The falsehoods and untruths in Sir Harold Evans unhinged rant that I first noted earlier this week are even worse than thought, with him apparently making up statistics and attributing them to a Department of Justice study.

Can we call him Sir Beauchamp?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:48 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 55 words, total size 1 kb.

Say Uncle pointed me this morning to the an absurd new meme that ABC's William Kates is attempting to spin, that massacres could be prevented if we just listened to comedians.

Yeah, really.

Ballistics reports showed Jiverly Wong fired 87 times from a 9mm Beretta and 11 times from a .45-caliber handgun. If he bought the ammunition online, he could have paid as little as $40 for the rounds he fired.

Friends say Wong complained that he only received $200 a week in unemployment benefits.

"Chris Rock says in one of his routines — have all the guns you want but charge like $1,000 for every bullet," said Jackie Hilly of New Yorkers Against Gun Violence. "I think if you raised the price, you would probably discourage the violence, but I don't think you would prevent it."

In other news, Eddie Murphy suggested that raising the price of cars to a minimum of $300,000 would increase carpooling while decreasing the number of people picking up transvestite streetwalkers.

But that's neither here nor there.

What I really want to know from ABC's Kates is just how much a massacre is supposed to cost. If Kates thinks the cost of the ammunition used in the massacre was too inexpensive, what would be an appropriate price to pay for the slaughter? If Wong paid $98,000 for the bullets he used in his massacre ($1,000/bullet x 98 bullets) would Mr. Kates have then found the cost in human lives acceptable?

Of course, we know that Kates and his allies couldn't care less about the specific cost of bullets used in this shooting or other gun crimes, because the cost is only secondary to their primary goal of establishing control over gun owners.

Gun laws have always been about establishing political control over a population and forcing them to rely on the government to protect them.

Can we think of any reason why typically left-leaning journalists and politicians might want to advocate for people being forced to rely on the government?

Yes we can.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:21 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 353 words, total size 2 kb.

Harold Evans, editor and historian according to his bio, can now added "discredited crank" to his list of accomplishments, all thanks to a rant he published in Tina Brown's The Daily Beast.

The rant, Accomplices to Murder, attacks, well, nearly everyone as being an accomplice in the recent spate of mass shootings.

Indeed, Evans may have something when he accuses the society at large for creating an environment where such barbaric events are too commonplace. But Evans goes over the line in attempting to fix blame to certain people and groups in a rant howled into type.

Unencumbered by his former roles as a historian and editor, Evans has now descended to printing blatant falsehoods to support his position, acts which should result in a retraction of his article, and perhaps a re-evaluation of his relationship with the Beast.

He rants:

All these gun killings—43 in total—occurred over the last 26 days. All harvest profuse expressions of sympathy and prayers for the families and the communities. The detestation for the killers is universal. How could it not be? These are crazed and evil people. They merit our detestation.

But they are not alone in their guilt. The people who put guns into the hands have a share of that ignominy. Who are they?

The guilty are the gun dealers at flea markets and state shows who will sell any number of weapons to anyone—juveniles, criminals, nuts—without any background check or records.

By federal law, licensed gun dealers must have perspective purchasers fill out ATF Form 4473. Dealers then must check a government issued photo ID and then must call the FBI-run NICS (National Instant Criminal Background Check System) for a background check of the buyer.

This background check must be performed by gun dealers for all firearms transactions, at their primary business front location in a guns store, a flea market, or a gun show. There are no exceptions, and form 4473 specifically includes question #17 on the form that asks "Location of sale if at a gun show. (city, state)".

Only individuals who are not gun dealers may sell their private firearms without a background check according to federal law, though that varies according to the laws of individual states.

Mr. Evans flatly lies when he says dealers are not required to perform a background check, as direct links to the government web sites and documents above clearly shows. This lie is pervasive enough throughout his screed, and forms enough of the underlying thesis, to demand that the rant be retracted in its entirety.

But Evans is just warming up, and he is likewise deceptive when he implies the Mexican cartels are heavily-armed because of lax U.S. gun laws.

83% of the firearms captured by Mexican law enforcement in the past two years –more than 20,000—came from sources other than the U.S civilian market, and most come primarily from the international black market.

Mexican cartels are often armed with hand grenades, automatic weapons, and anti-tank rockets—weapons unavailable on the U.S market at any price.

But nowhere does Mr. Evans display his ignorance more than when he discusses the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban.

The assault weapons "ban" did not ban assault weapons. The popularity, sale, and ownership of semi-automatic military-style weapons grew over the ten-year course of the ban, all quite legally. Several American gun companies that build "assault weapons" exclusively grew over the course of the ban, and the already low rate of crimes committed with such weapons never deviated substantially from the roughly 2% that it was before, during, and after the ban.

The actual net effect of the ban was no reduction in crimes committed with the class of firearms covered in the ban, an actual increase in the distribution and popularity of so-called "assault weapons," and the creation of an entirely new class of ultra-compact and powerful handguns designed for concealed carry, which brought even more specialized gun manufacturers into existence.

The Department of Justice study Evans sought to cite as evidence of a drop in gun crime as a result of the ban also seems utterly irrelevant to his argument, and a bit of a purposeful red herring. We don't know precisely which report he refers to because he omits that detail, but by Evans' own description, the DOJ study was for automatic weapons, not the semi-automatics covered in the ban. Evans can't even plead ignorance of the difference in the terms, as he explains the difference between automatic and semi-automatic himself:

...semi-automatic fire (one trigger pull per shot but with magazines enabling the user to fire hundreds of rounds in a minute).

He knows the difference, but appears intent on conflating the terms on purpose. Is he being purposefully deceptive? It would appear so.

The only person "guilty" in this shameful display of collapsed ethics is one Mr. Harold Evans, who commits the journalistic sin of deceiving and misleading his readers, massacring truth along the way.

Update—A Nepotistic Beast? As "happyfeet" points out in the comments, the head of the Daily Beast, Tina Brown is married to Harold Evans.

Will she chose to retract her husband's sloppy rant, or risk the integrity of her latest venture and her life's work as an editor, along with Barry Diller's investment in her leadership?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:40 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 881 words, total size 6 kb.

By all accounts, there were 14 dead (including the shooter) and four wounded when police finally entered the American Civic Association in Binghampton, NY yesterday, at least an hour after a three-minute rampage had ended with the death of the shooter.

