The Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments on a purely Second Amendment-based case, D.C. v Heller. This is the much anticipated case to determine if the Second Amendment guarantees and individual right or some sort of quasi-right of a State.
The case involves Washington D.C.'s 1976 gun-ban that prohibits registering new handguns after 1976 and requires any firearms stored in the home to be unloaded and locked up or partially disassembled. The plaintiffs challenged the law as a violation of Second Amendment rights and the District's Federal Court of Appeals agreed. This sets up a difference of legal opinion. Both the 5th Circuit court and the D.C. Court have taken the stance that the Second Amendment guarantees and individual right. This is opposition to the other Federal courts who adhere to the "collective" rights theory (that the right is a State's right to have a militia). Now it's up to SCOTUS to settle the issue.
As previously reported, the D.C. administration's stance is an arrogant one of "whatever the amendment guarantees, it doesn't apply to us, so we can make any laws we want." And their arguments amount to one of social expediency - crime is way to high but if we ban handguns it will bring social order. One can easily see the "slippery slope" to this argument. If social utility is the measure, then why not fight the war on drugs by eliminating the 4th Amendment's protections against random searches of people and their homes?
The Supreme Court, apparently not satisfied with the phrasing of the issue to be resolved, re-wrote the question (as it sometimes does to broaden or narrow the issues to be argued) with specific wording. The question to be argued before the bench is now worded as follows.
Whether the following provisions — D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 — violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?
The first listed section bars registration of pistols if not registered before Sept. 24, 1976; the second bars carrying an unlicensed pistol, and the third requires that any gun kept at home must be unloaded and disassembled or bound by a lock, such as one that prevents the trigger from operating.
This question will require the justices to decide whether a person must belong to some form of "state-regulated militia" to be protected by the amendment. This gets right to the heart of the question of militia-membership, as argued by anti-gun groups.
Political pundits have long learned to avoid predicting with the Supreme Court will decide. But I do think there is a good possibility that the justices will lean towards a plain-reading of the amendment and its guarantees.
I say this because in the last two decades a number of scholars have researched the history of the Second Amendment, both legal and political, and created a large body of support for the individual rights model. And these have survived the filter of peer-review by other scholars and academic reviewers. This is in direct contrast to some works by anti-gun "researchers" who refuse to disclose their sources or, as in one case, so fraudulently distort history that he was forced to resign from a prominent university.
A number of scholars and academics who previously supported the collective-rights theory have "switched" to support the individual rights model. More telling, however, is none of the scholars has switched from an individual rights view to the collective view. Even Harvard's Lawrence Tribe, often considered an authority on the constitution by SCOTUS, has embraced the individual rights model, although he still retains his belief that gun ownership can be tightly regulated.
What will it mean if the Supreme Court throws out the Washington D.C. laws as violating the Second Amendment? It will depend on the wording of the court's ruling, of course. But unless the court completely rejects the individual rights model, every future challenge to a gun-control law will be on firmer legal footing and judges will not be able to ignore the Second Amendment.
Recommended reading:
To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right
Dr. Joyce Lee Malcolm; ISBN-13: 978-0674893061
20 November 2007
05 September 2007
Random Bits
D.C. vs. Parker Supreme Court AppealWhatever right the Second Amendment guarantees, it does not require the District to stand by while its citizens die. -- District of Columbia Attorney General Linda Singer commenting on the Appeal of the D.C. v Parker decision.
We gather the District of Columbia's legal staff isn't quite sure what rights the 2nd Amendment guarantees, but whatever it is, it doesn't apply to them!
Opinion Polls shows support for gun rights
This is bad news for the likes of the Brady Campaign, Jesse Jackson, NYC Mayor Bloomberg and others.
Zogby International early this month found in a poll of 1,020 Americans that 66 percent of the American voting public sees no need for new gun control laws.
A recent Internet survey by the Washington Post's freely distributed Express revealed that 85 percent of 1,658 poll respondents favored allowing college students who have permits to carry guns on campus.
This is bad news for the likes of the Brady Campaign, Jesse Jackson, NYC Mayor Bloomberg and others.
Zogby International early this month found in a poll of 1,020 Americans that 66 percent of the American voting public sees no need for new gun control laws.
A recent Internet survey by the Washington Post's freely distributed Express revealed that 85 percent of 1,658 poll respondents favored allowing college students who have permits to carry guns on campus.
