Quisling Gun Owners.

So Walter Kirn writes on the New Republic in an article called "What Gun Owners Really Want".

Just take a guess given the source and the title what his drive will be.

Perhaps the "I'm a gun owner but..."   Someone who says he owns guns but they're all for hunting. Someone that talks about how "middle of the road" they are. Someone that protests that "I'm not a gun nut!". Someone who can't see why someone could ever Need those scary assault weapons and those high capacity bullets?

You'd be close.   Amazingly, he does talk about conceal carry and self defense in a fairly positive light.

And he also notes the absurdities that gun owners live under.

On talking about his CCW class and the laws and jurisdictions he had to keep in mind:

It's flattering being recruited into an ethos of responsibility. It makes you want to walk the line. It also reminds you how arbitrary some lines are. Cross the wrong state border with your gun or wake up one morning to new legislation or a new presidential executive order, and suddenly you're the bad guy, not the good guy. No wonder some gun owners seem so touchy; they feel, at some level, like criminals in waiting. This feeling helps promote a bond. "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns," says the cussed old right-wing bumper sticker. Perhaps there should be another one that says: "If guns are outlawed, there will be a lot more outlaws."

All well and good.  But this is also a guy that repeatedly insists he's not a traitor.  His word.

And then he ends with this:

Of the five or six guns I've gathered over the decades (IF YOU KNOW HOW MANY GUNS YOU HAVE, YOU DON'T HAVE ENOUGH read a t-shirt I saw once) only one is designed to use on human beings: a .38 revolver of the type that burdened policemen's sagging belts once, before the adoption of sleeker 9mms. The gun is a stodgy old classic, Smithsonian-worthy, that evokes the Made-in-USA age and also speaks of my distance, I like to think, from the cult of maximum firepower that draws harder-boiled folks to stores and gun shows to handle Bushmasters and similar weapons with death-dealing, quasi-military designs. Such ominous firearms hold no allure for me, in part because I doubt they'd do much good against a maniac carrying one or a hypothetical goon squad equipped with their vastly superior big brothers. Ban those guns. Neuter them. I'm fine with it. I can hunt with my shotguns and my deer gun (although I've grown tired of hunting), and I can protect myself from miscreants with my trusty .38.

To some in the gun-owning fraternity, this view makes me a traitor. So be it; I think they're wrong. As they have repeatedly pointed out themselves, and as even Wayne LaPierre might agree, assault rifles are functionally similar to ordinary semi-automatic rifles, differing chiefly in their sinister cosmetics, not in their underlying ballistics. This being the case, what will be lost by giving them up? Nothing but their destabilizing allure for the grandiose, image-obsessed mass killers who favor them—and whose crimes represent a far greater risk to gun rights than does the perceived hostility of certain politicians. By assenting to such a ban, the gun-owning community can demonstrate precisely the sort of reasonable public-mindedness of which some believe it to be incapable. Otherwise, the showdown will go on and we will have only ourselves to blame if our self-destructive intransigence leaves us despised and cornered, with no way out.

Ah, smell that?   It's the urine-soaked bootlicking of someone who says "I've got mine! Don't come after me! I'm one of the good ones!"

And you gotta love his logic.  "Sure Assault Weapons are an arbitrary classification. And banning them will do nothing, so why not cave into their demands and support such ban!"

Because remember, agreeing to a ban based on cosmetic features is the height of reasonable public-mindedness. It's totally not craven cowardice. And it's not like politicians exploiting tragedy to get absurd laws passed are a threat to gun owners.

Nope, all gun owners have to do is lie back and give the politicians everything they want.

It's funny how he can go from realizing that these laws can randomly turn people into outlaws to going "Well we might as well support stupid laws."


Oh and of a bonus.  You can only comment on the article if you pay.    Classy.


Update:  Though Walter's not alone.  The Vice president is also on the sure these proposed gun control laws won't do anything to stop mass shootings, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't ban something! bandwagon.

Yeah, gun owners should totally throw in their lot with these folks!

Sen Donnelly: Against an AWB, "neutral" on Private Sales Bans.

Well, him going out against an Assault Weapons Ban is good.

But he's noodling around the notion of banning private sales.

That's bad.

If you live in Indiana,  drop him a line.    Use the carrot and stick.

Go with the whole: "I am gladdened by you taking a stand for the rights of Hoosiers by rejecting the Assault Weapons Ban."

But go in with some stuff like:

However, do not vote for a Private Sale Ban.  Like the Assault Weapon Ban you, rightfully oppose, it would do nothing to stop such tragedies we have seen.

It is already illegal for a prohibited person to acquire a firearm by any means.  Thus banning private sales would do nothing to deter them.  They would simply steal, murder (as was the case in Sandyhook), or have someone conduct a straw purchase in their stead (as we saw in the Webster New York shooting where a convicted murder got a gun by having a neighbor pass the background check).

It is naked political exploitation to ban Private Sales when neither a private sale nor a gun show was even involved in any of these Mass Shootings.

Doesn't need to be much.  Encourage the AWB stance, and give a prod on the Private Sales stance.

Link via   Sebastian  who with Bitter has been doing amazing work.

Such as watching 4 hours of Senate Gun Control hearings and liveblogging it.

The next gun grabber "consensus": Private Sale ban.

That looks like what they're gonna try to get through too.  With some nebulous add ons with "mental health checks". The devil's really in the details there.

This time it's bipartisan!  And the media's still supporting Manchin's lie that he's working through the NRA.

 Ed Morrissey comments:

Small wonder that Chuck Schumer calls expanded background checks “the sweet spot.” That will give Congress a chance to claim that they are doing something in the wake of the Newtown, Aurora, and Tucson mass shootings while bypassing the more politically dangerous action of banning weapons — especially since there will be no functional difference between banned and allowed semi-automatic rifles, and since murders by rifles of any kind are an exceedingly small percentage of the overall level of homicide victims.  Background checks would have the virtue of addressing the entirety of firearms, too, without pursuing outright bans based on aesthetics.

Right.

And then Ed shows he's a knob:

Update: I’m with War Planner in the comments: “No problem with background checks; just no permanent registration of firearms.” But let’s be clear that these background checks will not have much impact on the kinds of mass shootings that are driving this debate, although they may help keep firearms out of the hands of more ordinary criminals. 

Well, no.   Given that straw purchases are already illegal  banning private sales won't do diddly.  Unless you have a universal registration too.   And if you think that having mandatory background checks won't be grounds to go to permanent registration, for that exact reason, then you're a fool.


Perhaps you should contact your legislators.  Or here.

Gun Grabber Digest.

