About that Ex LAPD cop killing other cops: Yeah he's for gun control

In short,  this guy decided to go on a revenge kick because he was fired from being a cop.  Went after a couple policemen,  injuring two killing one.  And may have killed someone in the DA's office with a past history in the firing.

Here's some quotes from his "manefesto" showing his anti-gun chops

Who in there right mind needs a fucking silencer!!! who needs a freaking SBR AR15? No one. No more Virginia Tech, Columbine HS, Wisconsin temple, Aurora theatre, Portland malls, Tucson rally, Newtown Sandy Hook. Whether by executive order or thru a bi-partisan congress an assault weapons ban needs to be re-instituted. Period!!!

Mia Farrow said it best. “Gun control is no longer debatable, it’s not a conversation, its a moral mandate.”

Sen. Feinstein, you are doing the right thing in leading the re-institution of a national AWB. Never again should any public official state that their prayers and thoughts are with the family. 

Wayne LaPierre, President of the NRA, you’re a vile and inhumane piece of shit. You never even showed 30 seconds of empathy for the children, teachers, and families of Sandy Hook. 

There's more.   Remember, this is someone currently at large and pursued by a manhunt for multiple homicides.

And here's the whole thing.  Part of me does worries about the manifesto being a hoax. As it seems "too good".  Then again, that seems to be what the media did too.  Heavily redacting anything "politically inconvenient" from the rant.

I'll be clear. I don't think the Gun Control movement is to blame.  Nor the media outlets and politicians he apparently idolizes.   They are not responsible for the actions of one man.

Just like how I, as a gun owner, am not responsible for his actions.  But consider who'll get the collective blame.

But if his views were not pro-gun control and pro-Obama, you can bet the media would be shouting his views from the rooftops.

That said, I'll put good odds on them using his actions to push for gun control.


Ponder that.  This man is strongly anti-gun.  He's also a suspected murderer, who used a gun.

And there's a strong chance the media and the California politicians will use these violent acts to promote the very gun control he wants.

That's like a conservative politician using the deaths of several minorities at the hands of a raging homophobe to push for a gay marriage ban.

Update:  Two innocent women shot by police in massive manhunt for rogue cop...
Wait what?  LAPD's getting damn punchy.

Here's something a bit brighter.

Read this story on how showing up can make anti-gun politicians back down.

It’s been three weeks since an Oak Harbor city councilmember started a national controversy by trying to kick-out a wounded Army veteran who was legally carrying a weapon during a council meeting.

Councilmember Rick Almberg then walked out.

The council was met by 160 people Tuesday night, many who were packing heat.

There were handguns in holsters and rifles slung over shoulders and an unknown number of people concealing their weapons as the Oak Harbor City Council met. Many attended the meeting to show support for veteran Lucas Yonkman who councilmember Almberg tried to have kicked-out of City Hall last month, including Joe Hawkins who openly mocked him. “Mr. Almberg I just want you to know that I have a concealed ham sandwich right here I don’t want you to get up and walk away,” he chuckled.

Via Glenn Reynolds. 

Update: Here's it with video.

If you can get to your statehouse (any state in the US) there will be a protest from 10 to 12.  More info here.

And if you can't make that (even if you can) you should contact your Senators.  The sausage is moving in the Senate.  I called today, and they are definitely seeing which parts gun owners will "accept".

Some thoughts on what that means.  Hell,  just go look at all the posts today by Sebastian and Bitter.

Funny who gets excluded from this "National Conversation"

Via  Linoge who also has a transcription.

Powerful stuff.  And the kind of stuff the Media will embargo.

Something to keep in mind.   And something you should share.

Hate? Possible.

So we have two strories in New York.  One of a man caught for having a bunch of magazines.  And is looking at up to 35 years.

And another is a 18 year old with two stolen handguns, one with a removed serial number who was flashing one on a New York City bus.

Wanna guess who'll get more prison time?

Wanna guess who the media and the Gun Control movement think is a bigger threat?

As Sebastian says:

Chris in Alaska has a look at Nathan Haddad. He’s looking at a seven year prison sentence for each magazine, and he had five of them. I anxiously await someone from the gun control movement to explain to me how locking this man away for 35 years is going to benefit public safety. Fines are enough to deter honest people, so why throw the book at people like this? I’ll tell you why. Because they hate you. They hate guys like Mr. Haddad. He’s a gun owner. He going to get what’s coming to him.

This fits in with Robb Allen's thoughts on why the media keeps pressing to publish the addresses of gun owners.  (Another bonus of registration!)

The mistake these people make Is that they honestly believe gun owners are ashamed at being gun owners. 

