Saturday, February 9, 2008
Friday, February 8, 2008
The extreme levels of PSH and nonsense in his post completely ignores the fact that both places he mentions were Brady Endorsed "Gun Free Zones". Making it that much easier for these individuals w/ a history of issues to commit violence.
And of course he has to mention that he used to be mayor of Ft. Wayne, Indiana.
WASHINGTON --Bipartisan majorities in both the House and the Senate are backing gun owners in a landmark Supreme Court case.
Fifty-five senators and 250 representatives have signed onto a brief that urges the justices to strike down the ban and assert that the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to own guns for their protection.
I'm betting the Dems that signed on are primarily freshmen and that none of the "Old Guard" gun banners were part of this.
So we know that the BC and CFNJ support full handgun bans. By not signing this, can we then infer that the other Congressthings also support the ban?
KIRKWOOD, Mo. - Ten days after losing a federal lawsuit against this suburb he insisted harassed him, a gunman stormed a council meeting, yelled "Shoot the mayor!" and opened fire, killing two police officers and three city officials, authorities and witnesses said.
Yet Gov't buildings are verboten to CCW in MO:
Unlawful use of weapons--exceptions--penalties.
571.030. 1. A person commits the crime of unlawful use of weapons if he or she knowingly:
(8) Carries a firearm or any other weapon readily capable of lethal use into any church or place where people have assembled for worship, or into any election precinct on any election day, or into any building owned or occupied by any agency of the federal government, state government, or political subdivision thereof; or
Endorsement does not authorize concealed firearms, where--penalty for violation.
(5) Any meeting of the governing body of a unit of local government; or any meeting of the general assembly or a committee of the general assembly,
Good Job Brady Campaign.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Late last week, gun violence prevention groups - the Brady Campaign, the Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence and the Violence Policy Center - sent a letter to Secretary Kempthorne indicating that "given the heightened security risks in the post-9/11 world, as well as contemporary concerns about poaching on federal lands, we find the Reagan Administration regulation to be both necessary and appropriate."
A news release by a retiree organization states:
The current rules in no way prohibit guns in parks, but they do work to discourage that tiny percentage of irresponsible individuals who would engage in poaching and target practice at the expense of irreplaceable natural and historic sites."
Because CCW holders are the ones poaching and shooting people. Someone who breaks the law by poaching or is stupid enough to have "target practive" in a National Park isn't being "discouraged" by any restrictions.
These are the real "Gunloons" and they're going completely off the deep end.
Good ol' Josh Sugarmann has taken time out searching Google to put in his .02.
Hattip to Kaveman for the links.
So unless the delegates all go over to Huckabee's campaign (doubtful but possible), McCain will get the GOP nod. I guess he realized when he lost WV that either one would throw their weight behind the other to defeat him that he had no chance.
'I don't think that they're really duped,'' Margolis said. ''What's happening is the gun sellers are not necessarily enforcing the laws that we have in this state, and we've never made them responsible for the enforcement.''
Translation: "We're going to make you a criminal even if you followed the law because guns are scary and we don't like them."
The House rep Evan Jenne who introduced it is a member of the "PostSecondary Education Committee". That's a scary thought.
But I'm sure that this is just a "no-brainer" bill that will never get out of committee and that we should trust our legislators never to pass a law that can be expanded on or abused. Right Gman?
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
The first part I'm going to cover is the basic uniform. Prices and gear listed in this section are from Ranger Joe's so they may be higher or lower depending on preferences of companies and specific items. I chose them as a base because they offer a fairly complete line of militarily accepted uniforms and field gear.
The ACU Army Combat Uniform. Standard issue for all Army ground forces.
I've seen some places selling 'Army style ACU's' that have a similar camo pattern but clothing design based off the old BDU's, a darker ACU camo and other variations. For the purposes of this section, I'm going to focus on military issue and equivalent.
The ACU consists of:
ACU Top: $36.00
ACU Pants: $36.00
Rigger Belt: $ 8.50
Boots (tan) $65.00 - $150.00
Patrol Cap $10.95
T-shirt (sand) $12.00 (3-pack)
IFF Squares $ 2.00
For those not wanting to go the ACU route, there's also the option of traditional BDU's/DCU's (depending on environment), Multicam, or surplus MARPAT. New BDU's are usually about 10% or more cheaper than listed above with surplus available all over the place. Multicam, sometimes worn by Special Forces, follows the same uniform design as the ACU and is a superior camo pattern IMO so I admit I'm biased by adding it here. Prices are usually 10% or more higher. Authentic US Marine MARPAT isn't regularly available commercially that I'm aware of although various imitations are around as well as purchasing surplus. Probably not a good idea though to wear originals around other Marines if you weren't one yourself. They tend to get touchy.
