My Politics A-Zed

I figure this is a good point to give a little more information about myself and give you a feel where I stand in the world on various issues.

As I've alluded to here and elsewhere, politically, I could be best described as a Libertarian. Some folks consider me a Republican if I had to choose between the Democratic and Republican parties. This is not surprising given I hold a strongly conservative stance on gun rights. However, I am not an idealogue. I am not a "party" person. My stances on issues vary.

So I decided to put together this A-Zed (that's Canadian for Zee) list of my views on various issues. Feel free to comment, good or bad. I don't know if this will surprise you or not.

Abortion

I'm pro-choice. I'm not a woman so I really can't make a proper judgement on an issue that is a personal one.

I am of the view that concious, sentient life begins with brain activity, the ability to perceive the world with the first breath. Until that point, the fetus is merely potential. Once it can survive reasonably (without heroic measures) outside the womb and is breathing on its own, it is a person. You may disagree but you aren't the one who has to live with the decision to have an abortion or not and I feel that decision is not done lightly, without personal cost and long-term "what if" thinking on the part of the woman.

Abortion boils down to personal belief of when life as you see it begins. For me, it happens when the baby takes its first breath, eyes open and the neurons are forming the blank slate of their brain into a new, sentient being.

Affirmative Action

Slavery was over 150 years ago. Let go. We live in a society that makes you equal under the law and affirmative action does not promote equality; it stifles it and cheapens personal achievement to what is politically correct. Decisions on who to admit, who to hire, etc, should be made on the basis of merit and qualifications, not skin color.

Gas Prices

Stop bitching, folks. Driving isn't a right; it is a privilege and a choice. It may be a necessity of life to survive in our times so treat it as an evil necessity and get over it. People cry about gas at $3 a gallon? When it hits $4.50, then we can have a meeting of the minds. In Canada, $4 a gallon is normal.

You know why gas costs so much? Hint: It isn't because of oil prices. They drive the price up and down but the vast majority of the cost of a gallon of gas is Federal, State and local taxes. Cut those and prices will fall. Dramatically.

Until then, deal. It isn't going back to the days of 99 cents a gallon from 1997 (which I do remember fondly).

Global Warming

Global Warming is happening. Not doubt about it.

We aren't the cause of it though. The warming trend we are experiencing has happened in the past before we had industry. For the cause, all you need to do is look up.

The Sun is the number one contributor of heat energy onto our planet. If the Sun just gets a little more active, it can and does affect this planet. Mars is suffering from Global Warming too. I don't think the rovers on the surface are the cause and the atmosphere of Mars is predominantly carbon dioxide (CO2).

Everyone blames CO2 as the primary greenhouse gas. It plays a role but it isn't the primary gas. The primary greenhouse gas on Earth is water vapor. Increase that in the atmosphere and things will get warm long past the point CO2 doesn't affect temperature anymore.

If you don't agree, do some honest research on the science of it. Start here.

I could do a whole series of posts on this. Bottom line, the planet is getting warmer. It has in the past. It is now. Eventually, it will get cooler too and future generations hopefully smarter than we will not cry "We Must Stop Global Cooling!". Climate is constantly changing. It is not unusual. It always has and will do so whether we are here or not.

Besides, I haven't heard a single thing that says there is anything wrong with a warmer climate. It's good for us overall.

Gun Control and Gun Rights

Do you even have to ask? Title of the blog says it all.

Illegal Immigration

Don't use the words "undocumented worker" with me. Illegal immigration is a problem that isn't going to go away unless we start really enforcing the laws of this country.

I do not accept widespread amnesty or guest worker programs that lead to permanent residency as solutions. Blanket amnesty was done in 1986 and smaller amnesties since. The net result is the illegal immigration problem we have now. After all, if there was one amnesty, why not take the chance on another one?

My attitude for 90% of the illegals here is "Kick them all out.". Children who are US citizens can come back when they are 18 and work on sponsoring their parents then. I have followed all of the immigration laws of this country in my 10 years here and it is patently unfair to those who do and for those following the rules who are waiting to come here to have a group of people granted a free life here for breaking the law. That is not what fairness and justice is about.

This is my number one single issue item. Anyone who favors anything less than strong enforcement first never gets my support because they are selling out legal immigrants like myself.

Iraq War

Do I think we should have gone into Iraq? No. But I am going to qualify that based on the pretenses that were used. That being Saddam Hussein was a national security threat and his weapons of mass destruction needed to be eliminated. Too abstract for my taste.

Had President Bush simply said he felt it was the USA's role in the world to eliminate a tyrannical dictator who was murdering his own people by the hundreds of thousands (he gassed the Kurds so there is no doubt he had chemical weapons and the will to use them), needed to be eliminated for the safety of our allies, namely Israel and we were going to be the ones to do it, hey, I'm just fine with that. At least he's being upfront about it and I would be free to disagree with him on the merits of that decision.

However, regardless of you views on the War in Iraq, we are there. Whining about Bush and whether we should have gone in in the first place is pointless. It does not change reality.

Since we are there, you prosecute the war to its end. The purpose of soldiers is to "break shit and kill people". Nothing more. Winning of hearts and minds comes after the breaking and killing part. We did it during World War II without difficulty. We can do it here.

I've heard from people who are there and I can honestly say the media is doing everything they can to set public policy for this war. I'll bet if they showed all of the good things that are happening over there, peoples opinion of the conflict over there would change for the better. But they won't because in their hearts, those in the media are cowards and are promoting their own agenda.

I support and respect anyone who wears the uniform of my home country or my adopted one. I wish I could wear the uniform myself. I send care packages to troops overseas. A pox on anyone for trying to defund this war and ensure America's loss in this conflict and resulting loss of respect and empowerment of our enemies that will provide.

I don't care if it takes another five years and involves a draft, we fight this one to stability and until we've changed a culture. If we have to occupy the place for another 20 years at some level, so be it. People of honor finish what they start, rightly or wrongly, and clean up their own messes. In the end, the world will be better off for us doing so.

Iran

We have a country that states our ally Israel doesn't have a right to exist and has an active nuclear program. That state of affairs cannot last forever. If Iran doesn't collapse on its own (doubtful) either Israel or us are going to make sure Iran doesn't get a nuclear weapon.

My money is on Israel taking care of the problem but if they don't, eventually we'd better. Otherwise, I predict the third mushroom cloud over a city to be seen in human history will occur over Tel Aviv or Jerusalem. After that, there will be many. Dealing with an insurgent or a suicide bomber will be wishful thinking back to the good old days in the conflict that will result from that. Let's not get to that point.

Religion

Religion is a private issue. Unless you are going to allow equal time and access for all religions (including bad ones) in a public forum, it has no place in public life except to acknowledge pre-existing traditions. Such as swearing on the Bible in court and saying "So help me God!". You can do it the traditional way if you are comfortable with it or you can simply state the oath to tell the truth. That is different than a public endorsement or expression of religious belief. I feel prayer or any form of religious expression has no place in a public school environment even though I did such prayer readings as a child in my own elementary school.

By the time I got to high school, the schools had stopped doing daily prayer readings despite drawing from dozens of religions because it became impossible to satisfy everyone. Too much diversity can be a bad thing. In the end, they did the right thing and just offered a moment of silence and students could pray silently to themselves, reflect internally or just stare at the floor.

I don't care what you believe as long as your beliefs do no one harm. You are free to discuss and express your beliefs in private and to those who wish to listen all you like. But you do not get to force people to accept your way of thinking by the use of legislative force. That goes beyond speech. Your right to get me to accept your views ends at the tip of your nose.

I have never understood religious values that place people into differing groups of believers and non-believers. Or religions that say it is ok for you to take the life of another person in its name. Or religious based doctrines that treat different people with different rights (like women). To me, all of these are bad and I will have nothing to do with anyone who seriously believes in such concepts. Feel free to believe that I am going to Hell, perdition, purgatory, eternal torture or nowhere all you wish. But if you hold that view, then you are judging me and that goes against the idea of humility and replaces it with arrogance. Only a supreme deity has the right to judge me, not you.

Do not force religion on me. I have made my choices through many years of reflection and searching and I have a measure of peace with my religious views. If I choose to be involved in religious ceremonies or events, I do so out of choice and respect for those around me.

But if you believe something that tells you it is ok to harm me because I don't believe what you do, expect resistance. Don't expect me to accept or convert to your way of thinking no matter how hard you believe it. I greatly dislike prosyletizing and will go out of my way to make those who do so without taking the hint really uncomfortable.

For example, If an opportunity ever presents itself, I will happily invite in any missionary who knocks on the door (Jehovah's Witnesses are a prime example) and then proceed to clean an AR-15 slowly and methodically on the coffee table while they preach. An AK-47 would be even better. More power to them if they actually manage to get through their entirely spiel while I do so. Don't get me wrong; I'll be a good host. I'll offer them water or a soda and I will be quiet and listen while I clean. It just won't change the outcome. And they'll at least learn something about guns in the process.

I can go into great depths on my views on religion. I may do so at a later date.

Sex Education

What is wrong with Americans? Seriously. Teenagers are going to have sex. They've been doing it for thousands of years and will continue to do it. Hormones predate technology. We know how babies are made and how to prevent them and sexually transmitted diseases. Use that knowledge. It's why we have a brain.

Education is the key to prevention, not ignorance. Promoting abstinence as the only solution is ignorance and taking a "head in the sand" approach to the issue.

It isn't a big issue and people in this country amuse me with how out-of-proportion they make it. They taught us about pregnancy, condoms, birth control and abstinence all as part of sex education from middle school onwards in Canada. It was real simple. If the kids were old enough to have boobs or get boners, they were old enough to hear the facts of life.

Of course, I also knew all of this from my parents going in. If you're going to teach this stuff in schools rather than make it a parenting issue, just teach it all and let the moral overtones go. Too often, abstinence promotion is barely concealed religious teaching. Lose the moralty angle and just teach the facts of life. Everything else will sort itself out as it always has.

Taxation

We have too much of it already. When taxes are lower, spending and revenues increase. I don't think a flat tax is workable (too many people looking for exceptions as it is) but rolling taxation back incrementally is a good thing.

Anyone who believes raising taxes is necessary to fund something or is a good thing is deluded. Remember, taxation is one of the things that led to the American Revolution. There is such a thing as too much taxation. I know, I came from a country that has one of the highest personal tax rates per capita of any nation in the world. Canada has lots of nice aspects to it but in this regard, the USA beats it hands down. The USA should keep on doing it.

United Nations

This ineffectual organization and should be booted off North American soil and to some other country who wants them. The USA should get out of the UN. The purpose of the UN is a noble one but its reality is corrupt organization who considers a petty dictator who murders millions the equal of the Dalai Lama. Any value the UN had disappeared once countries figured out a UN sanction had less value than a piece of toliet paper. At least the toliet paper was useful.

Disband it. Send these corrupt people back to their own countries and we can deal with them through normal diplomatic processes. These criminal bureaucrats have skimmed enough money that they could have bought new countries for the oppressed and downtrodden they were supposedly be sticking up for.

Implode the UN headquarters in New York and get them out of here.

I'm sure I'll be able to add to this list as I think of stuff to add.

Reconstitute the Militia (SayUncle's Challenge)

Well, I've spent several days working and reworking my response to SayUncles's challenge. For the record, here is the challenge:

So, here’s a fun game for you pro-gun folks: Due to some bizarre set of circumstances, congress decides that all federal gun laws need to be re-written and revised. You are elected/selected/appointed as the negotiator for pro-gun folks. And there will be one negotiator for the anti-gun folks. All federal laws will be wiped clean and you two will negotiate what the new gun laws will be. There will have to be compromise on both sides. So, what will you concede? And what is nonnegotiable?

Alas, I've found I can't come up with an ideal answer. Others here have done far better than I could have.

The fundamental problem I have with the challenge, although fun to contemplate, is the idea that an anti-gun person will actually compromise to level that is below where current laws presently exist. That seems almost anathema to me if I were a gun controller and I have found in my research on the issue there is no "good enough" line for them. Even if we managed to draft a new set of laws together, I fear the ink wouldn't even be dry from the President's signature before the anti-gunners would be discussing the need for "clarifications in the new laws". I just can't see them not doing it even in a wild fantasy.

The other issue I've kept running into is State's rights. If the Federal government can impose law that trumps that of the State in legislative areas, what is the point of the States? Might as well become Canada and have the State fully subordinate to the Federal level. I don't see how some of the things I would want to do would pass muster from a State's rights standpoint. One example would be a Federal CCW permit that would be recognizable in all 50 states just as a driver's license is today. I can see the States having a serious problem with that.

The only direction I would want to go with gun laws is backward in time. I'm largely in agreement with Dixit Insipiens on the laws (especially with repeal of the automatic weapons laws as they stand today).

I just don't ever see even a moderate anti-gun person going along with anything I would consider as non-negotiable or reasonable. If anything, the only modern construct of gun control I would reasonably accept is NICS and largely in its present form. I want to repeal the import provisions, the 1986 machine gun manfacture ban and the 1968 "sporting purpose" language, just to name a few. Plus no licensing or gun registration in any form (except for "shall issue" concealed carry). As a result, I am not the person you want at the negotiating table since I think most people would not consider me throttling common sense into the anti-gun representative as "negotiation" (or maybe some would, depending on your point of view).

However, there is one aspect of my answer to SayUncle's challenge that I would like to mention to you. Settle in, this is a very long post.

I would like to see the militia reconstituted.

You see, to me, a significant part of the gun controller's logic (especially in weapon bans) can trace back to the notion that we don't have an individual right to arms because they feel the language of the 2nd Amendment applies to the States in forming and maintaining militias. Whatever you choose to believe about the 2nd Amendment and the "well-regulated militia" language, this language is used to club away at our flanks since they feel, ultimately, that the 2nd applies to a collective body and not individuals.

So let's change that.

What most people, including the anti-gun forces, don't realize is the fact the militia does exist. It exists in law. The fact this law is largely passed on by does not change the significance that it exists.

The law defining the militia can be found in United State Code Title 10, Subtitle A, Part I, Chapter 13, Section 311 (often referred to as USC 10 Section 311). Here is the section for your reference:

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia (emphasis mine).

Although I admit the language needs to be updated, the core premise remains. You and I are members of the militia. Section 312 clarifies those exempt from militia duty and does include concientous or religious objection.

The purpose of the militia is provide for the "common defense". It is to be maintained by the States, at the control of the States. The militia sections of USC Title 10 do include provisions for bringing the militia under Federal control in limited circumstance (such as insurrection) but for the most part, the militias are intended to serve the States needs.

From a practical matter, an existent militia removes a lot of the issues with regard to court rulings and provides a powerful wedge against gun control. Most notably gun bans such as those that target handguns or "assault weapons". HR.1022 is such an example. Gun banners argues that we have no need of such arms because they don't apply to usage in a militia.

I would argue I consider myself a defacto member of the militia for possessing such arms regardless of whether my state chooses to form a militia or not. The key aspect of the militia is the possibility of its formation and usage as needed. The fact the State chooses not to do so doesn't make my membership by default in the militia any less valid.

Unfortunately, in today's world, the gun banners point out the militia doesn't exist for all practical means so my "need" of the weapons necessary to serve in it is rendered moot and subject to control. My claiming militia membership in a court hearing might be an interesting exercise but without further precedent than US 10 Section 311, I doubt I would get far. I would just be told to join the National Guard (which is not the militia, by the way). See my previous post here on why I have not done so.

But, the militia concept is attractive for a number of reasons:

One, it would change the landscape of gun control to fall more into line with the historical intents of the Framers.

Two, it would revive the concept of voluntary public service to the community in a true American tradition. Up until the years before World War 1, the citizen militia was alive and well in this country. It was only after the formation of the National Guard in 1903 did the citizen militias finally begin to disappear. For almost two centuries to that point, citizen militias existed and were part of the American culture. The discipline and bonds formed by the militia do help in creating ties to the community and a sense of duty that extends beyond yourself.

Three, it would provide a valuable source of support for domestic activities in supporting the National Guard, free up active duty troops, Guardsmen and reservists for deployment and provide States with a body of individuals capable of assisting with domestic crises such as a natural disaster by helping keep law and order, relief assistance, etc.

Fourth, it would put a large end to discussions about the meanings and intentions of the 2nd Amendment or at least narrow them down considerably. I'm not saying the debate would go away but it would certainly focus the direction of the debate on gun control into other, more controllable areas. With the militia existent, it removes a big plank from the gun controller's platform.

So here is my proposal:

Militia Membership Requirements

The Federal government would pass legislation to provide funding to the States to compile a list of volunteers for the "unorganized militia". This will be accomplished at, of all places, the DMV.

The States will offer a "Declaration of Intent to Serve the Militia" at all DMV locations within the State. If we can register voters at the DMV, we can register militiamen and women. Simple, convenient and anyone can go to the DMV at anytime to submit their declaration. No appointments with a recruiter or spotty phone/e-mail communications needed.

On this declaration, you will provide your current address, vital statistics, certify that you are in good health and are able to serve, acknowledge your service is voluntary, unpaid and you agree to meet the equipment requirements and list any skills you feel would be of value to the militia. Nowhere on this application will you be required to declare you own firearms or what types. Gun ownership is not a requirement for militia service (and I do not wish the militia roster to provide information to create a citizen provided gun registry to the State).

You will agree to a term of regular service of two years which must be commenced within five years of signing your declaration. Once done, you hand it over to a clerk and pay a fixed fee of $5. This fee is to process your application into the database and to add a "Militia Member" endorsement to your driver's license. If you do not have a driver's license or desire a separate militia ID, the DMV will issue you a photo ID card indicating you are a member of the militia. This endorsement on your DL or separate ID will list your enlistment date and status as a member of the militia.

Once you submit your application, the DMV will run a short background check on you (providing them with abbreviated NICS access should not be an issue). This background check is to ensure that you are indeed eligible to participate in the militia since it can and will involve the possible usage of arms. Prohibited persons cannot handle or possess firearms so this is necessary. Plus, it certifies you as a good, upstanding citizen.

Once the check comes back cleam, you get your militia endorsement or your ID. If you fail, they let you go on your way and let the local Police deal with you as they see fit (with the exception that you weren't trying to acquire a firearm so you would be exempt from prosecution under that provision. But if you had an outstanding bench warrant, circumstances would dictate a visit. A background check failure is not indicative of a need to arrest you but that you are not suitable to be enrolled for service in such. Police involvement must be taken on a denial on a case-by-case basis).

The Federal funding is to pay for the administrative costs of maintaining the militia member roster by the State, cover the background check, to offset the ID card costs and to keep militia membership open to all.

Your service term of two years will operate like National Guard service. In fact, it will be done under the supervision of the Guard and at Guard facilities where practical (we'll get to that). Since this service is unpaid and voluntary on the part of the militia member, the expectations are not going to be great. You don't want to alienate those who simply wish to serve. As a result, militia will be expected to serve one weekend a month only. No regular service commitment beyond that (like the two weeks a year the Guard demands).

In Canada, the militia serves one night a week for a few hours at the local armory. If this is practical, I would recommend this as well and solely for militia. That way, the militia develops unit cohesion with their local members, a sense of pride and acquires the necessary discipline (the "well-regulated" part of the 2nd Amendment) as a result. Such a demand is not arduous at all. I did it as a volunteer Air Cadet in Canada.

For equipment, I am going to take a page from the Militia Act of 1792 as inspiration, suitably modernized.

Within six months of your signing of your "Declaration of Intent to Serve", you agree to equip yourself with the following equipment at your own expense:

• A suitable uniform. This shall be a uniform in common issue and camouflage pattern with the US Army (presently ACU). Since issue uniforms are generally available only to service personnel, you will be provided with a list of acceptable civilian knockoffs available commonly at surplus shops, via mail order and, at the option of the government, the ability to purchase "factory second" issue uniforms at a fixed price. These "factory second" uniforms can be made specifically for the militia from rejected fabric for issue uniforms (this is done in Canada for civilian sale with CADPAT uniform material that hasn't taken its IR properties correctly) or pre-made uniforms that fail government inspection for regular duty usage but are otherwise fine. One uniform is required and you may purchase additional uniforms as you see fit.
• A patrol cap in the same camouflage pattern of the uniform.
• Three T-shirts of a color commonly worn under the uniform by the US Army. Presently, this is a tan or brown shirt.
• A pair of black drill boots. These will made available to you from government stocks at government cost prices.
• A pair of duty boots. These will be whatever is in common issue with the US Army or an acceptable civilian copy and a list of locations where these can purchased.
• A web belt.
• Either a hydration system (MOLLE or backpack) with a minimum bladder capacity of 2 quarts in a camouflage pattern matching the uniform or two 1 quart canteens in camouflage matching covers hung from the web belt.
• A rucksack, patrol pack, assault pack, ALICE pack or any other suitable pack in a camouflage pattern matching the uniform that can contain at a minimum: 3 days of MRE rations, a folding entrenching tool, a personal first aid kit, personal hygiene supplies, a wet weather poncho, a change of clothing (socks, underwear, etc), a sleeping bag, ground pad and a personal tent or shelter half plus stakes. This pack may be combined with the hydration system or allow the hydration system to be attached to it at the member's option.

At their option, a member of the militia may opt to equip themselves with additional gear such as load bearing equipment (such as a MOLLE-based modular system, a tactical vest, web gear, etc) in a matching camouflage pattern to the uniform.

MOLLE gear is highly recommended since the user can add pouches as desired and arrange them to suit individual taste. This equipment may have the member's hydration system attached to it if they decide to opt for one. The member is free to add whatever pouches they wish to this setup within the limits of their desire and cost.

In addition to the required equipment, a member of the militia is strongly encouraged to own one or more firearms suitable for militia usage. This is the point of the militia, after all. If they elect to do so, the member is required to meet the following requirements:

• A centerfire rifle based on any action desired (lever, bolt action, semi-automatic, etc).
• Any desired sighting system may be fitted but having backup iron sights in addition to any optics is preferred (e.g. a cosighted red dot on an AR-15, see-through carry handle scope mount, etc).
  
• A suitable cleaning kit for the rifle consisting of a cleaning rod, patches and brush or a boresnake, a bottle of solvent and a bottle of oil or a multi-purpose cleaner that serves both purposes like Breakfree CLP and a wire or nylon cleaning brush. This kit must be carried in the rifle, in a pouch as part of the member's equipment setup, in the rucksack or split between them as needed.
• A sling or carry strap fitted to the rifle
• A minimum of 120 rounds of ammunition suitable for the rifle. This ammunition must be of a full metal jacket (FMJ) variety (in order to comply with the Hague Conventions) but may be from any source (surplus, commercial or reloaded).
• A means to carry the ammunition so as to be immediately available for use in the rifle depending on its design. For the SKS or rifles fed by stripper clips, the ammo must be on stripper clips. For magazine-fed rifles, the ammunition will be in magazines suitable to rifle in any number of magazines desired. In either case, the ammunition will be organized to ensure the 120 rounds will be readily available for immediate loading (e.g. 4 30 round magazines, 6 20 round magazines, 12 10 round stripper clips). For single-shot rifles or rifles with internal magazines that cannot be fed by stripper clips, the ammunition may be carried loose for hand-loading into the rifle in a pouch reachable by the person's free hand while holding their rifle.
• A pouch or series of pouches in a camouflage pattern matching the uniform and fitted to the member's equipment that can carry the minimum 120 rounds so arranged as above. For example, a double M16 magazine pouch carrying 4 30 round magazines. Final arrangement, number and type are left to the militia member's discretion.
  

A militia member, in addition to their rifle, may elect to equip themselves with a pistol (semi-automatic or revolver) of their choice as a backup sidearm. If so, they must equip themselves with a holster, a cleaning kit for the pistol and a minium of 2 reloads for the pistol in a suitable loading mechanism (e.g. a 6 shot revolver will have 6 in cylinders and 12 more in 2 speedloaders, a semi-automatic would have one magazine loaded and two spares). The reloads must be immediately available just as with the rifle.

After your have filed your "Declaration of Intent to Serve", you will receive an information packet in the mail listing your local militia units and contact information. Once you have gathered your required and any optional equipment, you contact the militia unit you wish to serve with and they will work with you on when to begin reporting for duty.

Militia Structure and Organization

The militia is a voluntary organization with a military structure. Since it is the responsibility of Congress and the State to provide for the means of organizing the militia, using local National Guard facilities makes sense. If there are no readily available facilities (such in rural areas), local militia officers can elect to use a community center, hall, sports arena or any other space that will provide for space to organize, train and drill.

To get things going intially, officers for the militia units are going to have to come from the inactive Reserve and Guard who are interested in serving the militia and a new MOS (Militia Liason/Command) will need to be created for active Guard and Reserve members to help form up the new units. Other needed skills (like drill instruction) can be provided by these officers and other members of the Guard and Reserve.

The militia will drill alongside the National Guard and Reserve units. They should (as mentioned above) also have a drill and parade times strictly for them. This drilling will allow the Guard and Reserve to instill discipline, pass down knowledge to the militia that the members likely won't have and begin to integrate them as the lowest rung in the military structure. The one major difference between the militia members and the Guard/Reserve is they will have to the option of going home at the end of the parade day (I believe Guard/Reserve members drilling stay at the facility through the course of their drill weekend).

The weekend drills will allow the militia members to learn basic skills. Weekend courses on first aid, marksmanship, close order drill, field survivial, basic military tactics, ethics and law, disaster relief and support and so on will be taught to the militia members to name a few.

New members will enroll as enlisted personnel and work their way up unless they have previous military experience, in which case the may be eligible to enlist as an officer. Officers will also be drawn as mentioned above and a focus on training indigenous militia officers will exist. Some mechanism for training of militia officers (such as an abbreviated volunteer OCS, mentoring of suitable candidates, field promotion, etc) will need to be established to allow for creation of strictly local officers that belong solely to the militia. The militia needs to have separate command-and-control. Army, Guard and Reserve officers trained as Miltiia Liason officers will serve as the interface between regular Federal armed forces and the militia units alongside them.

Military ranks will be used to denote responsibility, ability and seniority within the units. It will not be as formal or regimented as the regular armed forces. Promotions will be decided on a regular basis and done at the discretion of the militia officers. Since there is no pay involved, promotion and rank are simply mechanisms to reward service and denote progress within the militia. It is not to be used as a club to bludgeon discipline or enforce authoritarian rule. Rank is a mark of respect not a granting of power. It is expected that off the parade square militia members will be informal with each other.

Given that militia units will be small, the company is the most logical basic unit of organization with platoons being formed up as needed. Small units will be essentially platoon sized (understrength at both the platoon level and company level) and larger, better organized or units coming from denser population centers may have multiple platoons within the company.

Individual members will belong to squads named for their commanding officer or sergeant. This harkens back to the tradition of the militia. The company may also be referred to by both its formal name For example, 3rd Maryland Regulars, Company A or by its commanding officer's name, Colonel Sharp's Regulars, First Company (I'm taking some liberties with the naming here but you get the idea. I can provide more accurate historical naming later).

Members will receive training that interests them and the militia unit will have a focus on drill, unit cohesion and marksmanship. It is expected that the militia units will be given access to military or public ranges to have regular marksmanship sessions (preferably once a month) under the instruction of members who are civilian instructors outside, by military instructors or by experienced riflemen within their ranks. For members that do not own their firearms, the training will be structured to share rifles or members will be encouraged to bring extras.

The purpose of the organization is mainly to provide discipline and drilling alongside regular Guard and Reserve units and allow the interest of militia members to be kept high. You don't want the members to get bored or sucked into a garrison mentality. If they do, they will leave. Militia will be trained in administrative and technical tasks as well. There is no reason why a militia member can't learn advanced first aid, infantry marksmanship and small engine repair as part of their service.

Purposes of the Militia

The purpose of the militia is, first and foremost, to provide for the common defense. Hence the close order drill, basic military tactics and marksmanship skills. It is hoped these skills will never be needed.

Militia are local forces and need to be called out by the Governor of their State. Their job is to support States needs. As a result, they can be called out to provide disaster relief, deputized for purposes of providing security against looters. At all times, militia members will be subject to normal laws applying a private citizen with regard to the use of force if it is deemed by the Governor they are to be armed when called out for service. Circumstances will dictate this need.

If the militia, in rare circumstances, are needed to serve in some form of military capacity (and I don't ever see this happening short of putting down an insurrection), then they fall under Federal authority and must be equipped by the Government for their duty (armor and arms). And such service is purely voluntary. A militia member cannot be forced to serve in an active duty capacity (that is what the Guard and Reserve are for). Their intent to serve is always at their whim.

My thoughts on this are grey but I want to get the general idea across. I can see the local militia units being activated to help in a local State disaster (like a flood or tornado), providing service to the community, serving as a color guard or parade unit for local holiday celebrations and generally acting to foster a sense of community within a local group.

Militia Membership Benefits

With all of this, what are the benefits of being a member of the militia? As stated, the member pays their own way and receives no pay in return.

One, an enrolled member of the militia is peritted to write off the costs of any required or optional equipment they purchase for their service off their taxes (say up to a maximum of $2000). A lump tax credit will be provided or the member may elect to itemize with receipts, whichever is higher. In addition, a member is allowed to write off the value one-time of up to two rifles and one pistol at full market value from their taxes as equipment. Ammunition can be written off as equipment expense from year-to-year.

Two, the formation of the militia will cause one major change in gun control laws: the removal of the 1986 machinegun registration ban. Furthermore, the Government will make available, from surplus stocks, a quantity of assault rifles and pistols (such as older M16A1 and A2 rifles) to be purchasable only by enrolled militia members having completed their initial 2 year service terms or members who have completed their service committment satisfactorily at actual cost (not inflated market rates as they presently exist).

This benefits will allow the militia, over time, to be equipped with weapons suitable for the common defense. If the militia are called out armed, they should be equipped as their uniform dictate. Being enrolled in the militia provides all the justification needed. This gets the militia back to its historical roots as they were originally envisioned. So equipped, they slowly become true citizen soldiers.