California Senator would disarm disaster victims
In discussions of civil unrest, such as that following hurricane Katrina, California State Senator Jack Scott (D-Pasadena) said he would be pleased if the governor would order confiscation of firearms in the home. California NRA members posted a short video on YouTube slamming Scott.
While California doesn't have hurricanes, it does have earthquakes and it doesn't take too much imagination to envision how ugly things could get if most of the 6.8 million residents around San Francisco Bay were suddenly thrust into chaos. I would think his response would be no different if the emergency had a societal cause -- like the Rodney King riots - that spread beyond a limited area.
In either case, police resources would be stretched very thin, even with whatever National Guard units that could be deployed. Neighbors who could band together to protect their own neighborhoods would be intentionally stripped of their ability to defend against looters or malcontents by an illegal decree.
That Senator Scott would ask the Governor to divert scarce, overworked police resources from stopping crime to confiscate lawfully owned firearms just shows he is from another planet. Voice your opinion to Senator Scott at http://dist21.casen.govoffice.com/
In discussions of civil unrest, such as that following hurricane Katrina, California State Senator Jack Scott (D-Pasadena) said he would be pleased if the governor would order confiscation of firearms in the home. California NRA members posted a short video on YouTube slamming Scott.
While California doesn't have hurricanes, it does have earthquakes and it doesn't take too much imagination to envision how ugly things could get if most of the 6.8 million residents around San Francisco Bay were suddenly thrust into chaos. I would think his response would be no different if the emergency had a societal cause -- like the Rodney King riots - that spread beyond a limited area.
In either case, police resources would be stretched very thin, even with whatever National Guard units that could be deployed. Neighbors who could band together to protect their own neighborhoods would be intentionally stripped of their ability to defend against looters or malcontents by an illegal decree.
That Senator Scott would ask the Governor to divert scarce, overworked police resources from stopping crime to confiscate lawfully owned firearms just shows he is from another planet. Voice your opinion to Senator Scott at http://dist21.casen.govoffice.com/
Katrina Kountdown
It has been two years since New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin and his police illegally confiscated legally owned firearms from N.O. citizens. Despite the efforts of lawyers, the city has refused to return the guns to their owners and continues to stonewall efforts to do so. The real question is when will either the Federal judge or the Second Amendment lawyers grow a pair and demand the arrest and prosecution of Nagin and his bureaucrats for willful civil rights violations (2nd, 4th and 5th amendment rights).
Nagin made his effrontery worse by showing up for the "civil rights march" for in Jena Louisiana. Apparently, the only civil rights Nagin is concerned with are those that will give him favorable press coverage.
It has been two years since New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin and his police illegally confiscated legally owned firearms from N.O. citizens. Despite the efforts of lawyers, the city has refused to return the guns to their owners and continues to stonewall efforts to do so. The real question is when will either the Federal judge or the Second Amendment lawyers grow a pair and demand the arrest and prosecution of Nagin and his bureaucrats for willful civil rights violations (2nd, 4th and 5th amendment rights).
Nagin made his effrontery worse by showing up for the "civil rights march" for in Jena Louisiana. Apparently, the only civil rights Nagin is concerned with are those that will give him favorable press coverage.
Woes for Gun Control
We note the resignation of vehemently anti-gun Broward County (FL) sheriff Ken Jenne amidst a corruption investigation involving federal tax evasion and mail fraud charges. Looks like the Brady Campaign lost yet another spokesperson for their cause.
And then there is this about CeaseFire
The Illinois Auditor General released a 28-page audit of the CeaseFire violence prevention group detailing misappropriation of funds, receiving money outside of the parameters of payment agreements and having work started by its partners without written agreements. See the article here.
We note the resignation of vehemently anti-gun Broward County (FL) sheriff Ken Jenne amidst a corruption investigation involving federal tax evasion and mail fraud charges. Looks like the Brady Campaign lost yet another spokesperson for their cause.
And then there is this about CeaseFire
The Illinois Auditor General released a 28-page audit of the CeaseFire violence prevention group detailing misappropriation of funds, receiving money outside of the parameters of payment agreements and having work started by its partners without written agreements. See the article here.
