, "The more things change, the more they stay the same."

Happy B.A.G. Day, 2015!

(image links to source)

I always thought Buy A Gun Day was April 16th — the day after Tax Day.

Apparently, I was mistaken. If you're partaking of the "festivities", feel free to share in the comments what you're doing and/or getting. (No obligation; if you believe such sharing violates OPSEC, or if you're like me and your refund monies are already ear-marked for other expenses, feel equally free to not share. We're all about freedom here. ;) )

Stay safe.

(Hat tip to ASM826, posting over at Borepatch's site, for the reminder.)

Quote of the Day — Ann Coulter (April 1, 2015)

From her article, "Hands Up, Don't Discriminate Against Gays!":

Every single cause championed by liberals is based on a fake story. They make up events that didn't happen and get apoplectic over things that never will happen. The definition of "liberal" is quickly becoming: people who believe their fantasies should be facts.

This is reminiscent of something Joe Huffman said a while back, about some people who, while generally able to function in "normal" society, nevertheless lack the thinking process that allows them to distinguish what is true from what is false.

It's been joked that "gun control is a mental disorder". In reality, probably not, but it is a symptom of a larger, underlying issue: the complete inability to reasonably and objectively test beliefs to determine truth from falsehood.

Welcome to the mind of an anti-freedom personality. Watch your step.

Stay safe.

Quote of the Day — Beth Alcazar (March 10, 2015)

Today's Quote of the Day comes from Beth Alcazar's article at the USCCA entitled, "The Problem With Statistics":

According to them, and to these vast collections of statistics, there is a direct correlation between gun ownership and gun accidents. To that I say, well, of course there is. Isn’t that kind of a pointless statement? For instance, wouldn’t it also be much more likely for someone to have a fireplace accident in the home if there is, indeed, a fireplace located somewhere inside?

[…]

The thing that a lot of people seem to overlook with these statistics is that guns don’t automatically equal violence. Period. To believe that extreme, you may also have to believe that alcohol automatically leads to alcoholism and that a sweet tooth automatically yields gluttony. Preposterous, right? There are just too many factors, circumstances, experiences, values, and decisions involved for it to be “that easy.”

As anyone who's studied statistics knows, correlation does not equal causation. Just because the numbers show that variable 'A' and variable 'B' seem to be related does not prove that 'A' causes 'B', or that 'B' causes 'A'.

Now, the argument over our rights should not depend on statistics. Rights are rights, regardless of how distasteful someone else might find them. I don't begrudge our opponents' right to own and use computers and the Internet, even though they use them to attack my rights; indeed, a computer and the Internet is precisely how I engage and resist!*

But because our opponents do invoke statistics, and because statistics is a language politicians and bureaucrats understand, we must be able to present the other side — the one our opponents would just as soon remain unstated. Or, as Professor Aaron Levenstein says (also quoted by Ms. Alcazar), "Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." (There. You got a two-fer QOTD today. You're welcome!)

Forgive the innuendo, but we should be prepared to rip the coverings off and reveal the whole truth in all its beautiful glory!

Stay safe.

------
* - It's been said, most notably after the Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris, that the only proper answer to calls for restricting free speech is more free speech. I'd argue this principle applies to other rights, as well.

Quote of the Day — Kevin D. Williamson (March 8, 2015)

From an article at National Review Online, "Next!" (emphasis in original):

It’s easy to enforce the law on people who are inclined to be law-abiding, which means those of us in the middle, mainly: We have enough to lose that there’s a real cost to breaking the rules, but we don’t have so much that we can conduct our personal and professional lives as though we had sovereign immunity. […] When the law does not apply to the lawmakers and law-enforcers, you are not being governed: You are being ruled. And we are ruled by criminals.

Ain't that the truth? If you all are anything like me, you can't afford to not live within the law. Getting caught means either a) losing everything you have and everything you've worked for and spending time in prison; or b) throwing away five or six figures on a stout legal defense; or c) both a and b.

But for those with little or nothing to lose, or those with so much that no one dares challenge or question them, that's not an issue.

As with most QOTD sources, I encourage you to RTWT.

Stay safe.

(Hat tip: Claire Wolfe)

Quote of the Day — Kemberlee Kaye (January 8, 2015)

From her post over at Legal Insurrection, "Heartbroken for Charlie Hebdo":

We will always battle those who hate truth, and those who hate truth will always try to extinguish it. It is incumbent upon those that speak the truth to do so bravely, unabashedly, especially in the face of evil. Truth is what Charlie Hebdo chose. The price was twelve lives.

My hope is that in their bravery, we find resolve. And in that resolve, we awake to a fresh realization that freedom is never free. Should the day ever arrive, are we willing to pay the price Truth too often requires?

I hope I am.

Amen.

The outpouring of support we've been seeing has been downright inspiring, especially that from fellow cartoonists, who but for the grace of God could have been targeted, too. If a picture is worth a thousand words, then more free expression and grief has been put to paper than I have space to write.