If autopsies determine that even one of the 13 victims died after the "golden hour" and could have been saved by police immediately entering the building and getting them medical care, instead of forming a perimeter and just waiting, then I hope the citizens if Binghampton call for Chief Joseph Zikuski's ouster.

Why do I have a CCH permit? Because when seconds count, police are just seconds 25 yards and several hours away.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:27 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 134 words, total size 1 kb.

More information is already coming out about the man who went on a shooting spree inside the American Civic Association in Binghamton, NY today.

Jiverly Voong, 42, was a nationalized naturalized Vietnamese-American who has been in the United States for 28 years. He began his rampage at 10:31 AM, killing 13 others and himself by 10:33 AM. There is still some uncertainty about the number of people who were wounded during the shooting who are in area hospitals.

Voong is said to have used a pair of semi-automatic handguns in his assault, once chambered in 9mm and one chambered for 45 ACP (Kudos to the ABC News staff for using my rewrite of that paragraph to report the story more accurately; they had originally used a sentence that described the weapons used inaccurately as heavy caliber automatic pistols).

Police have no known motive for Voong's attack, but some media are suggesting that his recent layoff from IBM may have been part of the reason for the for the shooting. An account of last week's layoffs from WBNG suggests a thin motive for attacking the Civic Association:

Big Blue plans to layoff 5-thousand U.S. Employees today.

IBM headquarters has not responded to calls about whether there are cuts at the Endicott site.

Conrad says Alliance has been told layoffs are taking place in Global Business Services, Systems Technology Group, and Global Technology Services.

"We are hearing that these jobs will be eliminated here in the United States and the work shifted to India, China, Asia-Pacific and Latin America." says Conrad.

It is thin and perhaps irrational reasoning that would lead an immigrant to attack other immigrants for jobs that are leaving this country, if this was indeed Voong's motive. Sadly, that is all the motive we have at this time, and no motive could every justify such a senseless act.

I would caution Americans on the left not to use this senseless tragedy to push for more gun control (New York has restrictive gun laws that obviously failed here), just as I'd advise my fellow citizens on the middle and right not to blame the current or former Presidential Administrations for the recession that led to IBM's layoffs. Congress?

That's a point that may well be worth discussing...

Update: As they so often are, earlier media reports were wrong. Voong (formerly Wong) hated America, was obsessed with guns, and hated having poor English skills.

Illiteracy kills?

Zikuski said Wong was depressed about his poor English-speaking skills, which he was teased about, and his recent unemployment.

"He was terminated from his job at a place called Shop Vac, and he was very upset about that also," Zikuski said.

Zikuski told NBC's "Today" show that people "degraded and disrespected" the gunman over his inability to speak English well.

As a result, said Mayor Matthew Ryan on ABC's "Good Morning America," he was upset about his problems with the language.

This makes his decision to attack a room full of recent immigrants, many who we can assume also faced the challenge of adopting to a new language, even less understandable.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 06:00 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 534 words, total size 4 kb.

I've said before that the anti-gun forces in this country must lie about the horrors of firearms, because reality won't to stoke a level of fear that would convince the American people to give up their Constitutional rights.

An anti-gun lie being pushed hard recently is that 90 % of the guns used to commit violent crime in Mexico come from the United States. Democrats favoring more gun control have been hammering that claim repeatedly, claiming the violence in Mexico justifies further restrictions here in the United States.

That lie, favored by our media, our Attorney General, and our President, is now circling the drain.

There's just one problem with the 90 percent "statistic" and it's a big one:

It's just not true.

In fact, it's not even close. By all accounts, it's probably around 17 percent.

What's true, an ATF spokeswoman told FOXNews.com, in a clarification of the statistic used by her own agency's assistant director, "is that over 90 percent of the traced firearms originate from the U.S."

But a large percentage of the guns recovered in Mexico do not get sent back to the U.S. for tracing, because it is obvious from their markings that they do not come from the U.S.

"Not every weapon seized in Mexico has a serial number on it that would make it traceable, and the U.S. effort to trace weapons really only extends to weapons that have been in the U.S. market," Matt Allen, special agent of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), told FOX News.

So where are the 83-percent of guns coming from, if they aren't coming from the United States?

Shockingly, cartels that exist to smuggle large quantities of illegal drugs internationally also have the ability to smuggle large quantities of illegal weapons internationally as well. Who knew?

Well, anyone with the slightest bit of integrity.

The super-majority of firearms that have turned up in the hands of Mexican cartels came from black market sources, Central and South American revolutions, are smuggled in from Asia, or come from deserters of the Mexican military.

We should hope that President Obama's administration, members of Congress, and media outlets that reported the 90-percent lie will be as honest as Fox News was, and put this myth to rest.

I have hope, but not expectations.

Update: An interesting take on Mexico's gun laws and gun culture from the inside.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:43 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 411 words, total size 3 kb.

Via The Gun Source:

That NFA laws have been repealed through a long standing court battle in the 7th US Circuit Court. The president of TGSCOM had sued the federal government on the grounds that the NFA law violated the Second Amendment of the Constitution. After heated and lengthy oral arguments, TGSCOM is now able to sell fully automatic weapons to the general public without tax stamps and the additional background check. The one stipulation to the agreement is that fully automatic rifles will be treated like handguns in that they will require a purchaser of 21 and older, the firearm must be transferred in the state of their residence (same as handguns) and that the buyer must submit to all regulations in the state of their residence.

I'd been watching this in the court system and had hoped for this outcome, but frankly was surprised TGSCOM prevailed in such a manner, and with so little fanfare. Since I'm a registered gun writer because of my work for Pajamas Media I was able to order a Glock 18 machine pistol during a writer's only sale last night. With spare 33 round magazines, it will probably become my new concealed carry pistol.

Once I saw up the money from the Obama stimulus, I'll also be picking up the 100-round G36K for "squirrel and rabbit hunting" and the FN M249 Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW) I've always wanted.

Frankly, I don't think I'd use it for hunting, but it might make parts of Durham accessible again.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 06:12 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 273 words, total size 2 kb.

One of the most expensive components of a modern rifle or pistol cartridge is the brass casing. It is also the part of the cartridge that is the most "green," in that brass cases can be reused multiple times.

The Obama Administration, however, so despises gun owners that it has forced the Department of Defense to start chopping into scrap once-fired rifle brass that it formerly sold in bulk to to ammunition reloading companies at a premium.

Read all the details at The Shootist, which has far more.