Publishing the list of gun owners is a danger as it gives out a clear map to criminals where guns are (and on the flipside, where they aren’t). These magazines don’t care about that, what they care about is their belief that nobody wants people to know they’re a gun owner as if being one were some sort of scarlet letter.

...

They hate us, and even worse, they hate their version of us which is generally a strawman of epic proportions. The problem is they cannot face reality where gun owners are women, minorities, or anything other than old, fat, white guys. They cling to that stereotype with a faith so pure and strong that it makes Billy Graham’s views look like atheism.

This is true for the people with the real passion for gun control. The ones who are amped up and dedicate themselves towards infringing on a civil right.

It's not the guns.  Otherwise they'd be worried about why the police have machine guns by the bushel.
Instead of being gleeful about it.

I'll put in a quibble.   Not everyone for gun control is doing it out of hate.  Some sincerely think that it could help.  And they see the infringement on legal gun owners to be a sad side effect.

Those are the folks who honestly ask: "Why don't you make your gun less scary looking?  It can't hurt?"

It's the soft good intentions of "What could it hurt to try."   That's why the President and the other gun banners love the "If it saves one life." Trope.

Know what else would save a lot of lives?  Banning booze and tobacco.  Or how about all private swimming pools?  No one needs a pool in their house. And if they really want to swim

That said, there's no passion among those folks.   Most have never used a gun, and the few that have have used them in a hunting or other situation.   It takes very strong emotions to be a high level gun grabber.  

Consider what it takes for someone to go "Why do those folks need a magazine like that?" to "How DARE those people think they can have those murder magazines!  We need to put them in prison!"

It'd be like someone saying "Well why not ban all cars with cup-holders,  spoilers or red paint?  It can't hurt."

Some would say that because they don't own cars and don't see the trouble.  Others would say it because they hate car owners.

The hardcore antis we can't really convince.

Those that don't know guns and don't really think about it.   We can.

Speaking of that,  contact your congress critters if you haven't this month.

Don't be complacent.

ATTN: Maryland Gunnies

If you can make it to Annapolis on Wednesday you should.

That's when the first round of hearings on a hideously draconian gun control bill is happening.

And Maryland Shall Issue wants to flood the room with the testimony of pro-gun citizens.

Details here.

If you can't make it you can still contact the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee.  Info at the link.

The gun grabbers are having a contest to see who can pass the most onerous law.   If you live in Maryland the time is now.

Via Sebastian.

The Senate's on the move.

Wall Street Journal has the article.  (Which may be behind a paywall).

Basically they'll go for Magazine Bans and Private Sale Bans.

Weerd comments on the same article

Magazine restrictions are just foolishness. It restricts the lawful home owner, who might be defending the home (and not wearing a gun belt with several magazines), or carrying concealed on the streets and not wanting to carry multiple magazines. Meanwhile we have the Virginia Tech Massacre, which is the most deadly school shooting, and all but two of the dozens of magazines used held only 10 rounds. Also I must note that the most deadly attack was in 1927 and used explosives.

You can get info on Senators here 

For Indiana. Here's Coats and here's Donnelly.

And at Hot Air some more thoughts on the "modular" plan Reid is going for.  Basically get whatever'll stick.

Why does this matter?  Basically, it gives Democrats in the Senate — especially red-state Democrats like Mark Pryor, Kay Hagan, and others facing voters in 2014 — the opportunity to cast a high-profile vote against the ban without damaging the core bill.  In fact, it wouldn’t surprise me at this point if the magazine capacity issue got broken out into a separate amendment, if that loses steam in the Senate, so that they can do the same with that issue.  The assault-weapons ban probably won’t get 40 votes in a separate floor vote.

This is quite a clever move by Reid.  Public polling shows that voters aren’t keen on the assault-weapons ban but want background checks expanded and intensified.  Reid is protecting the most vulnerable Democrats by letting them split their vote so that the red-state Democrats can claim that they blocked the gun banners in Washington, perhaps diluting a GOP attack line next year.

Sebastian has more thoughts.

And here's his Monday News Dump

A few bits that struck out at me:

“Guarded optimism,” is the watchword for the suit by NYSRPA/SAF against New York City over excessive gun license fees after oral arguments seemingly went well. I think our victories in Court are partly responsible for the current backlash. We have the wild animal backed into a corner.

And a warning:

Don’t get complacent. If they win on any issue, it’s going to make a follow up victory much more likely. Don’t forget after Brady passed, they finally got their “assault weapons” ban. Next time that bridge too far won’t have a self-destruct mechanism built into it. They won’t fall for that again.