From resident Legal Insurrection cartoonist A.F. Branco:

From illustrator Lucille Clerc:

(retrieved from The Independent)

From The Independent's cartoonist Dave Brown:

From Rob Tornoe (posted on Twitter):

From Satish Acharya (posted on Twitter):

From David Pope (posted on Twitter):

Cartoonists the world over, creating thousands of images in solidarity and protest, unwilling to allow the terrorists to win more than a temporary, fleeting victory.

Amen to that, too.

Stay safe.

Quote of the Day — Kevin (January 5, 2015)

From a post where he, in turn, is quoting Mike Rowe (yes, THAT Mike Rowe):

As others have observed, "Democracy works for those who show up." Making sure as few as possible show up … is not a coincidence. It's a strategy.

If you're not involving yourself in the political process(es), you're part of the problem. I've been hearing a lot of "I didn't like either candidate so I didn't vote" kinds of excuses. That's all they are: excuses. Staying home as a form of "protest" doesn't work.

It's really very simple: The powers-that-be do not hear your silence as "protest" — they hear your silence as "consent".

And that is why getting involved in the political process is one of my resolutions for the New Year.

Stay safe.

Videos: This Math Stuff is Hard!!!

If you're travelling at 80 mph, how long will it take you to go 80 miles?

Tough question?

Yea, not really. But you couldn't tell that to some people:

10 minutes? No. 80 minutes? No. 8 minutes? No.

America's education standards, broadcast for the world to see. But at least she gets it in the end.

Unlike others asked the same question:

Note that the video cuts off before they come to the correct answer.

Sometimes, I fear for the future of America's youth. Other times, I'm positively terrified for it.

But then, I find another example that give me hope:

"1 hour." No hesitation, no uncertainty. Amen, brother.

Stay safe.

Friday Afternoon Tab Clearing — 12/19/2014

I've had a few items building up in my tabs that deserve sharing, but I don't have enough extra thoughts to add (or time!) to justify their own posts. So, it's time for a tab clearing!

From Rob Morse at his Slow Facts blog, a quick look at the evolution of our response to and preparation for violent crime. A nice compare/contrast from where we (most of us, anyway) were versus where we are now.

Jeff Knox, writing at the Buckeye Firearms Association, about Nathan Scott, the FSU student and Students for Concealed Carry on Campus activist who was shot in the leg Nov. 20 by a disturbed former student who opened fire in the campus library. Scott has a Concealed Weapon License, but — being a law-abiding citizen under a "No Guns on Campus" law — he didn't have his gun. The deranged shooter, of course, was not inconvenienced in the slightest by such a trivial law.

Families across the country are apparently offering up their loved ones to be the "next Michael Brown". I just have to ask, what kind of sick individuals would try to capitalize on the death of a loved one?

Bluegrass Bruce reports on the Bloomberg-funded "Universal Background Check" initiative making its way in Nevada. Violations of relevant rules have been reported, documented, and ultimately ignored by Nevada's Secretary of State, who certified the petitions as valid. And the NRA is thus far staying silent, but hopefully they've learned from Washington State's experience.

On that note, Joe Huffman asks, "What if?" in regards to Initiative 594. The law still needs to be overturned or repealed, but in the meantime, what if they passed a bad law and nobody complied? What if they passed a bad law, and loopholes were expanded (legally!) to make it totally meaningless?

Also from Joe Huffman, regarding the lawsuit against Bushmaster from the Sandy Hook victims' families, "Why Just the Gun Manufacturer?" Why not sue every manufacturer of every single component of every single item the shooter used that day?

Via ASM826 (co-blogging at Borepatch's site), a set of Animagraffs animations on how a 1911 pistol functions. They do some neat stuff.

From Miguel, an article from the Daily Mail Online about "Operation Fast & Furious", with crime-scene photos (WARNING: not for the faint of heart or stomach, but illustrative of the kind of inhuman monsters employed by the drug cartels). The primary cited source is Judicial Watch, so I guess their FOIA efforts to get around Obama's "executive privilege" must be paying off. Now, if only we could get the press to stop with the "botched trafficking sting" line. It wasn't "botched", people! The guns weren't tracked because BATFE/DOJ didn't even TRY to track them! Calling it a "botched" or "failed" sting removes or mitigates BATFE's/DOJ's liability and responsibility.

That's it for now. Stay safe, everyone.

On the So-Called "Caliber Wars"

It seems everyone has an opinion, so I thought I'd take a turn stepping into the minefield weighing in on this highly divisive topic.

(source: Gun Nuts Media)

Via Uncle, in turn via Roberta X, we have an article from Caleb over at Gun Nuts Media, "Let's Talk About Handgun Stopping Power". Caleb does a good job dissecting the issue and burning away the straw-man arguments that come up, both in the article and the following comments.