These rifles cannot be resold or transferred by the member except to another militia member. They will not be subject to NFA background check restrictions or LEO signoff. They will be registered in the NFA machine gun registry for tracking purposes. Pass the regular NICS check, the FFL sends the registration form to the BATFE and that is it. All local laws must be complied with and the rifle must be stored locked up when not in use (not unlike present restrictions on NFA weapons ownership). It is my hope that this could implemented in such a way that gets around any local restrictions on machine gun ownership as a special exception.

Also by restricting the purchase of these weapons to the militia and preventing their transfer outside it, it allows the present NFA Class 3 weapons to come down in price gently. The removal of the 1986 registration ban will allow new non-militia weapons to be made and registered at market rates. The last thing I want to see happen is for someone to lose all of the value of an registered $15,000 M16A1 because of the sudden flood of militia rifles. This way, the owners of such guns have time to adapt to gently falling prices by selling the weapon, keeping it and taking advantage of falling prices for newly available guns and not because of the militia weapons.

Yes, this creates a class system of sorts for machine guns. It is deliberate. A ban on civilian automatic rifles is foolish (in my opinion). They are no more lethal than semi-automatics and I feel a volunteer should deserve to be rewarded for their service. The ownership of such a rifle to me should be such a reward. It does not need to be said that misuse or loss of a militia rifle can and must be punished in the strongest possible way. But, that is no different than a crime with a firearm anywhere now.

Three, militia service will count towards time in and for skills if a member opts to move up to the Guard, Reserve or active duty Army. A militia member in good standing based on time of service should be allowed to enter the regular Army at a higher rank or pay grade than a raw recruit.

After they have done their two years of regular service, a militia member may opt to leave and become inactive. They will still retain their "militia rifle" purchase privileges as long as they are a law-abiding citizen (limited to one militia rifle only). Or they may wish to extend their service on additional service intervals (like 6, 12, 18 or 24 months per re-enlistment).

Once a member has completed their service, they will receive their certificate of service from their unit. They will be allowed to claim a militia service tax credit on their taxes every year from that point on for the rest of their life.

If a member doesn't meet their service committment or is released from service (such as for committing a invalidating crime, isn't behaving according to the standards of the militia and must be documented as such, etc), they lose their militia service benefits for tax purposes and are ineligible to re-enroll. Since militia rifles are only made available to members who have already completed their first terms to satisfaction, there will be no problems with them having a reward for a term of service not satisfactorily completed.

Finally, there just comes the pride and sense of accomplishment at being a part of a community and placing others needs beyond themselves. Beyond the rewards, I think this aspect of being appreciated and being able to serve will appeal to a lot of people who otherwise cannot or are unable to service the regular military.

I'm sure I'll have more on this in the future. Things like more details on organizing, issues for and against and so on. I leave this with you for now as food for thought.

Alert to Gun Owners in New York State

I am not sure if these bills are pending hearings or put to a vote, but if you live in New York State, they are trying to ban "assault weapons" and .50 caliber rifles.

The bills are:

A07331 - Assault Weapon Ban
A02772 - .50 Caliber Weapon Ban

The assault weapon ban bans semi-automatic and pump action rifles that accept a detachable magazine and have one or more "evil" features (like a pistol grip, folding stock, barrel shroud). You have to turn them in or register them by January 2008.

The .50 caliber bans all rifles. except muzzle loaders and black powder rifles, that are .50 caliber or larger (this would also trap big game hunting rifles like the .700 Nitro Express).

If you live in New York State, get on the phone or write letters to your elected representatives and defend your rights!

Referrals from Craigslist

It seems that people are finding my stuff more and more. I'm seeing hits from all kinds of strange places. Sweden, Pakistan, Iceland, Ireland, Saudi Arabia. And most of them are finding the "Bite Me, Brady!" posts. I guess people like guns and pictures of them. Don't fret, folks, I am working on #3 as we speak.

But the interesting referral comes from Houston Craigslist. That's something I never thought of. Glad to see someone felt it important enough to spread my long-winded words far and wide.

Thanks for reading!

More Brady Campaign Rhetoric from Dennis Henigan

It seems the Washington Post is doing a pair of town hall discussions in the wake of the Virginia Tech shooting. Yesterday, they did an interview with Dennis Henigan. I'm going to quote what his role is directly from the Post:

Henigan is the director of the Legal Action Project at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, based in Washington. The Legal Action Project is a national public interest law program that provides pro bono legal representation to victims of gun violence in lawsuits against the gun industry and assists in the defense of gun laws in the courts.

In other words, he's a Brady Campaign ambulance chaser.

It also figures that the Post, a liberal newspaper, would give the anti-gun forces the first go. Today's edition is John Lott. That one ought to be interesting to say the least!

Let us discuss what our Brady Campaign ambulance chaser has to say in response to questions posed to him. As always, these were moderated by the Post administrators lest he get beaten really hard. Don't have any heavy objects nearby while you read this; you're going to get mad.

Dennis Henigan: The facts show that Cho was adjudicated by a Virginia judge to be both mentally ill and a danger to himself. This should have disqualified him from buying a gun under federal law. However, the order was not entered into the background check database. If the Brady Law background check had been properly administered, Cho would have been blocked from buying a gun and this tragedy likely would have been averted. Yet another demonstration of how gun control laws can save lives. I fear that Virginia is not alone is misapplying federal law in this way.

The order was not entered because the way the law is designed, he was not involuntarily committed but rather the judge opted for the lesser remedy of outpatient treatment. If Cho had been involuntarily committed, then yes, his information should have wound up in NICS and he would have been denied his gun purchase.

This is a fine point that a lot of people, including the media, seems to be missing. I am of the opinion the solution to this issue in hindsight is when presented with a person who is "a danger to oneself or others", has been adjudicated as such by professionals, a judge concurs, you get involuntarily committed. Do not provide the option of voluntary treatment. If you feel the person is an imminent danger, you should have no difficulty in showing cause for a committal.

The flip side to this is whatever procedure this is done be had best be applied only in extreme circumstances. The last thing we need is for such a process to be abused. Very tight controls need to be in place and that must include an appeals process and a means for rights restoration at a future point in time. One bad episode, no matter how severe, should not deprive you of your Constutitional rights forever.

As to averting the tragedy, that is not proven. Who's to say Cho couldn't have gotten guns illegally from another source? But is reasonable to assume it may have been delayed or greatly reduced. Perhaps Cho might have stabbed the couple in the first killing and the second may have never occurred.

Williamstown, Mass.: Why do you think Congress would pass gun control laws after this event, but let the Assault Weapons Ban expire after Columbine? Because these horrible tradgedies happen so often in the U.S., and not other nations, will people recognize that the ability to buy guns is at the core of so many people being killed? I question whether Americans have the attention span to focus on this issue.

Dennis Henigan: I believe the American people will be outraged about our nation's policies toward guns in the wake of the Virginia Tech massacre. It is unforgiveable that President Bush and the Congress (then controlled by his Party) allowed the ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines to expire in 2004. The ammunition magazines that Cho used were banned by that law. Since 2004, many thousands more of them have been produced and are in circulation.

For those of you who have difficulty with timelines, here is one for you: Columbine occurred in 1999. The Federal Assault Weapon Ban (AWB) was in effect at the time of Columbine and remained for for an additional 5 years. So that ban did not prevent Columbine and nor would have it prevented Virginia Tech.

Henigan is lying here, folks. The AWB banned cosmetic features on guns and manufacture of high-capacity magazines during the ban period except for law enforcement and government use. It did not ban civilian possession or purchase of high capacity magazines during the ban if the magazine was made prior to the ban coming into effect! All the ban did was drive the prices of high capacity magazines up. It did not eliminate them. Cho would have been allowed to buy and possess them during the ban just as he did after the ban expired. The ban would have had absolutely no effect on Cho obtaining high capacity magazines. None. Zero. Zilch.

Likewise, the ban only barred more than two certain cosmetic features from being combined onto a single firearm. As a result, manufacturers removed them. The guns that had been built with the banned features were still allowed to be sold and possessed by civilians through the entire period of the ban. And new firearms made during the ban functioned identically as their banned counterparts. They just looked different.

And the ban was not allowed to lapse. It had a sunset provision built into it when it was drafted which required Congress to reauthorize the ban. Congress did not do so. It was not a failure. It was a bad law and the law died the natural death that was built into it.

Dennis Henigan: Yes, the enforcement of current gun laws is woeful. But it is a fallacy to believe we must choose between stronger enforcement of current laws and stronger laws. We must have both! If the Brady Law had been properly administered, Cho would have been blocked from buying a gun from a licensed dealer. We need to strengthen the Brady system to prevent these sales. But Cho also could have just gone to his local gun show and bought a handgun without a background check from someone claiming to be selling only from his "personal collection". This is the "gun show loophole" that the Virginia legislature again this year refused to close. We need stronger law and stronger enforcement of those laws.

I've already highlighted why Cho was allowed to buy a gun. He did so legally. Hindsight is a wonderful teacher but that fact still remains. Current law could not have prevented it because of the way it is applied. The NICS system does not need to be strengthened, Mr. Henigan. There is nothing wrong with it. It is only as good as the data that it has in it. Had Cho been involuntarily committed, he would have been in it. He was not. As a result, the system did not fail, administratively or legally.

And once again, we raise the red herring of the "gun show loophole". It is not a loophole. There are specific legal requirements that must be met in order for two people to perform a private transaction of a firearm amongst themselves.

Yes, no background check is required. But the seller has to ensure who they are selling to is a resident of the same state and must take reasonable steps to ensure that whom they are selling to would not be prohibited under all Federal, State and local laws from possessing the firearm being sold. For most people, this involves signing a bill of sale with both parties attesting to this fact, the date, amount of money that changed hands, information on the gun. And if either party lies, legally, both could be held responsible.

As you might imagine, such transactions don't occur often and if they do, it is often among those who know each other well. Between strangers in Virginia, a valuable piece of ID as a private buyer is a Virginia CCW permit. Because if you have one, it proves two things to the seller. One is the fact you are a Virginia resident and two, that you are not prohibited from buying the gun in any way since you've essentially gone through the background check.

And by the way, these types of transactions can occur anywhere, not just at gun shows. And selling more than a couple of guns from your "personal collection" at a gun show is sufficient to attract the attention of the BATFE for "engaging in the business of selling firearms". There are limits to the number of private sales are you permitted to do over a period of time before you are considered to be an unlicensed dealer and into a world of trouble.

From personal experience, I have seen only a single instance where a private seller was selling a handgun at a gun show. And that was for an older .22 target pistol. Rifles are far more common to be sold privately but even then, such transactions represent a very small percentage at gun shows.

Richmond, Va.: I own guns but would be happy to have restrictive purchasing laws. 90-day waiting periods would be fine with me. Also, being able to demonstrate that one is stable and a good law abiding citizen is fine, too! The question I have to those who simply state "let's just ban guns" is, how do we get the 250 million guns already in the hands of the U.S. populace out of their hands? Doesn't this seem to bolster the arguement that in the end (under such high, restrictive measures and laws) that only criminals would have guns? Comments?

Dennis Henigan: You are typical of the vast majority of gun owners who support sensible gun laws. The NRA does not represent you! The issue is not banning guns. It is enacting strong laws to keep guns out of the wrong hands. States like New Jersey, New York and Massachusetts have enacted strong gun laws, yet allow law-abiding citizens to own guns. The data show that the guns used in crime in those states come from other states with weaker gun laws. In other words, strong state gun laws block criminals from getting guns in those states; the criminals must use gun trafficking rings bringing guns in from other states. This research supports the effectiveness of gun control laws, but it also suggests that we need, in the final analysis, strong federal laws to prevent interstate trafficking. We need a federal law mandating background checks on all gun purchases, not just those from licensed dealers. We need a federal ban on bulk sales, which facilitate gun trafficking. We need to give federal law enforcement authorities (ATF) more power to crack down on corrupt dealers who aid and abet traffickers. And we need a strong ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines of the kind used by Cho.

Mr. Henigan, you're amazing. In the first part of your response you state the issue is not about banning guns but to enact strong gun laws, stop illegal gun trafficking and then at the end state we need a strong ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines!

When is a ban not a ban?!?

And those strong gun laws in New Jersey, New York and Massachussets all place discretionary authority to deny a citizen the right to purchase a firearm based solely on the opinion of the local police or sherriff's office. And in some cases, certain guns (like handguns in NYC) are impossible to get approval for unless you're rich or well-connected. The processes in such places is arbitrary and unfair. And quite honestly, if you have to ask the police "pretty please" to buy a gun, you aren't exercising a Constitutional right anymore; you're exercising a State-sanctioned privilege. Your idea of strong gun laws and mine do not mix, Mr. Henigan. I do not want you deciding who, how, where and when I can exercise a Right I have had to earn.

Continuing on, Cho didn't use an assault weapon, you idiot! He used a 9mm pistol. The Brady Campaign has expanded their definition of "assault weapon" to be pretty much any firearm that has a semi-automatic action.

And by the way, for being involved in legal affairs, you are woefully ignorant of the law.

• It is illegal for an individual to purchase guns legally and then sell or transfer them to others who would not be legally allowed to possess them. This is called a "straw purchase". It is already a felony.
• It is illegal in the state of Virginia to purchase more than one handgun in a 30 day period. Your anti-trafficking law is already in place in the state where the massacre occurred. Not to mention the fact that Cho's act had nothing to do with illegal gun trafficking!
• It is illegal for a gun dealer to knowing sell or transfer firearms without following proper Federal, State and local law. This is a felony. The ATF already has the power to crack down on such dealers. They also form about 1 percent of all licensed dealers in the country. No more laws are required to deal with them.

And of course, we need to ban guns and magazines. Apparently, you are choosing to ignore the fact that the gun Cho used and the magazines he bought and used were both legal under the Federal AWB. Unless your ban includes confisication, it would have still been legal for him to do so even with a renewed ban in place.

And by the way, Richmond, VA gun owner, thanks for being willing to sell out your rights. What would restrictive purchasing laws do? I thought that is what "one gun a month" laws were for? Cho planned his massacre taking into full account of this supposed anti-gun violence prevention measure and it didn't do a damn bit of good.

I don't see Mr. Henigan crowing about the efficacy of one of the laws his organization has promoted. And what happens, sir, when they simply raise the waiting period on purchases to "when we feel like granting it to you"? Does that sound like the exercise of a Right to you? Not from where I sit.

Cleveland Heights, Ohio: Why are 15-round clips legal? What is the justification? I am genuinely asking.

Dennis Henigan: In my view, there is not justification for high capacity ammunition clips for the civilian market. This kind of military-style firepower is appropriate for the battlefield or for law enforcement, but should be outlawed for civilian sale, as it was for 10 years until President Bush and the Congress allowed the ban on assault weapons and high-capacity clips to expire. The President said he was for renewing the law, but his failure to lead on this issue was shameful.

They were not outlawed for civilian sale, you lying fool! If the magazine was made prior to the ban going into effect, it was legal for a civilian to buy after the ban was in effect!

President Bush said he would sign a renewed ban if it reached his desk. This is true. All the leadership in the world can't change the fact it required Congress to act. Sure, he could have asked Congress to do so. I think a hint that the President would sign a bill that reached his desk is a pretty strong clue that Congress should act.

But Congress doesn't act at the whim of the President; it acts at the will of the People. And the People made it abundantly clear to their Congressional representation that if you support a renewed ban, you would not be sitting in that seat come the next election. Mr. Henigan, would you care to recount to your esteemed readers what happened to the Democratic majority in both Houses in 1996 after the 1994 Federal AWB was passed? Booted to the curb by the People is an accurate way to describe it.

And why is it the civilians need less ammunition than the police? Why is it ok for the police or military to have higher capacities, but for a person defending themselves in their own homes can get by with fewer? If you are defending your life, you want every advantage you can get against an attacker bent on doing you harm. If it is good enough for the police in defending their lives, it should be good enough for us too.

Cho used a combination of standard and high-capacity magazines. So what? Would our victims feel better knowing they were killed by 10 round magazines rather than 15 or 33 rounders? If a killer is reloading and no one is stopping him, the capacity of a magazine is irrelevant.

And the Federal AWB proved this. There were millions of high capacity magazines in civilian circulation before, during and after the ban. It did not affect violent gun crime at all. Because magazine capacity has nothing to do with the ability of a criminal to carry out their intentions.

Washington: For every columbine and VA tech, there are stories of lives saved because people were allowed to carry guns and subdued a crazy man on the rampage. All the worst shootings in this country happen in gun-free zones. Countries that outlaw the public carrying guns have seen increased in gun violence, kidnapping and other crimes. Look at Washington -- there is a gun ban, but this is one of the worst cities in American for gun violence. Any law you pass isn't going to stop one crazy man who would trade his life for others. If you believe in the Constitution, then every citizen who can pass a background check is entitled to own a gun.

Dennis Henigan: This is a nice presentation of NRA talking points, reflecting the mythology that paralyzes our nation's gun policy and costs untold innocent lives. Of the nation's homicides, a tiny number happen on "gun-free" college campuses. Is your solution to arms students on college campuses? Two words summarize why that would be a tragic folly: beer and hormones. Our national discussion should not be distracted by crazy ideas like arming students to ensure that, at best, shooters like Cho would be involved in a crossfire that would no doubt still claim many lives regardless of its conclusion. We need to be talking about strong policies to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people so that no one has to die.

They are tiny, yes, but they happen in high and elementary schools too. And your lobbying efforts have ensured that teachers in almost all places who have a permit to carry are not allowed to defend themselves in the event of such an event.

These places are "gun free" alright, except for the criminal that ignores the law and walks onto one with a gun in hand. Laws do not create magic barriers that keep criminals from acting, Mr. Henigan.

Mr. Henigan is also being very dishonest and glossing over concealed carry by his "beer and hormones" comment. Any 21 year old college student who takes the time to acquire the required training, fill out the application, pay the fee, pass the background check, buy a gun and practice with it is going to know that legally, you cannot drink and carry at the same time!

Anyone who undertakes the decision to go through a CCW process is not somone I worry about breaking the law by drinking and carrying. If anything, it shows me that college student is a mature, responsible, thoughtful individual who deserves to be trusted. They have certainly proven it by going through the process.

Thanks, Mr. Henigan, for taking a piss on all of these 21+ year old adults whom you believe cannot be entrusted with exercising their Constitutional rights.

Mr. Henigan, do you realize that most CCW holders who carry regularly are actually better shots than the police? In my personal experience, a CCW holder will shoot anywhere from 100 to 1000 rounds in a month. And do so regularly. 100-250 rounds a week is not unusual. Police are generally required to shoot 50-100 rounds in a year and only do so once or twice. Who would you rather have behind the trigger?

Sure, students might be involved in a crossfire. But you're saying that chance is worse than doing nothing at all and submitting to the killer's will. I'd rather have my child wounded and alive because of a crossfire than dead undefended. Because that is what you are stating here.

But your crossfire is unlikely to happen. As a citizen with a CCW, I am responsible for the ultimate impact point for every round I fire and I will be held legally responsible for each and every one. So, I have a very strong motivation to ensure that if I pull the trigger, my rounds are going to hit my intended target.

Given the choice between 32 dead students and 32 potentially alive ones, crossfire or not, I'll take my chances with a crossfire. If it was your children or grandchildren, I dare say you would too. Or maybe you prefer your kin to be blood martyrs on your altar of gun control lies and deceit?

Falls Church, Va.: Aren't you proposing a "War on Guns" highly similar to the "War on Drugs"? Even if handguns were made illegal, what reason is there to believe that illegal guns would be any harder to obtain then than illegal drugs are now? If illegal drugs can flow freely across our borders in high volumes, why wouldn't guns do the same?

Dennis Henigan: First, we are not proposing to ban possession of guns; thus, your argument is a red herring. The analogy to drugs, though, is interesting. Unlike illegal drugs, illegal guns originate in a legal market. Virtually every gun used in crime started out being manufactured by a licensed manufacturer and sold by a licensed dealer. This means that controls on the legal market can have a profound effect on the availability of guns in the illegal market. We know that almost 60% of crime guns originate with only about 1% of licensed gun dealers. We need to give ATF the additional tools to crack down on those dealers. The Brady Law has stopped over 1.3 million prohibited gun buyers from purchasing guns from licensed dealers. In the first ten years that Brady was in effect, violent non-lethal gun crime plunged 73% and gun homicides fell 33%. Again, strengthening control on the legal market affected the flow of guns to the illegal market. We now need to apply the Brady background checks to all gun sales, 40% of which are by private sellers who are not licensed dealers and thus are not subject to the background check requirement.

40% of illegal guns comes from private sellers? Really. If they are, then they are already breaking the law! We've come back to straw purchases. There are already laws against this. Enforce them. What he isn't saying is these private sellers are buying the guns legally and then selling them illegally. Aren't there laws against this? Yes, we discussed them previously with the so-called "gun show loophole". So, it apparently is a loophole that applies not to just gun shows. How refreshing. Now you can stop calling it the "gun show loophole" because it doesn't exist there at all.

And the ATF already has the tools to do their job. They always have. What the changes in the law did do was prevent people like you from using law enforcement data for purposes other than which it was intended. That data is not intended to be used (by the statement of the ATF themselves) for the purpose of statistical comparison. It is a small crime fighting tool, nothing more.

Delray Beach, Fla.: I was a member of the NRA for many years. It used to be informative, fun, and entertaining -- now it is a political organization and actually makes public policy. Who is going to stop this madness? Assault rifles, hollow point bullets, gun-carrying children, carrying weapons openly? Will the Democrats finally do something about this?

Dennis Henigan: Ultimately, only the American people can stop the madness. You, and those who think like you, must communicate your views to your elected officials strongly and often. Go to our websites, www.bradycampaign.org or www.millionmommarch.org and we will make it easy for you. Over 80% of the American people support stronger, sensible gun laws, but the will of the people is being frustrated by a well-financed special interest lobby using the tactics of intimidation on politicians who are, as Sarah and Jim Brady like to say, "cowardly lions". The cowardly lions need to hear from you!

What Mr. Henigan doesn't mention is you can use his own website to send e-mails to all your elected officials and you get a chance to edit the e-mail before sending it! What a wonderful service the Brady Campaign has provided for us! We can send e-mails originating from the Brady Campaign showing how they support gun rights!

Politicians are cowardly lions? That's a new one for me. I find it interesting that you refer to the "gun lobby" as a well-financed special interest. Isn't that what the Brady Campaign is too? I thought politicians were supposed to execute the will of their constituents and uphold the Constitution. Guess I'm wrong.

Delray Beach, I'm sorry you feel that you feel that way. I wish you would do some research on the topic rather than, as it appears, chosen a different set of lies to believe.

Cho didn't use an assault weapon nor are "assault weapons" used in crime.

Hollow-point rounds are perfectly legal and ideal to use in a situation requiring you to use a gun to stop an attacker. Or, unfortunately, as Cho used them, to kill. But a non-hollow point would have done the same job in that case so there is no difference.

Cho was not a child. He was a legal adult. Children aren't allowed to possess arms unless under the supervision of an adult.

Open carry is legal in Virginia but not on the campus of Virginia Tech (or any school).

And finally, if the Democrats "do something" as you say, then they won't hold office anymore just like in 1994. Gun owners have long memories. Understand the new crop of Democrats didn't get elected on a gun control platform as the Brady Campaign will have you believe. Many of them are pro-gun (including Jim Webb of Virginia). If the Democrats, or any party, adopts a gun control platform and passes laws like you imply, I will devote all my energies including my vote to see them run out of office.

Allen Township, Pa.: One of the arguments gun enthusiasts proffer against gun control: Mass murderers will find a way if they have the will, using fire, explosions, airplanes -- just look what they're doing in Iraq. How easy is it to buy C4 or other explosives these days?

Dennis Henigan: Explosives have been tightly controlled since the 1930s. The Columbine shooting was an interesting case in point. The killers were armed with guns and homemade explosives. The explosives did not work well and I don't believe anyone was killed or injured by the explosives. If they could have bought explosives as easily as they bought guns, their explosives would not have been homemade and would have been far more effective.

Interesting, Mr. Henigan. How did those homemade explosives work out for Timothy McVeigh? Seems he killed 165 people in Oklahoma City using homemade explosives. He was easily able to buy fertilizer, diesel fuel and rent a truck.

Manfactured explosives may be tightly controlled but the knowledge of their creation is not. Having that knowledge and acting upon it are two different things, Mr. Henigan. Unless you are also proposing a ban on science and physics books to ensure that criminals can't acquire the knowledge they need to step from theory into action? So what if it happens to interfere with the functioning of a free society? We all have to pay a price for safety, I guess.

Dennis Henigan: This comment expresses the sense of futility that many Americans unfortunately feel. The feeling of futility is, however, the gun lobby's best friend. We saw in the battle for the Brady Law and the assault weapon ban in the early 1990s that if the people demand action, it tends to stiffen the politicians' spines. We overcame the bullying of the gun lobby in those battle and we can do it again! Hopelessness on this issue does not honor the victims at Virginia Tech. They will be honored by action that prevents future tragedies.

Really? Did the Federal AWB prevent Columbine? Nope. Occurred right smack dab in the middle of it. And those who supported that ban found their spines broken by their constituents, whom they betrayed. You didn't overcome a damn thing! If anything, your actions caused gun owners and rights advocates to mobilize in a way you've never seen before and are not enjoying now. Just ask Paul Helmke what he thought of 200+ private citizens opposing him and your inane gun control policies not too long ago in Annapolis, Maryland. (For those of you who are unaware, the Brady Campaign got their asses handed to them and the so-called "gun lobby" wasn't anywhere in sight. Just plain ordinary folks like you and I. We are the real "gun lobby").

But remember, folks, Mr. Henigan says that laws prevent tragedy. Hmm, laws against drunk driving don't seem to stop people from driving while drunk? Or laws against murder preventing serial killers from murdering? Or rapists from raping? How would a gun law against having a gun prevent a criminal from getting and using one to commit a crime? And aren't there already laws against this already? Last time I checked there was. How fascinating.

And this feeling of futility you speak of, you created it! You were the ones that lobbied for "one gun a month laws", you lobby actively against lawful concealed carry by responsible citizens, you lobby against firearms that are not used in crimes because they "look scary" and you lobby for ever-expanding spheres around places that tell criminals their victims are guaranteed to be disarmed.

You do not have a right to feel safe. It is a not a right. You do have the right to take responsibility for your own safety and of those around you. But the Brady Campaign doesn't want you to do that. They want you to be at the mercy of criminals in all places up to and including your own home if they had their way.

Dennis Henigan: Thanks to everyone for caring so much about this issue to participate. Again, for more information about what the Brady organization is doing to prevent gun violence, visit www.bradycampaign.org. or www.millionmommarch.org.

They aren't preventing a thing. They are enabling it.

Bloody shill.

Stupid Politicians

This is old news (by blog terms) but I figure it will be a good little rant. I have other stuff in the hopper and this you may find interesting.

I have two beefs and they both relate to stupid politicians. The first relates to the First Lady of Gun Control, Carolyn McCarthy.

She is the sponsor of HR.1022, the renewed attempt by Congress to ban "evil, scary assault weapons". This brings back the failed Federal AWB of 1994-2004 and adds several new wrinkles including no sunset provision, makes it illegal to possess conversion kits of any sort, magazine capacity ban and adds hundreds of new types of "assault weapons" to the list (including traditionally stocked semi-automatic hunting rifles). Some estimates believe this bill would ban almost half of all the guns presently in the USA. Conservatively, that's about 125-150 million firearms.

So, given such a broad, impacting piece of legislation, you'd figure the chief sponsor would actually know what is in it, right?

Well, watch this...



Although I don't watch this show, I certainly caught this little bit and the subsequent posts about it online on other blogs. Funny how the news media isn't all over this one.

In case you missed the significance, McCarthy just got caught not even knowing what her own legislation banned! She has no idea what a "barrel shroud" is and what its function is! If you're wondering, a barrel shroud encircles the barrel of gun to prevent a user from burning their hands. It can be made of wood or plastic.

Where does a politician get off trying to pass legislation they sponsored when they themselves have no bloody clue what the legislation does or addresses?!? Fine, she's anti-gun. But, she's also anti-gun and woefully ignorant and has shown no desire to at least buy herself a clue. And this person represents voting citizens from the state of New York. Apparently, they don't look for much from their elected representatives.

As much as I enjoy watching politicians getting caught with their pants down, this type of thing is all too common among the political class whose only real talent is the ability to get and hold office. Not all are like this but more often than not, our good representative McCarthy is pretty typical of the American politician.

Given this, I think we should demand a new procedural rule of our elected representatives. Simply, you should not be allowed to sponsor or propose a bill unless you have direct personal knowledge of what the bill contains, what it affects, who it affects, its costs and the general mechanism by which it will be implemented. For co-sponsors, they will be held to the same standard since they too are putting their names to the legislation.

Of course, a snowball has a better chance lasting a week in Hell than this rule would ever have of actually being implemented since it would, gasp, introduce knowledge, integrity and a very tiny amount of honesty into politicians. There is simply no place in politics for that type of behavior.

Stuff like this just bugs from politicians because it shows they are acting out of their own selfish motives and not in the interests or even minimal expectations of their constituents.

In the same vein of stupid politicians come this little bit from Bitter of the The Bitch Girls. It is a little article on Congressman Dennis Kucinich on his plan to deal with violence in our country and schools.

Put simply, this guy is a raving loon.

I won't comment on his proposal for the creation of a "Department of Peace and Non-Violence". Noble idea, great pablum for the masses and totally unworkable in the real world.

For example:

"The bill provides hope for a transformation through education of our children in principles of nonviolence and support for existing community groups and professionals whose dedication would be empowered by a national commitment to peace and nonviolence," Kucinich said.