In enacting this directive, the Obama Administration:

• wastes a tremendous amount of government money; once-fired brass can be sold for 80-percent more than bulk brass scrap
• directly caused the firing of workers at ammunition factories who cannot get the brass cases they relied upon as a key material
• by purposefully undermined the reloaded ammunition market, forces federal, state and local law enforcement agencies to buy top-of-the-line ammunition for training qualification, meaning either departments will have to get by with less training for their officers, or citizens will have to pay even more in taxes

This attempt to undermine the ammunition market is hardly surprising considering the prohibitionist mindset of a man so dishonest he was part of the Joyce Foundation attempt to pervert legal scholarship in order to undermine the Constitution.

His Arrogance probably thinks that putting more Americans out of work is worthwhile if he can get what he wants, and considering his across-the-board walk-backs on combatting terrorism, it isn't all that surprising that he's willing to put already tight law enforcement training budgets in peril as well.

Barack Obama's economic incompetence is wrecking the economy, and his rabidly anti-gun ideology is threatening our security.

Why am I not surprised.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:32 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 337 words, total size 2 kb.

I saw via Reason that the ever opportunistic Paul Helmke of the Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence jumped at the chance to once again use a tragedy for political gain. The Brady Campaign, for those of you unfamiliar with it, is the Westboro Baptist Church of the gun confiscation movement.

Never missing a chance to fabricate, obfuscate, or twist the truth, they begin with a whopper in their opening paragraph (my bold below):

Alabama killer Michael McLendon fired more than 200 rounds from his military-style semiautomatic assault weapons. He lived in a state that has pathetically weak guns laws: In the Brady CampaignÂ’s recent state scorecards, Alabama earned a score of 15 out of 100. Assault weapons were banned under federal law until four years ago.

This statement is a monsterous lie.

The 1994 Assault Weapon ban that our über-intelligent Vice President liked to take the credit for authoring banned by name less than two dozen firearms, and attempted to ban others by making rifles or pistols with detachable magazines and two or more cosmetic features—pistol grips, flash hiders, bayonet lugs and other features that had no effect on accuracy or rate fire—illegal.

What effect did this law have on the legal sale or possession of these "evil" weapons the Brady Campaign and so many gullible Congressmen and Senators rushed into law?

It increased the popularity of these firearms. Yes, you read that correctly.

Legal sales of these kinds of firearms grew during the so-called ban. Manufacturers of some rifles, for example, removed flash hiders and bayonet lugs, and put these same firearms into the hands of eager customers the very day the "ban" took effect, and every day of the ten years afterward until it expired. Manufacturers of banned pistols made similar modifications, and had similar results. It might also be noted that an entire new class of concealable handguns was the direct but hilariously unintended consequence of this law, but that is a tale for another time.

There firearms were constantly and quite legally available during the time this impotent law was in effect. Manufacturers specializing in these kinds of firearms actually expanded during this time period, and competitions dedicating to shooting them greatly increased. Brady's claim that assault weapons were banned until the law expired four years ago is patently absurd.

McLendon shot complete strangers, women, children, dogs and his own mother before taking his own life. He had an SKS assault rifle, a Bushmaster assault rifle and a 38 caliber handgun.

Neither an SKS nor a Bushmaster is an assault rifle, but that has never kept Westboro Gun Banners Brady from making the claim over and over again. An assault weapon, by proper military definition, must be selective-fire, fitted with a selector that enables the shooter to fire either single shots or a burst for each trigger pull. None of the guns in the assault weapons ban was actually an assault weapon, which I guess is appropriate, as they weren't actually banned, either.

Because of thoroughly dishonest groups like Brady and unethical men like Helmke, the term "assault weapon" has evolved into a political term that can be applied to almost any semi-automatic firearm, even though using it thus is factually incorrect.

Alabama has the fifth-highest gun death rate in America, including the third-highest rate of gun homicide.

"This man needed the firepower of assault weapons to execute his plan of mass carnage. Alabama, and our nation, must take action to make it harder for dangerous people to get dangerous weapons," said Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Campaign.

The "firepower" of these weapons— or rather, the lack of it—may be directly responsible for the fact that two or more law enforcement officers who confront the gunman are alive today.

The Bushmaster rifle the murderer carried fires an intermediate caliber .223 Remington cartridge with a lightweight, high-velocity bullet generally considered to small and weak to use on deer-sized targets, and is instead typically used on much smaller game. The officers that he shot were protected in large part because the lightweight bullets fired were easily slowed, stopped, or deflected by their police cars, resulting in officers that were mildly wounded instead of being more seriously wounded or killed. If the shooter had used any one of many popular big game hunting cartridges...

The simple fact of the matter is that this deranged and vengeful man could have carried out his murderous assault with the shotgun he also had in his vehicle (the one that Brady curiously forgot to mention) and could have caused as much damage and loss of life as he did, or worse.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:32 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 784 words, total size 5 kb.

Sadly, competence is not a requirement for the position of Attorney General, as Obama Attorney General Eric Holder proved beyond the shadow of a doubt:

"I think closing the gun show loophole, the banning of cop-killer bullets and I also think that making the assault weapons ban permanent, would be something that would be permitted under Heller," Holder said, referring to the Supreme Court ruling in Washington, D.C. v. Heller, which asserted the Second Amendment as an individual's right to own a weapon.

That someone can be so uninformed and hold the position he does boggles the mind.

The "gun show loophole" is myth. It simply doesn't exist.

According to ignorant people—and sadly, this includes our neophyte President and AG Holder—people can walk into a gun show and face an entirely different set of rules than they would elsewhere.

This is a bald-faced lie.

Whether at his storefront location or at a gun show, a gun dealer must follow the exact same federal laws, which include filling out a form 4473, checking for valid ID, and running a FBI background check.

Private sellers, whether in their homes or at a gun show, do not have to fill out paperwork of any sort or complete a background check.

As for "cop killer" bullets, perhaps the ignoramus in charge of Justice should learn to read. Such bullets have been banned for 21 years. Of course, I wouldn't be surprised as all if these left wing gun confiscation fans in the Obama White House and Pelosi/Reid Congress try to redefine what constitutes "armor-piercing" so that most rifle and pistol bullets fall into that category.

As for assault weapons...

If one was, say, a Constitutional law professor—or even marginally literate—one would note that when the founders created the Bill of Rights and wrote the Second Amendment, they were concerned with making sure that citizens had the right to bear arms suitable for use in the militia. The Second Amendment was not about hunting, nor target shooting, except that those pursuits enhanced the militia's ability to field qualified riflemen for militia service.