And more on why the AR's hated:

The AR is just damned comfortable to shoot, which is why it’s popular. Because it’s popular is, of course, the reason they want it banned. It’s like if the obesity advocates decided to help people exercise more by mandating that comfortable chairs and sofas be outlawed.

It's popularity is what the Antis hate.   Even this NBC/NYT article groks that.

“The AR-15, it’s kind of fashionable,” says Frank Loane Sr., the proprietor. His shop has a revolving waiting list for the rifles, and a handful of people are now on it. “The young generation likes them, the assault-looking guns.” 

Via Glenn Reynolds who notes: Gun Control is  a Movement of Old, White People.

The article is interesting as it notes that these guns aren't machine guns and can't do full auto fire.

And this bit if history:

The AR-15 isn’t the first military-style weapon to gain a consumer following. After World War II, some people bought surplus German service rifles made by Mauser and repurposed them for hunting and competitive shooting. But the selling of the AR-15 represents the first mass marketing of a military-style semiautomatic rifle made by a number of different gun makers. Its success has led to an increasing militarization of the entire consumer firearms market, says Tom Diaz, a gun industry researcher and gun control advocate. 

Or

"Despite such reservations, the AR-15-style rifle — which is fast, modern, ergonomically designed, relatively easy to handle and produces little recoil — soon found a wide audience, be it Vietnam War veterans who had used the military version or first-time gun buyers. 

“End users with minimal firearms exposure can learn to quickly become safe and proficient with the platform regardless of prior firearms experience,” Mr. James, the editor at Guns & Ammo, wrote in an e-mail. 

Another feature of the AR-15 is that it can be easily personalized and accessorized.
“You can take the whole gun apart and replace any part you want to without special tools, without knowing a whole lot,” says Tim McDermott, a range officer at the Personal Defense and Handgun Safety Center in Raleigh, N.C. “They are Legos for guys.”  "

You mean a comfortable, easy to customize gun with low recoil that's easy to use and has a mass amount of aftermarket parts and supplies?  Yeah, why would people want a gun like that?


And of course the article has Sugarman's complaining:

The ban made the rifles only more desirable for some consumers. To meet the demand, gun makers removed prohibited features, like bayonet lugs, and marketed them as legal alternatives.

“It was unfortunately an industrywide event where companies were openly bragging about their ability to sell guns in circumvention of the law,” says Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Violence Policy Center, a research and gun-control advocacy group in Washington. 

The industry produced an estimated one million modified AR-15-style rifles during the ban — more than it had produced of the original version in the previous decade — says Gary G.

Mehalik, a former marketing executive at the National Shooting Sports Foundation and at Taurus USA, a handgun maker in Miami. He denied that gun makers circumvented the law.
“If you drive 40 miles an hour in a 40-mile-an-hour zone, are you exploiting a loophole or following the law?” Mr. Mehalik asked. "

Yup for the antis compliance with the law is circumvention.

This ties back into something that Sebastian notes today.  It's not the guns they hate.  It's the gun owners.  Specifically the wrong sorts are getting into guns:

I think this is absolutely correct, and everything we’ve been seeing in the media and from the gun control organizations seems to back that up. It fits with the article I did earlier on the cultural changes the coastal elites are seeing being the root cause of this latest backlash. We’ve been too successful for our own good. As long as gun ownership were confined to old, fat white guys (OFWGs), they were content to tolerate it. The changing face of gun ownership worries them, not because of a fear of guns, but for fear and loathing of the people who enjoy them, who increasingly are looking like them. If something isn’t done soon, they may have to take the opinions of gun owners seriously. Gun control is a movement of old white people, but they aren’t going to go down without a fight.

And that's why you've gotta contact your reps and Senators, and keep an ear to the ground.   The Gun Grabbers will use every trick and emotional grab they have to get their power.

Getting rid of guns is the gravy, the real meat and potatoes is marginalizing of the gun owners.

ATTN: Minnesota Gunnies: 7 Round magazine Ban coming your way

Not just that but an Assault Weapons Ban and a host of other gun control legislation.

No grandfathering either.   If it passes your choices are sell out of state, turn in to the police, or defy the law.
And yes, that would obliviate most every pistol in the state.   That's the point.

And Minnesota has dem majorities in both legislative chambers.  At the link is contact information.  You're gonna want to use it if you live in that State.  This is a serious infringement that can pass if the Dems hold together.   Be best to show them the mistake of that view.

By pure coincidence the President will be visiting Minnesota next week.  At the link is information on where that's going. Show up for the counter protest if you can.

They'll keep trying where ever and however they can.

And funny how Seven rounds is the new Ten, eh?