Ok, Mr. Kucinich. And when the school bully slugs down one of your practitioners of peace and non-violence, what is you proposed solution? Sit there and take it? Turn in the perpetrator for fun rewards and prizes? Punish the non-violent for violating the principles of non-violence by slugging the bully violently in the face with a dose of his own medicine (worked for me as a teenager, I never had a problem with the bully after that).

It gets better. This guy wants to ban handguns from civilians.

Kucinich is currently drafting legislation that would ban the purchase, sale, transfer, or possession of handguns by civilians. A gun buy-back provision will be included in the bill.

Does the word "idiocy" come to mind? Even assuming that this could actually pass without costing those who support it their seats in the House and Senate (those who supported the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban lost their seats across the board and that bill didn't advocate citizens turning in their lawfully owned arms), let's just look at the cost.

I am doing this so those of you out there who don't see an issue with the banning and taking of lawfully owned property from citizens can see the actual cost. It is most certainly not free and far more difficult than you might imagine.

Let me play Devil's Advocate here for a moment.

First, for a gun buyback to work, this legislation is going to have offer fair market value for each gun plus its accessories and ammunition. As a result, any buyback should use the Blue Book of Gun Values, the gun dealer standard for pricing used guns. Otherwise, any attempt to compensate owners for the property with a $50 or $100 gift card is going to be met, at best, with a pair of upraised middle fingers to the would-be buybackers.

Next, how many handguns are in the USA that would need to be rounded up? An old report from 1997 estimates 65 million and that is ten years old. For arguments sake, let's assume an additional 15 million handguns have been sold here in the USA in the intervening ten years for an even number of 80 million.

Now, what is the value? I am going to take a real low shot in the dark here and assume a reasonable middle value of $350 for a handgun (don't pile on yet, I'll modify this assumption in a bit). So, without accessories, which includes loaders, magazines, holsters, sights, scopes, etc and no compensation for ammunition, here is what your minimum cost for Mr. Kucinich's legislation would be to the American taxpayer:

80 Million handguns x $350.00 = $28 Billion

That is almost double the annual NASA budget for a given year (which averages $14-$16 billion dollars). For perspective, this is the cost of an estimated 3 months of combat operations, all-inclusive for pay and equipment of all services, for the War in Iraq.

Think a buyback is a good idea now? And this is a very low estimate. The average value is probably a lot higher.

The $350 value would apply to a cheap .38 revolver, .22 pistol or other such handgun. Since other gun control legislation has effectively banned the manufacture of inexpensive, quality, affordable handguns, the trend for the past 10-15 years has been towards more costly semi-automatics and specialized revolvers. These are much more expensive. An average cost of a good semi-automatic pistol will run around $500 with an upper bounds of $800. They can cost even more but generally the $1000+ handguns are customized guns and appeal to a smaller segment of gun owners as the cost rises.

As a result, our estimate of $350 per gun is too low. Plus we haven't considered accessories. If, on average, the cost of a handgun is $500 and each owner were to have $100 in accessories, our buyback program cost soars to a staggering $48 billion dollars.

Even as a one-time budget expenditure, this is nothing to sneeze at. Not to mention the fact Congress is going to use my own money to purchase my own property from me. And this figure doesn't even include additional funds for ammunition. Figure another billion or so for that. An even $50 billion dollars to theoretically eliminate handguns from civilian ownership.

Which brings me to the next point: compliance.

I want to know what bleeding heart, communist liberal honestly believes that anything above a small fraction of the American people are going to actually comply? Well, they might argue, if they don't volunteer, we'll force them to turn them in or go and confiscate them.

Great, Mr. Liberal, how are you going to figure out where to go to find these guns?

"Well, we'll use registration and purchase records."

For the record, save for a few states, gun registration does not exist in this country. And as to purchase records, it isn't the government that has them. So to get them, you're going to have to change the law to demand records of gun purchases for which no crime has been committed until just now when Congress decided to make criminals out of 80 million law-abiding citizens. Just compiling those records is going to be a herculean task which is not taken into account for our $50 billion dollar figure. Throw an additional several hundred million dollars up to a billion dollars or more to compile your gun record list.

And even then, you won't get anywhere near them all. There are lots of handguns in this country (especially those made before 1968) that have no records whatsoever. You can't confiscate what you can't determine to exist and I seriously doubt anyone with such a gun is going to willingly hand it over.

Also, expect to get a lot of lost or stolen gun reports shortly before or during this period of buyback or house-to-house demanding of your legally acquired property. You might argue that such reports are false and intended to mislead or otherwise prevent you from handing over a gun under such circumstances but the beauty of such a thing is in our system of justice, presently, you have to prove I am guilty! You cannot assume it!

So, at a minimum, a few million handgun owners filing lost/stolen police reports is going to require massive amounts of resources to investigate and for local prosecutors to go after a token few for filing false police reports. I wonder how enamored of your gun buyback program the average person will be when they see the wheels of justice grind to a halt for widespread civil disobedience. And at the end of all this, you still won't have all the handguns in the country.

So after we are done with out house-to-house violation of your 4th and 5th Amendment Rights and Mr. Kucinich has all of our handguns (theoretically), the USA will finally be a massacre-free utopian paradise.

This whole plan ignores one little thing: It will do nothing to stop criminals from getting guns.

"But, But!", Mr. Liberal says, "There will be no more civilian guns for them to buy or steal!".

No, but there will still be plenty to steal from the police, either through assaulting a police officer en-masse, bribing a property clerk or bringing them illegally in from overseas. There are millions of Russian Makarovs and Tokarevs out there. I'm sure an eastern European crime syndicate would happily bring in thousands of these in exchange for hard currency and drugs to arm our local criminal elements. Britain, an island nation, has had no problems among the criminal elements from getting banned handguns so why should we be any different?

Not to mention the fact the existing handguns in criminal hands won't be turned in. So what exactly will this bill do to prevent gun violence?

As a result, under Mr. Kucinich's plan, only the criminals and police will have handguns. Exactly what any liberal gun banner wants!

And when the crime rates increase dramatically, who will he blame then? Or what about when the next madman uses an illegally obtained handgun to shoot up a school? What gun control measures will this waste of oxygen demand then? For us to pray for peace and non-violence?

Sounds like a good plan to me. Until then, I'm sticking with peace through superior firepower, .45 inches at a time.

Idiots.

Three Ways Virginia Tech Could Have Been Stopped

As promised, I would discuss the ways in which the Virginia Tech might have been stopped.

The way I see it, there are only three ways that this might have been stopped once it has started. I emphasis that because there was no way to prevent this before our psychopath drew his weapon. A gun ban or magazine ban wouldn't have stopped it (short of a total civilian firearms ban) nor did all of the gun control laws we have now stop it. This couldn't have been stopped by laws in even the most rabidly gun control states.

And for now, we don't have gun laws that require release of your private medical information or licensing that demands your doctor signs off on it as a reference of your mental stability. I mention that in passing since that is where I see the debate trending over the next few months and that is a debate that should scare you with its implications.

But, I want to focus on the means by which, with a active shooter present on campus, how this deranged killer might have been stopped in his tracks. I say "might" because there are no absolutes in life save for death and taxes.

The first way our shooter could have been stopped, quite obviously to an average person on the street, is a police officer or armed security guard nearby. It almost goes without saying.

The catch here is "nearby". The reason is because, by their very nature, police are a reactionary force. That would include armed security guards. Unless members of these groups are on patrol and stumble onto a crime in progress (which doesn't happen often), the way they are brought into play is in response to a crime that has already been committed.

Lots of people labor under the mistaken belief that the police are there to protect you. This is incorrect. If you want an example, merely look out your window. Do you see a police officer pacing outside your house? Or pacing the streets of your neighborhood patiently protecting you from a crime occurring? No.

So, in order for police to be effective, they have to go to the place where the crime is occurring once they are made aware of it (911 being our preferred method) and then try to stop it. Of course, this assumes the crime is still occurring by the time they arrive which can take minutes to hours.

How does this relate to Virginia Tech?

To provide context. There is going to be a lot of scrutiny placed on the police for their failure to act. The problem was, they were acting. They were investigating the first shooting and it was over two hours before this madman commenced his final rampage. But the police did the right things when they got word this second shooting had commenced. They reacted. They headed for the scene. They did what police are supposed to do. Although I think they need to re-examine their policies with regard to school (meaning all schools) shootings, I can't find much to fault the police with in regard to how they reacted.

Except they weren't there when he started. It only took minutes for the police to reach the scene but those minutes were all the killer needed. Those minutes might as well have been an eternity.

Don't be too hard on the police. They did what they were supposed to do. If anything, their reaction according to their procedures showed a failure of imagination which our psychopath did not lack. I feel that will be corrected in the future to improve their chances of a better reaction. But it will still be a reaction.

The only way the police could have stopped this once it had started is if they had deployed officers to every building, placing one by an entrance and one on each floor within reasonable running distance of all rooms of that floor. By reasonable, being able to reach any room where a threat might have been within five to ten seconds.

To have stopped him, they would have to react to his actions and then moved in to negate him. That takes time. The farther they were away, the more time it takes. This experienced shooter had no difficulty firing 60+ rounds from multiple magazines in several rooms in a space of only minutes. It was not superhuman. Anyone with a reasonable amount of shooting experience is capable of it.

But if the nearest police officer was six minutes away when the call came in, it would have not made one iota of difference. Apparently our nutjob killed himself when he saw police closing in. The police did their job. They did it right.

They just could not have stopped him unless they were already nearby when he had started.

Would a college campus deploy an armed officer to every hallway and outside an entrance to each building in the future as a preventive measure? Perhaps. It is not a perfect, guaranteed solution but the nearby presence of an armed officer would have acted both as a deterrent and as a closer reactionary force that might have minimized the carnage. People might still die but it may not be as many.

And yet, the police would still be criticized for that. Don't do it, people. Police are human like the rest of us. They can only act on what they know, what they see and based on their training. No human activity is perfect.

With the caveats of proper deployment and being nearby, the police might have stopped it.

With that, we move to the second means by which this killer could have been stopped. For those of you who are in the know, you know what I am about to say.

The presence of an armed citizen could have stopped him.

Gun rights advocates (myself included), some in the media and a lot of people who have been made aware of the fact that private citizens can bear concealed weapons in the State of Virignia will be talking about this method of stopping this shooter in his tracks. And so will the anti-gun forces as to how their presence makes situations more dangerous than what this killer was capable of (yes, they do believe this).

Regardless of your views, like the police, an armed citizen is a reactionary force. This difference is they generally tend to be able to better react to an immediate threat than the police because they are closer to it and usually have the will to do so.

An armed citizen could have stopped this guy almost dead in his tracks with minimal loss of life. Assuming he wasn't one of the victims caught off-guard in the front of a room before the first shots rang out, an armed citizen would have had their weapon drawn and returning fire after the first few shots. People might have died but it would have been very few.

The history of armed citizen reaction to active shooters bear this out anecdotally. The Applachian Law School shooting in Virginia and the Trolley Square Mall Shooting in Utah both bear this out. Loss of life was minimized in both cases due to the presence of armed citizens (armed students in the former, an armed off-duty police officer in violation of posted mall policy in the latter).

Gun rights advocates are crowing solely on this point. "Let all citizens be armed and this would have been stopped!". More guns equals less crime. Although I accept this line of reasoning as a truism, it suffers from one problem: the real world won't fit this ideal.

I accept as a matter of fact that the vast majority of citizens will not choose to arm themselves even when confronted with the possibility of massacres such as Virginia Tech. It is not in their nature or conditioning. Some people will react to this type of event and take the steps to arm themselves but it will not be a large number.

But, there will always be a certain percentage of people who would. And do. As it stands today, roughly 1 in 54 citizens in the State of Virginia have a permit to carry a concealed handgun. However, not every citizen with a permit will be carrying at all times. Many people get permits for the purposes of transporting firearms (there are legal advantages to having a permit in this case). Others don't carry all the time. So for purposes of discussion, we will assume that only half of our permit holders are carrying. We will also have to assume relatively even permit distribution throughout the State. Strangely, this might actually be a reasonable assumption since Virginia is a "shall issue" State without bias or preference in its licensing process.

So, in order to stop this rampage, one of these citizens would have to be present and carrying a weapon. Assuming a building of 200 students, it is possible that perhaps two would be carrying a concealed handgun. Correcting for the fact that only more senior students would be eligible to do so (21 or over), we could even reduce that figure to one.

That gives us a roughly 1 in 200 chance that an armed citizen would be present in the general vicinity of the shooter once he started on his deadly path. Not exactly a good solution is it? People would argue "What would be the point? Those are long odds.".

In matters of life and death, ladies and gentleman, a long odd is better than none at all. You are at low odds an armed citizen would have been present but for those on receiving end of this madman, I think a 1 in 200 chance of survival would have been preferable to zero.

The advantage to those long odds though, is if that you won the odds lottery and that one citizen was present, your chance of survival gets much, much higher than 1 in 200.

I predict that if one armed, motivated and willing citizen had been within about 10 seconds running distance of the shooter that day after the first shot rang out, the loss of life would have been minimized. It would not have been zero but it would not have been 32 either.

I think people would take those 1 in 200 odds if it saved lives. Unfortunately, the policies of Virginia Tech made sure those odds stayed at zero.

I hope that policy changes for Virginia Tech and any other college with a similar policy in a "shall issue" state. 1 in 200 or better odds are better than none.

People may be surprised I am not beating this drum of "concealed carry" harder. Yes, I believe in the right of armed self-defense. I believe that citizens should have the right to carry concealed arms almost anywhere. I believe it does make us a safer, self-reliant and responsible society. But society decides its own trends and I have to work within the framework of what occurs today in the State of Virginia.

I believe an armed citizen could have stopped this provided all the pieces were in place. But that is the key. The armed individual has to be present. That is the case in all areas of armed resistance by citizens to crime. I have my ideals but I am looking at the facts of the world around me.

There is no point in my beating the drum if all the drum is going to do is make noise and annoy people. I prefer to make you aware of the reality of what might have been and let you decide for yourself if the idea is reasonable. To me, 1 in 200 will always be better than zero against infinity. I hope you would agree.

The final way this shooter could have been stopped is the one I really want to focus on. I want to focus on it because to me it was the one that had the highest probability of success under the circumstances and the one that has upset me and enraged me by its absence.

I am talking about active resistance.

The sound you are now hearing in your mind is the screams of outrage of liberals, social "professionals", police chiefs and other assorted elitist individuals for my saying that.

Why I am upset and enraged over Virginia Tech is not the fact this guy used guns. It is the fact that our society has created a generation of individuals who have been conditioned to not fight.

You see this in the media (who is partially to blame for this). Exposes on what to do if your robbed or mugged. What the "professionals" tell you to do. Most tell you to give the criminal what he wants. Give him your money. Give her your jewelry. Hand over your car. In the case of a woman being raped, there are groups with voices that promote the reprehensible idea to just lie there and take it and you'll be better off. Just satisfy what the criminal is after and they will leave you alone.

If these ideas seem reasonable to you, let me ask you this...

What if the criminal was only interested in taking your life?

Humans, like all animals, are wired deep down with two basic instinctual responses to life-threatening situations. We commonly refer to them as "Fight or Flight" instincts. We are either to going to try to run away and barring a lack of escape, cower (which is retreating with nowhere left to go) or we are going to fight back.

But most don't. Why? Because the media and our society has managed, somehow, to create a set of conditioning on many people throughout school, the media and our safe lives that fighting is not the answer. You see it in the spoken ideas of "social justice" that we need to understand what drives people to crime and empathize with it so we can reduce it.

We have a generation raised with zero tolerance concepts. You may be one of them. That all forms of violence are equally bad. These concepts bear out this abhorrent idea in punishment. One student strikes another for no reason and the attacked student instinctively hits back. Both are suspended. Exposure to enough of that type of thing can make me easily understand the conditioning that now exists.

This conditioning is flat-out wrong and by overcoming it, this madman at Virginia Tech might well have been stopped.

If you are confronted with the only options of fight or die, you fight. Because you have nothing to lose.

Of all the blackness I feel for the victims that day is the idea that a few of them might have felt the desire to fight back but our social conditioning override their basic human instincts to survive. That to me is the greatest tragedy of all of this beyond the loss of life and it must not be allowed to stand.

This madman could have been stopped with a high probability of success by simple active resistance. No police or guns needed. Just the will to act and a few seconds is all it would have taken and you would have had one badly broken (preferably dead) psychopath on the floor and most of our innocent victims still alive. Now I am going to tell you why.

Assuming you're sitting in class and this killer bursts in, guns drawn and shoots your teacher. You are sitting in shock. A couple more shots ring out, panic ensues, students are screaming and the mad scramble to escape begins.

Once you have absorbed this, you may be hitting the floor. More shots ring out. Behind your desk you now realize you are trapped. One door in, the windows are bolted shut. But you can see the shooter as he is aiming and pulling the trigger.

If you have the ability to see this bastard and his attention is not focused on you, you have the ability to stop him. If he is standing with his attention drawn to someone else 15 feet away from you, it will take you less than 3 seconds to either rise and close the distance to tackle this bastard or throw a heavy book at him to throw him off. Be rushing in the wake of that book to try and take him down.

Either way, you are presenting the killer with something he is not expecting. You might say, "But it is only one person!". What if that one person is a 100 pound girl and all she manages to do is put her head into his ribs from a few hard steps? Will that stop him? No, but it throws him off balance and gives others a chance to act. That couple seconds of distraction might be all they need.

What if he shoots the girl as she is heading towards him? Certainly possible. But that means his attention is now focused on her. She may be getting shot, but what about the students whom he is no longer paying attention to at that moment? What if three more rise up at the same instant and rush him too after the girl falls? Even if he turns his attention to them as they approach, he isn't going to be able to shoot them all before they reach him. Some might get hit but the odds are really good that distance is going to be closed and a couple of very adrenaline pumped bodies are going to be slamming into him and fighting once they make contact.

Unlike Hollywood portrayals, being shot does not throw you backwards or stop you immediately. You can be stopped immediately and fall forward onto the floor if the shot placement is perfect. But 80 percent of the time, shots from a handgun are not immediately fatal or disabling. You might be wounded but you are still able to move and act.

The Virginia Tech shooter would have had to have had absolutely perfect shot placement to kill three or more students moving at him from less than 20 feet away from different directions. I have met one person who might have had that ability and he was a former government agent that shot thousands of rounds in practice every week and developed the ability to shoot instinctively over a period of years. But that is absolute, expert-level combat shooting.

Our madman did not have that ability. He had a cowering, conditioned student body and no one in his way to interrupt his aim. And the desks and chairs served as no protection. Bullets will happily go through light metal, plastic or wood. And probably did.

I am advocating that if you have the moment to act in a pause of unimaginable carnage, take it. Throw textbooks (they are much heavier than the gun he his holding), grab a pencil, a pen, a ruler, compass, binder, notebook. Anything can be a weapon. Charge him. Others will likely follow because their own conditioning will be overcome at that moment by their witness of your actions and their instincts will kick in. Once you make contact, stab, punch, scratch, kick, flail.

Do. Not. Stop.

Had even a couple of students trapped in those rooms charged this creature, they could have stopped him cold. If it had been a group of three or more, there is no possible way even if he had the gun levelled at all of them could he have shot them all before one of them would have slammed into him.

For those of you without gun knowledge, here is some. In a handgun, if that moving part on the top suddenly stops after a shot and the gun looks weird, it is empty. The shooter is preparing to reload and for a few seconds, he is vulnerable. Use it to your advantage. In the case of rifles, if you see him pulling out the magazine (if it is an AK-47, for example), the gun is empty. Act.

Active resistance may have made the difference between a body count of 2 versus a body count of 32.

But, you argue, these students had no warning. Very true. I have addressed that in how it could have played out above. What I am saying is have a plan of action. Condition yourself for the idea that someone might come in that door. I'm not saying be paranoid. Just be aware of your surroundings. If you're in a room with one door in or out on a third floor, your flight options are very limited. Be aware that anything, including arms and legs, can be a weapon.

We all react differently. Some of us will react with denial of the events as they unfolding. Many will cower in terror, hearts pounding, afraid to die. Others will be scrambling for any way out. Still others will lie still and hope the killer thinks they are dead and leave them be. Much of this can be attributed to conditioning. But none rose up to fight.

Rise up to fight. Be a weapon. If the criminal is there to take your life, you might give him what he wants in your case but you may well deny him the rest of your classmates. Given a choice between possible wounding or certain death, take possible wounding.

We need to start teaching active resistance.

It doesn't need to be much. A one hour lecture in high schools and to college freshman would be sufficient along with some simple demonstrations. Such as how an armed person 20 feet away can be closed with by three students from slightly different directions and not get the drop on all of them.

In the wake of the Amish school shooting when a teacher suggested exactly what I am telling you here, he was roundly criticized by the school and the media for having such a reckless idea. In the wake of Virginia Tech, I don't see a single thing wrong with it. He should be vindicated. It is the right thing to do.

If you are a high school student or college student who hates guns, has no knowledge of them or cares nothing about them, if you have found this essay, this is the area I want you to take away and remember. Think on it. Mull it over. Dig down and think about how you might react if you should ever find yourself trapped in a classroom with a gunman standing before you.

For a parent who finds this, ask yourself, would you rather your child be alive for the "reckless" acts of a few to risk their lives and perhaps die but in doing so, save your child? Or worse, have it be your child one of the ones killed for resisting but in doing so, saved their classmates? Would that be a burden worth bearing and a sad but noble sacrifice to honor rather than mourn over the bodies of an entire class? I think you could. I would want my parents to do so.

No armed citizens or police. Just the will to resist and acting upon it may have changed the outcome at Virginia Tech. I don't care about political correctness or experts. I know that two seconds is all it would have taken to charge this deranged nutjob and possible put him to the ground. If for no other reason than to buy others time to escape or further fight back.

But in the best possible circumstances, students could have wrestled him down, beaten the guns from his hands and kept on pounding until he was unconcious or dead from blunt trauma. Or a student could have gotten one of the now-free guns, put it to this madman's head and pulled the trigger. Rampage stopped.

The body count would have been much lower. To save 20 plus lives, active resistance was the best chance we had at Virginia Tech.

Regular students could have stopped it.

I wish they had be taught to do so. We need to teach them so there won't be a tragic "next time".

My First Hater, I'm So Proud!

I must be getting read more (at least that's what the traffic logs indicate). It was only a matter of time before I finally got my first hater. A defining moment in every blogger's life!

Apparently he doesn't like what I had to say about Larry Hincker, the VA Tech spokesman. I will point out my post on this fellow is little more than highlighting the good journalism of David Codrea of War on Guns. At best, he provided me with a reciprocal link.

However, it seems I am a "judger". And we can't have "judgers" when innocent people were killed. I guess I can't judge Cho Seung-Hui either since I didn't know him. Perhaps his actions were justifable by some (and before you folks go all over me on that, recognize sarcasm when you see it).

My heart goes out to those who have lost loved ones, the wounded and the survivors. We are all feeling the impacts of this. I have. I had a friend there.

So, for your entertainment, here is my little exchange with this "interesting" fellow:

you dirty excuse for a human being. that guy has a family, a conscience, an honorable life, and the courage to stand up in public for what he believes. what the hell have you ever done except post on your little blog about how you've got all the answers?

does being a gun-crazed nazi like you mean you mean you also must squash all compassion? step outside your narrow, ignorant point of view and see that everyone at vt has experienced the worst that humanity has to offer.

it's people like you who become killers like cho. it's people like hincker who will always defend the innocent against you.

My response:

Yes, he stood up for his beliefs. Problem was, he was acting in a OFFICAL CAPACITY as a representative of Virginia Tech and using that power, chose to promote a policy that denied legal rights to law-abiding citizens be he PROMISED THAT STUDENTS ON CAMPUS WOULD BE SAFE!!!!

HE WAS WRONG.

Where were his hundreds of armed officers with high-powered rifles? Were his students safe once the gunman opened up? Did they feel safe then?

I reserve my compassion for the families of the lost and wounded, not for a bureaucrat whose decision making power decided that his personal views and his position allowed him to trump the laws of the State of Virginia and deprive its law-abiding citizens of the rights they can have while off-campus but not on it.

Hincker should have defend me. He had have taken away my legal right to arm myself on HIS campus. My safety became his responsibility at that moment and he failed miserably.

But since he won't defend me, I choose to defend myself. And you want to know something? I would still rush to his aid if he was being attacked. That is because I have the morals and duty to see a fellow human being in trouble and needing help even though he denied the means of help to those under his charge.

So explain to me how I am lacking compassion? I don't have all the answers but Mr. Hincker's answers were the wrong ones and the events of April 16, 2007 have proven that. An armed citizen may not have been present and the outcome not changed, but any odds are greater than zero. I'll take a 1 in 100 chance over nothing anyday of the week.

To which he proceeds to ignore me and continue to blather on...

while i can't imagine it'll make a difference with a fascist, i'm going to attempt to address just a smattering of your errors, false presumptions, and arrogance.

first, hincker's not the president of vt, not the legislature of virginia, not the king of all reality. he's the university SPOKESMAN. thus, placing the blame for 33 deaths at his feet is beyond wrong...it's criminally, heartlessly, totally cruel. he didn't make the law. he merely commented upon it.

second, why would the university SPOKESMAN have the responsibility to ensure your safety on vt's campus? doesn't that sound like something better suited for oh, i don't know, the police? if the guy's a bureaucrat, then why do you imagine he's the one out there directing the 'high powered riflemen on rooftops?' have you so little understanding of organizational dynamics that you imagine a guy that wrote an op-ed piece in his local paper is ALSO the grand poo-bah of his little vt kingdom? come on, that's just absurd.

no, you may NOT reserve your compassion--even if you think you can choose on whom to bestow it--now who has the God Complex? you gave up that card when you thought to attack an innocent man who has worked tirelessly and altruistically on behalf of his students for decades. so, once again, ArmedCanadian, you disgust me.

this isn't about politics, or gun laws, or arm-chair quarterbacking. it's about people. try to remember that these are human beings at work in blacksburg...not excuses for you to promote your idiotic gun control positions.

And my latest reply...

first, hincker's not the president of vt, not the legislature of virginia, not the king of all reality. he's the university SPOKESMAN. thus, placing the blame for 33 deaths at his feet is beyond wrong...it's criminally, heartlessly, totally cruel. he didn't make the law. he merely commented upon it.

Yes, and he commented as a spokesman of the University in his own words and upholding the University's policies. Policies that were imposed by the University. He is the spokesman. They are his words and his views. Thus, he speaks for the University. From what I have seen, the University never contradicted him.

His own words are here.

Do you deny that he said these things?

His final sentence: "Guns don't belong in classrooms. They never will. Virginia Tech has a very sound policy preventing same."

That policy failed. It failed. UTTERLY.

This policy was not LAW. It was POLICY that could have been retracted if the University wished to do so. It decided that in the light of the school shooting of last year that they still felt that armed students were more of a danger on campus than a madman who would threaten them. And that there would be police there to protect them if a madman did.

See below for my view on that.

And by the way, how is my view "criminally heartless"? I didn't know being heartless was a crime? Cite the relevant statutes, please.

I am not heartless. Far from it. But I am telling if Hincker's words were my own, I would not be sleeping well either and I know I would be haunted for the rest of my own days for defending and promoting a policy that COST LIVES.

second, why would the university SPOKESMAN have the responsibility to ensure your safety on vt's campus? doesn't that sound like something better suited for oh, i don't know, the police? if the guy's a bureaucrat, then why do you imagine he's the one out there directing the 'high powered riflemen on rooftops?' have you so little understanding of organizational dynamics that you imagine a guy that wrote an op-ed piece in his local paper is ALSO the grand poo-bah of his little vt kingdom? come on, that's just absurd.

By the University promoting a policy that was more restrictive than what State law allowed, and being good citizens, the law-abiding obeyed it. On penalty of arrest, disciplinary action and/or expulsion. Even for a responsible college student, these are serious deterrents to the exercise of a legal right.

Again, we have Mr. Hincker's own words: "Wiles tells us that he didn't feel safe with the hundreds of highly trained officers armed with high powered rifles encircling the building and protecting him. He even implies that he needed his sidearm to protect himself against the officers."

Where were those hundreds of highly trained officers on Monday? Where was ONE?

no, you may NOT reserve your compassion--even if you think you can choose on whom to bestow it--now who has the God Complex? you gave up that card when you thought to attack an innocent man who has worked tirelessly and altruistically on behalf of his students for decades. so, once again, ArmedCanadian, you disgust me.

Accuse me of having a God complex? And being a fascist? Beyond the name calling, you need to prove it beyond emotional mudslinging.

I am not question his altruism or acts on behalf of students, but he sure as hell wasn't acting in their best interests when it came to their safety. He could have fought for the students against the University publically to allow them their legal carry rights. He did not. He went right along with the University and defended their policies and rationale for same quite vigorously.

Am I judging this man? Yes. On his own words and the values he was defending.

He felt it was more important for the students to "feel safe" from their irrational fear of potentially having an armed student carrying a concealed weapon around them without their knowledge than their "actual" (read: none) safety when a true threat materialized, guns openly displayed and being used.

But if you're going to sit here in judgement of me, my values, beliefs and views for judging a man by his own words and actions, you have to show that your judgement is correct against my own actions and words and that my impression of this man and his defense of school policy is in fact errorneous. Beyond your disgust for my opinion, is anything I have highlighted here untrue? Factual rebuttal, if you please.

If you want to engage in a rational discourse that doesn't involve name-calling and comparing me to a jack-booted thug, I'm willing. But it seems you are operating from a stance of emotion without facts to back it up.

Many things failed us on that day. Virginia Tech's policy that was defended and promoted publically by Larry Hincker is one of those failures. His words will come back to haunt him I think and it won't be by those with small blogs like me.

this isn't about politics, or gun laws, or arm-chair quarterbacking. it's about people. try to remember that these are human beings at work in blacksburg...not excuses for you to promote your idiotic gun control positions.