Further, what the media and other anti-gun organizations have dubbed "assault weapons" are not actually assault weapons; true AWs are intermediate-caliber, selective-fire weapons, meaning they are capable of automatic fire or single-shots by the manipulation of a selector switch. Contrary to popular belief, automatic weapons, including real assault rifles, have never been illegal in the United States.

There are roughly 240,000 machine guns in civilian hands. Roughly half of those belong to law enforcement agencies, and the other half belong to civilians just like you and me. Just two have ever been used in crime, and one of those was by a corrupt police officer using a department-issued submachine gun to kill an informant.

The firearms Barack Obama and Eric Holder and their anti-Constitutional friends would like to ban are semi-automatic firearms that look identical to commonly-issued military assault rifles, use the same magazines, and fire the same cartridges. The big difference is that these firearms can only fire one shot per trigger pull, just like every other firearm in America.

Being nearly identical to the M14 battle rifle, M16 assault rifle, and M4 carbines issued to our front-line troops, civilian "assault rifles" are precisely the kind of firearms best suited for militia duty. As such, it is only logical that our Founding Fathers would recognize these firearms as precisely those weapons they sought to protect by their function and utility.

The Second Amendment was not written to protect your right to hunt doves or deer. It was not written to protect your right to shoot at paper targets.

The Second Amendment was written so that the militia—codified as all able-bodied men between 17-45—would have ready access to arms suitable for military duty. No firearm in America today fits the definition the Founders intended as well as what Eric Holder and Barack Obama would seek to make illegal.

I suspect, sadly, that they are well aware of this, and they will not let a little thing like the Constitution stand in the way of whatever it is that they desire.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:00 PM | Comments (24) | Add Comment
Post contains 705 words, total size 5 kb.

1 The Second Amendment was written to protect our country from what nObama and his croneys are trying to do to us now!

Posted by: Rich in KC at February 26, 2009 12:21 PM (siQqy)

2 "I suspect, sadly, that they are well aware of this, and they will not let a little thing like the Constitution stand in the way of whatever it is that they desire." You give them way too much credit. They are absolutely clueless, or suffer from a mental disorder. Either way, we're screwed if we don't fight this.

Posted by: EJ Smith at February 26, 2009 01:07 PM (AwOS7)

3 What do Democrats propose to achieve cooperation from criminals?

Posted by: Rick at February 26, 2009 01:41 PM (FWmwx)

4 The Obies are sick of the old rules, even the ones they don't know. Is there any topic, even abortion, that has a greater chance of overturning the Dem House majority than the 2nd Amm? And they are not just tinkering around the edges. They want EVERY Brady Campaign talking point transformed into federal law when possible or policy if not. The Dem legislative majorities rest on a Red to Blue mutation in many districts that is just four years old. Are they so stupid that they think they have been ordained rather than elected? It sure looks that way. These doofs need un-electing and pronto. Your allegedly moderate neighbors are key. They must know of these things. Tell them.

Posted by: megapotamus at February 26, 2009 01:50 PM (LF+qW)

5 "What do Democrats propose to achieve cooperation from criminals?" expect? Criminals got them where they are today... And when law abiding citizens are disarmed, criminals will have a field day. Of course criminals will support a ban on weapons, it will affect everyone except them.

Posted by: J.T. Wenting at February 26, 2009 02:33 PM (hrLyN)

6 It's more symbolism over substance. If they pass an unconstitutional law, and a court overturns it, then they can rally the troops to point out the need to get more liberals in the courts. Holder is simply pandering to their base.

Posted by: MrSpkr at February 27, 2009 03:30 PM (bkUsA)

7 I was speaking to someone that deals with HR and this was their response to holder's talk about Race thing- which just underlines his ignorance as an AG! "And as to AG Holder - the biggest, GIANT thing that jumped out at me about what he said, in regard to "that we should all go into work today and have a frank discussion about race" was HOLY COW! Title 7 (which is actual legislation, something you would think that the AG would know about) specifically prohibits this kind of conversation to be initiated in the workplace, as contributing to a potentially hostile work environment. Although I think it would be interesting to have a frank discussion about race with my friends, I would never, ever broach this as a topic at work. It's illegal. Again, you'd think the AG would know this."

Posted by: Scott at February 27, 2009 06:05 PM (Lj0BN)

8 "Is Eric Holder Too Ignorant to Be Attorney General?" I'll take that as sarcasm as I consider them to be very intelligent and smart in their political maneuverings. Your surmise that they don't care one wit if the Constitution stands between them and where they want to go is accurate. They'll push right on through, take routes to evade it, or change them, as they do with all the other laws, rules or regulations they don't like. After all, that's writing on paper and they know laws, rules and regulations can't fight back, only other people can. Just say no.

Posted by: Dusty at February 28, 2009 08:08 AM (4sMx3)

9 May I add a bit of technical information? Words matter, thus have liberals become “progressives.” There is no such thing as an “assault weapon.” The term is a cynical and deceptive invention of the gun banners whose internal documents long ago revealed their intention to play on the lack of technical knowledge of the general public by trying to turn every firearm that resembles a machinegun into a machinegun. The correct term is “assault rifle,” which describes a class of shoulder fired, gas operated, detachable box magazine fed rifles and carbines which fire an intermediate rifle cartridge, and which are capable of selective (semiautomatic and fully automatic) fire. Such firearms are not available to the general public, only semiautomatic look-alike versions. The media, never known for their knowledge of firearm technology, to say nothing of honesty where firearm issues are concerned, have gladly played along, often using video of machineguns firing to illustrates stories about semiautomatic firearms. Semiautomatic technology is more than a century old. The M14, by the way, is part of a class or firearms properly termed battle rifles. These rifles fire a full power rifle cartridge. The first generation of true battle rifles, such as the Springfield, Mauser and Lee-Enfield were bolt action rifles, but those currently in use, such as the M14, FN-FAL or G3 are shoulder fired, semiautomatic, detachable box magazine fed rifles (not carbines). The M1 Garand was something of a transitional weapon between generations. It is the only widely available rifle that fires from a “clip,” the much misused term for “magazine” (pistols also fire from magazines, not “clips”). While a few of these rifles have been produced in fully automatic versions, the overwhelming majority of battle rifles produced and issued have been semiautomatic only because the cartridges are just too powerful, when fired in a standard weight rifle, to be controllable with fully automatic fire. The much larger and heavier guns developed from battle rifles are properly termed light machine guns. There is also no such thing as “cop killer bullets.” When, more than two decades ago, the gun banners came up with the term (yes, they invented a term, once again, for something that doesn’t exist, just like the “gun show loophole”), their intention was to ban any cartridge capable of penetrating the body armor commonly worn by police officers. This would, of course, encompass virtually all rifle ammunition and some handgun rounds, as well as all truly armor piercing ammunition, which was never the true target of their banning dreams. To thwart them, the NRA worked with Congress to ban actual armor piercing rounds, which ban is still in effect. Only the military and law enforcement may legally possess such specialty ammunition. It should also be noted the the gun banners did not do this out of respect or fondness for the police. Most police officers (most big city police executives excluded) hate gun banners, and the feeling is mutual. Why? Most cops actually support the Constitution, and when the Brady bunch and their pals invented the cop killer bullet controversy, practical, affordable body armor was becoming commonplace among the police, but that fact wasn’t widely known. By publicizing it, the gun banners informed criminals, who began shooting for the heads of cops. Since then, many officers have died from neck and head wounds. I was a cop back then. Many of my compatriots would have loved to have introduced the gun banners to some “cop killer bullets.” Since the ban of these rare rounds, the number of officers injured or killed by actual armor piercing ammunition remains virtually non-existent. Banning “cop killer bullets” is, and always was, a solution in search of a problem. So we have an attorney general who is either a gun banner, and thus a liar, who knows nothing about firearm technology, or both. In either case, he, and many members of the Obama administration, seem blissfully willing to violate theirs oaths to uphold and defend the Constitution.