Basic Ponchos run about $15 while Field Jackets are $65 for foul weather. Items such as Parka's and other heavier or more specialized weather gear can run anywhere $20 to over $250.
There are also a wide variety of specialty shirts, socks, boots, caps, nametags, padding, facemasks, glasses, goggles, and many other bits and pieces that are available for the ACU uniform.
So a basic MilSpec quality uniform will cost one about $200. Not really so much to ask.
Modern Militia Series
- Part 1: The Uniform
- Part 2: Field Gear I
- Part 3: Firearms
- Part 4: Field Gear II
- Part 5: Vehicles
- Propaganda Corps
Basically what it boils down to that the Modern Militia is there to complement the Standing Army and other first responders such as the Police, Fire Fighters, EMT's, etc. Supporting them in everything from acting as Sniper/Scouts, Civil Patrol, Traffic Control, Hose handlers, Litter Bearers, or any other job that may be required.
So obviously, unlike what the PuSH'ers wish I was doing, I won't be advocating overthrowing the Gov't , teaching how to build bombs, or rehashing paranoid conspiracy theories. I'm publishing my ideas on what we can do to help out our society in these aforementioned instances and to be as effective and efficient as we can when doing so.
This is a series I've been mulling over ever since I did my earlier uniform comparisons. I'm planning on covering areas such as uniforms, equipment, training, and anything else that I may come up with or have suggested to me that sounds like a good idea.
Modern Militia Series
- Part 1: The Uniform
- Part 2: Field Gear I
- Part 3: Firearms
- Part 4: Field Gear II
- Part 5: Vehicles
- Propaganda Corps
Can we say "disjointed" boys and girls? Isn't this the kind of fear-mongering that he claims is used by the "gun lobby"?
Along w/ the usual contradictions (lies):
Is Brady a "gun ban" organization? Are you really just trying to make all guns illegal in America? Brady believes that a safer America can be achieved without banning guns.
States can earn up to 10 points by “Banning Military-style Assault Weapons,” as well as banning high-capacity ammunition magazines.
Really Paul, is the state of your organization really this sad that your fabrications don't even have a grain of truth to them anymore? Are you going to start resorting to Google studies now?
The numbers aren't based on what laws a particular state HAS to combat crimes w/ firearms, but rather what laws the Brady Bunch WANTS them to have.
There's a reason they left DC off the list this year.
and we wonder why:
173,000 INNOCENT Americans die every year from shootings.
And from the website "MeltGuns":
Guns create hate. If you own a handgun you have to constantly be thinking about who it is OK to shoot and kill. You have to turn people into an "other". Somebody less than you who you now feel you have the right to kill. This is sick.
Most white male gun owners I have spoken to have fantasies of shooting and killing brown skinned people.
Who are the "Gunloons" again?
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Bring heavy and intermediate sniper rifles under the control of the National Firearms Act.
What is an "intermediate sniper rifle" you ask?
Why, they explain that as well:
Some manufacturers may choose to refine the .338 Lapua Magnum, an intermediate round falling in size and power somewhere between the traditional military 30 calibers and the .50 BMG. The .338 Lapua Magnum was designed in the late 1980s "as a long-range European military sniping round," according to sniping expert John Plaster. He advises that its "great speed and heavy weight makes for especially lethal long-range shooting and good penetration against vehicles and aircraft�typical counterterrorist targets�as well as building materials."282 Some manufacturers already offer .338 Lapua Magnum sniper rifles.
According to Forbes, sniper magnate Ronnie G. Barrett plans later this year to make his "boldest move" yet, "when he steps out of the .50-caliber niche with a new .30-caliber tactical rifle designed for police SWAT teams. Barrett hopes that market will boost annual sales to $20 million over the next three years."283 The magazine does not say whether Barrett plans to offer the new SWAT sniper rifle to civilians, but if the past is any guide, it will be. It is not clear whether the new 30 caliber will be a .338 Lapua Magnum...Therefore, a useful strategy for effective control may lie in civil litigation, a strategy that would be enhanced if states passed legislation clearly establishing strict liability for damages resulting from the use or misuse of such weapons. Such litigation could impose tort liability, including punitive damages, for manufacturers, wholesalers, distributors, importers, retailers, and any others who participate in bringing to the civilian market any sniper rifle (in any caliber) or associated gear (such as ammunition or optics) that is used to kill or injure a human being or to damage property.
In short, the gun industry should be held to the strictest standards of legal accountability available for the design and marketing to civilians of military sniper rifles, as detailed in this report.
Military Sniper Rifle? You mean like the Remington 700.
Associated Gear? You mean like every scope out there? All Ammo?