I am not promoting gun control at all. You have me confused with some other fascist.

I am promoting the responsible exercise of Constutional rights by law-abiding citizens. Big difference.

It doesn't make me God and nor do I wish to be. But having an opinion and feeling about the actions of others is perfectly human. After all, you've just demonstrated it here.

This fellow is taking away from what I am really working on (my response to SayUncle's challenge). But hey, we all have our fans.

I'll update this as my "fan" replies.

VA Tech Shooter Was Not Involuntarily Committed

Well, no laws were broken by the VA Tech shooter. His admission for treatment was considered voluntary. The State of Virginia is not liable in this case.

From the CNN article:

Special Justice Paul M. Barnett, who filled out the certification and order for involuntary admission to a mental health facility, checked the box that said: "The alternatives to involuntary hospitalization and treatment were investigated and deemed suitable."

"Only if I order them into a hospital is there any effect on their gun rights," Barnett told CNN on Wednesday.

Virginia and federal law prohibit the sale of guns to anyone who has been sent unwillingly to a mental institution.

So, we are back to square one folks. Every single gun and gun control law in Virginia was complied with. He couldn't have been stopped until he drew his weapon.

I stand corrected on my previous posting.

Looks Like Virginia Failed

It now appears that Cho Seung-Hui was briefly committed in 2005 for mental issues and was subsequently released as being ok.

If this was considered an involuntary committal then Virginia failed. They failed to update NICS to include this disqualifier that would have prevented him from getting his guns.

If this is the case, I predict the shape of the direction that reactions for "more gun control" is going to take. They are going to push for the "assault weapon" ban (naturally as the Glock 19 he used is considered such under HR.1022) and they are going to push to pass HR.297, the NICS Improvement Act of 2007 to force NICS to be brought up-to-date with regard to information such as mental records.

That will be the justification and I am pretty certain they are going to amend and overreach on HR.297 to dramatically increase the prohibitions that would deny firearm ownership to more people. I wouldn't be surprised if someone proposes denying firearms ownership to resident aliens. So much for acting as the citizens we want to be.

But immediately, the push is going to be for legislation to prevent mentally ill people from buying guns. To create a bill that would require a person's mental history be examined and I won't be shocked if that would include treatment for depression or counseling for unusual or disturbed tendencies. You want to wager that this will be done reasonably? I don't.

If the shooter was committed involuntarily, then the State of Virginia failed. They failed two years ago to update NICS and this guy fell through the cracks.

The reasonable solution will be to hold the agencies responsible for those updates in Virginia responsible and leave it at that.

But they won't. Congress and State legislators will want to be seen as "doing something".

It will be bad.

Prepare to see your 5th Amendment rights violated. I bet they will call for private mental health information that would indicate depression, suicidal thoughts, ADD, ADHD and so on to be forwarded to NICS. You think this is a reasonable solution to save just one life? A lot of people will think so. What is the loss of a little privacy to prevent another massacre like this in the future?

Yours truly would kiss his firearms rights goodbye if my doctor was forced to submit my health records. I took Prozac once for minor depression shortly after my ex-wife and I split. I wasn't on it long but if it was decided you were ever treated for depression you shouldn't own a gun, I'm finished.

But, hey, I might get really depressed in the future and snap. We have to prevent that.

And if they do, we aren't living in the United States anymore because millions of people will be considered guilty for having committed no crime solely on the evaluation of others who think you might.

Gestapo comes to mind here.

I hope I'm wrong. But I don't give much credit to politicians who will be looking to act here rather than think.

Virginia failed, people died and we're all going to suffer.

I hope I'm wrong.

Some Truths To Counter Media Lies on VA Tech Shootings

I've had a chance to calm myself and get some information in order. The cries for gun control, that the NRA needs to be stopped, that Virginia's gun laws are too lax and need to be tightened and so on are circulating. The unwashed masses are coming out and crying to the skies.

The problem is they are completely clueless about what they are talking about.

It is time to start countering this before it can get some traction. I wish to address two things that are flying.

"High Capacity Clips"

First, ABC News has been reporting, with a little "help" from Peter Hamm of the Brady Campaign that "high capacity ammo clips" were part of why this massacre could occur and about how they need to be restricted, how Congress failed to renew the "assault weapon" ban that also banned these "evil" devices.

One, they are "magazines", not "clips". Hollywood and the media is to blame for not knowing the distinction. A "clip" holds ammunition together. A "magazine" is what feeds the ammunition into the chamber of a firearm. Not many firearms (the M1 Garand being a notable exception) use both.

Second, the lapsed ban on high capacity ammunition feeding devices did not "ban" their possession or sale, only their manufacture. They were available for sale during the entire period the ban was in effect. Not that this matters at all but I state this so you understand what the law really did rather than have things being spun by those with an agenda.

The two pistols used by the VA Tech shooter were both magazine-fed.

The .22 pistol he used, a Walther P22 uses 10 round magazines. I do not know if higher capacity magazines are available. Doubtful. The .22LR round has feeding problems as you increase the number of rounds without careful magazine design. And the standard P22 magazines are not cheap and they work well. I know. I own a P22.

The Glock 19 9mm pistol has a variety of magazine sizes available for it. 10 round, 15 round and more. Even assuming the shooter had 15 round magazines (pretty standard for 9mm), so what? The information about the shooting has made it clear he had several magazines on a vest while he was carrying out his rampage. Magazine capacity in this instance made no difference and I'm going to tell you why.

This guy went in prepared. It is obvious to me, an experienced shooter, that he had practice in handling pistols. The presence of visible magazines on a vest is the key. That indicated this killer was prepared and able to do fast magazine changes.

To those of you who don't understand, let me explain. It is called a combat or tactical reload.

In the Glock and P22 (like most semi-automatic pistols), the slide moves and feeds a round into the chamber after the previous one is fired. When the last round is fired and the slide moves back, a catch causes the slide to lock in an open position. At this point, the user hits the magazine release with the trigger hand and allows the empty magazine to fall away to the floor. At the same moment, the free hand is pulling a loaded magazine free and sliding it into the gun. As soon as it is locked into place, the trigger hand hits the slide release causing it to fly forward and chamber a fresh round. The gun is ready to fire again.

Done properly, this whole process takes about 2-3 seconds. To do so effectively, it requires you to know where the extra magazines are and are able to reach them quickly and easily. Placing them on a vest and being able to do it by feel is one way. I know. I've done it.

This cold analysis is why whether this person used standard or high capacity magazines is irrelevant. With a little practice (a few hours with a shooter comfortable with a pistol is all it takes), this guy could have fired a magazine empty and be reloaded, for all intents and purposes, instantly from the perspective of someone unfamiliar with what he was doing.

Five, ten or fifty rounds per magazine would have made no difference. As long as this murderer had brought along enough magazines to carry the ammunition he figured he needed for his plan, their capacity would not have mattered. 4x15 would have made no difference over 6x10 or 1x50.

What might have made a difference was the fact probably none of these students were aware or were able to observe these magazine changes. With some knowledge, maybe someone in the know could have charged this madman in those few seconds while he was empty and tackled him down. Perhaps not. We don't know if someone did or not.

But it would have been a chance and one that might have been worth taking.

"Non-Citizens and Lax Gun Laws"

Now, folks are beginning to wail about Virginia's lax gun laws, about how "easy" it was for this disturbed individual to get guns when he should have, how was it possible for a non-citizen to get guns and so on.

Let me lay out the facts for you as they are known as of this morning.

1. The shooter was 23 years old. He was a lawful permanent resident (meaning he had a Green Card) of the United States.
2. Both of his guns were purchased legally at a gun shop.
3. Both of his guns were purchased more than 30 days apart in compliance with Virginia's "one gun a month" law.
4. The shooter had no record of involuntary treatment for mental health disorders by the State.

What these facts mean, quite simply, is that there was absolutely nothing that could have been done to prevent this from happening until the moment he drew a gun and pulled the trigger.

Why? Because he did everything in accordance with the law up until that moment.

Yes, this man was a non-citizen. But he was a Permanent Resident. This means he had a "Green Card". Under the law, a permanent resident has more or less the same rights as a US citizen. Permanent residency is the last step in the path to US citizenship. It is a form of "citizenship probation". You get most of the rights and responsibilities of a citizen. The right to bear arms is one of these.

I am also a Permanent Resident and I own guns too.

Like a citizen, a permanent resident can buy guns if they submit to the process. We fill out the same background check form, provide ID and get the background check performed like anyone else. The only difference is we need to provide an additional proof of state residency and we must show we've resided in that state for 90 days (rather than 30 days for citizens). Otherwise, the background check is the same.

So, the shooter did exactly what was required of him. How are Virginia's gun laws lax? These are the same laws that are in place everywhere else in the country! In fact, Virginia does a state background check in addition to the required Federal background check. If anything, Virginia is stricter! Only 12 states do state-level background checks separate from the Federal check.

As a result, our non-citizen followed the law and bought his guns perfectly legally.

In the same vein, he had two handguns and all indications are he followed the required 30 day period between handgun purchases in Virginia. The "one gun a month" law so widely touted by gun control advocates as a solution to gun violence. He followed it to the letter.

As a result, he followed the law including the gun control laws in place. How were they lax?

The last issue that a lot of people are crying about is his signs of mental instability and why was he allowed to buy a gun?!? This goes to his legal purchases, bear with me.

This is a very common misconception that the media is doing nothing to correct. The idea that is you are mentally ill, have mental issues, being treated for problems, etc means you cannot buy a gun. This is not true.

You can only be denied a gun purchase for reasons of mental health if you have been committed involuntarily by the State! The background check form on this is clear. The State does not keep a database of everyone who is getting treated for depression by their family doctor, bi-polar disorder, etc. The only information the State can keep on your mental health history is if you have somehow managed to come to their attention for mental health disorders. Like attempted suicide and the Police investigate. That would be a possible disqualifier to get a gun. If you are committed to a State institution for this, you would be unable to own a gun in the future.

But you have be treated or processed by the State in order for this happen!

Acting disturbed, deranged writings, etc, although of deep concern are not grounds to deny a gun purchase. That is not the law. If this man was acting normally and quietly during the purchases, the dealer would have had no reason to suspect anything is wrong. A gun dealer does have the right as a business operator to deny sales to anyone they feel shouldn't be buying. But it is a business decision, not a legal requirement.

For those of you thinking the current process is lacking, be very careful of where you tread with this. They are already the ideas that you should have someone vouch for your mental stability as part of owning a gun. Like the guarantor of a passport. Such thinking is very dangerous because it vests power over you into an unelected group of people. There are lots of problems with such things. Like liability for those who would issue such guarantees. It takes away the impartiality and equality that the law is supposed to preserve. The potential for abuse is vast. And you must ask, would such requirements prevent this from happening again? All the laws and procedures in the world are impotent once a criminal gets a gun and chooses to act.

I look at this and I don't see failures in our existing gun laws. The laws were all complied with. Believe me, I would have preferred this madman to have gotten his guns illegally. That would have made it easier. But the facts are what they are and I won't hide or distort them. The shooter followed the law. The law did not fail us here.

The failures go deeper and are in many areas. The policies of Virginia Tech. The police responses. Our cultural conditioning to not to resist. This tragedy had its heroes. The Holocaust survivor who barricaded a door with his body to give his students time to jump out the windows.

But the failures that will be scrutinized and analyzed, debated and criticized had nothing to do with the law. More gun control will not be the answer here.

If you feel otherwise, I would like to know what changes in the law would have stopped this. But your answer has to take into account how you deal with such deranged people without violating the privacy or rights of others. Creating a mental health database from private medical records is not justifiable under any circumstance in a free society. Nor must it be simply "Let just get rid of all handguns!". Any suggestion must come with an explanation of how you plan to enforce such an act and prevent criminals for getting them after the fact.

I wish you luck because I have no solution for this. There is no way this could have predicted.

Whether it could have been stopped is another post.

But today's truth is the fact that the law did not fail us. I would advise the media to not fail us either.

But I don't expect it. Truth and journalism are two things long-detached from each other.

LawDog Says It Better Than I

The LawDog expresses my feelings better than I have.

Larry Hincker's Words Should Haunt Him Forever

Words I hope haunt this man forever...

Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker was happy to hear the bill was defeated. "I’m sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly’s actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus." (emphasis mine).

This is in response to the defeat of House Bill 1572 that would have allowed those with a permit to carry to do so on VA Tech's campus (and any other Virginia university or college). Original news story is here (courtesy of the Roanoke Times).

David Codrea has the goods on this man. I hope some honorable news outlet picks up on David's exposure of this man. He actively encouraged victim disarmament. Felt that the police would always be there to protect you and those who wished to carry and take responsibility for themselves were being paranoid or not to be trusted.

I trust them more than I would ever trust you.

I hope the faces of those lost haunt you in your dreams for the rest of your days.

VA Tech Shooting

I first heard the news reports on the way to Virginia to the vet today and thought, "Oh shit! Someone went crazy with an AK or AR. I can see Paul Helmke's blog now!". As the afternoon wore on, the terrible body count rose so far to 33 (32 innocents plus 1 dead madman). Shooter reported to use two handguns and I am not sure at the moment who killed him (himself or the police).

I have an acquaintance at VA Tech who I learned was ok. Thankfully. My heart goes out to the families who have suffered and will do so for the rest of their lives.

As I heard the events unfold, I became enraged.

• Enraged that this occurred at all.
• Enraged that these people were defenseless.
• Enraged that an active shooter with a clear intent to murder wasn't stopped.
• Enraged that I know the gun controllers will be dancing hip-deep in the blood of these victims.
• Enraged that I wasn't there to help.

I wasn't there. I don't know what happened. My first reaction was "WHY!?!? FUCK!!!!".

The finger pointing has already begun. The calls for "common sense controls" is already out there.

For those of you who have a crystal ball, please, before the blood droplets land, tell me...

What common sense controls in the divine wisdom of the Universe would have prevented this?!?

I'm not at a loss for words. But all the words I have are rooted in anger.

The laws of the land are written that adult college students cannot have guns. No matter how young we see them as, many of these students are 18 or over and are legally adults. Some are 21 or over and in Virginia could legally have a permit to carry and could have carried.

But couldn't. The law they said they couldn't.

It's a school zone. A gun free zone. A place of safety. And we have a generation of young people raised to submit, to cower, to hide. To pray and hope. Not to fight back. Not to stand together. To resist is wrong. After the Amish school shooting, the short-lived idea circulated that students should try to distract the shooter with books, pencils, anything at hand or charge him. Maybe some might get wounded or killed but 10 students closing the distance in seconds would have overwhelmed him.

Why do we condition our young people not to fight back? If your life is forfeit in God's eyes, you have nothing to lose to go down swinging. And might save lives in the process.

I thought the policies for dealing with an active shooter changed around the country after Columbine. I don't know the details. But I am stunned that the second incident happened. Yes, the police believed it was an isolated incident. But why take the chance? Until you know or have cleared the campus as free of a shooter, don't assume the shooter has left the scene! VA Tech is a big place. Plenty of places to hide. After Columbine, I thought any school shooter would be treated as a full on three alarm fire until you had a body, a suspect in handcuffs or confirmation that every space had been searched and the facilities known to be clear of threats.

When the second shots rang out, it was too late. The remaining victims died, submissive and trapped in a shooting gallery, unable or unwilling to resist. We may never know if the outcome could have been different.

But as it stands now, it can never be.

I pray there wasn't any student in that room who had a permit to carry. Because it had been me, my last thoughts would have been of despair and regret. Despair for what was happening, knowing I might have been able to change it. Regret for being a good citizen and obeying the law, leaving my gun off-campus or anywhere except where it should have been: on my hip.

These people are adults. Unless the campus police planned to be everywhere, which they weren't, we as thinking, breathing adult citizens at least deserved a fighting chance! These adults deserved a chance! What if, what if one student in that class could have been allowed to have their gun with their permit had they had one? Yes, the shooter came in with murder in his hand without warning but no one can tell me after the first few victims, one motivated student couldn't have gotten the drop on this bastard and saved lives?

Why, oh why, couldn't one student have carried in defiance of the law? Discreetly concealed, no one would have known. Maybe it wouldn't have changed the outcome. Maybe he or she would have been the 2nd or 3rd immediate victim and never would have realized what was happening. But maybe not. What if? What if?

There isn't a jury in this country that would have convicted them for the firearms violations. I think there might have been parents of potential victims and maybe those of the dead who might have hugged such a person.

And what if I had lived near the campus? What if I had a gun in my vehicle? I would have grabbed it and went hunting. I would have tried. Perhaps in vain, perhaps arrested but by God, I would have tried to save those unable to defend themselves!

There are those of us who see our willingness to accept the grave responsibility to arm ourselves as a moral duty to those around us. To stand where others can't. To be the sheepdog when the wolf strikes without warning. Perhaps die wounded, but with a dead wolf nearby and the sheep near us safe. Die knowing we made a difference.

It wouldn't have been the first time I've gone in the direction of gunfire. The other time I did, it was a case of firecrackers rather than gunfire. But there was the "pop, pop, pop" followed by screams. My weapon was on my hip and I was heading towards what I thought was danger. I was prepared to act.

With this, I feel such deep despair. I wish desperately that someone could have had the chance to act. To stop this. To have even tried.

What about next time? Will police agencies see any school shooter as an immediate threat and head into danger? I hope they will. Don't stand around and plan, figure out who is making decisions and wait for official permission! Don a vest, grab a weapon, give your instructions and hunt down the evil before it can strike again. I beg you. If you are going to not be everywhere, all the time and be ready for the unexpected and not give us adults a fighting chance and rather stand there and waffle, then give me the vest and the weapon and I will move in. I'd rather have a dead gunman at my feet and a jury judge me as a vigilante than 30 more dead victims.

I don't hide my biases. I believe in the right of self-defense. Of the right for adults to decide whether to bear the means of protection individually. All I see is 2600 acres of gun-free zone that a criminal madman could wander freely. Maybe he knew it too. That no one could fight back. And chose the school for that reason.

I'm tired and near tears in rage. They should have had a fighting chance! If the Police can't or won't be there, we adults and those who never got to get as far as I have in life deserved at least that much!

But good people obey the law.

The law needs to change. Now.

Give us a fighting chance.

Please. Before it happens again.

Thank You, Ronnie Barrett!

I was browsing around Barrett Rifles and dreaming, as I am wont to do, and recalled remembering reading something about Ronnie Barrett refusing to provide service or sales of his products to the State of California as a result of their recent banning of the .50 caliber round (and rifles that fire it) from civilian ownership.

So I did some Googling and turning up information I was looking for:

An Open Letter from Ronnie Barrett
LA Gun Bans - Letters of Opposition

Essentially, what Ronnie Barrett told the State of California in 2005 was if you ban the .50 caliber from civilian ownership and strip law-abiding citizens of their right to own a rifle that is perfectly legal in other states, he was not going to service any existing weapon of his in the State inventory of any government agency nor sell new ones to said agencies. He felt that the State agencies should not have special exceptions for them while denying rights to citizens.

Especially given that the main argument for banning the .50 caliber from civilian hands is the fact it is "too dangerous" for them to use and could be used to kill people from far away, shoot down planes, destroy oil refineries and so on. That despite that a .50 caliber weapon of any type has never been used in a crime ever in the United States. Rights abrogation through blatant hysteria.

This being 2007, I found myself wondering if this policy of refusing sales and service to California (although if New Jersey gets its way, it would be next on the list) was still in effect. After all, corporations will often trumpet about their morality and policies on whatever topic will get them coverage and then a few months later, when no one is looking, quietly go back to "business as usual".

So I wrote the following e-mail to Barrett Rifles:

April 12, 2007

Dear Barrett Firearms,

First I would like to thank you for making such a wonderful product. Althought I cannot afford (at this time) to purchase one of your fine rifles, I have had the opportunity to handle one and would like to eventually own one for recreational and competitive shooting.

I have read a letter attributed to Ronnie Barrett (located at http://nramemberscouncils.com/caspecial/la50banbarrett.shtml), president of your company that indicated that Barrett Firearms would not service .50 caliber rifles in the possession of the State of California or one of its agencies due to the fact their State Legislature had banned possession and future sales of .50 caliber rifles to civilians in that state.

Is it still or has been the policy of Barrett Firearms to refuse service and/or sales of .50 caliber rifles to government agencies in any state such as California that infringe the rights of their citizens to own the same?

I admit this is relatively old information but I am curious if this is your company's policy? If so, you have my deep admiration and thanks as a civilian firearms owner for taking a stand that few companies would do in favor of a few more sales or a government contract.

And here is the response I received not 24 hours later:

Barrett has not changed our position. Thank you for the question.

Thank you for your interest in our products and our company.

Sincerely,
Barrett Firearms Manufacturing, Inc.
WWW.BarrettRifles.com
(615) 896-2938

Short, sweet and absolutely fantastic!

Some might say that what Barrett is doing is nothing more than good public relations. After all, how much are they really losing by telling the State of California to fix their own guns? The LAPD is known to own at least one Barrett .50 and if it breaks, so what? They can try to find parts and someone to service it. Failing that, I don't know if Barrett's policy extends to parts sales as well even though warranty work is definitely out. I would hope that Barrett Rifles has issued instructions to their staff to not sell anything to California and told the same to their official dealer(s).

At worst, Barrett Rifles loses a few thousand dollars in sales. And wins probably that much more in goodwill in the gun community. I know they had a good run on .50 caliber rifles by civilians in California who were beating the ban to get their rifles grandfathered in. So the loss of a few rifles to law enforcement or other state agency in California was more than made up elsewhere.

Some would dismiss Barrett's policy as nothing more than marketing and PR and leave it at that. Just another corporation making itself look good but at its heart, still a corporation.

I see it a little differently. This man made his company stand for something, no matter how small, and then stood by that stance.

Small stands do matter.

For that reason alone, I consider a Barrett really the only .50 caliber rifle I would want to own. Ronnie Barrett stood up and said his company supported civilian rights and put their interests ahead of his own. It isn't the dollar cost that matters here but the priniciples by which he did it. Even if you don't consider it noble but rather self-serving, how many companies do you see taking a politically incorrect stance on anything in the name of the average citizen?

Unlike "green" policies of many companies (including my own), no one else jumped on this bandwagon. In the firearms industry, I think Barrett stands alone on this one. You don't see ArmaLite telling the State of Illinois they won't be selling or servicing their products there to law enforcement and state agencies in reaction to their proposed civilian assault weapons ban? Sure, the President of ArmaLite called an Illinois State Senator a liar for highlighting one of their civilian products as a military weapon (which it never has been) and, although sweet, went no further. What about Beretta USA doing the same here in Maryland? Silence.

Many companies will follow a policy that provides perceived goodwill so long that they really don't suffer as a result. They strike a balance. Barrett didn't. He said "If you ban the .50, get your product from us serviced elsewhere or buy a .50 from someone else. We won't support your efforts by profiting at the expense of the Rights of your law-abiding citizens.". Given the relatively small market for .50s, that is a stance that can hurt them in the law enforcement community and at the State level. But their principles were more important than their sales.

That shows corporate character. And moral principle.

For that, I thank you, Ronnie Barrett. Your stand, no matter how small, does have a fan.

Charge of the Earth Pigs

It was minutes before midnight. Perhaps a few desert nomads heard them roar momentarily before fading into silence. Perhaps they caught sight of the dark shapes above as they thundered away towards the distant lights. Perhaps they sniffed the tangy soot of their angry passage before returning silence to the dunes.

The date was April 15, 1986 and the Earth Pigs had arrived.

Simple shotguns shells fired and 2000 pound bombs fell away from their racks. A small seeker in the nose, simplistic to the last, kept its eye glued to an invisible spot of light below, swiveling to kept the pinpoint of the laser beam centered. As it slewed, servo-motors on fins at the back of the bomb canted to steer the eye unerringly onto the beam. Long seconds later, the steel encased automaton got within a few feet of the laser point and the ground, fuzes tripped and the whole package detonated in a eyeblink.

The target was the tent of Muammar al-Gaddafi, leader of the small country of Libya. It missed him but destroyed his house, killed his adopted 15 month old daughter and injured his two sons. Over other targets, bombs destroyed parked aircraft and nearby military camps and barracks.

Gaddafi had rattled the tiger's cage and the tiger swatted back. He had ordered the bombing of a disco in West Berlin that killed 2 US servicemen and injured 230 others on April 5, 1986. Ten days later, President Ronald Reagan provided his response to Libya's sponsorship of international terrorism. The attack killed 15 Libyan civilians and unknown number of Libyan soldiers in exchange for a 'Pig and its crew.

This was how the USA dealt with terrorism 21 years ago. The mission was arduous for its crews, its effect questionable, the international criticism shrill but come April 16th, Libya ceased to mess with the United States and disappeared from the international stage. A lot of countries and leaders sympathetic to Libya's sabre rattling suddenly got very quiet. They had received the message sent by the USA loud and clear: Keep this up and next time we won't miss.

History since then has shown that Ronald Reagan had acted correctly. I remember this date and how it brought me into conflict as a teenager with my Mom because I saw then and still know now that the USA had done the right thing and Libya had it coming. I saw it and see it in very simple terms of "If you support terrorism, we will come for you.". And then do it.

21 years later, I wonder sometimes what happened to America's spine? Specifically that of the President. Don't get me wrong, I don't think President Bush has done the wrong thing with his response to 9/11/2001. I think we are in a different conflict but the roots are the same. But I think our President pays too much damn attention to trying to find compromises rather than do what's right for the country. In 1986, President Reagan decided a message needed to be sent and damn what other people thought. He exercised his duty as Commander-in-Chief and he got results. Libya stayed airborne from that ass-kicking and didn't land until a couple years ago.

I feel that if we had Reagan in office today, Iran wouldn't be doing its nuclear sabre-rattling which seems eerily familiar to those of us who remember the Gulf of Sidra and the infamous "Line of Death". I think Iran would wiping the line in the sand away as quickly as possible before it became a real convenient aiming point for US fighter-bombers. Threaten the stability of the Middle East and our allies? Your centrifuges would be expensive wreckage before you had a chance to "clarify your position" with the international community.

Or perhaps maybe Tehran needs to nuke someone first before we need to take them seriously? Is Tel Aviv a price worth paying in the interest of international "peace"? Libya kept pushing and grabbing more and more, emboldened by the lack of action or real condemnation. Not even armed conflict with the US Navy beforehand deterred them. That wasn't a country to be reasoned with by diplomatic means. They simply didn't respect the USA, had their own interests and damn everyone else.

Right up until the Earth Pigs arrived and unloaded on them.

Maybe we should let history repeat itself. Iran isn't talking about discos and barracks here. And they seem to not really give a damn what we have to say about it. Their attitude is "What are you going to do about it?".

I think the time isn't far off where a little iron persuasion might be in order. May I suggest April 15, 2008? I doubt they'd appreciate the historical significance of the date. But I would.

I only wish the Earth Pigs could have the first shot. Lacking that, I hope Reagan's ghost will visit President Bush and perhaps persuade him that when our "friends" over there trot out the "line of death", wipe it and them surgically off the map.

We need more days like this one in history.

Major Fernado Ribas-Dominicci and Captain Paul Lorence, you have not been forgotten. Thank you for keeping the world safe from terrorism.

It was not in vain. Pigs sometimes do fly.

FYI: The term "Earth Pig" is the not-so-glamorous nickname given to the F-111 "Aardvark" strike bomber that performed the attack on Libya in 1986. It is nicknamed so for its terrain following capabilities allow it to penetrate enemy territory low and fast. That combined with its rather ungainly appearance saw it stuck the image of a pig rooting its snout in the dirt. It is rumored the engineers installed a "dirt sniffer" in its nose so the airplane would know it was at the right height.

Conflicted On This One: Detroit Office Shooting

My friend Tom sent me this short news article from Fox News about the shooting of three office workers by an employee who was fired the week before. He killed one employee and wounded two others in a Detroit office building on April 9, 2007. Unlike other posts, I find myself conflicted on this one.

Despite being denied a permit by police to buy a handgun last month, Anthony LaCalamita III had no trouble buying a shotgun a few weeks later.Police say the accountant bought the 12-gauge shotgun Friday — the day after he was fired — and used it Monday to shoot three people at his former office in a Detroit suburb, killing a secretary and wounding two executives

This is in the vein of my previous fisking of some anti-gun screed aluding to the idea of criminals going to a gun shop and buying AK-47s look-alikes legally before going on a killing spree. This guy did, in fact, buy the shotgun legally. And it does appear he did it with pre-meditation as he did use it to exact revenge.

It was the act of a deranged individual. There is some indication it could have been prevented or at least, predicted.

LaCalamita, 38, was able to buy the shotgun because Michigan, like all but four states, doesn't require a permit to buy a shotgun or rifle. The state is one of only 12 states that require background checks for handgun buyers, but those buying shotguns or rifles need only pass an FBI criminal background check.

The discrepency is a legal loophole that needs to be closed, say gun control advocates like Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

You know, I am almost in agreement with Paul Helmke on this. But not quite (just in case you thought I've lost my mind).

This is really a state problem. Is it a loophole? Questionable because it depends on what you consider to be reasonable restrictions on gun ownership.

Michigan is a weird state. It has licensing requirements for the purchase and possession of handguns for any reason, not just for concealed carry.

In order to buy a pistol in Michigan, you first need to get a license for the pistol you intend to buy beforehand from your local police or sheriff's department. And you have to present the pistol to have a Safety Inspection Certificate (really illegal registration) issued for it after purchase. This is in addition to a State and Federal background check they will perform prior to the issuance of a purchase license as well as you completing a hangun safety questionnaire.

Finally, if you don't buy the gun, you have to give back the license. It is only good for a specific purchase and a limited amount of time (10 days).

But this applies only to handguns. Purchase of shotguns and rifles follow the standard ATF 4473 NICS process with no separate State level background check. This is in contrast to states like Virginia which do have a separate state background check for all firearms purchases.