Oregon Teacher Challenges Campus Gun Prohibition
An Oregon teacher is challenging the anti-gun policy of her school board. The teacher has a valid carry permit as well as a restraining order against her ex-husband. She fears for her and her daughter's safety, as many women in similar circumstances might. Oregon law prohibits local governments, that would include school boards, from restricting possession of firearms by concealed firearm permit holders. Despite this, however, the so-called "educators" in the school board claim they can ignore the statute because... well, because they can.
"It's our responsibility to provide a safe learning environment for our students and a safe working environment for our employees," schools attorney Tim Gerking said in an interview late last week. "We feel that would not be fostered by allowing folks, whether they have the authority or not, to bring weapons onto campus, in particular firearms — loaded firearms."
If what Mr. Gerking says is true, then shouldn't he insist on disarming police officers, when they enter the campus too? Even though they have "authority" it would be logical that cops leave their guns at the station rather than bring them onto campus. Or are the police exempt because they are somehow imbued with magic powers?
Engraved Firearms
Over the years I have seen firearms engraved in dozens of different ways and styles. Some don't appeal to me based on the style or the execution, but some just take my breath away. While the expense of most engraved guns means many folks don't shoot them very often, a couple of engravers I have spoken with say they always appreciate seeing one being fired or carried. It means the craftsmanship is being seen by others and the gun isn't just a piece of rarely seen artwork. One engraver who offers his services is just finishing work on a S&W Model 27 revolver and the work is breathtakingly handsome.
The work shown here is by Wayne D'Angelo who used to engrave guns for Smith & Wesson as well as Colt. This is the appearance before sending the gun out for rebluing.
This is classic "bank note" style engraving that really enhances the look of any handgun. This full-coverage job turns a run of the mill 3 1/2" barreled Model 27 into something unique and eye catching.
Want to surprise a loved one with a new gun but you want it to be extra special? Consider engraving. You don't need use full-coverage to set it apart from the mass-produced guns out there. Simply engraving your loved one's name along with some embellishment that represents them, their favorite sport, a university logo, their military service unit or something similar will make for a treasured gift. If you are interested in engraving services you can see more at Wayne D'Angelo's website http://dangeloengraving.com/.
No, Wayne hasn't paid us for this plug nor do we have any arrangement with him. An artist's work speaks for itself and Wayne's work speaks volumes.
Gun Control Is A Failure
Living in California as I do, you might presume that I get a number of opportunities every month to discuss gun control. You'd be right. But I'm no longer arguing that we have rights guaranteed under the Constitution or that some new law is not needed.
I'm now arguing that gun control is a complete failure.
Why am I doing this? Because it's true. All one has to do is compare the number and types of crimes since 1968, when the Gun Control Act originated, to those prior to 1968. Not only that, with each new law, politicians have promised us that the new law would "reduce crimes with guns" and would make life safer for all of us. But, like campaign promises, it hasn't happened.
Since passing the sweeping 1968 Gun Control act, under public pressure after the assassinations of JFK, RFK and MLK, Congress has layered ever-increasing restrictions on the manufacture, distribution, sale, ownership and use of firearms.
Among the laws peddled by the anti-rights Gun-Control Lobby have been age limitations, ammo restrictions, waiting periods, zoning restrictions, special security requirements, the banning of the mythical "assault weapon", limits on magazine capacities, limits on exercising your rights to once-a-month, gun-free zones, gun licensing, owner licensing, gun registration, outright bans and others.
None of these restrictive laws, individually or collectively, have shown any significant impact on crimes committed against people or even crimes committed with guns. A government report showed that the so-called "Brady Bill", touted as a "significant step" in reducing gun crimes, had no measurable effect on crime. We have also seen how so called gun free zones have turned school campuses into defenseless victim killing zones.
"Yes, but..." begin the anti-rights crowd when they go on the defensive. They will tell you that existing laws didn't go far enough or that the laws were compromised in legislative sessions. They'll tell you that if only they could enact comprehensive control (read as piles of red tape) the numbers would show they are right. Really?
Great Britain has, since 1997, had a defacto ban on almost all firearms, especially handguns. Yet, as the 20th Century closed, the UK began arming it's famous "Bobbies" with guns for the first time in over 100 years. One story in the British media described the "gun problem" by saying that in the last ten years there have been more reported gun crimes than in the thirty years before the ban. So much for a utopian gun control example.
