That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.Lautenberg and McCarthy have their priorities exactly backward. It is none of the government's business how much ammunition a free citizen buys, and it is very much the business of the public to know how much, of what kind, and for what purpose is the government buying ammunition. [More]
I've finally reached the point that a so-called "assault weapon" chambered for merely the .50 Beowulf isn't enough for me (although I am of course keeping it, and the 6.5mm Grendel). I needed the real .50 caliber--the one that terrifies the cud-chewers (and certain domestic enemies). Gotta have the .50 BMG.
I'm blaming David Codrea for inspiring me on this. It was from him that I found out that the BATFE was planning to designate .50 BMG upper receivers for AR-15s as "firearms," subject to all the restrictions applied to other firearms.
That was one year ago today, and as often happens when new gun restrictions are being discussed, I was inspired to get the very thing that was to be restricted. The BATFE has not, to this point, moved to implement such a policy, perhaps due in part to the attention David's warning brought to it.
And David certainly cannot be stuck with all the blame. The fact that California democrats Senator Dianne Feinstein and Representative Henry Waxman are both desperately frightened of the .50 BMG's ability to defeat the armor of a politician's limousine, even at long ranges, makes the acquisition of such an arm quite tempting all by itself. As I said before:But what made the idea of getting a .50 BMG AR-15 upper receiver utterly irresistible for me was finding out that there is a way to do it in such a way that the finished gun is a magazine-fed repeater. And as of today, I have what has to be one of the only repeating .50 BMG "pistols" in the world.The common theme here is that Feinstein, Waxman and others seem to have identified .50 caliber rifles as a personal threat to their own lives.
This is a good thing. Those who take it upon themselves to write the laws by which the rest of us must live should fear the wrath of the people they seek to govern. For the nation to be truly free, those who seek to exceed the limits on their power imposed by the Constitution must be made to live in mortal terror of the consequences.
That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.The new law would be confiscatory, in that even owners of banned items owned before the ban would have to surrender them if they could not prove having owned them previously. Quinn even has the gall to claim to be "a strong supporter of the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution– the right to bear arms." His idea of a joke, perhaps.
But trampling the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is not enough for Quinn, because using (abusing) the amendatory veto process in this manner is itself a violation of the Illinois constitution, as Charles N. Wheeler III explains in Illinois Issues . . . [More]
That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.Let us ignore all that, and further, let's ignore the fact that the first ten amendments to the Constitution are not called the "Bill of Needs." In other words, let's accept for now the dubious assertion that not only do we not need these things, but that our lack of such a need justifies Congress banning them.
So, then, how does one square bans justified by a lack of "need," with other gun bans based on lack of sporting use? No one, after all, needs sports, which perhaps explains why the Second Amendment is silent about the "right to keep and bear sporting goods."
Gun ban extremists like Feinstein, Lautenberg and McCarthy would ban guns that (they claim) we don't "need." They also claim the authority to ban guns that (again, they claim) are not suitable for purposes more frivolous than need. What does that leave? [More]
That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.Still, though, even Harris is evidently balking at the pressure the gun ban groups are trying to mount. That would indicate that she understands that a magazine that cannot be removed without a tool is not "detachable." Diamond blade, high speed circular saws are tools, after all, as are plasma cutting torches, and no magazine would stay "attached" for long against efforts to remove them with such tools.
The anti-gun groups, then, are threatening to sue her if she does not redefine the word "detachable." Not particularly surprising--the same groups certainly have a strange way of defining shall not be infringed. [More]
That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.In the end, whether or not Professor Price (and Bill Maher and his guests) like it or not, the Second Amendment is the Constitutional guarantee of the fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms. Amending it out of the Constitution is theoretically possible, but to thwart such an effort, only 13 states would have to resist it. In America, when it comes to fighting tyranny, 13 is definitely a lucky number. And repealing the Second Amendment would still not cancel a right that is, after all, unalienable.
Those who would nullify the right to keep and bear arms had best be prepared to kill--by the tens of thousands--to do it. That's not easy, when the would-be victims are armed. That difficulty is the reason for the Second Amendment. [More]
That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.With at least three, and more probably four, Cabinet-level departments involved with Operation Fast and Furious, it strains credulity to believe that the heads of those departments were somehow unaware of the operation while it was going on, and yet that's exactly what they claim. Are we to believe that low-level bureaucrats took it upon themselves to cross three or four department lines to conduct this operation, without mentioning it to their bosses? [More]
That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.More importantly, it is actually dangerous to argue that government oversight must be abandoned when the economic situation becomes dire. In doing so, one gives an administration with a desire to take actions that would not stand up to scrutiny an incentive to first wreck the economy.
Almost sounds like a variation on Cloward-Piven, doesn't it? [More]
That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.The claim, then, is that although there never was any "gunwalking," the Obama administration has admitted to it anyway, in order "to avoid a rhetorical battle over gun control." Does CNN expect anyone to buy that?