Perhaps this incident may drive Michigan towards a State level background check for all firearms purchases regardless of type. The failure, if you can consider it as such, is the state of Michigan having two different sets of regulations for differing types of firearms.

The state did follow its stated process. They followed the law. The question you can ask is: Did they do enough and did they have the authority to deny a long gun purchase as a result of a failure to get a handgun license?

This is where I am conflicted. There is nothing that I can find that indicates the state of Michigan has such authority. Furthermore, their pistol licensing process is totally discretionary (which I will get to) so a denial for the issuing of a pistol license isn't indicative of a blanket prohibition on the part of the applicant on owning firearms.

Personally, I am of the "shall issue" mentality. If the State and Federal background checks say you can own a gun, then you get the license. Discretionary systems give you too much wiggle room and this case, this fellow wiggled right through.

So, Paul Helmke is technically correct, it is a legal loophole of sorts. But only one if the state of Michigan sees it as such and decides to implement a Virginia-type system. Perhaps it may have prevented this tragedy. But I don't think so. Read on.

Only 15 states do their own background checks on long gun buyers, while 26 do their own checks on people buying handguns, according to the Brady Campaign.

Helmke said more states should do background checks because they have better access to criminal databases than federal authorities do and state checks are often more thorough.

Despite what his estranged wife's attorney said is a history of depression and mental health problems, there was apparently nothing in LaCalamita's FBI background check that prevented him from buying the shotgun. It's left up to applicants to admit on their FBI background check form if they have psychological problems.

State background checks can only be more thorough provided the state keeps the records up-to-date. And only if they limit their records to disqualifiers already on the books and not in an attempt to add a discretionary element of denial that exceeds those legal prohibitions.

The estranged wife's attorney is acting his client's best interests so see his statements for what they are. There is a lot of confusion among non-gun owners involving having a history of depression and mental health problems and as it relates to your ownership of a firearm.

People get depressed. I do sometimes. Some even are under regular treatment from a doctor and take anti-depressants. However, this is not a disqualifier for firearms ownership (see ATF Form 4473 section 12(f)). It might lead one to question whether a person suffering from deep clinical depression should be allowed to a own a gun but that choice is still left to the judgement of the individual purchaser. I don't think a doctor's note should be a pre-requisite to a firearm purchase (since it simply places discretionary authority in the hands of another and opens that up to a huge set of possible abuses).

The key point in this is the fact this is voluntary treatment. You can only be denied a purchase of a gun under Federal and/or State law if are treated for depression or mental health issues on an involuntary basis. For example, you are found wandering the street in the dead of winter, naked and singing how you are a pretty little princess (or prince if you're female). The police would arrest you and a judge may order you committed for psychiatric evaluation. Since it was against your will and at the order of the Court, it becomes a matter of public record and will serve as a possible disqualifier on you owning a gun in the future.

What the wife's attorney is saying is disingenuous and leads people to believe that anyone with depression or mental health issues can't own a gun.

So the FBI check was correct. By the way, the NICS check can check state databases if they have access to them and there is disqualifier information in them. That can vary widely from state to state. A criminal history check is definitely not limited solely to the Federal level in this process.

And this article is dishonest in this too. You have to admit mental health/treatment issues on the background check form if they were done on an involuntary basis. So, Mr. LaCalamita did not lie on this form by the letter of the law. Perhaps he violated what some may see as the spirit of the law but self-incrimination shouldn't be part of it. Under the law, he wasn't disqualfied and the background check bore that out.

When LaCalamita requested a handgun permit last month from the Troy Police Department, the check was much more extensive.

Department spokesman Lt. Gerry Scherlinck said he couldn't comment on why the department chief turned down LaCalamita's request for a handgun permit. But he said the department looks at records that go beyond arrests or convictions.

"Theoretically, you could have a clear criminal history but still have contacts with law enforcement that would not rise to the level of an arrest or conviction," Scherlinck said. A police chief "can use those contacts to deny a permit whether or not those involved arrests that might show up on a criminal history."

This where the discretionary authority part comes in. This type of process actually makes the state of Maryland look good with regards to handgun ownership!

It is actually very frightening that the state of Michigan reserves this type of authority to themselves. Basically, in addition to the normal prohibitors for firearm ownership, the police chief also has the authority to deny you a handgun purchase solely on the basis they think you may be a threat!

For reference, you can find more information here and here.

The discretionary authority appears to lie with Michigan Code Section 28.422, Sec. 2, paragraph 3, as follows:

(3) The commissioner or chief of police of a city, township, or village police department that issues licenses to purchase, carry, or transport pistols, or his or her duly authorized deputy, or the sheriff or his or her duly authorized deputy, in the parts of a county not included within a city, township, or village having an organized police department, in discharging the duty to issue licenses shall with due speed and diligence issue licenses to purchase, carry, or transport pistols to qualified applicants residing within the city, village, township, or county, as applicable unless he or she has probable cause to believe that the applicant would be a threat to himself or herself or to other individuals, or would commit an offense with the pistol that would violate a law of this or another state or of the United States. An applicant is qualified if all of the following circumstances exist:...(emphasis mine)

What constitutes probable cause? What if you were pulled over for speeding a couple years prior and were found to be looking shifty, wearing a death metal jacket and perhaps were a little belligerent and the ticketing officer made note of it in his report? That's a past contact with the police. Does that constitute probable cause that you might commit an offense or be a threat at some future point?

Probable cause is partially based on belief. That and the knowledge that an individual is about to or has committed a criminal act. But if the officer has such proof, then the individual trying to get said license should also be disqualified from owning any gun. Such probable cause should have to meet evidentiary standards that would say you are prohibited person for owning a firearm.

This is why I see a problem with Michigan. They've left the final determination of eligibility to a police officer and their perceptions and judgement rather than what is laid out concretely in the law. And it leaves the door open for the Brady Campaign to come in and cry for more gun control when the failure in Michigan lay with their legislative process.

In the words of the officer, they look beyond arrests and convictions. If the arrests did not lead to convictions, then they are not guilty of a crime. If they were convicted of a crime, why two standards for denial? One Federal and one State. Reading between lines, I get the impression the standard for denial based on an officer's probable cause falls below the standard by which a crime would be charged and the person tried for an offense. Should contact reports, past officer impressions, suspicions of criminal activity but no actual conviction of such serve as a legal standard by which to deny someone their Rights? Doesn't that sound like something the Gestapo or KGB would do? That doesn't sit well with me as a fair process of processing license applications. I may well be very wrong in my interpretation of this.

This discretionary authority was authored in 1927. Even before the draconian National Firearms Act of 1934. So the state of Michigan has seen themselves as the final arbiter of who gets to own handguns for a long, long time.

I am not arguing that the state of Michigan should harmonize their process to provide for discretionary licensing across the board for all firearms. That turns the state of Michigan into Massachussets or Illinois (which I am sure is what the Brady Campaign is really after here). But a person could begin to ask pointed questions to their legislators about either implementing a full State background check across the board to help make Michigan more consistent in its firearms laws. But even that would likely have not prevented this.

I'm torn because I am deeply mistrustful of schemes that vest authority to deny you rights based on what person thinks you might do and can use that as a denial of said rights without having to provide a legally challengable basis for it. Such systems turn your Rights into privileges and make you little more than a serf on a nobleman's land.

What this man did was horrible and he is going to be in prison for the rest of his life as a consequence. But I don't think the state of Michigan could have prevented this with the system they have in place today. They would have to be very careful in crafting a system for tomorrow that might have a chance of stopping such minority things from happening without harming the Rights of the majority who do nothing wrong.

Honestly, I just don't think such things can be prevented without turning our country into a series of small police states. And I don't think Michigan could have prevented it despite Mr. Helmke's posturing to the contrary because if they had a process that said you couldn't buy a long gun if you were denied a pistol purchase permit, then Michigan firearms ownership would have to have that discretionary system across the board.

And that isn't what exercising rights are about. There must be a balance. I don't think a balance is achievable here that would have stopped this.

I'm torn.

A Double Fisking of "How Easy Is It to Get an AK-47"

One of the things that frustrate gun owners so much is reading the blatant lies, misinformation and distortion that anti-gun forces put out. Most of us are familiar with the Brady Campaign, Ceasefire, Violence Policy Center and so on. At least these organizations are upfront with their stated goals and don't hide behind a misleading facade.

The same cannot be said of my target of today's post: The Gun Guys and Freedom States Alliance.

At first glance, these two names seem like our friends. Nothing is further from the truth. The Freedom States Alliance is a cover organization for The Gun Guys and is funded by the rabidly anti-gun Joyce Foundation. Their purpose is no different than the Brady Campaign and others like them. Armed and Safe has the goods on them with regard to where they get their money.

Although a couple of days old, this "article" on the Gun Guys has me seeing red (apologies for the link). They are crying shrilly over that old canard of how easy it is to get an AK-47 with the help of a puff piece by NBC Pensacola Channel 15.

Since "assault weapons" are one of my favorite topics, I am off on a double fisking. And as a public service announcement so others out there don't get drawn in by this garbage.

Let's start with the source material, the fear-mongering NBC article.

An AK-47 is anything but your average hunting rifle. Just how easy is it to get your hands on an one?

As far as the law is considered, it is. For those of you not in the know, the AK-47 sold to civilians in this country is a look-alike. It looks like the AK-47 so loved by terrorists and insurgents (as well as uniformed armies) throughout the world. It fires the same cartridge and accepts the same accessories but it does not function the same way. Civilian AK-47 look-alike rifles are not automatic weapons like those found in battle. They are semi-automatic firing one round per pull of the trigger.

As a result, this menacing looking weapon is exactly that, menacing looking. It operates just the same as that average hunting rifle. As a result, they are treated as such.

Family members describe 34-year old Emanuel Mose as "lucky to be alive." Emanuel is a security guard who was gunned down during a robbery at commonwealth national bank in Prichard Thursday.

Video surveillance shows two Hispanic males walking into the bank with their weapons drawn, AK-47's to be exact. Police say the men started firing shots immediately. One of the bullets struck Emanuel Mose in the leg.

Family members say he fell against a door, and knocked it open. He then barricaded himself inside the room until help arrived. It is unknown whether the weapons used to commit the robbery are registered or stolen.

Ok, we have a pair of criminals walking into a bank and opening fire on those within. Do you think the fact they were carrying AK-47s was the determining factor in them deciding to commit the criminal acts of robbing the bank, assault with a deadly weapon and attempted murder?

Do you think this pair was sitting around their gritty kitchen table saying:

Criminal Scumbag 1: "Hey, I think we should rob a bank, man. Let's do it.".
Criminal Scumbag 2: "No way, man, those tellers and security guards could do anything."
Criminal Scumbag 1: "Why not? It's a ton of money. I can get us a couple of handguns from Rojas the Crack Dealer. It'll be cake!".
Criminal Scumbag 2: "Yeah, it's a ton of money. But you know, those tellers, guards and people inside won't respect our handguns and just ignore us. Too dangerous, man. Anything could happen.".
Criminal Scumbag 1: "So we go in shooting and demand the money. They'll respect us then!".
Criminal Scumbag 2: "Nah. They won't. People aren't afraid of handguns.".
Criminal Scumbag 1: "Let's get us some AK-47s then. People are afraid of them and we can go in like Rambo!".
Criminal Scumbag 2: "Great idea! Let's do it!".

Give me a break.

What the article does not mention is whether these were illegal fully automatic machineguns (which are illegal to possess if made after 1986 and the owner has not gone through the extensive background check and paid the tax to do so) or whether these were otherwise legal semi-automatics that could be owned without much hassle by civilians.

At least they do, at the end of this sensationalizing, make mention of the fact it was unknown whether these guns were registered or illegally obtained. Registered? Does Florida have an "assault weapon" registry? If not, then the guns wouldn't be any more registered than a more traditional looking hunting rifle.

And do any of you want to lay odds that this pair of criminal masterminds had perfectly clean records leading up to their master heist, walked into a gun shop, paid $400 a piece (plus ammunition) for their AK-47s, did the Federal background paperwork and then walked next door to the bank for their shining moment of glory? Because if they did, that will be a newsworthy event in and of itself.

And they were bad shots too. They fired multiple times and only hit one person. I am glad the guard is ok. If they nicked his femoral artery, then he is very lucky to be alive. He was fortunate in more ways than one.

A local gun shop tells NBC 15 that it doesn't take much to get your hands on powerful assault rifles such as the AK-47.
"Simply get them to fill out a background check as this one is here. It's a simple one page form."

Apparently NBC didn't look too closely at that "one page form". That one page form asks a lot of pointed questions and you aren't allowed to lie on any of them.

You don't "fill out" a background check. You are providing information for it. They use the information on that form to look into your criminal history quite deeply. There is nothing really simple about it.

As to the "powerful assault rifle", ah, thank you for the distortion. The civilian variants of the AK-47 are not "assault rifles". Those are military weapons with the capability for fully-automatic fire. These versions cannot do that.

And what, exactly, makes them powerful? The cartridge fired by the AK-47 is no more powerful than the .30-30 deer cartridge. For that reason, people really do use these rifles for hunting. As far as the law is concerned, they are hunting rifles. The rest is just cosmetics. I wish the media would actually try to learn something once in a while rather than project their own inaccurate beliefs about an object they apparently know nothing about.

If everything checks out, he says you're out the door with an assault rifle in no more than 10-minutes. There are some exceptions, especially if your record contains felony offenses.

The gun shop owner tells NBC 15, "Now if you have a traffic ticket or something that's not going to really hinder it."

Some exceptions? SOME EXCEPTIONS? How about if you have any felony conviction, a juvenile offense that would be a felony conviction as an adult, any drug offense, a documented history of mental illness, convicted of or under a restraining order for domestic violence (also called "prior restraint"), are a habitual drunkard, are an illegal alien or any other person prohibited from possessing a firearm under any other statue or law not covered in this list.

Some exceptions. That is creative understatement to say the least. Honesty in journalism right there.

And that check will come back in 10 minutes only on a good day with NICS and you have minimal information to crosscheck in the state and Federal databases. If there is any kind of criminal information for anything on you in the system, that check will take much longer.

And a traffic ticket can certainly hinder you if it was for DUI. That's a felony too.

Unbelievable. As one of the commenters on my blog pointed out, "What exactly is it that future reporters are taught during four years of journalism school?". I'd like to know because it sure as hell isn't basic research and fact-checking skills. You'd figure reading would be part of the curriculum where writing is one of the required skills.

And using this small little mound of excrement, the Gun Guys go forth and turn it into an elephant sized pile. From that, into this...

Just days after that shocking story of the toddler who legally handled an AK-47 inside a gun store, we hear another story, this time from Alabama, of just how easy it is for almost anyone to obtain one of these deadly and unnecessary assault weapons.

Yes, children can legally handle a rifle under adult supervision. It isn't shocking. Why is engaging in a legal act shocking?

Deadly and unnecessary? What defines "deadly" and "unnecessary"?

Any object can be deadly. Its actual lethality is determined by several factors, the most important of which is the person in control of the object. A person so inclined could kill you using a plastic drinking cup. Or a stick found lying in a field. Or with a butter knife. Or a baseball bat. Or a gun. Otherwise, these are merely objects that can do nothing on their own without someone to wield and guide them into their deadly usage.

As to "unnecessary", who decide necessity? What is one person's necessity is another person's luxury. In almost all things, individuals get to decide the necessity of objects they choose to own. A private security guard, for example, may decide spending several hundred dollars on a bullet-resistant vest is a necessity because of the nature of their job.

For someone like me living in a relatively safe suburb, it may be a luxury (or paranoia) but not a necessity. But what if my neighborhood suddenly suffered a rash of hot burglaries by armed criminals? Maybe it wouldn't be a luxury anymore but a necessity.

The State is the last entity that should be deciding necessity. Necessity is a matter of individual choice and as long as the product involved is legal to own, whether it be a gun, bat or nerf launcher, I will decide the appropriate necessity of my purchases, not you.

That’s it. Ten minutes. Ten minutes is the difference between an argument and a homicide. It’s the difference between a firing and a massacre. Ten minutes is the difference between a man angry and yelling on the street, and a man shooting down a dozen citizens in a mall.

Ok, I am about let loose a string of profanity here. Cover your eyes. Are you fucking kidding me?!?

Are these morons seriously proposing that this type of behavior is commonplace? Do they want rational people to honestly believe that a person will stay violently angry long enough to leave from where they got enraged, drive furiously to the nearest gun shop who is stocking an AK-47 look-alike, tempestuously pay for it, fill out the forms in a frothing rage without looking suspicious to the dealer, pace about in blood-curdling agitation while the background check is run, stomp out of the gun store with their purchase, slam the rounds bitterly into the magazine in their car, get out and storm into the same location that pissed them off so much and calmly go on a killing spree?

What. Are. You. On?

Yes, it could happen. In a population of 300 million (of which, perhaps 240 million can maybe own firearms and at least 80 odd million who do by conservative estimates), it is possible that one perfectly law-abiding citizen will snap and decide that mass murder is the route they will take to avenge themsevles. It could happen.

But it doesn't. Usually the unhinged individual already owns or has access to the weapons of their rampage prior to their act. The stop in the gun store doesn't factor into the scenario.

Please cite the report that illustrates this predominant method by which killing sprees occur. Otherwise, to me, they are the acts of upset individuals, whom for reasons often only known to them, decide to engage in such deplorable carnage. They cannot be predicted, really understood or stopped until the moment actually comes (and then pray there is a citizen carrying concealed or an off-duty cop around to do so). Because people are going to be wounded or killed in the time it is going to take for armed police to arrive.

Waiting periods on handguns and so-called "assault weapons" never seem to stop these things from happening.

It’s no wonder that we have almost constant gun violence in America today– these weapons are deadly, devastating, and clearly far too easy to obtain. What’s our only line of defense against keeping these firearms out of criminal hands? The NRA claims that we can trust “law-abiding citizens.” They want us to think that we have nothing to fear from “law-abiding citizens,” and that we can trust them to have the ability to get a deadly weapon in ten minutes because they would never, ever do anything wrong with it.

Far too easy to obtain? See above on the NBC article. Easy only if you're a law-abiding citizen with a clean record and willing to pay the money to do so.

Guess what, there is no line of defense from keeping these or any other firearm out of criminal hands. Not to mention the fact that criminals don't hardly ever use these types of guns at all in crimes. The bank robbers above were an exception. Anyone care to wager that their act was a "crackhead see, crackhead do" scenario using the North Hollywood Shootout as inspiration?

Criminals will always be able to obtain guns as long as their desire to commit violence with them exists. Look at Britain. An island nation where private firearms ownership is virtually banned and yet, criminals seem to have no trouble getting guns with which to threaten unarmed victims with.

You do have nothing to fear from law-abiding citizens owning these types of "scary looking" rifles. I owned a Romanian AK-47 look-alike. I didn't like it. Didn't like it to the point that I sold it.

It isn't the NRA that claims we can be trusted. The State and Federal government, in most places, says that we can. That should be enough for you.

However, if I do do something wrong with any firearm I own, punish me then. Not before. Preventing someone from owning a product because of what they might do with it is a form of prior restraint and is not one of the principles our society functions on. Remember "Innocent until Proven Guilty"?

Carried to its logical conclusion, knives (for stabbing), plastic bags (for suffocating children) and cars (for drunk driving) should all be banned too because I might do something wrong with them as well.

And if we do, we aren't living in the United States anymore but Communist Russia.

But time and time again, we’ve seen that that’s just not true– even “law-abiding citizens” can become different people in a short space of time. And while the NRA wants us to trust them, they’ve betrayed our trust again and again, because criminals are obtaining these weapons and using them all the time.

All the time? Really? Where?

• The Columbine Massacre was committed by two minor children who weren't legally allowed to possess any of the firearms they used.
• The DC Beltway Snipers used an illegally obtained AR-15 rifle and both were prohibited from possessing it under State and Federal law (they were illegal aliens).
• The Trolley Square Mall Shoothing was committed with a non-"assault weapon" shotgun that was legally possessed. But he also had a handgun in his backpack and since the shooter was under 21, he was prohibited from possessing it.

The key word in all of this is "criminals". They became criminals by obtaining their tools in defiance of the law or by their acts with them. Not until.

I am a potential criminal. But until I do something and until you can demonstrate that a very large percentage of people like me do engage in such illegal acts specifically using these types of firearms, that is not a reason to deny ownership of them.

Remember, they are no different except in appearance from hunting rifles. If you are concerned about how something looks and the danger those looks place people in, then you should seek professional help.

There should be no debate about whether it’s safe to allow these weapons to find their way onto the street within ten minutes, or to allow them to find their way to the street at all. The answer is no. These firearms don’t belong in our country in anyone’s hands. We’ve already gotten rid of them once (and then the NRA pushed Congress to allow the assault weapons ban to lapse away, leaving the door open for even more violence like this).

I didn't know guns walked themselves out the door of a gun shop and fell onto the street waiting for someone to pick them up. Or someone would buy one, walk out the door and toss it onto a sidewalk in a free-for-all giveway.

If these types of guns don't belong in our country then none of them do. But, that is your agenda, isn't it?

The sunset on the AWB was a compromise that was made to even give it the chance to pass. Otherwise, there was enough opposition to it that it would not have become law at all. And that compromise was a good thing because it demonstrated the utter uselessness of the law after it expired. It had no effect at all on violent gun crime. None. Not during the ban and not since it has elapsed. Criminals don't use these guns in crime. One incident does not make a trend.

It’s time to fight to rid our country of these weapons again, and this time for good. We can’t simply put our trust in “law-abiding citizens” any longer, because it’s just not working. Ten minutes is much too short a time to allow anyone who might be murderously angry to obtain a firearm, especially one so obviously dangerous and unnecessary.

You can't trust law-abiding citizens any longer? When did I wake up in North Korea? I don't give a crap if you don't trust me. My friends trust me, my family trusts and the government trusts me. Unless you are planning to rule over me as judge, jury and executioner, you don't get to make the decision on whether I am to be trusted.

And how do you propose to rid the country of these weapons? The first assault weapon ban didn't get rid of them either! Don't you know that?!?

The AWB banned features, not functions! And the law allowed those who owned those weapons with the banned features to keep them. And such weapons continued to be sold while the AWB was in place. The features that were banned were simply removed. The guns themselves, pre and post ban, went nowhere.

Unless you are proposing that such property should be seized by the Governement? If so, you haven't seen anything close to murderously angry. You want to see an armed insurrection in this country? A blanket ban on most civilian firearms ownership nationwide might be a way to have it happen.

You see, a large percentage (you could almost call it a majority) of Americans believe, rightfully so, that they have the right to own guns by virtue of the Constitution. To deprive them of that Right across the board would be seen as the act of a tyrannical government. And many would act as the Constitution allows for and under which this country was founded by removing such tyrannical goverment. If soap box, ballet box and jury box fails, all that is left is the ammo box.

Even if half-a-million out of the 80 odd million gun owners (a small percentage) acted to resist such efforts in this manner, it would be a national crisis of unimaginable proportions. Not even all the law-enforcement officers in this country would be able to deal with such resistance. And in this country, the Army isn't allowed to and if they tried to do so, I would wager that that half-a-million would be much, much larger before too long.

And even if you succeeded and there were still firearms left for civilian ownership (such as hunting rifles and shotguns), what is to stop someone from getting those in ten minutes and head out on a killing spree? The outcome would be no different.

Do you see the obviousness and danger in your line of reasoning now?

Of course not. Because you're being paid to lie.

Gun Guys and Freedom States, my ass.

Interesting Stuff in the Referrer Logs

I guess I am still in the novelty phase of blogging. Been at it about a month now and just posting on whatever happens to yank my chain at a given moment. Some of my stuff is planned out (like the Bite Me, Brady posts) but the rest is on my whims.

Thanks to information at Alphecca, I did add some GoStats statistics gathering code to my blog. It doesn't leave any nasty cookies (I hope) behind and the basic Blogger software doesn't include traffic statistics. So I added some. It was free and it works for my needs. I was just curious to see if anyone is interested in anything I have to say.

Well, part of the traffic the free code gives you is where you were linked from. It only holds the last 100 visitors. No biggie since I considered myself honored that 100 people think I have anything worthwhile to say. But it gives me some interesting information.

I say I am in the novelty phase because looking at the traffic logs is like watching little blinking lights on a computer or network device. You just get drawn in. Every little hit is a big thrill, kind of like when you first get e-mail and are giddy when one shows up in your mailbox. After 100,000 spam messages, it doesn't excite you anymore. I'm certain the same will happen to me over time.

But, for now, I think it interesting where I am getting read. A little while ago, this popped up in my referrer log:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x136566

I find it amusing that I am considered a non-GOP site by one of the posters at DU. I guess it is the Canadian Liberal thing. Because if it isn't, I have to ask "Have you DU folks read my stuff?". :)

I don't think I quite fit into the mold of a progressive Democrat. I'm not a hard-right Republican either (although my stance on gun control puts me on the right hand side of the aisle). I may have to do a post espousing my views on various topics and see just how many people I can leave shaking their heads. Short version, I would consider myself a Libertarian.

I also find it interesting that I have a pretty large number of visitors from Canada. I guess I chose a good name, eh? I guess my fellow countrymen like hearing about life here in the States.

Even weirder are the few hits I've gotten from China. I guess I needed to be added to the "Great Firewall" for publishing subversive literature. That warms my heart.

And lastly, man, you folks sure do like the gun porn! Thanks to folks like Say Uncle and a little shameless self-promotion on my part, the highest traffic posts are my "Bite Me, Brady" posts (all three in are in the top five most read pages). Take heart everyone, I have enough material for those to last me months and that is just drawing on my own personal collection. I'm glad you like it. I'll definitely try to make it interesting for you.

I'm happy if two people think what I say is interesting. I'm glad you do. Thanks to each of you and especially to the blogs who are linking to me and those of you who are telling others about my stuff through word of mouth.

I'm having fun with this.

Bite Me, Brady! #2

For our second entry in my ongoing series to press Paul Helmke's buttons, I am swinging the spyglass onto a different target. This week's feature attacks another insidious lie the Brady Campaign chooses to promote.

They argue they aren't after all our guns, just the ones that aren't used for sport. And the ones that aren't "cop killers". Part of their goals is to deny access to weapons that can be used to penetrate police body armor. Such as their attacks on the FN 5.7 pistol. Of course, these types of attacks demonstrate a total lack of knowledge, which I believe to be willful, of firearms and their nature.

In Paul Helmke's world, he would take away "assault weapons", "Saturday Night Specials", guns powerful enough to threaten law enforcement officers and those that he feels have no sporting purpose. Essentially, we would be left with shotguns (but only those he approves of) and hunting rifles.

Say Mr. Helmke had succeeded here in Maryland in getting so-called "assault weapons" banned. That bill was so encompassing that would have, had the authorities had the balls to enforce it, also banned virtually all semi-automatic pistols as well. That would only leave revolvers, a few traditional looking semi-auto long guns and manually cycled long guns (pump, bolt-action and lever action). Do you honestly believe they would have stopped there and decided that all the evil guns had been taken care of and law-abiding shooters could choose from what was left?

Not a chance. Next, the attacks would have gone after "high powered sniper rifles". Rifles used to penetrate body armor and kill cops at long distances from hidden places. You know, kind of like a certain group of Americans did to another body of uniformed individuals around 1776? Or, as the Brady Campaign claims, the Bushmaster AR-15 used by the DC Beltway Snipers.

They would argue that sportsman have no use for a rifle capable of killing from hundreds of yards away. 50-150 yards would be sufficient for hunting. On the surface, a gullible public would see the logic in this argument. Get rid of these "high powered weapons" that serve no real hunting purpose that a smaller, less powerful rifle could do.

Except for one minor problem: No such rifle exists.

Such claims are totally ignorant of firearms and ballistics. Although a "sniper rifle" might be accurately lethal out to distances of 1000 yards or more with an expert shooter behind the trigger, the bullet doesn't magically drop from the sky after it passes out of effective range (or the abilities of the shooter). It keeps on going until it hits something or falls to the ground. It is simple physics.

Even the lowly .22LR rimfire has a flight distance upwards of two miles. You'd be hard pressed to hit a target with any degree of accuracy beyond 100 yards but that little bullet will travel for a long way regardless. Check the packaging on a box if you don't believe me. Hence why responsible gun safety emphasizes so strongly the concept of "knowing your target and what is beyond it". Because if you miss, you better know what is on that bullet's line of travel for a few miles because it has the chance of running into anything along it.

The same applies to a bullet fired from any rifle. All that increases are the lethal distance and the energy of a round. It doesn't matter if it is a .243 caliber round at the end of a 1.5 mile flight almost out of energy or a .50 caliber round hammering through steel plate at the same distance. Either one will kill you equally. The .50 will just pack more energy but will kill you just the same.

It is not possible to design a rifle round that can be used effectively out to 150 yards and cease to be lethal immediately beyond or simply drop to the ground a few yards later. A good hunting round needs sufficient mass and velocity in order to penetrate far enough into an animal to kill it quickly and with as little pain as possible.

The round needs to deliver enough energy to expand within a specific distance (usually 8-10 inches) inside the animal to do catastrophic damage to internal organs to put it down as fast as possible. Although you may find such talk unpleasant, it is what the ethical hunter looks to do. To do this also requires a round capable of killing at ranges far beyond those using it (but could if they desired).

The same energy needed to kill an animal cleanly is the same energy that a bullet uses to penetrate soft body armor. Standard issue body armor is not designed to deal with the impact energies found in a typical hunting or sport rifle. To stop such rounds usually requires solid plates that are very heavy and uncomfortable to wear. This is not practical for daily use by police officers and for the fact that rifles are not used against them by criminals. The favored weapon is the handgun, the round from which a soft vest is designed to defeat.

As a result, there is no functional difference between a hunting rifle and a "high powered sniper rifle" so hated by the Brady Campaign. The only real difference is the target. Everything is else preference based on need, regulation and cost.