Here Have a bunch of links to read:


Silly Glen Reynolds.  Waiting periods are for the proles.

MY NEW YORK POST COLUMN FOR TOMORROW: Why Not A Waiting Period For Laws? “I’d like to propose a ‘waiting period’ for legislation. No bill should be voted on without hearings, debate and a final text that’s available online for at least a week. (A month would be better. How many bills really couldn’t wait a month?) And if the bill is advertised as addressing a ‘tragedy’ or named after a dead child, this period should double.” 

Recall that New York had such a "waiting period" for proposed bills, and the Governor declared an emergency in order to suspend that rule so it could be voted on in the middle of the night, less than a half hour after it was printed.

Speaking of New York:

BOB OWENS: Register … or Rebel: How Many New Yorkers Will Defy New Law? “Already, signs that Governor Cuomo and his allies underestimated the pushback.”
Hey, if you can’t even get orderly Canadians with no Second Amendment tradition to go along with a rifle registry. . . .

From Bob Owens:

New York has estimated that there are one million firearms that fit their new definition of an “assault weapon,” and they are concerned that a large number of citizens will rip the teeth out of the law by simply refusing to register their arms. Perhaps hundreds of thousands of New York’s most law-abiding citizens are likely to make the choice to rebel against an unconstitutional law that violates their Second Amendment rights.

Perhaps of even more concern to Governor Cuomo and his anti-gun allies: this high level of resistance arose before Assemblyman McLaughlin released the list of confiscatory amendments Democrats had wanted to include in the NY SAFE Act.

Also check the link to see the gun control that didn't get into Cuomo's ban.  Gems such as limiting the number of magazines you can own.

On a related note this article by Sebastian is worth a read

Gun Control Requires Our Willing Compliance.

Recall that if Canadians (and Germans) flaunted their country's registry systems.  What hope is there for the US?

Well... for starters  registration seems like an easier game.   At least the precursors are.   And remember when a politician starts talking about hunting...  be ready.

Hunting has very little to do with the Second Amendment but it’s an evergreen rhetorical sop to rural voters (many of whom live in purple states) whenever Democrats start getting grabby about guns. Clinton mentioned it the other day in warning Democrats not to condescend to their opponents, moments before he said of rural gun owners, “A lot of these people … all they’ve got is their hunting and their fishing.” Obama’s been talking up the glories of hunting since 2008 at least; he celebrated it again in the opening to his speech two weeks ago before launching into an explanation of why he needs to take executive action on guns. Listening to a liberal defend hunting is like watching a volcano start to smoke: You know what’s coming, and it won’t be good. But hey — if your concept of self-defense extends no further than long rifles or shotguns, you’ve got nothing to worry about. Continue to cling bitterly to them as needed.
....
That’s the White House’s new plan. Focus on universal background checks, which are popular across the board in polling, as something that really might pass Congress and then try, try, try to hold as many Democrats together as possible on more aggressive doomed-to-fail stuff like the assault weapons ban. If they can at least manage a near-party line vote, then they can blame gun control’s failure on the GOP and hope that the public is peeved about that in 2014. Aside from background checks, it’s all kabuki.

And the background checks are bad enough.   Given how banning private sales is kabuki in and of itself.  It's a system built to fail and lead into requiring registration to "close the loopholes"

RobertaX has related thoughts on that progression.   And a reminder to contact your reps.

And more on the "laws are for the little people"...

Here's a reminder on how Media Matters' David Brock has body guards armed with illegal guns.

And yes this is the same Media Matters that is pro gun control and against concealed carry.

And of course Feinstein's ban exempts government officials.  Even retired ones!

Laws for thee but not for me.

And such a roundup wouldn't be complete without mentioning Baron Bloomberg.

It seems a peon dared to ask the Baron if he'd have the grace to divest his men-at-arms of their "swords"

Naturally the Baron was displeased. And sent some of his men after the so-called "journalist" to show them what for.

And speaking of New York City:   TOP NYC COP: Banning 'assualt rifles' not enough...

Recall that New York city has its own gun laws and bans, in addition to the double bans the State has.

San Diego’s Top Cop: We can disarm Americans within a generation!

Was there any doubt?

It's almost like there's some sort of progression of gun control with an end-goal in mind.

Anti-Gun Security Blankets

So Buffalo Wild Wings is coming out with gun free zone signage.

That's a shame, but their product isn't not worth the hassle of taking my holster off and on again.

And while I could carry inside (they don't have metal detectors or pat downs), I would not.

Because I'm basically law-abiding.

A criminal with the intent to rob the place would not care about the sign, and might even be encouraged by it.
That's just common sense there.  If a crook bothers to do recon of a place, they're likely to do a risk-reward analysis. (Do you rob the bank with the armed guard or the one without?)


What's fascinating about that article are the comments from the anits.  There's the expected sister-humping-rednecks slurs, and there's many repeats on this theme

"Guns don't make us safe."

Huh, so if something bad happens you don't call armed men to help you?

There's also a bleating of "It'll bring increased safety".  Not that it'll reduce robberies,  but that it'll stop drunken patrons from pulling leather.  Which is a concern that seems to prey on their minds.

As seen with this theme:

"Thanks for being a voice of reason. I prefer to dine without fear of the gun carried by guy at the table next to me."

Yes, there's a lot of "We are the reasoned ones",  but my interest is the second sentence   This theme of "Peace of Mind" comes up a lot in the comments

Gun Free Zones are not about stopping criminals.  They won't obey a sign like that .  They're about allaying the fear of the above commenters.

You have people who see guns as only causing bad things.  Only making things worse.  And while criminals are hard to reach, the law abiding are less difficult.  So, they make signs that declare certain areas off-limits to guns.

And the result would be less people being armed there. Granted it doesn't effect the number of people being armed with violent intent, but that's not the concern.  The lady afraid of having someone one table away from her carrying a gun isn't afraid he's going to rob the place or take hostages, or do any sort of premeditated crime.

Because a person in that case, would not care about signage. Now, she's afraid he'll "go nuts" or "get angry" and start shooting.

They want know there aren't any icky guns near them.

Yes, someone could be eating in a signed restaurant, and they could in violation of the sign! be armed. But that little sign means that they are wrong for doing it.

And note that Conceal Carry has nothing to do with these mass shootings (They all took place in Gun Free Zones and were done by people without carry permits), but CCW is still being targeted. It's like desire to ban Private Sales (which were also not a factor in these shootings).