Posted by: MIke at February 28, 2009 12:16 PM (tCJgQ)

10 Great post Mike. But one correction. "The much larger and heavier guns developed from battle rifles are properly termed light machine guns." A machine gun firing a "full powered" round would be a medium machine gun. A machine gun firing a round intermediate between "full powered" and pistol rounds would be a light machine gun.

Posted by: Matt at March 01, 2009 08:40 AM (rHW2R)

11 Dear Matt: Thanks for the compliment on the post, but by light machinegun, I'm referring to weapons such as the BAR, which fires the same, full-sized 30.06 rifle cartridge as the Springfield and the Garand. Similar weapons have been based on the FN-FAL and variants of the Kalashnikov family. Not true general purpose machineguns such as the M-60, they are all attempts, successful to varying degrees, to provide fully automatic capability with full powered rifle cartridges such as the 30.06, .308, even .303 (the Bren Gun) by increasing the weight and general robustness of battle rifle designs to make the weapons reasonably controllable without the weight and bulk of a general purpose machinegun. MPMG's are the weapon class between light machineguns and heavy machineguns such as the venerable Browning M2. The most common American equivalent is the contemporary SAW, or Squad Automatic Weapon, which is one man portable and fires the .223/5.56mm M-16 family round from a belt, a 200 round battle pack or M-16 magazines. It is merely a continuation of development of light machineguns that use the predominant military rifle cartridge, though certainly not a full powered (battle) rifle cartridge.

Posted by: Mike at March 01, 2009 05:10 PM (tCJgQ)

12 The Second Amendment was not written to protect your right to hunt doves or deer. It was not written to protect your right to shoot at paper targets. The Second Amendment was written so that the militia—codified as all able-bodied men between 17-45—would have ready access to arms suitable for military duty. Sounds as though you'd have no problem with bans on handguns, shotguns, and concealed carry laws which certainly have nothing at all to do with military duty. Sounds good to me. I'm not as sold though on the idea that being an 17-45 male is the equivalent of being in a well trained militia but that may be an argument for another time.

Posted by: Jim at March 02, 2009 02:45 AM (jHMRy)

13 "I'm not as sold though on the idea that being an 17-45 male is the equivalent of being in a well trained militia but that may be an argument for another time." George Mason: "I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people." (Elliott, Debates, 425-426) Richard Henry Lee: "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 178 Back in the 18th century, a "regular" army meant an army that had standard military equipment. So a "well regulated" army was simply one that was "well equipped." It does NOT refer to a professional army. The 17th century folks used the term "STANDING Army" to describe a professional army. THEREFORE, "a well regulated militia" only means a well equipped militia. It does not imply the modern meaning of "regulated," which means controlled or administered by some superior entity. Federal control over the militia comes from other parts of the Constitution, but not from the second amendment.

Posted by: Matt at March 02, 2009 12:18 PM (rHW2R)

14 You sorry rebish crackers.....you will never admit that a Black man is smarter than you......that is your problem. You are so ignorant about the truth...you post stupid stuff on these confed....%^())$## web sites. That only stupid people like you read. An assault rifle is no weapon to be in any man's hand. Then you get upset when your kids are wiped out by one of your nutty brats that you raised with the notion that they are superior to everyone. Grow up....read a book....get understanding....stop being a bigot...white is not right!

Posted by: Auntflossie1 at March 02, 2009 01:41 PM (UYut9)

15 Auntflossie. The only person I see spreading hate or ignorance on this thread is you.

Posted by: Matt at March 02, 2009 03:22 PM (rHW2R)

16 And for the record. This is me. http://i561.photobucket.com/albums/ss57/Matt0921/Matt3004.jpg Holy crap, a black man that doesn't agree with Nobama. Oh and here is my wife. http://i561.photobucket.com/albums/ss57/Matt0921/NATASHA.jpg Yup, thats right. She is of middle eastern background.

Posted by: Matt at March 02, 2009 03:41 PM (rHW2R)

17 George Mason: "I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people." (Elliott, Debates, 425-426) Richard Henry Lee: "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 178 Thanks for the response and the quotes Matt, Founders intent is certainly key here. To be clear I don't believe either Mason or Lee is saying being an adult male means you are a militia. They are saying the well regulated militias should include participation from every adult male. Turning 16 or 17 doesn't make one a trained defender of freedom, it makes you eligible. The Court has been very clear on this, whether I agree or not, and they found an individual right to arms irrespective of the militia wording. I have no problem with that at all, the Court has the final say here and I'm agnostic on the issue. I was really more curious about the argument that military weapons are the only ones that should be protected under the 2nd, and would love to here from the original author if he thinks pistols etc... lack 2nd amendment protection. It's something I had not heard from a gun supported before.

Posted by: Jim at March 02, 2009 06:29 PM (GStBc)

18 "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." Tenche Coxe, Did you miss the part about what they meant by well regulated? Anyway. I must have read something wrong, because I do not believe anyone said that military type arms should be the only ones protected, because every type of arms can be used to defend yourself against a tyrannical government. Though some are better suited for it than others.