So without further ado, I present this week's possible aneurysm for Paul Helmke...



This is a somewhat unique entry for a number of reasons. One, this is the rifle that earned me a NICS denial (chronicled in this article). Two, this rifle is over 90 years old.

Huh? This looks like a hunting rifle you'd buy at Dick's or your local gun shop.

This rifle is a M96 (Model 1896) Swedish Mauser chambered in 6.5x55mm. It was made by Carl Gustafs in 1915. Possibly, it is a veteran of World War 1.

The Swedish Mauser is a legendary member of the Mauser family. Considered the most accurate of all of the Mausers, they are highly collectible because of the steel used in their construction (considered the finest by the Germans during the Great War) and the quality of their workmanship and construction. The original M96 was made starting in 1896 and manufactured until 1938 where it was replaced by the Swedish M38 which soldiered on until the 1950s.

Thousands of M96s have been imported into the USA and are highly prized for their accuracy by hunters. The 6.5mm cartridge has been around for over 100 years and it is considered one of the finest hunting and general purpose cartridges ever made. The indefatigable Kim Du Toit has a beautiful page displaying the 6.5mm Swede. That to me is the way a rifle cartridge is supposed to look. If the 6.5mm was a woman, she would be perfectly proportioned and never be someone you would grow tired of.

My rifle also represents an activity undertaken by many sportsman that I cringe at. It is the act of "sporterisation".

This is where the owner takes the original military surplus rifle and then modify it to making it more suitable to their purposes such as hunting. This often involves placing the rifle in a new stock or worse, cutting down the original stock to a traditional hunting style, tapping the receiver to accept scope mounting rails, shortening or replacing the barrel and/or modifying the bolt.

Through most of the 20th century, this was considered an acceptable practice given the vast numbers of military surplus rifles available. Today, with the hobby of collecting old military surplus rifles, this practice is seen as destroying history.

For the record, if you own such a rifle and modify it in this manner, that is your right. It is your property and you are free to do with it as you please. I personally disagree strongly with this practice but it your choice to do so.

The reason is because these rifles do have a history that needs to be honored. They may be combat veterans carried into battle. By cutting them up, you take away a small piece of history that can never be recovered. The other reason is because the number of surplus rifles out there is fixed.

Allow me an example: The Russian Mosin-Nagant. These rifles (both the full length and infantry carbine) are readily available very cheaply (some can be found for as little as $60). They have been imported in the thousands. So, given the present quantity and low cost, why not modify the rifle to suit your needs?

Because 5-10 years from now, they aren't going to be as common. What was once cheap and common over time becomes rare and valuable. Many people thought the same thing about the surplus M1903A3 Springfield rifles sold after World War 1 in massive quantities. No one gave any thought to the fact someday the supply might dry up. So they bought them, abused them, modified them and so on. Today, a World War 1 era Springfield is a highly sought after and very valuable collectors item. That $10 rifle from 1920 in its original form is now worth a couple thousand dollars. Someday, the same value will be applied to an unmodified Mosin-Nagant.

As as result, I believe in keeping a military surplus rifle in its original form. If you wish to modify it in a way that isn't original (most typically adding a scope mount), use parts that can be removed from the rifle and revert it back to its original form without making any permanent alterations (such as drilling and tapping the receiver). Many manufacturers sell such parts. These historical weapons deserve to be preserved in their original form for future generations, whether it be for a museum you will donate the gun to someday or your own grandchildren.

My rifle was sporterised by an owner sometime in its past. I believe this act was the reason it wound up at my dealer in the first place. It had been bought as part of a lot of used hunting rifles, most of which were based on Mauser actions. Had it been in its original trim, I doubt it would have been brought in.

The only original parts remaining are the receiver, which has been tapped for scope mounts, the magazine and parts of the bolt. The receiver was manufactured in 1915 and the finish and markings on it are still pristine (once you remove the mounts). The bolt body is not original (as is apparent by the differences in color/finish in the pictures).

The rifle has been rebarrelled with a heavy barrel. This has at least kept and maybe improved upon the legendary accuracy of the original rifle. The thickness of the barrel isn't as great as a bull barrel but it is eminently suitable for a good, accurate shooter. This is further helped by the fact the barrel has been free-floated in its new synthetic stock. Like any good sniper rifle, the use of a synthetic stock and free float are great aids in providing tight accuracy.

The last feature changed from the original is the reason I bought the rifle. It has been given a trigger job that has reduced the trigger pull to a mere 3.5 pounds in a single stage. There is no slack to be taken up in the trigger like you find in a typical military rifle. Place your finger on the trigger and apply a little pressure. It breaks cleanly and sharply. A superb quality in a target rifle.

I added the military sling (unadjusted in this photo), the 6-24x42 mil-dot target scope, the Harris bipod and the slip-on cartridge carrier onto the stock. Yes, folks, those are live rounds in the sleeve. What is a little gun porn without some live ammunition to give the antis a heart attack? (And before I get angry e-mails or comments above having live ammunition near a gun in a non-range environment, take note of the fact in the picture the bolt is wide open. No live rounds went anywhere near the chamber for these pictures).

Part of me cringes at the changes that were made to this rifle. I wish it was original. I often wonder given the date of manufacture if my rifle saw action in the hands of a German soldier, fighting resolutely on the Eastern or Western Front. On that, I can only speculate. But, there is nothing I can do except perhaps someday get an original M96 to preserve to help ease my guilt. But, I can't change the fact that the rifle is what it is and it is still a wonderful platform regardless.

Target shooting is why I bought this rifle. I recognized it would be perfect for it the moment I picked it up for the first time. The mixture of changes made to sporterise it, the trigger work, stock and free float, the scope and bipod and the great ballistics of the 6.5x55mm round all come together to make this an exquisite high-powered target rifle. So much so I plan to use it as a long-range precision rifle from ranges of 600 to 1000 meters and in competition for fun.

It also would make an excellent sniper platform as an alternative to more traditional .308 (7.62x51mm NATO) caliber sniper weapons like the M21 and M40A1 (which is based on a Remington 700 civilian hunting rifle that has been modified not unlike my rifle). The 6.5mm has a flatter trajectory than the M852 .308 Match ammo at ranges out to 500 yards. Although velocities are lower, its zero distance is 200 yards as compared to 100 yards for the M852.

For short-to-medium range applications, such as police snipers (who rarely operate beyond 50-100 yards), the flat trajectory and accuracy of the 6.5mm make it an ideal platform. For urban environments, this smaller, lighter round is more suitable as it is less likely to overpenetrate at short ranges (aided by the use of expanding hollowpoint ammunition. Police are not bound by the Hague Convention). The same qualities that allow it to stop a deer in its tracks with a single shot are also equally useful in dropping a violent perpetrator bent on murder on the spot with less possibility of harming innocent bystanders.

So there you go, Paul Helmke. Your deadly, high powered sniper rifle. And should my local SWAT team ever need some help and have nothing suitable in their inventory, they are more than welcome to borrow my rifle. It would be equally at home in the woods, on a rooftop with a hostage taker in the sight or against a competition steel silhouette at 600 meters on the range at the Quantico Marine Corps base.

I think I just heard an artery pop. Get to a hospital, Paul!

Slayings Sting But Stupid Hurts

It has a been a busy day with anti-gun screeds on submissions to Keep and Bear Arms. Lots of wonderful fisking material today.

I continue to be curious, albeit in that blood pressure raising kind of way, of why the media is anti-gun and chooses to distort, lie and omit information in their pursuit of so-called news. At least most anti-gun rants are filed as opinion pieces. Anti-gun opinion pieces are little more than temper tantrums on paper. I wish they were subject to some sort of editorial scrutiny that would actually have editors demanding that the writer do some research before making assertions of fact.

For round 1, I bring you this piece by Cynthia Tucker of the Atlanta-Journal Constitution.

Last Tuesday, a man followed a woman into a downtown Atlanta hotel — in the same complex as CNN's headquarters — and shot her in the face and upper body, leaving her fatally wounded.

He, in turn, was shot by a security guard and remained hospitalized late last week. The victim, Clara Riddles, worked at the hotel, but the rage that radiated from her assailant, Arthur Mann, was apparently personal. Family say the two had been dating, but Riddles had recently broken it off.

The only reason this got any attention at all on the national level was because it did happen close to CNN's headquarters. This random act of senseless violence happened a little too close to home for comfort for them. When blood begins to stain the ivory tower, those within tend to sit up and take notice.

It is a tragedy. There is no rhyme or reason for it. As you state, it was personal rage. How do you control or predict it? You can't. I wish we could.

Gun assaults are rising, but you're unlikely to hear anything from the top-tier presidential candidates about improving gun safety laws. Republicans, of course, are wholly owned by the National Rifle Association, which advocates a howitzer in every home. Democrats, meanwhile, have been persuaded that gun safety is the suicide bomb of domestic politics; mention the subject, and your campaign explodes.

What improved gun safety laws would have prevented the shooting mentioned above or others like it? What are the 20,000 odd gun laws on the books not accomplishing that these miraculous improvements will fix?

This is a constant, constant refrain from the media. A tragic shooting occurs and the immediate knee-jerk reaction is a cry for more legislation. It gets really tiring to hear this. How is a law against something going to stop an enraged man from killing an ex-girlfriend? The laws against murder didn't stop him so how would a "gun safety law" be any better? Ms. Tucker, do you believe that a would-be murderer will honestly care about a prohibition against a particular murder weapon if he was intending to kill anyway?

Republicans are wholly owned by the National Rifle Association? Ok, Ms. Tucker, prove it. You are making an assertion that you seem to believe should be obvious to me. I'm telling you now, it isn't.

The NRA wants everyone to have a howitzer in their home? That is the height of media ignorance right there. That is proof that this "reporter" is nothing of the sort. As a member of the NRA, I get their literature quite regularly and I have never seen a single stance that indicated that NRA backed the idea that individuals should own crew-served artillery. Not that they would need to for a very simple reason:

Citizens can own artillery!

Admittedly, the number of people who do is very small. The pieces and the shells they fire are both are considered "destructive devices" by the Government and can be owned (with very tight scrutiny and regulation) by private citizens willing to submit to the cost and the process. It can be done. But the NRA isn't advocating such a position because they don't have to. It's already law.

Lady, you make the NRA sound like this massive juggernaut threatening everything and everyone in this country? It isn't. First and foremost (and many will argue with me on this point), the NRA is a rights defense organization. They are, secondly, a promoter of civilian shooting sports, marksmanship and gun safety. If the NRA is so evil, why is it virtually every state considers their programs the standard to be met for everything from hunter safety to handgun proficiency for concealed carry? The lot of you in the media seem to ignore this.

If you would simply call the NRA, they would be happy to explain their history, background and positions to you. But that would require you to do research and would go against your agenda of objective truth and facts.

The reason gun control (or gun safety as you like to put it) is considered a suicide bomb to politicians, not just Democrats, is because it is. Gun control is seen by a lot of Americans as an infringement on their Rights and they will defend themselves very strongly via the ballot box. Gun owners are very suspicious of any regulation that hampers them and does nothing to curb or control crime, which is what gun control is touted to do and has miserably failed at.

That and the fact that citizens have never known the Government to repeal or relinquish power once taken. If a law fails, another is on its heels in an attempt to "clarify" or "improve" existing law. Often by passing more restrictions, controls and regulation. The Government has never been known to actually examine a law on its merits or by an objective measure of its effectiveness and repeal or modify it as dictated. Virtually no law has a "proof of effectiveness" clause tied to it to permit it to sunset if it is shown not to be so.

The Federal Assault Weapon Ban was a rare exception and the sunset provision was a compromise made to even allow it to pass and was seen as a mistake by the supporters of that miserable excuse for a law. A mistake they don't plan to make again.

Given the way laws are generally passed, "once passed, here forever" is the rule of the day and as a result, the distrust gun owners have in general of any gun control legislation.

I don't see gun control as a Democratic issue. Republicans support gun control too. Democrats are simply more apt and willing to pass gun control since it fits with their overall ideology of "big government, big controls". Can't let an individual citizen actually have a say in their safety and responsibility for taking charge of it! No, that is a job for the state. Gun control to me is a politician's issue and any politician who supports it should not be surprised at seeing themselves out of office in the next election.

That, Ms. Tucker, is the way representative democracy works. Sorry that you don't like it. Some of us actually do vote on issues rather than party. There are roughly 80 million gun owners in the USA. That is a lot of swing votes.

So this folly will continue, fueled by a perplexing cultural ethos that worships individual gun ownership. A century from now, anthropologists will look back and wonder what in the world this was all about. They'll sift through the ruins and the historical record, in much the same way anthropologists today puzzle over cannibalism and the sacrifice of virgins in long-dead civilizations. They'll wonder how a highly advanced and sophisticated culture allowed unchecked personal gun ownership, despite the carnage.

I hope they won't need to because the United States will still exist a century from now because of that unchecked personal gun ownership.

Part of what you see as folly was considered so important by the Founding Fathers that they made individual arms ownership second only to free speech and practice of religion in the Bill of Rights. They put the ownership of arms ahead of the right against self-incrimination and that of protection from illegal search and seizure.

Gun ownership in the USA is part of what makes us a truly free society. Many people don't realize it but deep down, they understand it because of what gun ownership represents in the grand scheme. The best words I have ever read on the subject are those of Judge Alex Kozinski:

My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed - where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once (emphasis mine).

Ms. Tucker, why don't you dig down and think about where the road to gun control leads? Are you willing to bet the future of your grandchildren on the continued benevolence of the government and how the political wind is blowing at that time? Attitudes shift. Beliefs shift. The United States was constituted in such a way to allow for those short term shifts to have minimal impact long term on the values the country was founded upon. It is this foresight of the Founders that is one of the things that make the United States unique.

What you see as folly I see as strength. It is something I think cultural anthropologists will look as one of the greater successes in the history of human civilization.

A report released in March by the Police Executive Research Forum stated that the murder rate had jumped by more than 10 percent since 2004 in dozens of large cities across the country. Police attribute the increase to several factors, including an epidemic of methamphetamine, a casual acceptance of violence among a subset of aimless young men and a flood of illegal guns.

These factors are not separate but interrelated. It isn't law-abiding folks that are killing each other despite your implications in your article to the contrary. It is criminals. The drugs are fueling competition and lawlessness, which in turn is fueling the violence. Guns are a weapon in this fight, not the cause. What you don't mention is what percentage of these crimes use guns versus knives, blunt objects or just plain fists. Gun violence may be disproportionate in these groups but gun usage itself is in the minority overall. Knives are much more popular.

Since Sept. 11, the FBI has begun to devote more resources to terrorism and fewer to local crimes, including gun felonies. But the bigger problem is the influence of an irrational gun lobby that insists that there should be no laws regulating gun use.

Since before September 11, 2001, the FBI didn't prosecute gun felonies either. That is left to state and local jurisdictions to make a decision on prosecution and more often than not, they choose not to. This has nothing to do with terrorism, 9/11 or the FBI. The FBI focuses on other crimes.

I don't know what gun lobby you're referring to. The NRA you demonize so much represents only about five percent of the total gun owners in the USA. Whether you believe it or not, the "gun lobby" is actually the voices of those 80 million odd citizens making themselves heard. For every time you hear about the NRA involved in a fight somewhere, I guarantee there are three or four fights that are being fought by private citizens with minimal or no NRA involvement that never make the news.

The NRA is a convenient target. But they represent a very small fraction of the gun owners in this country. Gun politics is one issue where there is real grassroots, citizen lobbying going on.

Plus, you aren't talking about regulations on gun usage; you are talking about regulations on ownership when it is all said and done. If you can't own, usage kind of becomes a moot point. There are already lots and lots of laws covering that. We need less of them, not more.

In 2005, Congress handed firearms manufacturers a huge gift when it passed a law that shields the industry from virtually all liability lawsuits. It was intended to stave off a spate of court actions aimed at holding manufacturers responsible for some of the carnage that comes from the barrel of a gun.

This law was passed to prevent frivilous litigation against gun manufacturers for being held responsible for the illegal use of their products over which they have no control. The gun makers can still be sued but only for actual illegal acts (like selling guns to criminals out of the back of a truck) or for actual product defects that harm a user. A gun firing a bullet is not a product defect. It is what it is designed to do.

Do you feel it is ok for a car maker to be sued for the damage caused by a drunk driver? I would hope not. Because that is exactly the type of suit the law was designed to stop. The fact that it took a special law to do so where it wasn't needed in other areas of consumer product usage is a sad reflection on the state our legal system has gotten to in many places.

But the gun lobby is never satisfied. Now, its members are miffed that New York City authorities were able to prove that out-of-state gun dealers were flouting laws that mandate background checks and limit the number of firearms purchased by a single buyer. After New York's Republican mayor, Michael Bloomberg, took action against several Georgia gun shops, the NRA starting lobbying Congress to prevent the release of the gun trace information that helped New York police make their case. (Bloomberg was trying to stop illegal guns, many of which were traced to out-of-state shops, from flooding his city.)

Its members are miffed (of which I am one) because Mr. Bloomberg undertook a campaign that was illegal. It is against the law for someone who is not a law enforcement officer to engage in sting operations which is what he was doing. He has, in fact, been told as much by the Department of Justice and the BATFE, is under investigation for his actions, has jeopardized ongoing investigations as a result of his actions and I would hope he will be held responsible for them.

If I suspect a gun dealer is engaging in illegal conduct, I have a duty as a private citizen to report that dealer to law enforcement. I do not have the right or the authority to commit a crime in order to prove that illegal conduct. Mr. Bloomberg did the latter when he should have done the former. He and those who work for him are not above the law.

I am all for shutting down unscrupulous gun dealers. But they form a very tiny percentage of delaers. But I am not for engaging in entrapment and misrepresentation of oneself in the furtherance of an agenda as Bloomberg did. It is coming back to bite him and I hope it bites hard.

But it's not just illegal guns that kill the innocent, and it's not only hardened felons who pick up a gun and wreak havoc. A surfeit of guns gives gloomy adolescents a handy tool for suicide and turns harried fathers, angry and stressed over traffic, into road-rage killers.

Yes, about half of all suicides involve firearms. In fact, about half of all violent usage of a firearm involve sucide (a fact you in the media conveniently leave out in your oft-quoted 30,000 violent firearms usage statistics). But that isn't because of the presence of guns. They are merely, albeit tragically, the most convenient method available.

But if guns aren't readily available, other techniques are substituted. Overdose, slitting one's wrists and jumping off tall structures come to mind.

The fact a gun is used in a teenage suicide says more about the owner of the gun, the parents. It means they failed to be responsible in their ownership. Many states have strict rules for firearms storage where minor children are concerned. Teenagers are minors. Thus, the parents broke yet another law by failing to properly secure a weapon. (I personally take issue with safe storage laws but that is a discusion for another time).

As to the road rage, I would love to see the report on the commonality of this. I'm telling you now, the proportion of legal, law-abiding gun owners doing this is very, very, very low. To even get in that situation usually requires the gun owner to be licensed to carry a concealed handgun and virtually no one who is engages in such behavior. If anything, they strive to avoid it. In fact, when it does happen it is considered newsworthy by the nature of its rarity. It is so out of place as to warrant reporting. But reporting such does not make it a commonplace activity. It is not.

Stop inventing incidents that hardly ever take place. In many states that allow citizens to carry concealed weapons, the number of such incidents is zero.

If the individuals involved are not licensed to carry a concealed weapon and engage in a road rage shooting, what does that say about their respect for the law? Or the lack thereof. The law was no deterrent to them. A random act of murder with a gun is still murder. Don't cherry pick type, please. The tragedy is the act itself, not its means. I wish you would focus more on the acts rather than the mechanism. I think the media would be better off if they did.

Still, the cult of gun ownership remains strangely seductive. Despite opposition from police officers, the Legislature is considering a bill that would allow gun owners to tuck their firearms under the driver's seat. The Legislature may also ignore the concerns of business owners and overrule their right to prevent employees from keeping guns in vehicles parked on company property.

I am sure the bill for allowing a gun under the driver's seat only applies to those already licensed to carry a concealed weapon. Many areas have strange rules about what is considered "concealed".

As to the "right" of employers to prevent keeping guns in vehicles on company property, I have a simple question: When did employers get the right to search your vehicle without a warrant?

The parking lot the vehicle may be in may be company property but the vehicle itself isn't. Many states and jurisdictions consider your vehicle an extension of your home. What you choose to store in the privacy of your vehicle is none of your employer's business. What if an employee decided they didn't feel a display of a religious icon from your rear view mirror was inappropriate and banned it?

You argue that guns are different because they can be used to engage in workplace violence. Aren't there already laws against this?

Employers have a right to dictate what you can do at work, what to wear, etc. They can say you can't keep or display certain items on or in your desk. That is because the desk (and the space it occupies) belongs to them. Your car may occupy company property but the crucial difference is the car itself is not their space. It is your space. Their right of control should only extend as far as where you can park it.

Employers demanding rights over the contents of your private property sets a dangerous precedent. Because then it could allow other private entities who you have no business relationship with to do the same. It doesn't take a leap of imagination to see a suit by a business who prominently posts a "No Guns" sign on their window and who also owns the parking lot outside to demand the right to search your car for guns if you happen to be wearing an NRA shirt or cap. Think it is outlandish? I don't. All lawyers need is precedent and it doesn't have to be good precedent either.

If after all this you still feel that your car is subject to employer scrutiny then I hope your employer engages in a draconian daily search of your vehicle for items they consider contraband. Talk to me again in a few weeks and we'll see where you stand then (assuming you're still employed).

Sorting through this insanity will no doubt inspire reams of literature of anthropologists and social historians a century from now. Perhaps by then the American love affair with the gun will be a curious moment in history; for now, it's a lethal and inexplicable reality.

It is not inexplicable. Violent gun crime doesn't magically appear out of thin air. There are causes. Focus on the causes. But even if you do, it will never go away. There are dark sides to human nature that, no matter how enlightened, we cannot eliminate. What we can do is give those who hope for the best in people is the means to defend themselves when the worst comes out. The only one who should be lethally affected under those circumstances are those who would do the innocent harm.

That is reality, Ms. Tucker.

On Regrets and Giving Back

Not everything I will post here is gun-related. I know that my voice is merely one of hundreds of thousands whispering into the ether, hoping we'll be heard. I am not doing this out some motive to change the world. Much of it is expressing opinions that I feel are right on topics that interest me.

On some topics, like guns and illegal immigration, the reason I do this is to simply reduce my blood pressure after getting angry reading over and over one-sided views of an issue. On others, it is simply my perspectives on things that I think someone out there might be able to identify with.

This post fits into the latter category.

We all have regrets in our lives. Thing we wish we hadn't done, things we wish we had. For most, these are things that we simply relegate to the past and try to learn from. They are good things to remember and draw from.

We all carry with us though, regrets that gnaw at us. The kind of regrets we don't want to have when we are on our deathbed saying "I wish I had done this...". It is our hope that when that time comes we've managed to balance the books of our souls so we don't need to make such utterances.

I carry one such regret with me.

It isn't evil or terrible. It is personal and meaningful to myself. But unlike a lot of regrets that cannot be changed, this one I still have some time left to fix before I will not be able to do anything about it.

Quite simply: I regret not joining the military when I had the chance.

Canadians as a culture, I believe, place a high value on service to the community and country. To see it in the community all you need to do is look at how highly regarded the profession of school teacher is. Being an elementary or high-school teacher in Canada is considered an honorable and respected profession. It pays reasonably well but I have not met anyone that begrudges a teacher their pay for what they do. Teachers are respected and revered. It is (or was when I was growing up) a profession that school children aspired to much in the same way an American child would aspire to being a cop or fireman.

The other profession that is highly regarded is that of the Canadian soldier.

Now, this may seem odd coming from a culture that has a very small armed forces for the size of the country and one that doesn't spend large amounts of money on its military. If anything, we abuse our military financially in a manner that I consider deeply shameful.

However, the Canadian soldier is deeply honored. Rememberance Day (November 11th) is the most solemn days in Canada. It is a day where we try to put aside whatever ails us that day and take time to remember and honor the sacrifices of Canadians who served and who made the ultimate sacrifice. From World War 1 to the present day, our solidiers are honored and thanked. If you are ever in Canada on November 11th and the days leading up to it, you'll see what I mean. The red poppy worn on clothing serves as a reminder to us and those around us why we are free.

On that 11th day, on the 11th minute of the 11th hour, people will stop what they are doing and give a moment of silence. We are thankful and aware, even if we don't say it, of the sacrifices those in uniform past and present have done for us. Between school and my family, I was raised with an awareness to be thankful for this service.

One of my greatest honors was to be honor guard on November 11th as an Air Cadet, head bowed on my rifle, unmoving and somber. I cherish the memory of that cold November 11th standing on the Cenotaph as one of my greatest days. It is something that I remember as vividly as the day it happened.

Serving as a Cadet helped to open my eyes to the prospect of service. My Mom encouraged it as well. She is a big supporter of the concept of mandatory service such as that practiced in many European countries. She felt young men (and she was specific about that) would do well with the discipline instilled by such service. Me, being the ever supporter of pure equality, argued that it should be all young men and women, to which she sometimes reluctantly agrees.

One of the reasons I joined the Air Cadets was in addition to flying, they offered the option of paying for you to get a pilot's license. They offered summer courses that were essentially fast-track civilian flight courses. Given at the time I was in, a full private pilot's license cost between five and ten thousand dollars all-inclusive, the idea of being given your pilot's license for free was very, very appealing. Very few cadets actually qualified. One of my fellow cadets and a good friend at the time did so after a few years so it is proof that it was possible.

This prospect was important to me. You see, my dream was to be a fighter pilot. Not illogical given my deep interest in anything with wings that carried missiles and cannon. The downside to having this dream in Canada is the small size of our Air Force. In the Canadian Forces, we only operate 80 odd front-line fighter aircraft. Not surprisingly, competition for those few slots offered yearly in a fixed wing track that could lead to flying a CF-188 (the Canadian designation of the F/A-18 Hornet) was extremely fierce. Unless you have perfect health across the board and are very proficient academically, your chances were virtually nil.

Still, I dreamed. As I went through college, not really involved, just kind of breezing through, I had the dream get a boost. My grandfather was born in Scotland and was a British citizen. Britain at the time had a rule that the close descendants of British citizens in Commonwealth countries (of which Canada was one) could apply for British citizenship.

What this rule meant was I could be a dual citizen of Canada and the United Kingdom. What it meant more importantly to me was, as a British citizen, I could apply for admission to the Royal Air Force.

Suddenly at 22, the chance of becoming a fighter pilot became a lot more real. The RAF was much larger than Canada and they flew one of my favorite aircraft, the Panavia Tornado. Stock footage of the Tornado often includes a cockpit view as it hurtles through the Scottish Highlands at low level. Classic terrain for the Tornado which is a low-level strike fighter.

So I began the process and got as far as filling out the forms.

Life intervened, as it always did. I was engaged, in school, trying to build a life and old dreams were replaced with new ones. I justified it with myself that I didn't think I would have been good at it. At least that's what I told myself.

After a few years passed, Britain closed the rule and I forgot all about it as another "what might have been". After I moved to the USA when I was 24, I thought nothing more about it. But I found myself looking back at that period of my life and kicked myself. But, there was nothing I could do and I had established a pretty good life for myself.

It wasn't until I was getting close to 30 that I commented to my Mom that I was sorry I had never joined the Canadian Forces or the RAF when I had the chance. I came to realize as I got older that I had missed out on something I should have done. My Mom agreed that it would have been good for me but it was good that I hadn't. This was a couple years after 9/11/2001 and Canada was involved in Afghanistan and its soldiers were dying. Still, part of me wished I could have been there doing my part. Although you don't hear much about it, Canadians are highly regarded in this theater. The Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry (Princess Pats) are some of the best fighters you'll ever encounter in any army.

So, in the immortal words of Bill Cosby, "I told you that story to tell you this one...".

When you become a US Permanent Resident, you get a pamphlet welcoming you to the USA and a short list outlining your rights, privileges and responsibilities. They indicate you should visit the USCIS website to view the full guide. Well, not too far into that guide, you get to see this...

Responsibilities:
You are required to obey all of the laws of the United States, the States, and localities. You are required to file your income tax returns and report you income to the US Internal Revenue Service and State IRS. You are expected to support the democratic form of government and cannot attempt to change the government through illegal means. If you are a male, age 18 through 25, you are required to register with the Selective Service.

Read that last sentence again and think hard about the implications of what it means.

It got my attention really quick.

It meant that even as a male non-citizen, you were still expected to serve in the event of a military draft, and if necessary die , for a country that was not yet your own. That staggered me. Even though you did not yet have the full rights of a citizen, you are expected as a permanent resident to act as one. Fully and completely if necessary.

That sentence clarified things for me. It also gave rise in me for the first time about seriously looking into what it would actually take to serve in the military.

The US military.

After all, if as a younger man, I was expected to serve in times of war, it stood to reason I could serve in times in peace. And I am right. When I became a permanent resident, I became eligible to serve the US armed forces as if I was a citizen. Furthermore, I learned as a result of the Iraq war (through the ultimate sacrifices of others) that a permanent resident who serves one year on active combat duty is automatically allowed to apply for US citizenship regardless of how long they have been a permanent resident.

In essence, if you fight for the United States as a resident, you will earn your citizenship for that service.

The crux of the matter was I began to mull the possibility of correcting my long held regret and took steps to do so starting in the summer of 2006 by contacting the National Guard.

The Guard makes sense to me. To me, it is the Reserves. It allowed for part-time service. This is what appealed to me. I could manage the time committment easily enough. The prospect of extra money isn't a motivator for me. I'd do it for free as long as they'll equip me.