(Note: Before it comes up here, too, let me clarify one thing: For the purposes of discussion, we're talking about service calibers for pistols — 9mm, .357 SIG, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP. No rimfire or magnum loads, and no rifle or shotgun rounds. I'm aware that plenty of bad guys have been put down by .22LR, .25 ACP, and .32 ACP, and that the 12-ga shot-shell is king of one-shot-stops, but let's stay on topic.)

What? No .357 SIG? No .38 Spl?
(source: Buckeye Firearms Assoc.)

I also found this article by Greg Ellifritz at the Buckeye Firearms Association site, "An Alternate Look at Handgun Stopping Power". Among other things, he points out that the vast majority of "one-shot-stops" are psychological; the wound isn't necessarily life-threatening, but the bad guy decides on his own initiative to cease his bad behavior. Being shot* tends to do that to most people, and if that's the case, even the lowly .22 will do the job. It's when the psychological aspect fails as a deterrent — when the bad guy is not inclined to cease after being shot or shot at — that the bigger calibers are useful for a physiological stop. It's worth a read, as well.

The bottom line: Assuming quality ammunition, a quality gun, and good shot placement, there's no appreciable difference between any of the "service calibers". So carry what you want. The "best" caliber is the one that you are comfortable with, that you practice and train with, and — most importantly — that you have with you when you need it. There are advantages and disadvantages to each, but the best "carry caliber" is the one you shoot well and will actually, y'know, carry.

Is that a non-answer? Yes. Does that make it an entirely personal choice? Yes.

Will people still insist that the 9mm is the best because of higher-round magazine capacity and lower felt recoil, or that the .45 ACP is best because it leaves a bigger hole (and because John Moses Browning!), or that the .40 S&W is the best because the FBI uses it? Absolutely. (The FBI, by the way, is switching to 9mm.**) Gun enthusiasts become invested — financially and emotionally — in their preferences, and will continue to present their opinions as if they were absolute truth. They're free to do that. Liberty is funny that way. But most will admit that when the feces connects with the rotary air impeller, any gun beats no gun.

Stay safe.
------------
* - The threat of being shot tends to discourage most bad guys, as well. That the vast majority of defensive gun uses end with no shots fired is old news.
** - So, what's going to happen now to DHS' infamous order of 1.6 billion rounds of .40 S&W hollow points from a while back?

Guess What, #Ferguson Protesters? #PoliceLivesMatter, Too!

I'm going to address this, hopefully, for the last time here (but I'm not going to hold my breath). I know this is going to piss some people off, but all this hysteria about police officers' "racially-motivated" "murders" is getting out of hand.

So here goes nothing.

To the "#BlackLivesMatter" crowd: Yes, they do.

But you know who else's lives matter?

The police.

Police Lives Matter, too, guys.
(source: Twitter feed)

Yes, police lives matter, too. So much so that they also have a hashtag — a couple, actually: #PoliceLivesMatter and #CopsLivesMatter — that I imagine will soon be trending as well.

Police lives matter, because it's the police who patrol those crime-ridden neighborhoods and do everything in their power to remove the criminal class and keep law-abiding folks safe. On the extremely rare occasion they're forced to use their weapons to stop crime or defend themselves or others, they get crucified in the media.

Talk about a thankless job.

So black lives matter, and so do police lives. But black lives just might matter TO police more than you may think.

Interest piqued? Read on below the break....

I Am The Second Amendment

Brigid, proprietress of the Home On The Range blog, is a rare gem in the gravel pit of the intrawez. She writes an eclectic daily blog tinted with firearms, family, friends, dogs, philosophy, history, food, scotch, beer, aircraft, flying, military, fellowship, duty, and bacon.

It may seem to be a bit of dog's breakfast, but she writes about all these subjects with an unmatched, effortless brilliance. Words and thoughts flow together as if someone else was playing Tetras. It's said that she writes in Technicolor, but that's probably too bland a description. I think she writes with a Kodachrome pen dipped in bacon grease.

Brigid has the rare ability to bring focus and clarity to a subject; like a sudden, deft adjustment of a telescope. The latest example is her piece I am the Second Amendment. Stop reading this drivel; go there - Now!

Highly recommended. 
 
Pix from the Home on the Range blog




 

Quote of the Day — Jennifer Hast (November 25, 2014)

Talking about (what else?) the "civil disturbance" in Ferguson, Missouri:

[T]ruly, if your grievance is that the powers that be treat you like you are just thugs bent on crime and disorder, you aren't bolstering your cause by proving them right. The person climbing out of the broken window on the front of the local electronics store carrying a brand new flat screen doesn't exactly look like the victim here. It’s hard to argue that the police don’t need riot gear by staging a riot.

Bingo! If you want to be treated like upstanding citizens instead of thugs, start acting like upstanding citizens instead of thugs. Behaving in the manner the status quo predicts you will behave does not help change the status quo; it reinforces it. This is not a difficult concept, people!

Bonus quote: "Be the change you wish to see in the world." — Mahatma Gandhi

Stay safe.

[Please note: The above message is directed at the rioters/looters/arsonists specifically, and not the community in general.]