Only one set of laws shows any appreciable statistical impact on personal crimes. Not too surprisingly, these laws are not restrictive, but liberally permissive in the classical sense. These laws allow citizens with clean records to legally carry concealed firearms after taking the state mandated training. While restrictive laws do little or nothing to impact crimes against people, these "shall-issue" concealed carry laws can be shown reduce crimes against people. Why? Because criminals are no longer sure their victims are defenseless. A victim who fights back is fighting for their life, which the criminal threatens in robbery, rape and other crimes. And they fight to win. Because of this, it is the criminal who is at a disadvantage, not the citizenry.
So, what should we be asking our legislators to do? We should be tell them to focus on controlling criminal behavior instead of trying to control access to inanimate objects. We should also make it clear that criminals can not profit from their illegal actions should they be injured during a crime. If they step "outside the law" by instigating the crime, they waive their rights to civil suits against their victims. To further discourage repeat offenders we should implement three-strikes laws for felony convictions to keep the serious criminals off the street. Three-strikes laws have been remarkably effective in reducing crime because repeat offenders are most likely to commit multiple crimes before being caught.
The Gun-Control Lobby continues to push against a door marked "pull", never quite realizing that, even after 40 years, pushing just isn't going to open the door. At least, not until they realize they have been pushing in the wrong direction.
I'm now arguing that gun control is a complete failure.
Why am I doing this? Because it's true. All one has to do is compare the number and types of crimes since 1968, when the Gun Control Act originated, to those prior to 1968. Not only that, with each new law, politicians have promised us that the new law would "reduce crimes with guns" and would make life safer for all of us. But, like campaign promises, it hasn't happened.
Since passing the sweeping 1968 Gun Control act, under public pressure after the assassinations of JFK, RFK and MLK, Congress has layered ever-increasing restrictions on the manufacture, distribution, sale, ownership and use of firearms.
Among the laws peddled by the anti-rights Gun-Control Lobby have been age limitations, ammo restrictions, waiting periods, zoning restrictions, special security requirements, the banning of the mythical "assault weapon", limits on magazine capacities, limits on exercising your rights to once-a-month, gun-free zones, gun licensing, owner licensing, gun registration, outright bans and others.
None of these restrictive laws, individually or collectively, have shown any significant impact on crimes committed against people or even crimes committed with guns. A government report showed that the so-called "Brady Bill", touted as a "significant step" in reducing gun crimes, had no measurable effect on crime. We have also seen how so called gun free zones have turned school campuses into defenseless victim killing zones.
"Yes, but..." begin the anti-rights crowd when they go on the defensive. They will tell you that existing laws didn't go far enough or that the laws were compromised in legislative sessions. They'll tell you that if only they could enact comprehensive control (read as piles of red tape) the numbers would show they are right. Really?
Great Britain has, since 1997, had a defacto ban on almost all firearms, especially handguns. Yet, as the 20th Century closed, the UK began arming it's famous "Bobbies" with guns for the first time in over 100 years. One story in the British media described the "gun problem" by saying that in the last ten years there have been more reported gun crimes than in the thirty years before the ban. So much for a utopian gun control example.
Only one set of laws shows any appreciable statistical impact on personal crimes. Not too surprisingly, these laws are not restrictive, but liberally permissive in the classical sense. These laws allow citizens with clean records to legally carry concealed firearms after taking the state mandated training. While restrictive laws do little or nothing to impact crimes against people, these "shall-issue" concealed carry laws can be shown reduce crimes against people. Why? Because criminals are no longer sure their victims are defenseless. A victim who fights back is fighting for their life, which the criminal threatens in robbery, rape and other crimes. And they fight to win. Because of this, it is the criminal who is at a disadvantage, not the citizenry.
So, what should we be asking our legislators to do? We should be tell them to focus on controlling criminal behavior instead of trying to control access to inanimate objects. We should also make it clear that criminals can not profit from their illegal actions should they be injured during a crime. If they step "outside the law" by instigating the crime, they waive their rights to civil suits against their victims. To further discourage repeat offenders we should implement three-strikes laws for felony convictions to keep the serious criminals off the street. Three-strikes laws have been remarkably effective in reducing crime because repeat offenders are most likely to commit multiple crimes before being caught.
The Gun-Control Lobby continues to push against a door marked "pull", never quite realizing that, even after 40 years, pushing just isn't going to open the door. At least, not until they realize they have been pushing in the wrong direction.