You see, in Canada, there are two reserve forces (there are here too, the Guard is one, the Reserves is the other). The Canadian Forces Reserves are the equivalent of Reserves (Army, Air, Navy and Marine) here. They are personnel who have left active service or personel who have signed up to be ready to be called. It operates not unlike the National Guard here. The other reserve force in Canada is the Militia. Unlike the Reserves, the Militia is local to communities and is strictly voluntary and unpaid. It is comprised of citizens wishing to serve in a miltary capacity. It has a similar training requirement to the Reserves (one night a week, one weekend a month, two weeks a year). As you might expect, not as much is expected of the Militia as is the Reserves in Canada.

But both components have a distinction that the US military reserve structure lacks: Neither can be called to active duty short of a declaration of war.

In fact, as a Reservist (not Militia) in Canada, you can only go to active duty if you specifically request it. It is estimated that roughly 40% of the Canadian Forces on active duty (including those in combat) are Reservists who made such a request. Otherwise, unless the country declares war, Reservists stay home. Militia can not be called to active duty and will always remain domestic. Members of the Militia can move up into the Reserves if they wish so the option of active duty is available.

This highlights the major difference between Canada and the USA. Here, National Guard and Reserve units do go to war. And don't need a declaration of such for it to happen. Which leads me to my present conundrum.

I've spoken to the National Guard and the Reserves. Both are very eager for me to continue talking to them. My initial enlistment screenings have been very favorable. I'm considered a Category I recruit (which apparently is highly sought after).

I can manage the time commitment. As I said, not an issue. Pay is not a consideration. As I said, I'll do it for free. Just feed, clothe and house me while on duty. I can even manage the time away from work to handle the basic training.

The problem is, I don't want to destroy the life I've created for myself.

I know right now, if I sign the papers with any military job that is remotely combat related, regardless of service short of the Coast Guard, I'm likely going to wind up in Iraq or Afghanistan. And in doing so, I would literally destroy everything I have. I cannot afford the financial devastation that would result if I was deployed for anything past a few months. Military pay, sadly, falls far short of what I make in civilian life. I do well enough but I am actually slightly below average for the DC surburban area.

The United States is my adopted country. It is my home. I have lived here most of my adult life at this point. It will be my home for the long, foreseeable future. As soon as I become eligible, I will apply for my US citizenship (just counting down the days). I believe my adopted country should get my service in return. It is the least I can do.

But I can't bring myself to do it.

It isn't fear, per se. I'm not afraid of the training or the service commitment. There are advantages to being in your 30s. One is the fact you can take a long view and see such things as events to be endured, that will have an end. I've been through a very small taste of Basic as a cadet. I know what to expect. An 18 year old, away from home for the first time, not knowing what to expect has nothing to draw on. I fully understand why they are scared shitless. For me, I have no fears, mentally or emotionally, of enduring the process. Physically is a different story but with adequate preparation beforehand, I think I have a decent shot of making it through.

I think I would be very compatible with military structure. I've done it in the past, I can do it again. As long as I don't open my mouth (much), I'll be ok. As far as individual training components, none of it really frightens me. Some of it would actually be enjoyable. I know for a fact that I would probably shoot Distinguished or Expert. I would plan on being Expert before I got there. Age does have its advantages especially when you own an AR-15 in military spec.

Going to war doesn't scare me even though it should. If I went, I would do my job. I can make no guess as to how I might react should I be against a wall, heart pounding, weapon in hand as chaos erupts out of nowhere. When I hear the "wheet!" of a bullet past my ear with the horror unfolding around me, I can only hope that I will do my duty well. If I fall, I merely ask that it be quick. Best not to contemplate one's impending death. As long as it is with a rifle in my hand, next to those who would bring me back. On all of this, I can only speculate.

But if I am there, it means I will be long-dead financially by that point and I might as well stay there.

I've read stories of Guardsmen from backgrounds not unlike my own being called to duty and being bankrupted in the process. That isn't fair to their families. A desire to serve should not destroy those who do.

I know, this is selfish and self-serving. It is cowardly. I wish I had the courage to actually take the next step but I cannot do it. The only way I can see myself forward is a) Join the Coast Guard Reserve (which isn't my first choice because I get seasick) or b) Find a service willing to give me an ironclad guarantee of non-deployability beyond regular service commitments (one weekend a month, two or six weeks a year) until at least 2009. That would give me enough time to build a reserve so if I was deployed, I wouldn't be ruined in the process.

There are men and women far better than I that would have signed the papers. I know it. I know this is weak and cowardly. If I was in Canada, I would have joined the Reserves or Militia years ago. But because the US military raises its reserve forces (especially the Guard) to active duty combatants, it creates a huge conflict with people like me who want to serve but not to that full capacity.

Go ahead, spit on me. I deserve it. It is self-serving, selfish bullshit and I know it.

I've been trying to pursue state forces like the Maryland Defense Force. But they don't seem terribly interested in recruiting new members. I don't know if I am still eligible for the Virginia Defense Force. Either would satisfy my desire to give back.

I want to serve. It is wrong of me not wanting to serve except on my own terms. If I was alone and had no responsibilities and could afford to simply dismantle my life, I would sign up tomorrow. And take the $20K signing bonus I was offered as life insurance for my Mom knowing full well where that occupation would land me. Without ties, such decisions are easy. But when you're in your 30s, with roots and attachments, those decisions become much, much harder.

If the US followed the Canadian model of requiring reservists to request active duty, I'd be back from Basic Training by now. But that is not how things work here. I honestly need a minium of 18 months warning to be able to go active and at least come back to what I left, savings depleted, responsibilities met, probably unemployed but otherwise at a point to start over rather than coming back to a trail of devastation in my wake. I don't want to be satsifying one regret by creating others far worse in its place.

The window is not closed on me yet. I have another 18 months or so before I am cut off from certain services (notably the Air National Guard). The Army Guard will take me into my 40s which means I could outlast the present conflict. But to me, that is cowardice and I am ashamed for taking that view.

But I want to give back. I just wish I knew how.

I'm a coward. I wish had done what I supposed to do when I was 22. Maybe then I wouldn't be feeling this way.

Virginia CCW List is Now Closed

Courtesy of Keep and Bear Arms, there is a story from our old adversary the Roanoke Times that is stating the Virginia State Police is no longer making the complete list of VA CHP holders available to the public.

The article uses the words "botched attempt". That's creative. I thought it was more of a blatant anti-gun squeal that offhandedly compared law-abiding gun owners with a carry permit to that of a sex offender and someone you should know is on your block.

Not anymore, Sparky.

This is one of the reasons I miss Virginia. They do things that actually make sense most of the time and do try to actually balance citizen's rights with those of the public. Kudos to the State Police in telling the Roanoke Times what won't be happening during next year's Sunshine Week.

You as a private citizen can still go down to the courthouse and pay the fee to see if your neighbor has a carry permit. So it isn't like the list has been totally closed. If the paper wants to compile the list of all 137,000 odd CHP holders by every house address in the state, $10 a pop, I am all for their valiant efforts. Nothing like bankrupting themselves to prove that CHP holders aren't violent would-be killers, ready to snap at a moments notice because of the influence of that demonic cold steel on their hip.

I hope, as the article mentions, the state keeps the whole list away from public review except for the individual lookup I mention above. That to me is a fair balance between open records and personal privacy.

As a compromise, maybe allow a period of time where the list can be inspected but not copied by anyone during Sunshine Week (might as well, the Roanoke Times and other news outlets seem to like that timeframe) to ensure the permitting process is being fair and impartial. That is the only reason I believe the list should be viewable by the public. But it doesn't need to be all the time and is simply done as a check on the government. Not that Virginia needs such scrutiny. The law is already clear on the matter. If you can own a gun, you can get a permit. No questions asked. Maryland, on the other hand, is what needs this scrutiny.

For those of you who tremble at the thought of your neighbor owning or carrying a gun or the idea your kids might be playing at a house where the parents keep a firearm around, here's a simple solution that is easier than a trip to the courthouse.

Ask.

Admittedly, you have about even odds of getting the response "None of your business.". For most people, that would equate to "Yes.". Or you might get a "No" and you are being lied to. Or you might get forthright "Yes. Why?" . Regardless, does it matter? Unless you're living next door to a crackhouse, if your children are playing with the neighbor's kids and that is a firearm owning household, you have a better chance of winning the lottery than you do of finding an unsecured firearm around the house where there might be children present.

Any parent that would deny their child friendship and subject them to taunting, ostracization and them asking why they can't play with little Johnny anymore seriously needs to question the values they are instilling in their children. Because to do that to a child because of your irrational fears is parenting of the worst sort.

Me, if I found out the family next door owned guns, I'd ask if they want to go shooting sometime. Hell, I'd ask the non-shooting family to come shooting with me. Education is the key to combatting fear. And it is the neighborly thing to do.

I think the Roanoke Times learned a hard lesson. Hopefully, this also puts a stop to the nonsense that goes on in Fredericksburg under similar auspices of "matters of public concern".

Now, will they please publish the sex offender list in a handy database like they did the CHP list? I think that is a list neighborhoods need to know about.

And one I know I am not on.

Hopefully Much Ado About Nothing

I'm home and not looking forward to the week. There are going to be big announcements at work tomorrow and that includes layoffs. Rumor has it that my division is unaffected but you know about rumors. This one supposedly comes from a "senior level executive", so hopefully it is relatively accurate. If not, I could be out of a job tomorrow. If that is the case, then at least I should be able to find another one quickly given my skill set. It's pretty in demand right now. Still, hasn't made me a happy camper through the weekend.

So, to keep my mind off this, I'm planning my FN FAL build. If you not interested in what it takes to build your own rifle, feel free to stop here. I'm just keeping myself occupied and trying to pass on useful information. I figure if I am dreaming, I'm not dreading.

The FN FAL is one of my dream rifles. Considered the "Right Arm of Freedom" throughout the world, this rifle is widely regarded as defender of democracy and Western values throughout the world.
Canada was one of the countries that used the FN FAL as its standard service weapon. It has been replaced by Canadian-made versions of the US M4/M16 rifle. In Canada, the FAL was called the C1 and was largely a copy of the British L1A1 inch pattern version of the rifle.

I think everyone who is a black rifle enthusiast cannot consider a collection complete unless they own a .308 caliber battle rifle. For me, the FAL is one of the two battle rifles I would like to own (the other being the H&K G3 or a variant such as the CETME, HK91, etc).

I have two Imbel FAL parts kits. With the BATFE disallowing import of parts kits after December 2005, if you want to build or refurbish imported rifles like the CETME, AK-47, FAL and so on, you'll need one of these now-banned parts kits to draw from unless you want to pay for the far more expensive US made parts.

As a result, costs on the kits are rising as they get rare. The FAL parts kits have almost doubled in price. It is better I have two and I can use one to support a build and the other as spares (or as a second build in the future).

For black rifle shooters, the FAL is a favored gun. It can be a competitive target rifle alongside .308 bolt action rifles like the Remington 700. It is a good hunting rifle (if pricey). Although it isn't as all-conditions reliable as the AK-47 (few rifles are, the FAL doesn't do well in desert conditions), it has a well-deserved reputation as a rifle that can take punishment that would do in other rifles such as the M16. As a result, this is one of the reasons the FAL is commonly encountered among irregular and militia forces in Africa.

There are two versions of the FAL: inch and metric. Most, but not all parts, are compatible between them. But in terms of assembly, you shouldn't use inch parts in a metric rifle and vice-versa. The metric pattern is more common and easier to get parts for. This is supremely important for a home builder.

Many people are surprised you can build your own rifles at home for your own use without a license or permit. With the necessary skills and tools, you can build your own rifle from scratch. The advantage of building you own is done right, it can be a lot cheaper than buying a "pre-made" rifle from a manufacturer. Plus, it lets you control the quality of your rifle and customize it to your heart's content.

In the USA, the law says only the "receiver" (for a rifle, "frame" for a pistol) is considered the firearm. The receiver is the part where the ammunition is fed into the chamber. All the other parts (trigger, barrel, grips, shrouds, magazines, etc) are merely steel and plastic and are totally unregulated. You can order gun parts except for a receiver through the mail without any paperwork at all.

Since the receiver is considered a gun under the law, you need to purchase it through a licensed gun dealer. For all intents and purposes, owning just the receiver and owning a complete rifle built upon the same are the same thing. It is legal for you to make your own receiver and avoid that step too but that is advanced gunsmithing and has its own legal issues.

So, for someone building their own rifle, buying a pre-made receiver through a licensed gun dealer is the safest option.

There is a wrinkle here in the USA though. The law says a rifle "without a sporting purpose" cannot be imported into the USA. Most people look at guns like the FAL and think exactly that. However, the law says if a rifle consists of no more than 10 imported parts, it is considered "US made" and that restriction does not apply. Popularly known in the gun building community as the "10 or less" game, the idea is to replace imported parts with US made ones until you have a compliant rifle.

The reason why this is supremely important is because the onus is on you, the builder/owner, to prove the rifle is in compliance. As in all things, ignorance of the law is no excuse and when you're dealing the BATFE, caution is the order of the day. You don't want to go to prison and lose your 2nd Amendment Rights forever because you used a fingernail sized piece of steel milled in Belgium rather than the USA.

So, here I am planning how build a legal FN FAL by playing the "10 or less" game. Legally, here is the list of parts that are considered "gun parts" for the purposes of assembly (from ATF Sec. 178.39 Assembly of semiautomatic rifles or shotguns, items in blue are my clarification for those of you who don't know guns):

1. Frames, receivers, receivers castings, forgings or stampings (all of the working parts of a rifle such as the barrel, stock, magazine and trigger group fit onto the the receiver).
   
2. Barrels
3. Barrel extensions
4. Mounting blocks (trunions - this is the part the barrel is attached to that is separate from the receiver in some rifles like the AK-47)
5. Muzzle attachments (such as a flash hider, muzzle brake, etc)
6. Bolts (the part that fires the round, not a bolt in layman's terms)
7. Bolt carriers (used to literally carry the bolt back and forth. A good example is in the AR-15/M16)
8. Operating rods
9. Gas pistons
10. Trigger housings
11. Triggers
12. Hammers
13. Sears
14. Disconnectors
15. Buttstocks
16. Pistol grips
17. Forearms, handguards
18. Magazine bodies (the outside shell of a magazine)
19. Followers (part of the magazine, the plate the rounds are pushed up by)
20. Floorplates (the bottom of the magazine)

A FAL consists of 17 of these parts. To build a legal FAL, I need to replace seven(7) of these parts.

Well, there is no question on part number 1. I need a receiver (the gun itself). For FALs, there is only one good choice: DS Arms (DSA). DSA makes their own version of the FN FAL which they call the SA-58. You can buy individual parts from them as well. Since DSA is considered the premiere FAL parts supplier, their receivers are the best on the market.

For me, my first part is their Type 1 Receiver.

DSA also makes several of the other parts I need. So, I am also going to use their hammer, trigger and sear (HTS) kit. That brings me to a total of four. I need three more minimum.

On the surface, the easiest way to get 3 more parts is to use a US made magazine. The problem is, the rifle is only technically legal with the magazine in it! That means if you transport the rifle without the magazine installed, you're breaking the law. Using the magazine for your US made parts is not the best idea as a result.

Fortunately, there is a solution. An easy way to get three more legal parts is to replace the "furniture" on the FAL (the pistol grip, stock and handguard) with US made versions. DSA makes a set for the FAL called the X-Series. At $95 for a black or green set, this is an easy solution.

But I also like the sets made by Tapco. They elect to pattern their parts off the M249 SAW machinegun used by the US military. Except for the handguard. They use the style from the US T48 rifle, as the FAL was called when it was evaluated to replace the M1 Garand. This is very similar to the Israeli version of the FAL. As a result, the look of a FAL with the Tapco parts would be unique. Whether you think that is good or bad depends on your point of view.

For safety, I'll also use a Tapco gas piston. That would give me a grand total of 8 US parts and make sure the rifle is totally legal.

I hate going through this crap, quite honestly. It's a ridiculous law. The idea that a rifle needs to meet a "sporting purpose" goes totally against the intent of the 2nd amendment. However, if this is what it takes to get me my dream rifle, it is a small price to pay. Especially when it is considered the rifle will cost me about half of a comparable equivalent from DSA. FALs are not rifles for a first time buyer in the sense they are very expensive to buy initially and expensive to feed (for the ammo). When you are trying to shoot on a budget, a FAL is not an ideal choice. Building it yourself just makes the process less painful on the pocketbook.

So, assuming I am still employed come Tuesday, I think I might call DSA and inquire about lead times for the parts I need. Since right now, receivers are taking 6-8 weeks minimum for delivery thanks to the fear over HR.1022, I might as well start getting my ducks in a row.

I'll let you know how it goes.

Bite Me, Brady! #1.5

This really ought to be a true "Bite Me, Brady!" post. But it also just for fun. A little Friday morning gun porn never hurt.

Part of the fun of living in the USA is the wide variety of firearms available for purchase. If anything, Paul Helmke and the Brady Bunch are pretty narrow-minded because they try to drive wedges between different facets of the gun community, trying to split us in to camps and take us down one at a time.

Laws like the proposed and failed (thanks to private citizens who stand up and be heard) Maryland assault weapons ban illustrate Helmke's narrow-minded thinking. Bans like that list named firearms and their copies, describing cosmetic features that differentiate an "assault weapon" from an acceptable civilian firearm. With such a list, the gun banners can look at an "evil" gun owned by someone and jump up and down, banging the sippy cup screaming, "Mommy, see! Evil gun! Evil gun!".

Well, I wonder what Helmke and his ilk make of this...

This is a Browning M1919A4 semi-auto rifle. That's right, this isn't a machine gun! I've been seeing parts kits all over the place (still kicking myself for not grabbing one for $400 at the last gun show) and there are several manufacturers who are making full rifles based on parts kits, a new side plate and new internal parts.

This is why this post is only halfway meant to annoy the Brady Campaign. I want one of these! There is no need involved. It is pure, unadulterated, childish desire, toy driven lust.

They aren't that expensive, relatively speaking, as full-up rifles. Between $1500 and $2000. Not any more expensive than a good .308 battle rifle or match target rifle (there are AR-15s that cost more than this). Things like this illustrate the fallacy of laws like the California and Federal assault weapon bans. Because things like this slip right under them without making a sound. No bayonet lug, flash hider, barrel shroud or detachable magazine in sight! Guns like this revel in their lack of these lethal features. Yes, it has a pistol grip but the way the bans are written, the grip has to extend conspicuously below the action and it certainly doesn't here.

It doesn't matter that it is belt-fed. A belt and an ammo can isn't a magazine. You can delink the rounds and feed them one at a time if you like. I want something like this for the pure fun factor. Lying on my chest, gun on the tripod and just squeeze the trigger as fast as I can on a target downrange. Preferably something big like a junked car. Part of me dreams about lugging this monster into the indoor range at NRA Headquarters, setting it up on the tripod and lying down behind it. I guarantee I'd have a crowd behind me.

I've built a couple of rifle lowers for myself. It isn't hard. I am planning a couple of full-up rifle builds in the next few months. For me, the M1919 seems like a logical next step to begin planning for. As long as the necessary US parts are available, things like this are not difficult to put together safely and legally. Just have to follow ATF rules and good manufacturers and part supplies include ATF letters with their parts and kits.

And the M1919 isn't the only machine guns you can get made as legal semi-autos. The German MG34, MG42 and Browning M2HB (yes, the Big 50) are all available as semi-automatic rifles. So legal, in fact, they are legal to own in all 50 states including California! As far as the law is concerned, these are hunting rifles. Can you imagine one of these on pintle mount in a tree stand? Things like this make me smile. The USA is wonderful because of stuff like this.

Trust me, you won't see a drug dealer trying to score one of these babies for turf defense. It would be kind of noticeable on the doorstep of a crackhouse, y'know? Especially in DC.

Can you imagine a Canadian expatriate owning one of these for the hell of it? I'd teach the NRA Basic Rifle course with it (which I am certfied to do)! I think I would be a very popular instructor.

And the best part of doing that would be hearing that Paul Helmke or Peter Hamm had a fainting spell after seeing footage of me teaching basic marksmanship from the prone, supported position using one. I'd really have to use this as a supplemental teaching tool as add-on material. The NRA syllabus doesn't cover tripod, crew-served, semi-automatic weapons in the required course material.

But, damn, it would be fun! Paul, you can go gnash your teeth now!

PS: If you are interested in learning more about the M1919 and other semi-autos, feel free to pay TNW Firearms a visit. If I decide to buy one of these rifles, I would probably get it from them.

Response from Congressman Van Hollen, Part 1

I have received a response from Congressman Chris Van Hollen with regards to my letter to him regarding HR.1022. It is the usual "form letter" response that everyone probably gets from his office. But it does promise a follow-up reply. I will keep you posted.

Here is the reply I received:

Thank you for e-mailing me your message. It is important that I know the concerns of my fellow Marylanders so I can carry out my responsibilitiesin Congress.

I appreciate hearing from you and I look forward to considering your message further. I will try to respond more fully to your e-mail as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

Congressman Chris Van Hollen

More to follow as I get it. I am quite interested in seeing if I can get a dialogue going with my Congressman on this issue.

Deeply Flattered!

I would like to thank Say Uncle for his link to my article on the SKS. That link alone has allowed me to see the highest number of readers in the short amount of time I have been doing this. It may be a few hundred people but to each of you, thank you for finding anything I say here remotely interesting.

If that wasn't reward enough, I just noticed in my traffic logs a referral from Keep and Bear Arms. My fisking of a piece by Eugene Robinson has been made a front page news link on that site! Keep and Bear Arms is a daily read for me and often a source for useful information. To be submitted and linked on that prominent site is staggering to me. So to them and those who come from there, THANK YOU!

I'm humbled and honored by this attention. And deeply flattered that it is being linked to and read. I don't think I deserve it. I don't say anything here that isn't said by others far more well-spoken and thoughtful than I. Any inspiration I have first comes from them. Pay their blogs a visit on the links to the right.

Thank you, everyone!

Bite Me, Brady! #1

As part of my pledge to find ways to piss off Paul Helmke, I wish to dedicate this post and others that will follow to him. Not out of any benign motives, however. I do it to show the differing facets of gun ownership and to thumb my nose at his attempts to ban and take away my guns.

I am not a gun owner that can be pigeonholed. Like portraying hunters as beer guzzling, irresponsible rednecks with their bolt action "high powered" hunting (read: sniper) rifles or government fearing militia members with their "evil black rifles" prepared at any moment to hole up and take on the evil Government. Or a well-heeled competition pistol shooter who is a Doctor or Lawyer in their day job and fires off ammunition worth more than some people make in a month.

I hate stereotypes. I know, because I am one. I am, truly and honestly, a red-headed, left-handed stepchild. Not many people can own up to that one.

I dislike those that try to splinter and categorize gun owners. I despise gun owners that decide some fights don't warrant their interest because "their" guns wouldn't be affected. Unlike them, I have a dog in every fight. Pistols, revolvers, smallbore rifles, milsurps, hunting rifles and EBRs, I have them all.

So when Paul Helmke is going after any gun, I care. I will fight for them all. I refuse to let stereotypes and assumptions about "who would own what" win the day and fracture what should be a single show of gun owner strength and solidarity.

As a result, I bring you the gun that defies being stereotyped. It is a fitting choice for this first entry. It's semi-automatic. It looks evil but, sadly, it doesn't have the "evil features" Helmke and his misguided ilk associates with those pesky "assault weapons". But, wait, it does! But the BATFE considers it a historical collectors item. But it fires a "deadly, high powered" cartridge that is meant kill people! But people use it to hunt deer. And it has a wood stock like you associate with good, old-fashioned hunting guns. But it has a separate gas tube that bears a striking resemblance to another very well-known gun in the world.

To ban it would to ban pretty much any semi-automatic because this gun practically dares the gun grabbers to go after it. And they try to but do it on the edges. To come right out and name it as an "assault weapon" out-of-hand would be to put almost every rifle at risk somehow. It is the gun that gives the gun grabbers and banners the vapors.

I am, of course, talking about the SKS.

The SKS was designed during World War II by Sergei Gavrilovich Simonov as a replacement for the venerable Mosin-Nagant bolt-action rifle. SKS stands for "Self-loading Carbine, Simonov's System or Samozaryadniy Karabin sistemi Simonova). It saw limited action by the Red Army towards the end of the war and was adopted as the standard Soviet infantry rifle after the war.

The SKS fires the 7.62x39mm ammunition designed in 1943 as a new breed of "intermediate power" cartridges using the knowledge gleaned from the lessons of infantry warfare that were taught during the war.

The SKS was never designed as a fully-automatic rifle. It is semi-automatic like its closest American counterpart, the M1 Garand. It is equipped with a fixed 10 round magazine fed by stripper clips through the top of the action and has a permanently attached bayonet. The Russians were big on infantry charges and close-in assaults and the design of the SKS reflects this philosophy well.

The SKS only saw front-line service with the Russian Army for two years before it was replaced en-masse by the Avtomat Kalishnikova 1947, better known as the AK-47. As a result, the SKS quickly reverted to second-line use and was widely exported to satellite Communist states throughout the Cold War. Even today, the handsome SKS is used as a ceremonial weapon in Russian units much in the same way the M1 Garand is used here.

Like the AK-47, the SKS is designed for field use. It is cheap, rugged and virtually indestructable. It shoots under practically all conditions and requires no tools other than an unfired round (note: for detail stripping only, no tools for field stripping) to disassemble for cleaning or servicing. As an all-round rifle, the SKS is a great choice. Depending on the ammunition used, it is perfectly suitable as a home defense weapon, an SHTF (Shit Hits The Fan) gun or as a medium game hunting rifle at short distances (100-150 yards).

The SKS often represents the first foray by many people into Russian/Communist weapons. Because of its cousin, the AK-47, the SKS tends to be forgotten and slips into the shadows because of the notoreity of Kalishnikov's design. As a result, it doesn't tend to attract the negative attention that the AK-47 variants do. Most who own them like them as fun, reliable shooters. A target rifle it isn't. Minute-of-looter accuracy is the best you can expect of it.

The rifle pictured is my own SKS. It is the Yugoslavian M59/66 version which is easily found at gun shows and through dealers at very inexpensive prices ($130-$200 on average) for unfired examples.

The Yugo (as this version is often referred to as) differs from the standard Russian pattern SKS in that it has an integral grenade launcher on the muzzle (what looks like a large flashhider on the end) along with the launcher sight as well as glow-in-the-dark flip-up night sights. The Yugo lacks the chrome-lined barrel typically found on other SKS variants and is a little heavier. Other than those differences, it is just like a standard SKS. Yugoslavia manufactured these rifles on their own tooling in the 1950s and stored them for decades. Now they are coming here in droves at very inexpensive prices as C&R (curio and relic) firearms.

My Yugo was obtained from Bailey's Gun Shop in Tazwell, VA at The Nation's Gun Show in the summer of 2005. On a condition scale, I would rate it a 7-8 on the NRA scale. Unlike the unissued rifles you'll find at other dealers (avoid Dark Sun Surplus, lousy customer service), my rifle show signs of having been used in combat. The bore is somewhat dark and the rifling shows wear. Not worn down to the point of being a wall-hanger but it definitely was a shooter in its previous life.

What sold me on the rifle was the stock. The stock on my rifle is carved. The following pictures provide close-ups of the carving.

This is not uncommon with rifles from the Bosnian conflict. The Bosnians and Croats were desperate for weapons as the conflict unfolded and many SKS rifles found their way into their hands. They were much more loose in their discipline than the Yugoslav Army and carving/personalizing weapons was not uncommon (it was strictly forbidden in the Yugoslav Army).

From the carving, I am reasonably certain my rifle saw battle. I was curious enough about the history of my rifle to translate the carvings.

The prominent name on the stock, "Ropah", translates as "Death Rattle". I would assume this is the name given to my rifle by the person who carried it into battle. Given the dings on the stock and the general level of wear, I am sure my rifle did fire rounds in anger. Possibly even at my friends who at one point did a tour in Bosnia.

On the opposite side of the stock under the gas tube are smaller names. These are as follows:

• "Mutic" which translates as "Mischief Maker".
• "Kriko" which translates as "scream or cry".
• "Mule" which translates (as in English) as "Mule" or "Little Mule".
  

Suffice it to say, my rifle definitely has character. As a result, I have decided to keep my rifle in its stock condition. I did get parts to modify it (a new stock, scope mount, etc) but didn't like what it did to the rifle and found that it was a fine shooter as-is. Also by keeping it in its original trim, it honors its past history. This rifle was someone's companion and lifeline in battle and it does deserve to be honored as such even if it was on a side you or I may not agree with.

A Worldwide Request: If you recognize the carvings on this rifle as being done by someone you know or you were the one who did it, I would love to hear from you! The more history I can learn about who carried this rifle, where it saw action and the day-to-day life of the soldier who used it would be wonderful to have. This is not a run-of-the-mill, unissued SKS. Someone, somewhere, knows the story of my rifle. I would very much like to learn its story. I make you the promise that this rifle is being cared for and is being preserved as you carried it. I only added the sling. If you know Ropah's story, please e-mail me at the link on my blog or leave a comment.

Folks like the Brady Campaign, Ceasefire and the Violence Policy Center wring their hands with the SKS. It doesn't fit neatly into one category. The SKS represents an evolutionary middle ground between bolt-action combat rifles from WW1 and WW2 and the first true assault rifles in the form of the StG44 and AK-47. As a result, it is neither but exists in a class by itself.

Because the BATFE has classified it as a "Curio and Relic" because of its historical significance, it is allowed (in fact, required) to retain features that would otherwise make it non-importable. The gub banners can't ban it as a "assault weapon" because it isn't one. Or from their point of view, doesn't really look like one. That wood stock is a killer.

To ban the SKS would to also ban the M1 Garand for the same reasons. It doesn't have a detachable magazine so you can't get it there like you can an AK (except for the rare Norinco SKS versions that could accept AK mags and are treated as "assault weapons").