A large part of Gun Control is a cultural thing, and the antis will go hammer and tongs whichever way they can to marginalize and push aside "Gun Culture."  Read the preceding link, including this passage:

Victory in the culture war provides a foundation for the gun culture we know and enjoy to enter places like New York and Chicago. They know this, and at some level, I believe the ultimate goal of the current attack isn’t necessarily to get legislation passed, though they will certainly try. No, the current attack is meant to shame people out of the idea of supporting gun rights, because gun rights are what those people do. I believe many coastal elites have a deep anxiety that not only will those people start to spring up like dandelions in their fair cities, but more importantly, they may have to do business with them, to socialize with them, and to hear talk of AK v. AR, 9mm v. .45, or to have to listen to someone who should, by all rights, be one of them, talking about their new carry piece, and the thought of that drives them crazy.

Or maybe going to a chicken restaurant and hearing that the people one table over own guns?

It's not that the gun control people like criminals and want them to be out there committing mayhem.  It's that they're much harder to control than the law-abiding.   And the antis see both groups as part of the same "Gun Culture", so they figure they can go after the low hanging fruit as it were.


Tam has more on the motivations of the antis and how they think.  And as for the Gun Control version of "slut shaming'  well Weer'd has a couple of links.

Here's one with a 5th grade girl being harassed and punished for a "gun" shaped piece of paper.

And here's one with Paypal playing the role of moral guardian and closing accounts on things they find icky.

QoTD Weer'd: "It’s the gun grabber version of “How about a .38 Snubbie for the little lady!”

Said in reply to this bit about Biden's  self defense advice.

That's right,  take comfort in that slow Joe has your back.

Meanwhile, not  Steven King is not only letting his anti gun flag fly.
(If you're shocked don't be; he's always been one.  When some punk who did a school shooting was found with a book written by King about... a school shooting.  King went right into blaming guns and gun culture.)

But the funny part is that King is charging for his essay.  Ace has a fun take down, but soon gets to the meat of the matter on why the antis are for such seemingly stupid and cosmetic bans.

The measures being proposed are so obviously inadequate to accomplish what they purport to accomplish that a gun-righter could almost say, "Sure, let baby have his bottle, if you want these cosmetic, symbolic, futile actions to convince yourself you're a Good Person, and then you'll shut up about it, fine."

But a guns-righter can't say that. Because he realizes something: These proposed measures are in fact so obviously inadequate to accomplish what they purport to accomplish that that must not be the reason they are offered at all.

Because these measures would accomplish nothing directly, one must then wonder why they would be advanced at all; and of course the immediate realization is that they are advanced to accustom people to the ritual of giving up this and that freedom in response to some new Moral Panic.

....

But they cannot agitate for that, for the public would not hear of it; so instead they push measures which are deliberately calculated to be perfectly useless for attaining their stated goal, but in fact are quite useful for attaining their unstated goal, which is to say, conditioning the public to give up gun rights on a piecemeal, this-one-and-then-that-one basis such that that which cannot be accomplished in one great step can be accomplished in 40 or 100 smaller ones.

And hence the shouting, because we are, in fact, not talking about these measures in reality; we are on both sides really talking about the intended endgame of complete disarmament of the public.

If we were talking about achieving the goal of reducing the number of people killed by guns, why on earth would a gun-control advocate be extolling the shotgun as a more efficient and deadly person-killing weapon than an AR-15? 

Hence you see  New York State go from a 10 round limit to a 7 round magazine limit.

And back to Weer'd.  Yeah, Biden really did recommend that a shotgun over a  rifle because it's more deadly.  In some cases... yes, but funny how "more deadly" is a good thing when he deems it.  And if those "evil" guns are less deadly, then why's he wanna ban them?

And speaking of real motivations here's a choice little exchange.

 GINGRICH: Isn't your real view that you would ban pistols if you could?
MORGAN: No, it wouldn't. What --
GINGRICH: Wouldn't you ban pistols if you could?

You trust Piers Morgan right? I'm sure he's concerned only with these rifles, and doesn't want a handgun band. Never-mind that the Feinstein bill he supports covers many pistols, and even shotguns.

Oh and speaking of Piers Morgan here's him talking with someone with very sexist ideas about guns
You see those lil' women are too weak to use those beefy manly ARs and should use "traditional" rifles.

Which... tend to have more power per cartridge.

Anyone who's fired an AR would know the 223 has very mild recoil.  But know, these clowns say if you're worried about recoil you should go for the shotgun... and not the rifle.

You wanna take gun advice from someone who has made it a life's work to lobby and legislate restrictions on guns?

Hey may not like blood dancing but...

Mr. A might be able to make his peace with it.

 Man I dunno. I talk about Obama being a Chicago politician like that's a good thing, but if his entire angle on gun control is meta-politics, a (successful) attempt at smearing NRA crazy all over Republicans, that's pure Chicago politics.
I guess something along the lines of "the ends justify the means.. until the means involve shitting in my Wheaties" hypocritical NIMBY bullshit at it's worst

Let's unpack this.  This is a man who a week ago said this:

 In this case you have liberals whoring out a bunch of dead kids to enact legislation that does not appear to have any value add or relevance to their death, and infringes on established rights, and pretty much saying "fuck your rights, there are dead kids on TV I can use to do what I want!" It's difficult for me to describe just how wrong Obama, Feinstein, etc.. are on this one.

And now he's trying to go all three-dimensional chess to excuse Obama's actions.  And this fits. Right after the massacre Mr. A had another bitch about "liberals" and gun control.  And I theorized that his main concern was fallout to his side.

Though he is a bit myopic if he thinks it's just the re just the Republicans that are feeling the heat from the NRA and gun owners.  And despite some real stupidity, the NRA isn't exactly loosing the mainstream/popularity contests.

 I mean any politician that is for an Assault Weapons Ban is either ignorant or conning you. So it's a rank cynical exploitation of base emotions and ginning up fear to infringe on a basic right without 

And I asked him what the point was since he himself has said such laws do " not appear to have any value" and do not even have a even the fig leaf of a social good.  What's the point of doing this?

And Mr A replied:

 Well, the social good is smearing Republicans

Get that?   Threatening a right, exploiting dead children, and whipping up emotion is okay if it can be used against your political enemies. Say the President et al. get the laws that they want.  Like they did in New York. Well... I guess  liberal gun owners are just supposed to bend over and take one for the team.

 Hell in Mr. A's own words the gun grabbers and media are all: "fuck your rights, there are dead kids on TV I can use to do what I want!"  But that just might be okay if it'll hurt the Republicans.

At least Mr A has some self awareness:

The question is, "am I cool doing this unethically"

But not enough.

Basically... he thinks the president and others holding an enumerated right hostage via laws Mr. A himself has admitted are pointless. And that Mr. A might just be okay with it because –hey- it could hurt the Republicans.

Ah, gotta love how rights can be tossed aside for political vengeance.