But they're just talking about AP ammo, right? Sure, you keep believing that.
The existing ban on armor-piercing ammunition should be updated and expanded to cover all AP and API ammunition. This would most effectively be accomplished through the promulgation of a performance standard in which ammunition is tested for its ability to penetrate bullet-resistant vests, ballistic glass, and armor,ee as opposed to the existing standard based on the bullet's content.
Guess what? Most "bullet-resistant vests" are designed to stop PISTOL rounds. Not rifle rounds. You're 30 cal of any sort would be categorized as AP ammo.
So yes Virginia, they are coming after your hunting guns. It's not likely they'll succeed, but, by their own admission, it's one of their goals.
Over on Tom Kings Blog, he has a regular poster who goes by the handle Gman. Gman is a self admitted 3 week a year shooter and attacks the NYSRPA, NRA, etc. for overreacting to legislation like gun bans and increased restrictions. He ignores the fact that the political allies of the anti-gunners in NY HAVE passed laws he considers "molehills" and then immediately pushed for more.
What he considers a "principled" stance is to throw gun owners he doesn't associate with under the bus to protect his personal interests for the time being yet can't seem to understand why we don't like him:
Yes, well, maybe it’s because I’m not a full-time shooter, just a three-week-a-year hunter.
But I believe the NYSPRA presents an intractable absolutist stance on too many issues on which the public at large has reached an opposite consensus, and cries wolf on molehill issues. For instance, I am willing to live with magazine restrictions if it preserves the larger right. That doesn’t win me many friends at the range.
And unfortunately, because of my principled stance I am viewed by most people inside the gun lobby as an enemy or naif instead of a moderate ally.
That is exactly the attitude that IANSA exploited to get their laws passed in Australia:
When we were campaigning for the reform of the gun laws in Australia, one of the interesting groups that came out to support the new gun laws was a group called the Professional Hunters Association. They’re the original “Crocodile Dundee,” the macho big guys who control feral animals in the national parks.. And they said they supported the new gun laws because anyone who needed a semiautomatic to kill an animal was a city boy who shouldn’t be out there with a gun in the first place.
So get this Gman, Those aren't "principles" you're touting, that's blatant selfishness. When you're doing the work of the enemy for them, you're not a "moderate ally", you're a stooge and we will consider you an enemy as well.
Third, Sorry all I did not post more in the last couple of weeks, was Busy with the job, and then contracted that nasty fly that appears to be going around. Friday I got home, got up Saturday, and went back to bed. This is the first day I have been up and about. This has not kept my staff from ringing the phone off the hook, was thinking about going in and giving this to everybody….No then things would not get done.
Third did not realize he had windows. To be honest nether did I...Just kidding welcome back Third….
Monday, February 4, 2008
Unfortunately, however, one element thinks they can defend their position by intimidation and deprive others of the right of peaceful assembly.
Now would that be the MMM and VAHV members who tried to get the police to disperse the crowd? You know, the ones going on and on about obtaining permits and enforcing freedom of speech zones in regards to their little spectacle?
As usual, the only defenders of the post are those who have no clue about firearm laws. When called to the carpet, Mr. "Flyonthewall" buzzed away.
Update: Ben responds that he's a "former" board member of the now renamed group. Renamed to play the "safety" card instead of being obvious as a gun ban group.
If the "gun culture" in the US is declining, as the Joyce Foundation claims, and the majority of the population supports gun control, then why are all of the candidates (not just the R's) falling all over eachother for even a miniscule percentage of the gunnie vote?
At first I wondered why Melody had replaced all my furniture and carpets. Then I realized that she had just cleaned up the place. I also discovered that she had rotated the tires and that my window glass was not opaque. They just needed some Windex. Who knew that houseplants were supposed to be watered.
She still has a set of keys so can post whenever she likes.
Quarter of Brits think Churchill was myth: poll
Sun Feb 3, 7:12 PM ET
LONDON (AFP) - Britons are losing their grip on reality, according to a poll out Monday which showed that nearly a quarter think was a myth while the majority reckon Sherlock Holmes was real.
The survey found that 47 percent thought the 12th centurywas a myth.
And 23 percent thoughtprime minister Churchill was made up. The same percentage thought did not actually exist.
Three percent thought, one of Britain's most famous writers, is a work of fiction himself.
Indian political leaderand victor the Duke of Wellington also appeared in the top 10 of people thought to be myths.
Meanwhile, 58 percent thought's fictional detective Holmes actually existed; 33 percent thought the same of W. E. Johns' fictional pilot and adventurer Biggles.
UKTV Gold television surveyed 3,000 people.
So obviously we must base our laws on those who can't tell fantasy from reality. Isn't that a mental condition?