Posted by: Matt at March 02, 2009 06:41 PM (rHW2R)

19 Hey Matt the point about military arms in from the original post by Confederate Yankee, here is the part I'm referencing: The Second Amendment was not written to protect your right to hunt doves or deer. It was not written to protect your right to shoot at paper targets. The Second Amendment was written so that the militia—codified as all able-bodied men between 17-45—would have ready access to arms suitable for military duty. No firearm in America today fits the definition the Founders intended as well as what Eric Holder and Barack Obama would seek to make illegal. When I read that it sounds as though he thinks the Founders would rather you and I had access to RPGs than a Glock. Maybe throw in an M1A2 as well.

Posted by: Jim at March 02, 2009 08:34 PM (GStBc)

20 What is the change promised by the annointed one - easy...a chang ein the constitution. These people swear to uphold the constitution, they swear on a bible but lie through their teeth. I see a massive tea party in the works!

Posted by: Patriot61 at March 02, 2009 08:40 PM (6VxJD)

21 Jim, I didn't define what the Founders would prescribe because I can't get in their heads and wouldn't presume to talk for them, but let's go ahead and do that for fun since that is where you seem to want to take the conversation. I suspect that if faced with the array of modern weapons systems and the factors of modern life, they would probably be of a mind that small arms in the form of individual firearms (not crew-served weapons) would probably be the modern equivalent of what they envisioned for the militia. That would mean either the battle rifles and assault rifles carried by the militia in relatively "pure" forms (which would include selective-fire rifles and what we now classify as SBRs), or the reasonably similar semi-automatic copies that are legal under our present laws. It would also cover most handguns and shotguns that might have practical military application, and certainly long-range rifles, including those chambered in .50 BMG. I don't honestly know where they would stand on the idea of individually-portable light machine guns such as SAWs like the M249, and rather doubt they'd be huge fans of rocket-assisted anti-tank weapons and 20mm-25mm anti-material cannons. As for the big stuff--armor, ships, aircraft, etc... clearly not what they had in mine for a militia, and yet a friend of mine legally owns his own Fletcher-class Destroyer (DD-574 John Rodgers), which they probably wouldn't have envisioned either.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 02, 2009 09:56 PM (Fe6uK)

22 a friend of mine legally owns his own Fletcher-class Destroyer (DD-574 John Rodgers), which they probably wouldn't have envisioned either. Awesome, any chance he offers charters? Thanks for your response, lot's to think about.

Posted by: Jim at March 02, 2009 10:14 PM (GStBc)

23 Sadly, I can't help you on the charters. It's presently stuck dockside across from a Mexican Naval Base on the Pacific. And I've already called "dibs" on the next big ship he's going after as well. :-)

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 02, 2009 10:17 PM (Fe6uK)

24 I can't remember who said it, and I can't seem to find a quote. But essentially one of the framers was asked what arms the people should own. They said those that were not dangerous or unusual. When asked to define dangerous or unusual the framer said something to the effect of. Any weapon a normal soldier would likely be trained to use. As "normal soldiers" are trained in the use of everything from grenades, and medium and light machine guns, then it is likely that crew serves and what not would be viewed as acceptable.

Posted by: Matt at March 03, 2009 08:54 AM (rHW2R)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

And why do they keep freedom-hating urban Democrats?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:29 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 18 words, total size 1 kb.

Mike at Cold Fury pinged me to let me know that Bubba is organizing a demonstration in front of the North Carolina State Legislature tomorrow to remind them that our rights Shall Not Be Infringed:

February 4, 2009
2:00 till 6:00pm.
Raleigh, North Carolina
W. Jones St, from Salisbury St to Wilmington St,
facing the State Legislature.

Join with hundreds of fellow Americans, peaceably assembled to seek a redress of grievances from government officials who are not respecting our Constitutional Civil Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

As American citizens , We have a responsibility to protect and preserve ALL of the rights, freedoms and protections guaranteed ALL Americans by the Bill of Rights and the 13th, 14th, 15th and 19th Amendments. These are our Constitutional civil rights and liberties, they are a birth right of ALL Americans extended to all naturalized citizens.

Call them Constitutional Rights, Civil Rights or Civil Liberties they are one and the same and mean as much to tens of millions of gun owners, conservatives and Constitutionalists as do other Civil Rights to other groups of people.

No more gun bigotry, No more infringement.

In addition to the gun bans currently being advocated by the Obama White House and some members of Congress, there are some moves afoot here in North Carolina (and in other states) where MoveOn.Org-affiliated groups and individuals are pushing for gun registration, ammunition licensing, and other pre-confiscatory schemes.

If you can make it, be there. If you aren't nearby, perhaps you might be able to find or organize a similar event near you.

Μολὼν λάβε

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:04 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 276 words, total size 2 kb.

Despite numerous public claims in the past that he would leave gun owners alone, reinstating the Assault Weapons Ban and enacting other restrictions are very much on Barack Obama's "Urban Policy" agenda.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/urban_policy/

Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.

The Tiahrt Amendment does not unduly restrict law enforcement investigations; to the contrary, it keeps law enforcement agencies honest, making sure they cannot abuse gun trace data. Both the BATFE and FOP (Fraternal Order of Police) oppose the release of the information protected by the Tiahrt Amendment citing a threat to on-going investigations and to the lives of undercover officers and informants.

So if law enforcement agencies get all the trace data they need to solve specific crimes and law enforcement itself is against repealing Tiahrt, why would Obama be for it? Some would speculate that Obama's fellow gun-banning proponents such as Chicago Mayor Daley and New York Mayor Bloomberg might find a way to use this data to fire off another round of lawsuits hoping to cripple or bankrupt the gun industry.

As for "commonsense measures," the man who tried to corrupt constitutional scholarship and doled out funds to some of the most rabid anti-gun groups in the United States simply has no credibility for having common sense on the matter, as he's supported outright bans and has been openly hostile to firearm owners in the past.

As for the infamous "gun show loophole," it is completely false, a myth. It simply doesn't exist.

The same gun store dealers that perform background checks at their retail locations are required by law to perform those same background checks at gun shows. Private sellers have never been required to perform a background check anywhere, whether selling it in a person-to-person sale at a gun show or in their home. The only reason to push for such legislation is to further erode the rights of Americans and expand government control in your lives.