By this logic, Mr. A would be for free speech restrictions if it could be used against the "enemy".   Oh wait,  he is.

Why you should keep the pressure on.

Even the New York Times is noticing with this article Democratic Senators Face Gun Owners Roused by Talk of new Gun Laws.

Shockingly this NYT piece is almost balanced.  And points out the block of, at least nominally, Democratic Senators.  And the concerns of gun rights people.  And even the argument against gun control.  Such as how easy magazines are to change or that you can cause mayhem with any weapon or that blaming the gun is pointless.

The article even has someone point out the deliberately negative usage of the term "assault weapon".

Another example of the whole absurdity of "assault weapons" can be seen here.

And that's what happens when a term is so deliberately confusing.  Even a pro-gun article like this one will use the term assault rifle and assault weapon interchangeably.

Though that won't stop the gun grabbers.  Feinstein's doing her blood dancing and putting up her AWB 2.0.

You have at least written to your Senators and reps right?  We'll here's another link.

Put the pressure on everyone,  Republicans and Democrats. The time spent isn't much, and its a way to put a politician on notice.  Because otherwise, how would they know how many people are against gun control?

ATTN Virginia Gunnies

Are you in the Richmond area?  Well Joe Biden is doing a campaign-"like" rally for gun control there tomorrow.    Bitter has more details.

If you can spare the time you might want to head to the VCU campus around 11am.

Well look who finally got a contact page up.

Indiana  Senator Joe Donnelly's webpage is finally up.

Got a form to write a letter, a local phone number to call, a local address to send a letter, and a local address where you can show up if so inclined.

If you're  Hoosier, at the very least you should drop him a line.   Express your view that he should not vote for any gun control legislation.  You can even remind him the fate of his predecessor.

Will you convince him?  Well it'll at least be another tally mark in the data mining they do.  And this is the kind of stuff these goobers listen to.  People that write letters are people that would vote and volunteer for other things.

Slippery Slope, Again.

Here's Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin talking about how "generous"  a ten round mag ban would be.

Gee, doesn't that fill you with warmth on the idea that he'd stop at ten.

Thirdpower has more analysis on his statement.  Including: "He actually says that gun laws should be pushed during the heat of the moment before politicians talk to their constituents(~11min)"

Meanwhile New York State Reps have even more plans.   Ranging from confiscation, to microstamping, to a five round ban.

Right after their seven round mag ban!

And on a related note,  universal background checks has some strong support.   Despite them failing and being a gateway to universal registration.

What Instrument do you play?

Haha.   Course you can play the gun.  Though what really gets me about the above image is the rule 3 violation.  Boogerhook off the bang switch, Sir.





I have the slight feeling that I've made a similar post to this before.  Ah well.

It's almost like the First and Second Amendments are related somehow...

In case you don't know,  Defense Distributed is a group that is working on open source designs and files for 3D printed firearms and firearms components.

And well, John Biggs at Tech Crunch has gotten all bent out of shape over this.  He points to Congressman Steve Israel's (D-NY) introduction of a bill to ban such developments and bemoans...   Defense Distributed.

Basically Biggs' argument boils down to "Stop doing icky things with your printers!  You're gonna get the Man to notice us!"  You can go to the article itself to see Biggs' tone.  It's like the man is full of the vapors    It's funny how a supposed advocate of 3D printing will get his knickers in a twist when someone... prints something.

See he's a "Devout First Amendment supporter"  that is until people start using the first amendment to say things he doesn't like.

Via JohnE who notes:

It's quite hysterical that a "defender of the freedom to tinker" would blame the tinkerers over the efforts of an authoritarian congressman to put limits on the technology. You can almost read where his "discretion" and "need to self-censor" commentary would have gone. It's also interesting that the line between exciting technological advancement and dangerous political exploitation just happens to match up perfectly with this preening sissy's delicate sensibilities.

I'd hate to send this guy to his nearest fainting couch, but we are rapidly approaching a time when these gun control laws are going to be almost impossible to enforce outside of public possession. The "undetectable plastic gun" is largely a James Bond fantasy. However, printable gun parts will be a reality very soon (and by "soon", I could mean "tomorrow"). These advancements, along with those in ceramics and composites, will make it much easier to produce a workable and reliable firearm in the future and the law will have a much harder time keeping up. It's also worth noting that we're crossing an important line in terms of affordability and access here. While 3D printers are relatively expensive now (roughly $3k base), as the technology advances, it will become accessible to the public. Your 50" flat-screen HDTV isn't $5000 anymore, for example. Just download a file off the internet, load it into your 3d printer, hit "print" and away you go.

 It's actually funny.  In the majority of the US one can already built a gun for personal use without any ATF shenanigans.

This also shows the insanity of such weapons controls.

Oh and here's the scary part. I think it was noted by Roberta X and forgive me for summarizing but:  

If you make it just as illegal to own a semiautomatic gun with a 10 7 round mag as it is to own a fully automatic gun with an 50 round mag. People are gonna go for the latter.

This is especially true if they can built it up from bobs and odds from a printer and then smuggle in a barrel.  

ATTN: Maryland Gunnies

Maryland Shall Issue is in for a hell of a fight.

If you're in the area lookin to see what help you can offer.

Via Sebastian.

Confirmed: Mr. A really doesn't like the blood dancing

There was a post the day after Sandy when Mr. A unloaded about the blood dancing the antis were doing.   It was odd given how... well he was right.  I wondered if it was a passing thing.  

Turns out it's not.  Mr A is really pissed at the media's portrayal of this.

Now this was completely unprompted on my part.  Mr. A simply unloaded and I had to ask him to repeat himself after I got the tail end of it.

He starts with a big sigh

NPR's gun control reporting may be enough to convince me to stop supporting them. I suppose I should find out who their local ombudsman is first and give him a piece of my mind

The language they choose, the way they use it, has come across to me as a passive-aggressive attempt to represent the issue in a biased fashion.  Particularly their use of 'assault weapons' language and the way they've been asking interview questions The entire thing has felt like a bunch of people trying desperately not to scream "FUCK GUNS AND FUCK ANYONE WHO LIKES THEM, YOU MURDERING SCUM!"

Emphasis emphatically on his part.  Remember this is a guy who is very, very liberal.   And has said that he wishes the two parties in the US were the progressive party and the Democratic party.

 In this case you have liberals whoring out a bunch of dead kids to enact legislation that does not appear to have any value add or relevance to their death, and infringes on established rights, and pretty much saying "fuck your rights, there are dead kids on TV I can use to do what I want!" It's difficult for me to describe just how wrong Obama, Feinstein, etc.. are on this one.