It has the fixed bayonet which they can point to and say "Ah hah!". Until you point out the lack of drive-by bayonettings that occur each year in bad neighborhoods.

The Yugo has the grenade launcher but where do you find grenades for it? Oh wait, you can't! And if you manage to scrape a couple up, start filling out your ATF "Destructive Device" paperwork, pay the taxes and get the explosive vault ready. Not exactly a problem is it? All the launcher does it make the rifle look evil. Evil! Evil! Evil!

And no pistol grip. Damn it , I can't spray fire it from the hip. I'm going to have to use the sights and fire it from the shoulder.

But it is no more deadly than your average deer rifle. A Remington .30-30 and the SKS are about equal on that score.

I think Simonov would be proud of the conflict his design has created. Not in the sense of war but in psychology. Not bad for a weapon that saw service for only two years. Since the Cold War was all about image, posturing and psychology, perhaps that is a fitting tribute for the SKS. It is doing what it was designed to do but in a new realm over 60 years after its creation.

What do you think, Mr. Helmke? Hate it that I have such an evil, deadly man killing machine in my house? Ready to spring out at a moment's notice, load itself and start spraying, one round per pull of the trigger at a time. Just being around it makes me feel like a crazed, ready-to-snap, out-of-control killer. Must. Resist.

Or maybe it is just a nice, rugged, dependable rifle with a history to be honored. Today is another day that it hasn't loaded itself and gone out and hurt people. Just like yesterday and the day before. If anything, I have done the world a favor. By my owning it, this rifle will never again see a battlefield and do harm to anyone.

You should be grateful I have this SKS, Mr. Helmke. I am preventing gun violence by owning it. But you probably won't see it that way. You probably just see it as malevolent evil cast in steel and wood. You don't care about its history, its role or those it may have protected and fought with. You just see it as an object of hatred. Not difficult given the fact that you and your friends choose to ignore history on so many things.

I think if Ropah could speak, it would tell you "Bite Me!" too.

To Chris Van Hollen on HR.1022

As promised, I am now starting to shift my attention towards the proposed Federal assault weapon ban, HR.1022, now that the state level issues seem to be done for the year.

This is my opening salvo to Congressman Chris Van Hollen. I will post any response I receive, if I receive one.

April 3, 2007

Dear Honorable Congressman Van Hollen,

I am writing in your regard to your co-sponsorship of House Bill HR.1022 "Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007".

As a constituent in your District, I am deeply dismayed that you would co-sponsor legislation that strips the rights of law-abiding citizens and does nothing to actually protect law enforcement in any meaningful way. The now-expired Federal Assault Weapon Ban of 1994-2004 was shown through studies while the ban was in effect and subsequently since its expiration that it had no impact whatsoever on violent crime.

Trying again, only harder, sir, is not the answer and nor is enacting a even stronger and more restrictive version of previously failed legislation.

As a constituent, I have but a single question of you: Why are you co-sponsoring this legislation?

By supporting this legislation, you send the message to me, a gun owner in your District, that you do not trust me or respect my rights to own legal firearms. You may disagree with the reasons for firearm ownership but your support of this legislation will and does have a direct impact on me. I would be interested in knowing how banning guns that are not used in any significant numbers by criminals is going to help in curbing violent crime? For reference, in the state of Maryland, no police officer has been killed with a rifle of any sort since 1980.

The only purpose I can see from this legislation is to turn myself and thousand of other citizens that you swore to represent into criminals.

You may not agree with my choice to own guns. But as a constituent in your District, I am requesting that you withdraw your support for this bill. Should you vote in favor it, you will never receive my vote in any election you choose to run in and I will actively support those who campaign against you or for your defeat.

I would like a response from you with regards to your support of this legislation as soon as possible. Should you wish to discuss this matter with me in person, I would welcome an opportunity to do so. Please contact me at the address I have provided.

I urge you to withdraw your support for HR.1022.

Eugene Robinson Is Off the Reservation and Into the Sheep Paddock

Courtesy of Keep and Bear Arms and the Statesman Journal of Salem, Oregon, comes this opinion piece by our own local Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson. And I do mean opinion, thankfully, because facts would have him going in circles on this one. Some credit will be given: He had no choice but to do this one in a paper outside of DC. There was no way short of Satan skating to work today that the editors of the WaPo would ever publish this. It's almost balanced.

Not so sure he should have written it, but hey, I might as well entertain myself. So here goes...

I try not to think too hard about gun control, because when I head down that road I always end up somewhere I didn’t really want to go. My starting point is that I’m in favor of sanity and opposed to needless bloodshed, so having tough laws to restrict the availability of firearms — especially handguns — should be a no-brainer.

They are already toughly restricted! How many more restrictions do we need? Outside of DC, you still need to pass a Federal background check (which includes having no previous violent or drug convictions, history of mental instability, under a restraining order of domestic violence and so on) before you can take the gun home. Given that the average criminal who resorts to actually using a gun on someone typically has multiple convictions for violence and/or drugs, they wouldn't be eligible to possess a handgun (or any gun) in the first place.

And given the District having the toughest laws in the nation with regard to gun possession, tell me, Mr. Robinson, how well did that work out? Pistols are banned without a license in the District and you can't have operational firearms in one's own home, legally possessed or otherwise. So how precisely did these tyrannical restrictions on firearms possession by everyone in the District prevent gun violence or the criminals to obtain the tools to commit such?

I hear crickets chirping.

Tough laws do nothing to deter criminals and only serve to restrict the law-abiding. In the case of DC, it turned all law-abiding citizens into convenient victims of those who didn't care about the ban on handgun possession.

You idea is a no-brainer alright. No-brainer in the sense that only someone without a brain cannot fathom that the DC gun ban and other such restrictions in places like New York City and Chicago do nothing to curb or control gun violence.

Think of all the husband-and-wife arguments, the road-rage showdowns, the workplace disputes, the high-school beefs that by all rights should end in embarrassment, hurt feelings, maybe a scuffle or an amateurish punch — but instead end with a funeral, simply because there was a gun close at hand when tempers boiled over.

Name one. Show me this is a problem otherwise this is merely an appeal to emotion with no basis in fact.

Guns do kill people — roughly 30,000 a year in the United States, including both homicides and suicides. Handguns are the principal menace (most people are more responsible with long guns than Dick Cheney). In England and Wales, where handgun ownership is prohibited, in 2005-06 there were only 46 homicides in which firearms were used. Strict handgun control laws have to be the right policy.

What you don't report is the fact of the 50 reported firearm homicides in England and Wales, only 22 were committed with handguns. (Original report here. See page 46 for a breakdown). You're pulling a little sleight of hand here by switching between "firearms" and "handguns". And 22 handgun deaths out of a population of England in excess of 50 million isn't exactly a justification for strict handgun laws. That paltry amount isn't even statistically significant.

And what does the crime rate in the United Kingdom have to do with gun control here? If you look at violent crime as a whole, the UK surpasses the US in violent crime per capita. I'm not going to try and argue on the basis of statistics. You've shown yourself willing to play a little loose with the statistics I have provided so I don't expect you to accept others so willingly.

But here’s where I begin to wander off the reservation. These days, I don’t get as hung up as I used to on whether the government should have a monopoly on the instruments of deadly force. This is no backwoods survivalist talking, just an African-American who grew up in the South at a time when the people in uniform were often the bad guys, and when having a pistol or a shotgun to brandish saved a lot of black people’s lives. That time is gone, though, and quelling the horrific black-on-black violence of today is so urgent that I can look past the history lesson.

Mr. Robinson, those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Because it is black-on-black, you are willing to overlook the toll gun control takes on law-abiding citizens? But when it was white-on-black, the lack of gun control is a good thing? You are aware, sir, that many gun control laws were passed specifically with the purpose of disarming minorities? I would be willing to bet some of those laws were on the books in the South where you grew up. I guess the civil disobediance of your fellow citizen's was a good thing then.

You are talking about two very different types of violence here. One is a legimate use of force in the name of self-defense. The other is criminal usage. Curtailing the first use in order to stop the second doesn't work. It just emboldens the second.

I don't give a southend of a northbound rat about the color of the skin of the criminals involved and you shouldn't either. Shame on you for playing the race card. You need to address the root causes that lead to this violence in a community, not the end result. How much of this black-on-black violence is committed by law-abiding citizens fighting over a parking space or a dispute over the price of bread?

I hear the crickets again.

While you work on the underlying causes, which will probably take a generation or two to fix, anyone who shoots someone else in the commission of a crime should be treated very harshly. If a gang banger or drug dealer is caught after a crossfire kills a child, try them and throw them into a cell for a very long time. The color of their skin is irrelevant. White, brown, purple or green, a killer is a killer. Punish them. Enough said. The gun was merely the last tool in a long string of criminal acts. Gun control will not prevent it. The user is the one in the possession of the capacity for good or evil and when evil prevails, the user is who you punish. You prosecute the user, not the tool.

Then, however, I get snagged by the wording of the Second Amendment. It’s obvious to me that the Constitution has to be a living document and that inferences have to be drawn from it to accommodate changing times — the right to privacy, for example, that Justice Harry Blackmun found to justify Roe v. Wade.

But, um, it’s pretty hard to infer the polar opposite of what the document says. And I know courts have ruled in the past that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” is a collective right belonging to the states, but I’ve never been able to figure why the Founders would give a collective right such prominence in what is otherwise a charter of individual rights and freedoms.

The Constitution is a "living document"? I don't think so.

The Founders did not grant or give any rights in that mighty document. They outlined the Rights of the People that pre-existed it and noted them in a valiant attempt to preserve them from infringement by the Government. The Constitution is not a granting of Rights to the People but rather a limit on Government to infringe them. Keep that in mind.

Your "collective rights" theory to arms is not borne out by historical precedent. The court rulings now on this theory are a modern invention in an attempt by those such as yourself to twist the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

The Founders didn't give prominence to a collective right in the midst of a preservation of individual rights because that was not their intent to do so. It has prominence because it is an individual right. If you would do actual research on the topic, you will come to the same conclusion that the DC Circuit did in handing down their decision in Parker. Have you actually read the decision? It goes into deep details on the historical foundations of this individual right.

To read "the People" in the 2nd as meaning a "collective right" is to put the whole Bill of Rights in danger. Do you not see that? The Supreme Court has consistently read "the People" in all of the other enumerated Rights as referring to individuals so why should the reading of "the People" in the 2nd mean any different?

If you argue because of the clause "A well-regulated militia...", I have news for you, sir:

You are the militia.

You, me and every other able-bodied male between the ages of 17-44 who isn't a member of the standing army or National Guard. We are the "unorganized militia" and should be ready and able to serve should our home state call us to service. If the Maryland Defense Force would ever get back me, I would be an honest-to-God, true member of the militia. Then would you argue my right to keep and bear arms?

Two judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia couldn’t figure it out either, and so ago they voided the city of Washington’s 30-year-old law prohibiting private citizens from possessing handguns.

Wrong. They did figure it out. Properly. With history and legal precedent to back it up. And then did the right thing and told the city of Washington that the rights of the People trump that of the Government to rule them when they should be serving them instead.

The judges might well have been right on the law and the Constitution. But they were wrong to take a valuable tool away from law enforcement — the power to lock up a bad guy just for having a gun — in a city plagued by violent crime. And they were wrong to use such sweeping language, inviting review by the Supreme Court.

The judges took away nothing. Unless someone is waving a gun around, I'll wager the police aren't locking people up for having just the gun. They generally have enough probable cause to investigate someone and only after the fact find they have a gun on them. Generally, the bad guy will have given the police sufficient reason to poke around them to find out why they are bad. There are plenty of laws and police procedures already available and have been for decades. All the court took away from the Government was their ability to create new classes of criminals on a whim.

The problem is, innocent people can be locked up in DC for having a gun. A law-abiding gun owner transports a legally owned handgun through the District even today at their peril. Does your city plagued by violent crime make such a distinction? No. In fact, the DC police have stated that their law is supreme in this matter. That despite the fact there are Federal protections for legal gun owners transporting firearms from one place to another. The DC police chooses to ignore them. It is perfectly legal to transport a handgun from Maryland to Virginia to go shooting. But if you get caught with it in DC, you'll be charged under DC law despite Federal law saying such transport is legal. How exactly does this prevent violent crime?

Oh wait, it doesn't! A criminal willing to commit a violent crime with a gun isn't really going to care about a law that says he can't have the gun.

Burn that concept into your brain, Mr. Robinson. Understand it. Once you do, you'll know why gun control laws do not work.

Angry city officials are right to howl in protest about the appeals court’s ruling, and they’re right to worry that allowing people to legally own handguns will boost the body count and endanger police officers. They’re right to warn that law-abiding citizens who buy guns for protection are more likely to shoot themselves or each other than any criminal.

The city officials are angry because the ruling mean's that a) there are limits to their power and b) the officials may no longer be able to create sheep out of the citizens of DC.

As to citizens shooting each other, you once again appeal to emotion with no basis in fact. It is mere supposition. And places where gun control laws are looser or non-existent with regard to a citizen possessing a gun for self-defense in the home (which is what the Parker ruling really upheld) do not bear out your fears. You don't hear about a rash of accidental or anger-motivated shootings in nearby Virginia, do you?

There's those pesky crickets again.

A citizen who obtains a gun for legal home defense is well-advised to get some training and instruction in such. The NRA offers such a course and it isn't expensive. If you are willing to throw down several hundred dollars on a firearm, an extra $50-$80 for a course covering legimate self-defense isn't excessive. It is called being a responsible citizen. It is what I hope every gun owner is especially where home defense is concerned.

But it’s wrong to ignore the reality that D.C. criminals have no trouble getting guns in Virginia or Maryland — or, for that matter, right down the block. When does a day go by without some kind of shooting in Washington? Officials are wrong to ignore the fact that in the city’s toughest neighborhoods, many people feel the police cannot or will not protect them, so they want some firepower of their own.

DC criminals getting guns from Maryland or Virginia without trouble? Bullshit. If they are, it is by stealing them from law-abiding owners by, gasp, not obeying the law and breaking into homes to find them. Not so sure about Maryland but a dangerous game to play in Virginia.

Both Maryland and Virginia have "one handgun a month" laws. So even proposing the idea that criminals are getting friends who are legal purchasers in those states to buy them for them is ludicrous. The only way you're buying multiple handguns at once in Virginia is if you have a concealed carry permit and I don't see anyone with a CHP in Virginia helping out a criminal with multiple straw purchases. A Virginia CHP holder is one of the most law-abiding people you will ever meet. Such a person will not break the law to aid a criminal. So there goes your theory on that one, Mr. Robinson.

And if they are getting their guns from down the block, why blame neighboring states? You read all the time about gang bangers being able to buy drugs and being offered guns as part of the same transaction. Talk about corner store convenience! Heck, they may even be offered a discount for both at the same time!

And nary a day goes by in the District with a shooting? When you disarm law-abiding citizens for 30 years and only criminals and the police have guns, what do you think would happen? Peace?

Despite this, Mr. Robinson is partially correct in his last sentence. Officials are wrong to ignore the fact that the police cannot protect the citizens. The people are certainly right to feel the police cannot protect them. But Mr. Robinson, it is not that the police will not protect them but rather they have to no obligation to do so! It isn' t that they won't try, but if you call 911 and they don't show up for two hours, that isn't a failure of the police. Their obligation is to the community, your actual collective. There is no individual guarantee to police protection.

I think Mr. Robinson may have his interpretations reversed. People want their own firepower because that is secured by an individual right which provides immediate protection which the collective guarantee of police duty to the community does not. It isn't because the police is somehow failing in their duty to individual citizens. They had no duty to do so in the first place unless an officer was actually witnessing the crime as it happens. Care to wager how often that occurs? I didn't think so.

And those law-abiding citizens are wrong to think that somehow, when the moment comes, they will be able to correctly make split-second, life-or-death decisions that even experienced police officers sometimes get wrong. Someone is surely going to kill a brother, mistaking him for a robber. Someone is going to fail to notice that a child has wandered into the line of fire.

Are we talking about self-defense in the home or on the street? I am going to assume in the home.

As I made mention of above, anyone who keeps a gun at home for the purpose of self-defense is well-advised to get educated on the matter so these types of things do not happen.

In my house, a child won't be wandering into the line of fire because my child will be taught that if Dad has the gun out, he or she will be either with Mom or flat on the floor under their bed after locking their door. They will be out of the line of fire.

Mr. Robinson, you do not have the right to use deadly force on someone unless they themselves pose a deadly, imminent danger to you. Unless the robber who is after your property has a weapon in their hand or is advancing on you with the intent to cause harm, you shouldn't shoot them. Laws on this vary from state-to-state. More and more states recognize that an intruder in your home is automatically there to do you harm, thus negating your duty to spend that split-second trying to figure it out. I am all in favor of such laws. It puts the focus where it properly belongs: on the motives of the criminal.

But even before you move to pull the trigger, you first figure out who it is you are shooting at! Some folks feel one of the best persuaders for identification is the sound of a shell being racked into the chamber of a shotgun. For others, like myself, a flashlight on the gun or in the other hand is sufficient. Either way, the potential target will be identifying themselves or will be identified in very short order. Then you can act.

And if you do, you will be held responsible for that act. A claim of self-defense is not a free pass for murder. Trust me, you will do everything in your power to not have to act unless you have to. The legal and financial hassles are enough to scare any rational person. The trauma of that act will haunt you long after the legal and financial issues are behind you.

Education on these matters is the key to being effective with them. I am of the opinion that anyone who doesn't wake up in the middle of the night in a cold sweat at the thought of shooting someone in self-defense or agonize in their spare moments at the prospect hasn't sufficiently dealt with the issue and has no business having a gun for self-defense purposes. Because if you haven't gone through that deep, mental anguish, you will second-guess yourself in that split-second where you need to act. That is not the time to be having doubts.

I have woken up many nights thinking about such issues. I have no doubts about my ability to act. I hope I never have to.

You, Mr. Robinson seem to disagree. You seem to feel that armed, law-abiding citizens are more dangerous than the criminal. I do not agree with you on that feeling. But, you seem to be comfortable with the idea that if a wolf acts, the sheep should bleat for help and hope the farmer comes with the shotgun to save them.

You've wandered off the reservation alright. Straight into the gated sheep paddock and you've been comfortable there for a long time. It shows.

I prefer to be the farmer.

Why I Fight

This is a post I made to the Maryland Shooters Forum on a discussion of whether or not to cut and run from the state and leave it to its fate. It sums up why I fight for gun rights.

I'm new to Maryland in the past few months. I'll be honest: I don't like it here. I moved here to be closer to my job (did a 35 mile each way commute to Fairfax for three years) and because my girlfriend is a Maryland native. I guess I moved here out of the most altruistic of motives: love.

I did make it clear to my girlfriend, however, that I would become a pain in the side to anyone trying to take away what gun rights do exist here. So far, I am keeping with that pledge. She shakes her head and takes an attitude of whatever keeps me happy. For me, there is more than happiness at stake.

I feel that gun rights anywhere are worth fighting for. Would I have come to advocacy and standing up for myself in Virginia where I used to live like I have here? Probably not unless the Virginia General Assembly or local politicos suddenly decided to get stupid. But I wasn't active in Virginia because I didn't need to be. From a gun rights perspective, I was perfectly ok with the status quo as it exists in that state.

Now that I am here, I have two choices: fight or submit. And I won't submit. My motives can be considered selfish: I want what I left behind. I want my carry rights in Maryland. Open or concealed, I don't care. I want the legislature to leave my guns alone. If I want a black rifle, what do you care? You can care when I commit a crime with it and treat it as the assault/attempted murder/murder it is then. Not until.

So I fight for the things I want. And I see the bond that can exist between gun owners. I'll support a gun owner regardless of interest as long as they'll support me in turn. I don't buy into this "us vs. them" mentality in different gun communities (i.e. black rifle users vs. hunting traditionalists). I have a dog in every fight in this state and I love all my puppies equally. I will fight to keep them together rather than see some with me and some stored in a "kennel" out of state because of nanny-state, bullshit laws. Because the way I see it, if one type of gun goes down in this state, the others won't be far behind.

Maryland right now is as much as I can tolerate. I want to work to make it better. Yes, I am wanting to turn Maryland into the greener pastures I left behind. I won't deny it. But if it got really bad here (i.e. California AWB, Illinois FOID, discretionary Massachussets style licensing), my long term residency in this state would be questionable. But for now, I am not to the point of cutting and running back to Virginia.

I guess I needed a reason to fight. Since I can't run, I have to fight. I fight because I am here. That is enough.

Your Conscience or Your Job, Not Both

Although this is "old" news by the standards of the modern media, I want to discuss the problems raised in these two articles. Despite their different arenas, they are identical in my book.

First, Muslim Taxi Drivers Refuse Service (courtesy of Fox News).
Second, Kroger Pharmacist Refuses to Dispense Plan B (courtesy of MSNBC).

Read the articles and come on back. Done, ok, let us continue...

I have serious issues with the parties in both these articles. In the case of the Muslim taxi drivers, they were electing to refuse service on their own volition to anyone carrying alcohol or having dogs with them since both "violate their religious beliefs". In the case of the Kroger pharmacist, they objected to filling a prescription for "Plan B", the so-called "morning after" anti-pregnancy pill. Although the article doesn't state it, the prescription appears to have been refused because the pharmacist had a moral or religious objection to filling it.

The behavior is both these cases bother me and they should bother you too.

When you are hired by an employer, you are entering in a contract. They agree to pay you X amount of money per hour/day/week/month in exchange for which, you agree to abide by their policies and perform a specific set of services to the best of your ability. This is how jobs are supposed to work and most of us try to live up to this standard.

In both these cases, these individuals decided that their personal beliefs transcended the needs of their employer and the contract they had agreed to. And they somehow feel that they are entitled to do this and that they probably should suffer no harm as a result out of "tolerance" for their beliefs in our progressive society.

Maybe in their society but not in mine.

I don't know why places like Wal-Mart or Kroger have policies that permit pharmacists the choice to not fill a prescription on religious or moral grounds. If you are working in the business of dispensing drugs, you find the drug, count or measure it and provide it to the customer. You shouldn't be allowed to decide that some drugs shouldn't be allowed because you say so. If you want that choice, buy a pharmacy and then make it your policy. And allow your business to suffer accordingly. But if you work for someone else, you shouldn't get that choice.

Now, I know abortion, which a lot of people feel is exactly what the Plan B pill does, is wrong, a sin, immoral, etc. I won't enter into the debate here of the rightness or wrongness of abortion (we can save that for another day). But because of the hot button nature of the topic, some people feel they have the right to use their beliefs as a justification to refuse to dispense this drug. For some, their beliefs rise above the contract they signed. Many of you probably feel there is absolutely nothing wrong with this.

Ok, what if instead of Plan B, the pharmacist was refusing to dispense AIDS drugs to a customer because they felt that AIDS was a punishment from God and the customer deserved it? And not caring about the customer's circumstances of how they got it. What if you had gotten HIV from a partner in a heterosexual relationship and a pharmacist told you 'No." because you were a sinner. How would you feel then? Or you were gay. Or your child had gotten it from a blood transfusion. To me, it is no different than refusing to fill a Plan B prescription.

What if the pharmacist was devout Catholic and refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control pills on the grounds that planned parenthood was against their religion and they weren't going to support it in any form since sex is for procreation only? I bet you wouldn't be happy or tolerant of their "religious objection" at that moment.

If I ran a pharmacy, I would have no "moral objection" policy for employees. My policy would be you do your job and treat all customers equally with regard to filling their prescriptions or you can find another job. If someone did refuse to fill a prescription on moral grounds, I would tell them I respect them for their beliefs and they would have a choice: Next time fill the prescription without question or complaint or they can not even bother finishing out the day by quitting on the spot and save me the trouble of firing them.

Same goes for the Muslim taxi drivers. Refusing service based on what a customer has with them is as bad in my opinion as refusing service based on the color of someone's skin. If your religion doesn't allow you to be around alcohol, you either find a way to settle your conscience to do your job or you find a job that doesn't involve you being near a drop of alcohol. Refusing service at a fucking airport which is often the ambassador and gateway for the country? What kind of message does that send?

What if one of these taxi drivers refused service to a blind person with a service dog in a bad neighborhood? Think the prohibition on being around dogs is acceptable now?

If your religious beliefs are so important to you, find a job where the two can co-exist. Otherwise, your beliefs do not trump the contract you made with your employer. Can you imagine the chaos that would result if the government introduced worker protection legislation that granted a worker the right to refuse service on the basis of religious belief? Sounds like a wonderful thing for the tolerance crowd but would be an utter disaster. No employer should even establish such policies unless religion is their business and place it above all, including their profits.

Remember, tolerance does not equal acceptance. This type of behavior from employees should never be tolerated or accepted.

You make find my opinion on this narrow-minded and intolerant. I don't think it is narrow-minded. It is trying to be blind and fair and respect your customers equally which is what this is really about. As to intolerant, yes. I do not tolerate this kind of "holier than thou" crap from anyone. Religious beliefs are a private matter. Feel free to express them, share them and defend them. But your right of expression ends the moment you don a uniform, wear the logo or put on the cap and go forth and represent your employer. Your job is to uphold their policies and provide the services you are being paid to provide, not pick and choose which ones you will. You want that choice? Start your own company and make your own rules.

Until then, obey your conscience and do the right thing by yourself and find another job or shut up and do the one you have.

The (Gun Show) Kids Are Fed

I can't believe I actually used all three days of a three day pass to The Nation's Gun Show in Chantilly, VA this weekend. I skipped the last one and I now I remember why.

But, it was necessary! You have to believe that! And I had to do it because I found another reason to dislike Maryland. It turns out you can't have ammunition shipped to an address in Montgomery County! WTF? And when you shoot mainly surplus rifles, getting cheap ammo is kind of tough in anything resembling quantity. So I had no choice, really, but to go to the show and get enough ammo to feed the 'kids' for a good, long while.

Can someone tell me why 6.5x55mm Swedish has doubled in price? Is Iran supplying re-arsenaled M96 Mausers for use by insurgents somewhere? That or is it a more popular cartridge than I thought?

But I honestly needed it. I am hoping to take a long distance precision marksmanship course in a few weeks and my first choice in a rifle to shoot this course with uses 6.5mm. With new optics and a need for some tuning up, I need enough ammo to zero it, put some rounds downrange for fine tuning and have enough to shoot the course and still leave me some in reserve. So I cleaned out one dealer of all of the 6 boxes he had and picked up 7 more. Now I've got enough with the 100 or so rounds I had on-hand to at least shoot the course.

On the subject of Mausers, who is buying up all the surplus 8mm Mauser? Six months ago I could have bought this stuff in case quantities for $40-$60 a case. This time, I found TWO dealers that had any surplus ammo at all. No Yugo either. Just Romanian. Cheap stuff and that is what I was after. I bought 440 rounds (pretty much cleaning them out too). Now I have enough to play with for a while and it was pretty cheap. Still, quite depressing.

At least 7.62x54R is cheap and readily available (mostly). The Ammunition Store had a booth there and they had a decent run on that stuff too. I'm not fussy. It was light ball and that is what I needed (since I can shoot it indoors). That frees up my steel core ammo for the DelMarVa Shoot on April 15th. If anyone out there is feeling like Vasily Zaytsev, come on out to the shoot and I'll have my Mosin-Nagant sniper and a can of ammo available. Help yourselves.

And lastly, strangely, I picked up a couple more battle packs in .308 NATO (7.62x51mm). That stuff has gotten rare too. It is strange because I still don't have a rifle in that caliber. Been wanting one, trying to find one but I haven't found much that doesn't cost as much as a small car. Hint: If you have a CETME, HK91 or a metric FN FAL that you don't want and would like to find it a good home, contact me. It just has to shoot ok. I'm a shooter, not a collector. The gun will be used and loved.

And now for the sad part...

My Buy-a-Gun Day 2007 purchase is a couple weeks early and now will be a couple months late. You want to talk about a shafting? Well, here's another one. My Maryland driver's license was issued in February. By law, a normal person who has resided in a state for 30 days can by a gun. People like me are not normal. Because I am an alien, I need 90 days to prove state residency. So, I had to stop a purchase on my new toy lest I lie on ATF 4473. It was spelled out in black and white and there are no exceptions.

So I have to wait until the end of May to pick up my new toy. Don't worry, it wasn't expensive. But I had to have the dealer walk it to my Virginia FFL to sit on the shelf for a while. As an apology for the hassle I created, I sent my friend Tom back to the dealer I had inconvenienced and he wound up buying the same thing I did. Now we have matching rifles. Maybe he'll have his cleaned by the time I get mine. Sigh. Basically, as a permanent resident, my gun buying privileges are suspended for 90 days each time I change states. That sucks. Better than getting arrested, I guess.

Oh, if you're wondering what I got, I got closer to the first rifle I ever fired. I picked up a British Lee Enfield No.4 Mk.1 in .303. One of the smoothest bolt action rifles you'll ever shoot (although I think the K.31 Swiss might almost be its equal). If you're looking for a cheap way to get into shooting for the first time, you can't go wrong at $135 with cheap surplus ammo (for now). Check out J.G. Elarde Firearms in Leesburg, VA if you're interested in mil-surps. Good prices, great service.

As a consolation prize, I picked up another FN FAL parts kit. Ammunition Store had four left. I consider it an investment in the future. Can never hurt to have a spare barrel. Now I can at least look at planning my build and maybe actually have a battle rifle in .308 sometime in the next year or two.

At least I did get some of the stuff I went for besides ammo. I got a copy of "A Rifleman Went to War" by H.W. McBride. If you have an interest in sniping or warfare, this book is a must-have. And a non-gunsmithing scope mount for my M48 Mauser. With a little luck, my M48 will be scoped in time for the DelMarVa shoot and serves as the opposition to my Russian sniper. Then folks can have a true "Enemy at the Gates" moment.

All in all, a fun three days. My debit card isn't screaming like I thought it would. I actually behaved.