Perhaps so--another recent CNN op-ed tells us, with an apparent intent to be taken seriously, not to be "nosy" about "Project Gunwalker" atrocity:
And sometimes the federal government deems it necessary to get its hands a little dirty in the hopes of achieving something we generally accept as good for the country.The deaths of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, ICE Agent Jaime Zapata, and hundreds of Mexican citizens are merely the result of the federal government getting "its hands a little dirty [or scrambling some eggs, in the words of CNN hero David Voth]," for the good of the country. No wonder they don't like whistleblowers at CNN. [More]
That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.By the way, speaking of "racism," how racist is it for the Obama administration to deliberately arm brutal killers in Mexico with what the gun ban lobby refers to as "military-style assault weapons," but will not allow Hispanic elected and appointed officials near Obama with forks? Good thing for the president that there wasn't a "Project Forkwalker" going on (although the diners were urged to finish their lunch at a "fast and furious" pace). [More]
That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.Maddow will hope viewers don't ask how anyone in law enforcement would have thought this plan would have helped interdict gun trafficking, when not only was the Mexican government left in the dark about the operation, but the BATFE's own personnel in Mexico were, as well. She hopes no one asks how a gun trafficking interdiction plan could have involved ordering BATFE agents to break off surveillance of the suspected traffickers. She certainly hopes no one thinks to ask how a plan that could only "track" the guns by finding them next to dead bodies could possibly be seen as a sensible way to reduce violence. [More]
That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.The most interesting aspect of this, however, might be Matthews' choice of wording to describe what he would like to characterize as the "racist" act of pursuing contempt charges against Holder: "stop-and-frisk." The racial implications of an aggressive stop-and-frisk approach to law enforcement, particularly as implemented in New York City, has been a topic of discussion here more than once. Even rabidly anti-gun New York Times columnist Bob Herbert has had nothing but blistering criticism of Mayor Michael Bloomberg's blatantly bigoted enforcement of his law against being "armed while dark-skinned." [More]
That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.This is a pivotal moment. By claiming executive privilege, Obama is very actively, and publicly, obstructing the investigation. This makes it official that Obama is--at the very least--an accessory after the fact to the crimes referred to as "Project Gunwalker." Obama, who on his very first day of office promised the "most transparent government in history," has now become the "Stonewaller in Chief."
More fundamentally, if, as the administration has argued from the very beginning, Obama had no involvement with, or knowledge of, the "gunwalking," on what possible grounds can he claim executive privilege? Would it be unfair to see this asssertion of executive privilege as something of a confession? [More]
That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.Um--"superior knowledge"? From the man who makes Sergeant Schultz, of Hogan's Heroes, sound as if he is claiming omniscience? How can one claim to have been utterly clueless about the abomination, and also claim to possess "superior knowledge"? Anyone who believes that is gullible enough to believe that the DoJ implemented the Underpants Gnome approach to gun trafficking interdiction. [More]
That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.CSGV would have us beat our swords not into plowshares, but into hammers and sickles, and if that means, to paraphrase Ben Franklin, that we will be destined to labor for those who keep their swords (government monopoly on force, remember), that suits CSGV just fine. [More]
That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.In fact, Holder has himself more than once found himself forced to acknowledge (under oath) the many fundamental differences between this administration's "gunwalking" and older operations. During the November 8 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, in an exchange with Senator John Cornyn (R-TX), Holder found himself making this admission:
[More]Senator, I have not tried to equate the two--I have not tried to equate Wide Receiver with Fast and Furious. . . . Again, I'm not trying to equate the two.
That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend."Guns out; jobs in," he chanted, his audience faithfully parroting him.
As Ms. Pavlich points out, though, protesting against both the gun industry and the weak job market seems to ignore the reality that the gun industry is one of the very few bright spots in today's economy, providing both good jobs and desperately sought tax dollars to both federal and state governments. [More]
That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.In the eyes of statists, that very attitude must be stamped out. A "progressive" society depends on the government for everything, including protection from violence (even, bizarrely enough, from government violence). A society in which the people believe themselves to be the last line of defense against attacks on their lives and liberty will never be sufficiently dependent on a wise, benevolent government's own protection of the people's interests (interests, naturally, that the government defines). [More]
That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.But must it be as bad as all that? In most states, after all, the state police do not play any role in approving (or denying) gun sales. When a gun shop customer wants to buy a gun, the gun dealer dials up the federal NICS system, and finds out whether or not the sale may proceed--no state police involvement whatsoever.
Why not get Illinois out of the business of enforcing federal gun laws altogether? Why not scrap the FOID program, of which the vast majority of states have no equivalent, and do not seem to miss it? [More]
That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.The chilling part, though, is the next sentence. Yee would apparently allow "no debate, no discussion" about effective militia capable arms for Californians. If he feels so free to trample the first two amendments of the Bill of Rights, can his attacks on the other eight be far behind? [More]
Charlotte Gun Rights Examiner
Stumble it!