It's like... an exact mirror image of when republicans and conservatives go on screaming rampages about how the economy isn't doing well/well-enough because rich people are being taxed too much and investments shouldn't be taxed at all and [insert usual HAQHASDHFADFHADAS right wing garbage] 

Yes that's an out and out Champagne Socialist progressive going off on the "fuck your rights" media and talking about infringing rights.  Yeah.

I don't agree with the second paragraph really. I think while the tactics might be similar, the scale is vastly different.  But it's there to show the frame Mr. A is coming from, and to put in some evidence that he wasn't replaced by a pod.

I did point out the bloody fetus waving of some of the pro-lifers and he readily agreed and said he was going to put that comparison into his bitch letter to NPR.

And after agreeing that 'Assault weapon' is basically defined as 'it looks scary', he complained about how pointless such bans are:

Obama's not stupid, none of the people writing the laws are.  They know what they are, know that they are busy work, and they do it anyway.  I think it's probably just a wedge issue to weaken Republicans in the eyes of moderates.The problem is that we're making changes that don't actually do anything for what I believe are wholly realpolitik reasons

As I mentioned in the original post.  I suspected that some of Mr. A's ire was on the self-preservation angle. That he thinks such efforts could hurt his party and distract them.

And there's certainly some of that there,  but there's also a sense of pointlessness. 

In short he's angry at children being exploited, gun owners being called murderers  and the media fanning the flames of emotional panic,  all to pass laws that will infringe rights and do nothing about crime or violence. 

That's shocking.   Remember,  Mr A is a guy that is for Bloomberg's soda ban

Fascinating.

Oh and he also said this: "That legislation that New York rammed through? No exceptions for police officers, they have to take bullets out of their guns. Hah!"


God lord... he almost sounds like a gunnie.

The latest gun control tactic? Literally having a kid chant "No Guns" "No Guns"

Oh?  You thought Obama surrounding himself with children and reading their letters was twadry?

Well now he's got those same kids reading their letters to you.

I don't share Allahpundit's certain confidence in gun control's  DOA aspect in congress. Though stunts like this aren't exactly designed to reach out to get the required votes.

Oh and unlike CSGV's stunt.   The White House has enabled commenting and voting.

And to think Tam wrote this earlier today before Obama's latest "Children's Crusade" stunt.

RX: "Let me see if I have this right: A politician can exploit dead kids to make a political point and that's okay, and a politician can exploit live kids to make a political point and that's okay, but a private lobbying organization exploiting the politician's kids to make a point is Just Not Done and is reprehensible and beyond the pale?"

Me: "Yup, that's about the size of it." 

RX: "Okay. Got it."

So... is theCSGV Pro lynching?

Yes Virginia, the Gun Grabbers really do blame all us gun owners for the deaths of children.
At the link is a new ad they cut contrasting a congresscritter talking about guns with -well- dead children.

But it gets better given this truly amazing edit:

Here’s the problem: The CSGV has done some selective editing in its video. In its version of the ad, Barrow displays a pistol and says:

“Long before I was born, my grandfather used this little Smith & Wesson here….”

It cuts the Augusta congressman off there. How did Barrow finish the sentence in the original, and what did the CSGV choose to omit? This:

”…to help stop a lynching.”

Well, can't have that.   Now can we? How dare someone take pride in his family's pro civil rights history.
Bah,  it's not like people ever used guns to defend themselves against racists.

When Charles “Chuck” Hicks does the Martin Luther King Jr. Day peace and freedom walks Saturday, he’ll also be taking a step for what the National Rifle Association has dubbed “National Rifle Appreciation Day.” That’s because Hicks is the son of Robert Hicks, a prominent leader of the legendary Deacons for Defense and Justice — an organization of black men in Louisiana who used shotguns and rifles to repel attacks by white vigilantes during the 1960s.

“The Klan would drive through our neighborhood shooting at us, shooting into our homes,” recalled Hicks, 66, who grew up in Bogalusa, La., and has been a civil rights activist in the District for more than 35 years. “The black men in the community wouldn’t stand for it. You shoot at us, we shoot back at you. I’m convinced that without our guns, my family and many other black people would not be alive today.” "

But... but... nobody needs a gun to defend themselves!



 Also Barrow's a Democrat.  In a very conservative Georgia district.  Sure attack him on guns.  That's a super idea.

And as a bonus?  CSGV's youtube video has disabled both comments and voting.

Via Hotair.  And note that despite the gun control push the GSGV is still getting woeful views on their youtube.  Of course the real Gun Grabber push is coming from Bloomberg's MAIG and Obama's campaigning org

Yeah, you may want to keep the pressure up.
And that's just on the national level.

ATTN Vermont and Massachusetts Gunnies

Vermont 

and

Massachusetts 

Obama's Children's Crusade

Uncle unpacks the 29 or so Executive Orders Obama put out while standing surrounded by children and reading letters from children.   

JayG thinks on what it means.  Including "zeroing in on private sales and a new AWB, but he's leaving it to Congress to take the fall if it is not implemented. He's pushing the same old tired ideas that have tried and failed, and dressed them up in the guise of "for the children". "

And gee  Reid's thinking of bringing some sort of gun control to the floor.  Can't hurt to keep up the pressure.

And Roberta gets the Quote of the Day:

 Looky, we're in for a long hard slog against a President who'll be standing in the door waving an ax handle and emoting about "Gun control now, gun control forever" the whole time.  They want to treat gun owners the same way they treat smokers -- and it's up to you and me to stand up and refuse to ride in the back of the bus, or be dragged behind it.

    Be sure to look for his human shield of innocent children -- remember, it's despicable when Saddam Hussein does it, but a-okay for POTUS.  Right? 

Sen Dan Coats and Cracked are on the same page.

Well I got this in the inbox today.

Response to President Obama's Gun Control Proposals
Today, President Obama released a series of executive actions and legislative ideas as part of his recently announced gun control initiative. As we learn more details about the President’s proposals, I believe we must protect Second Amendment rights and ensure the federal government does not punish responsible gun owners. I will not support legislation or executive actions that would affect gun ownership rights for law-abiding citizens, including any assault weapons ban.The Newtown shooting was a horrific tragedy that had an impact on all Americans but especially every parent, teacher and student, and it is right for our country to reflect on how we can prevent such events in the future. Laws alone cannot eliminate all acts of violence. As Americans we need to examine a culture that increasingly glamorizes violence and determine how we can better identify and address mental illness in our society

So there's that.   If you live in Indiana you might want to contact Coats and give him a notice of support for this stance.  And maybe contact Donnelly and put him on notice for going all ban-happy.

Both can be contacted here.