As for "childproofing guns," there is no proven or near-term solution that can both render a firearm inoperable for some users and still leave it reliable enough for use as a self defense weapon for law enforcement or civilian use. Various gimmicks have been trotted out in the past; all have been commercial failures because the inherent unreliability of such systems compromises the confidence of the shooter, and their faith in the tool.

Further, "childproofing guns" is not something that can be done retroactively, meaning tens of millions of existing guns would either need to be grandfathered—rendering the law immediately useless—or the guns themselves would have to be modified to comply with the law at taxpayer expense. How many billions of our tax dollars does President Obama intend to spend assuring compliance of a law that makes a potentially deadly tool unreliable in the hands of those most prone to needing it in a time of life-threatening danger? That's a rhetorical question, by the way. Expansive gun laws aren't about saving lives, but asserting control.

As for reinstating the laughably ineffective Assault Weapons Ban—which Joe Biden still inexplicably like to take credit for authoring despite its utter failure—this too, is an attempt to control the lives and rights of law-abiding Americans, and an attempt that has a well-documented history of accomplishing next to nothing.

During the life of the ban (1994-2004) semi-automatic rifles and pistols increased in sales and became more widespread. So-called "assault rifles" and high capacity magazines sold in higher numbers than ever before during the ban. It did so because then Senator Biden and his fellow gun-banners are idiots, outlawing cosmetic features, knowing that a law affecting how the guns actually work would never stand a constitutional challenge. As a result, firearms that were "assault weapons" the day before the ban drops several scary-looking features that did not slow their rate of fire or affect their accuracy, and were legal again the very next day.

Below on the left is the infamous TEC-9 that Congressmen and Senators made such a big deal of being a preferred weapon of gangs and drug dealers. Beside it is the cynically-named AB-10, the "After-ban" version of the exact same gun that was legally on store shelves the day the ban took effect.

The law did not save lives, though it did have one interesting, unforeseen consequence: the creation of an entire new market of small, powerful handguns designed for concealed carry.

While the high capacity magazine ban portion of the ban raised the cost of magazines for existing models, it also had the unintended consequence of convincing gun designers that if they were restricted to guns that only carried ten-round magazines, then these guns needed to be small, light, concealable, and powerful. As concealed carry laws were becoming more widespread across the country during this same ten years, this new market exploded, creating a market niche and even created entire companies to cater to that market where none had before existed.

Barack Obama continues to lie to the public about his intentions towards our Second Amendment rights, but may end up doing nothing more than making the American people more heavily armed, and the shooting industry among the most recession-proof.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:15 PM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 956 words, total size 7 kb.

When I wrote Six Months Under The Gun for Pajamas Media, one aspect of carrying a concealed weapon that I decided not to cover was what you should do with your firearm if you have to use a public toilet. While it can constitute a legitimate dilemma when you gotta go gotta go gotta go right now, I figured people would be able to figure it out on their own.

I was wrong.

The man escaped with a few cuts to his arm, but the toilet made out much worse. Police say a man's gun fell out of its holster while he pulled up his pants after using the bathroom at a Carl's Jr. restaurant Tuesday. The gun fired when it hit the floor and shattered the commode.

I'll simply say this: if you are going to carry, you need to carry your firearm in a holster that holds it securely at all times.

I don't know what the specifics of the Utah criminal justice system would say about this particular incident, but as the permit holder is responsible for all negligent discharges no matter how amusing or bizarre it may be, I would not be surprised if his carry permit is revoked as a result of this incident.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:23 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 213 words, total size 1 kb.

The former Just Shoot Me star made a grand gesture to the Phoenix Police Department, giving them funds to equip their officers with AR-15 rifles to counter the firepower of increasingly violent Mexican drug cartels.

The thing is, Spade's donation doesn't seem to be going as far as it should.

The Phoenix Police Department has gotten some high-powered goodies courtesy of actor David Spade.

The one-time Phoenix resident donated $100,000 so that the department can buy approximately 50 AR-15 rifles.

Spade said he wanted to make the donation after seeing a TV news report about Phoenix officers having to buy their own rifles. Spade grew up in the Phoenix area and graduated from Arizona State University.

Phoenix Police Sgt. Alan Hill says the rifles will be given to patrol officers and that the agency was grateful for the gifts.

But how is Spade's donation of $100,000 leading to just 50 rifles for PPD patrol officers?

Even with the tremendous increase in demand due to the election of Barack Obama, the Phoenix Police should be able to get AR-15 carbines for far less than $2,000 a copy that the story seems to indicate.

The Bushmaster Patrolmans' Carbine, an M4-style AR-15 marketed to law enforcement, retails for less than $1,300, roughly the same as a similar version made by Smith & Wesson. And these are premium AR-style rifles at retail prices—there is no reason on the earth that a bulk agency purchase can't buy these rifles for less than a thousand dollars (the automatic M-16 has a replacement to the military of $586).

If Spade's donation is also helping purchase ammunition, magazines, cleaning kits, and/or officer training for these rifles as well, then he's not getting a bad value for his donated dollars. I would hope that his generous donation isn't being squandered on over-priced weapons, or the appearance of the same created by journalists guilty once again of not thoroughly covering a story.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 04:21 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 330 words, total size 2 kb.

I sincerely hope than any journalist ignorant enough to write "BB-gun" and "snipers" in the same sentence doesn't have firearms of his own, or else he'll likely end up as another subject of my research at the Media Violence Project (or a Darwin Awards candidate).

Savor the idiocy:

Two alleged BB-gun snipers facing felony charges, including assault with a deadly weapon, used a laser scope and a BB gun that looks like a fully automatic AR-15 assault rifle, according to deputies with the Santa Clarita Valley Sheriff's Station.

The arrests Tuesday night capped a two-month shooting spree with more than two-dozen shootings investigated since Nov. 1.

Victims include a 53-year-old man shot in the head and a 13-year-old girl waiting for a bus, both shot with a BB.

Christian Morfin, 18, of Saugus, and a 17-year-old Canyon Country male were booked at the Sheriff's Station on felony charges of vandalism and assault with a deadly weapon in connection with several shootings.

BB guns are not toys and some air rifles can fire BBs or pellets with more velocity than common handgun calibers. They can indeed kill under certain circumstances. That said, BB guns are not assault rifles even under the already incorrect definition widely used by journalists; do we really need them to re-dumb it downward again?

Update: More evidence that many journalists are simply too incompetent to write about firearms.