Now here's the interesting part  Recall that part about "examine a culture that increasingly glamorizes violence"

Well... Robert Brockway of Cracked wrote an article today called The Truth About Guns and Video Games.

And shockingly? He doesn't disagree with the stodgy old Senator.

Yeah.

The solution seems obvious: Why don't we just ban guns? Shit, that was easy. Right?

Well, no: Guns are only the easiest of the final solutions. Bombs are harder, more technical, and less certain. But ban guns, and you'll find bombs will have taken their place. People love to point out that most other First World nations have a near blanket ban on guns, and their murder rates are so far below America's that you need to lean way back from the chart just to see both of our relative positions.

But that's supposing that America is like other First World nations. We're not. Break those murder statistics down and you'll see that the vast majority of them are gun crimes, but not all. Americans murder with everything -- with cars, with knives, with frozen fish -- whatever's at hand, we'll kill a motherfucker with it, because he needed killing and we're a nation of go-getters.

...
Our collective response, as gamers, to the accusation that video games have some connection to real violence should not be: "Nuh uh!"

We need to cop to it, and start thinking of ways to mitigate the consequences.

The first course of action is easy: Don't let the kids see it. Kids are impressionable, and they probably shouldn't be playing violent video games. But we tried that -- we have ratings on all games already, just like every other piece of media. It's just that nobody is really enforcing ours.

And then he follows it up with suggesting a reporting system where if you find someone underage playing a violent video game you can have them booted. 

Now, this is not an endorsement of Mr. Brockway.  I do feel that certain games, movies, and media are inappropriate for children and that what is and is not depends on their age and several other factors and is ultimately parental responsibility.

However, it is interesting to see a counter-culture humor organ like this going "No, it's not guns, but it might be the games." 

A huge part, maybe one of the biggest parts of Gun Culture is safety and responsibility.  Especially when it comes to teaching young people how to shoot.  If you have a friend with kids who owns guns ask about how they've taught them.  Or look into Appleseed.

Another media narrative on the rise.

So I was reading this article that was bragging about how "quick"  Cuomo's ban was.
You see,  Cuomo had to sign it quickly to prevent the proles from going out and buying before the ban went into effect.

Gee...  maybe there is something to this panic buying.

Though the newsie was sly in simply saying the State Senate vote was "late night" and not "The bill was printed up 22 minutes before it was voted on."

A couple things stuck out.

“It is well-balanced, it protects the Second Amendment,” said Senate Republican leader Dean Skelos of Long Island. “And there is no confiscation of weapons, which was at one time being considered.”

Don't assume Republicans will be your friends.  And see! There's no confiscation.  Just a ban on possession of certain magazines.  And nice to see the "We're really protecting you!"  being trotted out.

But this one really raised my eyebrow:

Restrict ammunition magazines to seven bullets, from the current national standard of 10. Current owners of higher-capacity magazines would have a year to sell them out of state. Someone caught with eight or more bullets in a magazine could face a misdemeanor charge.

The national standard is 10?   Really now?

Well if by national Standard you mean California,  Massachusetts, Hawaii, and DC.

New Jersey has a fifteen round ban and Maryland has a twenty round ban.
Edit:  I don't think Illinois has a magazine ban, but a quick look didn't yield a result, which is strange.

The other 43 states don't.

Ah but why let a little thing like basic facts get in the way of a narrative.

New York Gun Control

Welp in the dead of night the NY State Senate released a gun control bill and within the hour passed it.

And as mentioned it's some of the most onerous gun control in the country.  NCIS check for all ammo purchases,  registration, a super duper Assault Weapons Ban,  gutted grandfathering, and  a seven round magazine cap.

Here's an example of some of the insanity. "There is grandfathering for 8-10 round magazines, you just may not put more than 7 rounds in them, or you become a criminal."  Yeah... that'll make a difference.

And here's what it means:

Don’t you think you might have bigger problem than guns and people putting more than 7 rounds in a magazine when your legislature can apparently draft legislation in smoke filled rooms, vote on the final product with 30 minutes notice, and get everything all wrapped up before the public has had a chance to sip their morning coffee? I mean, I get we’re not a democracy, but don’t you think there’s something vaguely wrong about lawmakers passing a bill before the public even has an idea what’s in it because the Governor says it’s an “emergency?” I would think this is something the left and the right can agree on.

And what does it say about their confidence in gun control that they feel they need to accomplish everything quickly, before the public has a chance to mobilize, and, I don’t know, maybe carefully consider the bill? Hear all sides? This wasn’t a conversation on guns. They don’t want a conversation, and that has been abundantly clear since this whole farce began.

Backroom dealings and midnight votes are okay when it's done for the right cause!
And this isn't just a Democrat issue.  The GOP happily caved on this too.


Here's some advice on what you can do to help in New York.

This is important especially as state gun laws have a way of being used as templates for federal gun laws.

And that this law will greatly knock down gun culture in New York. It's like needing a hard to get May Issue Permit to even *own* a handgun.  The goal here is to make gun owenership something normal people just don't do.

And the more they get that in "trendsetter" places like New York and California, the more they can push that such restrictions are "normal"

ATTN: West Virginia Gunnies.

Sen. Manchin's being awfully chummy again with talk of bans.

You might want to drop him a line.


Update:  Looks like Manchin is full bore on banning private sales and banning magazines.  And he might have cut a deal for a non-elected position.   Still worth spreading the word.

And read the chilling bit about what the media will do if Obama doesn't get what he wants.

Senator Manchin told me what the media will do if Congress (including the US House of Representatives) fails to pass an AWB and/or mag restrictions. "They will one, by one, put up pictures of dead children. They will show the carnage." Considering that tomorrow, President Obama will be exploiting children by dragging them on stage with him while he outlays his plan, this is not a huge leap. And these are the words of a United States senator. We, and I don't mean just West Virginians, I mean Americans, must prepare for this. That is a direct quote. Verbatim. We need every talking head in the conservative media out in front of this. Make it happen. Share this post far and wide.

And the rampant Fuddism

Further, he stated to me directly, that he believes 75% of West Virginians, like him, believe that the only purposes behind gun ownership and the second amendment are hunting and recreational shooting. He told me that defense is not an angle he considers or believes in, and that is specifically in the context of defense of self, and defense from tyranny. 

Gun Control's Slippery Slope.

So not only does NY Gov Cuomo want a super duper new Assault Weapon Ban in addition to the existing state ban,  but he wants another magazine ban.

"The emerging proposal would expand the state’s existing assault weapons ban and limit ammunition magazines to a maximum of seven rounds, down from the current ten."

Gee, it's almost like each law is more and more restrictive with an end goal of disarming the proles.