In April, officials announced that the police force's 13,500 officers would be armed with the M4s. Chicago Police SWAT teams are already equipped with M4 carbines, but officials say pistol-carrying rank-and-file officers are out-gunned.

Used by the U.S. Marine Corps, the M4 is an assault rifle that fires more shots in less time than a conventional handgun.

The obvious problems with Donovan's story:

1. M4 carbines are not commonly used by the U.S. Marine Corps. With the exception of Special Operations forces, the general issue selective combat rifle of the Marine Corps is the M16, a weapon with a barrel almost six inches longer that generates far more bullet velocity and killing power and has a far more effective practical range. The much shorter M4 is prevalent among mounted infantry in the U.S. Army.
2. The M4 does not "fires more shots in less time than a conventional handgun." Both police pistols and the M4s used by the CPD are semi-automatic, meaning they have the exact same rate of fire, one shot per trigger pull, as fast as the shooter can pull the trigger.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:45 PM | Comments (23) | Add Comment
Post contains 434 words, total size 3 kb.

Denied. I'm amazed the idiot even made the attempt, and I hope they investigate whether or not he was in possession of a weapon and the apparent lies on his application and send him back to prison where he belongs.

(h/t Fred R.)

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:22 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 63 words, total size 1 kb.

This past October an eight-year-old was killed on the firing line of a machine gun shoot when he lost control of a Micro Uzi submachine gun he was firing and put a single 9mm bullet into his own head.

Charges have now been filed:

A police chief and a Massachusetts gun club have been indicted for involuntary manslaughter in the death of an 8-year-old boy who accidentally shot himself with a Uzi at an October gun expo in Massachusetts.

Pelham Police Chief Edward Fleury owns COP Firearms & Training, which sponsored the Machine Gun Shoot and Firearms Expo at the Westfield Sportsman's Club, where 8-year-old Christopher Bizilj accidentally shot himself in the head in October after losing control of the 9 mm Micro Uzi submachine gun.

In addition to the manslaughter indictments, Fleury and the Westfield Sportsman's Club were also indicted on four counts each of furnishing a gun to a minor.

Two other men, Carl Guiffre of Hartford, Conn., and Domenico Spano, of New Milford, Conn., also face involuntary manslaughter charges.

This story is an exercise in what happens when a series of bad judgement calls compound upon one another with tragic consequences.

As a father of an eight-year-old myself, I know that my child doesn't yet have the responsibility, situational awareness, or strength to handle any firearm responsibly, and I would never consent to letting her handle a submachine gun.

Even if the father did not know enough about the recoil of fully automatic weapons to know that his child should not be handling one, the instructor should have been familiar enough with the firearm to suspect that a child cannot handle one responsibly.

Third, the owner/operator of the shoot, the Police Chief that has been among those charged, should have posted some sort of minimum qualifications to participate in the shoot, and the physical age and capability to handle such firearms should arguably factor into who is allowed to participate; the dead child obviously and tragically did not meet these standards.

I'm not sure if involuntary manslaughter charges are the best way to handle this negligent death, but if charges are to be brought, I'm disappointed that they were not distributed equally to those obviously the most to blame.

The judgement of the father of the child to allow his child to try to fire a machine gun was the largest mistake in a string of mistakes, and he was not charged.

Perhaps the prosecutor agonized over the possible charges and felt that the family suffered enough with the loss of the child, but this father, in my opinion, is the individual most directly to blame for the death of his child, and if others are charged for this tragic death, he should be as well.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:00 PM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 501 words, total size 3 kb.

Embrace the absurdity of the chainsaw bayonet.

Via the Firearms Blog.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:02 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 17 words, total size 1 kb.

"Be nice. Be Polite. Have a plan to kill everyone you see."

Been there. Done that. Carrying a weapon now, come to think of it.

Update: And while I didn't read this in advance of my experiment, every word holds true:

There is nothing like having your finger on the trigger of a gun to reveal who you really are. Life or death in one twitch — ultimate decision, with the ultimate price for carelessness or bad choices.

It is a kind of acid test, an initiation, to know that there is lethal force in your hand and all the complexities and ambiguities of moral choice have fined down to a single action: fire or not?

In truth, we are called upon to make life-or-death choices more often than we generally realize. Every political choice ultimately reduces to a choice about when and how to use lethal force, because the threat of lethal force is what makes politics and law more than a game out of which anyone could opt at any time.

But most of our life-and-death choices are abstract; their costs are diffused and distant. We are insulated from those costs by layers of institutions we have created to specialize in controlled violence (police, prisons, armies) and to direct that violence (legislatures, courts). As such, the lessons those choices teach seldom become personal to most of us.

Nothing most of us will ever do combines the moral weight of life-or-death choice with the concrete immediacy of the moment as thoroughly as the conscious handling of instruments deliberately designed to kill. As such, there are lessons both merciless and priceless to be learned from bearing arms — lessons which are not merely instructive to the intellect but transformative of one's whole emotional, reflexive, and moral character.

The first and most important of these lessons is this: it all comes down to you.

No one's finger is on the trigger but your own. All the talk-talk in your head, all the emotions in your heart, all the experiences of your past — these things may inform your choice, but they can't move your finger. All the socialization and rationalization and justification in the world, all the approval or disapproval of your neighbors — none of these things can pull the trigger either. They can change how you feel about the choice, but only you can actually make the choice. Only you. Only here. Only now. Fire, or not?

A second is this: never count on being able to undo your choices.

If you shoot someone through the heart, dead is dead. You can't take it back. There are no do-overs. Real choice is like that; you make it, you live with it — or die with it.

A third lesson is this: the universe doesn't care about motives.

If your gun has an accidental discharge while pointed an unsafe direction, the bullet will kill just as dead as if you had been aiming the shot. I didn't mean to may persuade others that you are less likely to repeat a behavior, but it won't bring a corpse back to life.

These are hard lessons, but necessary ones. Stated, in print, they may seem trivial or obvious. But ethical maturity consists, in significant part, of knowing these things — not merely at the level of intellect but at the level of emotion, experience and reflex. And nothing teaches these things like repeated confrontation with life-or-death choices in grave knowledge of the consequences of failure.

There's a certain kind of freedom that comes with the responsibility of carrying arms that is hard to properly express to those who don't. People who have done so have tried to tell me that before, but it isn't something that translates easily to print. Yes, guns can take lives.

But far more often, experience truly bearing arms help hone and reveal character.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:14 AM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 656 words, total size 4 kb.