Oh but I'm sure he'll be satisfied with baning magazines lager than ten, err,  seven rounds.

If you live in New York you might want to contact your reps.
Here. Or here.

Since there's no "safe" guns for these folks.   And this is why we have to write and call and show up and lobby and do what we can to stop them.  Because one victory for gun control builds on the next.

We are having an effect,  keep at it.  No matter where you live.

But hey,  it's not like they're banning something that criminals can just smuggle in or print up.



Oh. Well the important thing is that such a ban will fall under  normal law-abiding citizens.  Those that can't afford special guards and don't want to make and trade in contraband.

And really, an underground economy in making and shipping gun parts?   Next thing you know you'll tell me there's an underground economy in making and shipping weeds.

Ruger Making it easy to write your reps (ALL of them)

Go to this page Ruger set up

Fill in your address, and they've got a form letter that you can customize or just send out.   And then they will send it out to the President, VP,  your Senators, your House Rep, your Governor, your LT Gov, and then your State Legislators.

It's a really handy tool.   And it's very, very easy to do.

So, fill it out and spread the word.

Hat Tip:   Erin.

Quote of the Day: Ask a Mortician "Yes I am a corpse libertarian."

From interesting vidblog series.

Full quote:

Seriously, corpse regulation is ridiculous. I don't know if I would choose alkaline hydrolysis for my own corpse, but we should be able to have open air pyres, we should be able to leave our bodies out to be eaten by animals, we should be able to bury them in the back yard.  Yes, there should be regulation, but when it comes to corpses... yes I am a corpse libertarian.

It is funny that many people are the most libertarian when their own passions and livelihoods run into boneheaded government obstinance.

ATTN Florida and Georgia Gunnies.

Florida Sen Bill Nelson is running a little poll on his website.  He's trying to get some support for a vote on a new Assault Weapons Ban.   You might want to go and vote.  And then drop him a line.

Hat Tip Robb Allen

And if you live in Georgia you should check to see if Phil Gingrey is your rep (11th District).  He's already capitulating on magazine bans.    Go and drop him a line too.

Hat Tip Jake

Just because their ammo's old doesn't mean they're out.

I think Glenn Reynolds is making a mistake here. By claiming they're "Out of Ammo"

Yeah, the gun grabber's talking points and methods are old.  So what?

I wouldn't count them out.  The ideas may be old but they've got a lot of energy and power behind them.
So the ammo may be old but they've got a lot of it.

As can be seen here. The White house is putting quite a bit of weight on  their Foundations and Donors and Media. They're trying to move the needle on the culture.  And given what they've got it would be folly for us to whistle past the graveyard.


And it looks like the big announcement is set for Tuesday. Huh a month later.

Update:  And here's what Biden's hinting at:  Magazine Ban, Private Sale Ban,  and more collection of government data. There's also the Assault Weapon Ban,  though that was not emphasized as much.   In short: a big push to try to force a more Fudd-like gun culture in the US while building groundwork for registration.

And Glenn Reynolds points to how the NRA can get a hundred thousand members in 19 days. But that's not fast enough. Especially if their goal is to 5 million members.

At least the NRA released a a good statement after today's "pow wow" with the Administration.

I'm still disappointed and gobsmacked at the NRA's stupidity in trying to blame video-games.

And I've told them repeatedly.  As a member I may have more weight.

Here's the thing.  The NRA is a powerful lobbying group, and it is a grassroots one.  It's not the gun industry.  That's the NSSF.

Here's the thing.

If you think Assault weapons bans are inept and based on emotional panic....
If you think magazine bans are even more pointless....
If you think the second amendment is more than a "Right to Hunt"...
If you don't want to be called a murder just because of your desire to defend yourself...

Even if you're just for real solutions and a dialog on violence but want to retard a knee-jerk emotionally based manipulation then you may want to

Then you should look into the NRA.

Or maybe you just want to call and talk with them.  Maybe talk about their ideas on the media or their whole  School Shield idea.   You can call 'em too.

And if you don't want to join, I can understand that.  Personally, I think that they need the new blood.  And they need the new members telling them to focus on gun rights and not video-games.

But even if you won't do that, it can’t hurt to contact your Representative and Senators.

Here's the NRA's contact congress stuff.

But there's also writing your reps directly.

House here.  Senate Here.

Even if your rep or Senator is "safe"  contact to tell him or her to keep up the good work.
If he's for gun control, write to express your displeasure and that it will have an impact on ballot box and donations.

If you don't know, lay out your argument.

And a bit of advice.

Sending an Email is good. Calling is better.  A written letter trumps but be sure to send to their local office.

But, best of all, visit their local office if you can.  

Start with a subject line like this:  “Senator X – protect the Second Amendment and Fight any new gun laws.”

Repeat as the first line in your message.

Keep your sentences short.   Make your point simple and clear.   The aides just log the messages based on the side you take.

So go with you being against Bill X or Gun Control Idea Y.   Start off by mentioning how long you've been a resident in the district, if you've ever donated to the politician, that you're a frequent voter.

Let them know what defying you will cost them.

Crony Capitalism: White House Pressures Walmart for Gun Control

See getting the approval of a soulless union retail giant is good if you want to use them to help crush civil rights!

What can you do about it? Well... can you take a couple minutes to call?

UTLaw Says:
January 9th, 2013 at 5:09 pm

Also, regarding Wal-Mart, I posted this earlier at Sebastian’s:

Ok, everybody, don’t call stores, call corporate. Here’s the number: (479)273-4000

That gets you the home office. Tell them you want to express an opinion and they’ll immediately transfer you to another line where you will talk to a real person who will take your comment and record the call.

They are getting calls going both ways right now. They said that they have made not decisions going forward except to hear what Biden’s group says and then weigh that with the comments from their customers.

So start calling. Have your family and friends call. Overwhelm their switchboard with calls and we may keep them on our side. We just have to show them that the numbers are in favor of the Second Amendment.

Hell even as a therapy thing, I'm finding calling someone and expressing my views to be really helpful.

Times like this I'm glad I moved out of New York.

NY Governor Andrew Cuomo gets his gun ban on.

He's got into a pissing match and wants to have the "best" Gun Ban nation wide.

And if you think you're okay because your gun is grandfathered? Forgetabout it.

That's what grandfathering is. Ban now or ban later.

Oh and the Whitehouse is saying it'll get what it wants, even if it has to go by Executive Order. But you know what? If they can bully congress into rubber-stamping their dream list they don't have to do that.

Still think you can sit this one out because you've got yours?

Though in fairness. If I still lived in NY I'd be more of an activist there. But I didn't stay in NY because the jobs weren't there.

Okay I laughed.

National Gun Appreciation Day

The SAF is promoting the 19th as National Gun Appreciation Day.

It's not a bad idea. But it's limited. As Sebastian points out.

The second concern, and perhaps the greater concern reflects something I heard last night on Cam & Company. In his weekly roundtable with Mike McCarville. Cam was getting feedback from Mike about what gun show attendees were thinking and doing, in terms of whether they were writing their lawmakers and making their voice heard. The unfortunate response was that many of them felt very strongly that by going to the gun show, or by buying guns and some ammunition, they were making a statement. Folks, if this belief becomes widespread, we’re going to lose. Communicating with lawmakers is crucial at a time like this. Last night I got a call from NRA’s lobbyist in Illinois, and he mentioned that everyone’s phone calls, faxes, and e-mails were absolutely crucial to helping defeat those bills (for now). If we can’t repeat that play everywhere else in the country we are screwed.

Yes we gunnies need to do something. We need to do our duties as ambassadors to our friends and families and co workers.

But Sebastian is right, you know what has stalled the anti's efforts, for now, in Illinois? Here's a hint, it wasn't a mass buying of guns.

Contacting your reps is EASY. If you're willing to spend the money on a gun and spend the time waiting in line for a gun show, then you should be willing to contact your congresscritters.

What will I be doing on National Gun Appreciation Day? Well that's the day of the Indy1500 gun show.

I'll be there handing out fliers. Again, it can't hurt and I'd be at the show anyway. Here's a first draft.

Another reason to write and call Congress...

The antis are doing it too.    And visit if you can.

Bitter and Sebastian listen in on the Brady's Conference call so you don't have to.

Also it seems that Biden is just a figurehead, and the real WH organization is being done by Valerie Jarrett.

And, yes Virginia, they do want to ban semi-automatic guns and detachable magazines.

Consistency and speaking of Prohibition...

3:30 seconds in.



Watch the whole thing.  And as always contact your Rep and Senators.


And take his advice. It's not just gunnie stuff.  I've been remiss in actual neighborhood stuff.


And here's a scary part with the kind of "leverage" the President gets with his waivers and favors.

Remember when I talked about planes?

Well... I think I did.

Anyway here's a report from Popular Mechanics from someone that got to fly in a B2.  Very cool stuff.

Lots of neat stuff in that article. For example, I didn't know, that the B2 actually had facilities for a cot and a head behind the pilot and copilot seats.  Makes sense when you consider how insanely long the missions those things fly can be.

Ban High capacity nitrous tanks!

It's not just with guns that things are banned in stupid ways.  Take whip-its:

Hey, do you want to get high like your parents did in the 70's? Find a convenience store and pick up a pack of whipped cream chargers, more popularly known as Whip-Its! You've likely seen these contraptions around at the occasional gas station and wondered why a box of devices used to make whipped cream cans work have any place among the racks of Cheetos and Snickers and such. Simple, those little cartridges are filled with nitrous oxide. You might recognize that as the "laughing gas" you're sometimes given during particularly gnarly dental procedures. Doing it in large quantities will get you high as shit, and that's why possessing it in large quantities is something only dentists and a few other select professionals are allowed to do.

To get around that, it's sold in tiny quantities as a culinary tool, with most users opting to buy the party-in-a-bottle by the box or case. There are sites online that will sell you 240 whipped cream cartridges for less than $100. You can't freely buy a giant tank of nitrous oxide, but you can totally buy enough nitrous to fill one without much hassle. As this story will attest, you can do so at your neighborhood convenience store or market even.

 But banning a boxes with springs will definitely work.  The whole cracked article is a little microcosm of criminal ingenuity.

Why not Ban X Instead?

A Canadian friend of mine, Miss W, came up with this out of the blue (Okay it turns out it was from reading this at Popehat):

"Oddly enough, I think a good argument against the gun control crowd is smoking. Smoking causes  vastly  more deaths than firearms do. The US loses about 6 500 people to guns in a year. And 443 000 to cigarettes. If you're gonna ban one..."

I pointed out  a similar argument could be made about Alcohol too. Which she agreed with. Though this doesn't even get into the precrime and collective punishment stuff Further:

"And cigarettes really *do* serve no purpose, save the pleasure of the owner. (And probably kill more people with secondhand alone than guns do) Basically, it's a question of which you're gonna do - ban things because they cause harm? Or let them out there because the incursion on freedoms is a greater harm?"

Or if you want more apples versus apples well..
In 2011  323 people were murdered in the US by someone using a rifle. That same year  496 were murdered with hammers and clubs.

Huh. But that won't keep the gun grabbers from trying to DO Something.
Such as these bills they've filed so far.

Should definitely contact your reps if you haven't already. It's quick and easy.  For example Indiana's Senators can be found here.

And here's the order of importance:  "Visit personally, fax, e-mail, call, formal written letter. Formal written letters used to be the best, but that changed with the Anthrax scare, and now it take forever to get snail mail through."

More Gun Control Push

They've got bills up:

New York

Illinois (with a bit of a delay so if you live in Ill, write, call, show up)

Iowa

And national.

For a preview,  no transfers,  magazine bans,  semi-auto bans,  shotgun bans and so on.

There's plenty of stuff for you to write to your reps about.

And here's another letter form if you're looking for ideas. And another point on just how expansive and dangerous this push is.   Never let a crisis go to waste after all.

New Holster!

I just got this in the mail from Michael's Custom Holsters

The other reviews were not kidding.  This is a very solid, very well made holster.   And Michael does true custom work and will make the rig to whatever standards you want.

I had a little extra design put into mine.    

Well recommended.  Just be sure to inquire as to the backlog.

If you live in Illinois...

You better get crackin'.  The antis have a boat of bills that bans everything up to the kitchen sink:   ranges, magazines, lost and stolen requirements,  "assault weapons" ban that covers just about every semi-auto there is.  Very little transfers and grandfathering, registration, registration, registration.

As Sebastian says:

So if you’re in Illinois, get calling. Get your friend to call too. Know an old guy that has an M1 Carbine or two he thinks are safe? Get him involved too, because the M1 could be affected. We have to stop them here. It was inevitable that the Chicago machine would lash out after losing so badly in Court, but we have to stop them here. Illinois gun owners are now at the front line of the first battle in what’s going to be an awful, multi-year war.

The goal here is to throw everything at us, wear us down, and keep wearing us down until we capitulate. Until people are so tired of calling and writing, that we stop doing it. Are we going to let them do that to us? We have to stop each and every one of these.

And speaking of writing, Robb Allen has a new form letter too.

I've got some better news for later today at least.