24 June 2007
Happy Birthday to Me!
For decades I have been a fan of the .41 Magnum cartridge. It started in the mid 1970's when I purchased a Model 58 plus a duty holster and a box and a half of ammo from a coworker who had just transitioned to a Colt Commander. For those not familiar with the Model 58, think of a heavy-barreled S&W Model 10 Military & Police on steroids.
The photo at left is from an on-line forum and depicts an early Model 58 in fabulous condition.
That Model 58 stayed with me for almost 30 years until a burglary in 2004 and it was one of 4 guns I really wanted to get back. So far, no luck there.
In January of this year, I found a Model 58 with goodyear grips and wearing a nickle finish in a bay area gun shop. Since these are scarce as turkey lips, bought it. Just handling it brought back fond memories and shooting it showed that it was just what I had come to love about the gun.
With the "Police" loading - a 210 grain bullet at just under 1,000 fps - it delivers over 450 ft-lbs of energy at the muzzle. That's between 20% to 30% more power than .45 ACP or .38 +P. The only problem was that it had a nickle finish. Beautiful as it is, I'm not a big fan of nickle guns. The constant worry that the finish can be chipped, the shiny finish can reflect light at a critical moment, either into your eyes or enough that your opponent can locate you in the dark and cleaning them requires a little more care to avoid scratches.
Then, last week a friend of mine emailed me to inquire about a blued Model 58 he'd seen in a local gun shop. It was an older gun with an "S" serial number prefix and he said it had a mild case of rust-freckling on the backstrap and part of the frame. So I drove 80 miles to look it over. With gas prices here hovering around $3.30 a gallon, a Model 58 is one of the few guns I'd drive my green gas-hog pick-up truck to see.
In the ambient lighting of a gunshop it didn't look too bad. But I pulled out my Surefire 6P flashlight and the Xenon lamp revealed the true extent of the corrosion. Sadly, the gun didn't only have rust-freckling but some larger areas of corrosion under the triggerguard. It appeared that it sat in a drawer at one time, probably near a bathroom where moisture from the shower could reach it. But none of the rust appeared to have pitted the gun...yet. Reluctantly I paid a princely sum for a gun in this condition, but with nearly new specimens hitting the $800 range (or more!) I thought this might be a decent shooter. If necessary, I could always clean it up and send it to either S&W or Ford's custom gun refinishing for a professional job. And I justified all of this by reminding myself that my birthday was coming up in four days.
Not that I'll be able to have it on my birthday, however. California has a ten day waiting period. Thus, I'll pick up this S&W hand-cannon the day before Independence Day. But those ten days are agonizingly slow, especially since I feel like a kid with ten days until Christmas. I can only imagine how it feels to someone who is waiting those ten days because they need a gun now. I wrote previously about Global Warming and I can make a lot of comments about the stupidity of attempting to "fix" it. But it seems to me that California should repeal this 10-day waiting period and use NICS because of Global Warming. Why? It would elminate a second trip to the gun shop - especially ones far away - and lower pollution while saving oil! If most states can rely on NICS, why can't California? (Yes, we all know it is really to inconvenience gun owners and has little to do with "safety".)
Once I get this previously owned and slightly neglected Model 58 out to the range, I'll update here with a range report. For those of you who are fans of the .41 Magnum and the Model 58 in particular, read Payton Miller's article in the June issue of Guns & Ammo on this gun.
The photo at left is from an on-line forum and depicts an early Model 58 in fabulous condition.That Model 58 stayed with me for almost 30 years until a burglary in 2004 and it was one of 4 guns I really wanted to get back. So far, no luck there.
In January of this year, I found a Model 58 with goodyear grips and wearing a nickle finish in a bay area gun shop. Since these are scarce as turkey lips, bought it. Just handling it brought back fond memories and shooting it showed that it was just what I had come to love about the gun.
With the "Police" loading - a 210 grain bullet at just under 1,000 fps - it delivers over 450 ft-lbs of energy at the muzzle. That's between 20% to 30% more power than .45 ACP or .38 +P. The only problem was that it had a nickle finish. Beautiful as it is, I'm not a big fan of nickle guns. The constant worry that the finish can be chipped, the shiny finish can reflect light at a critical moment, either into your eyes or enough that your opponent can locate you in the dark and cleaning them requires a little more care to avoid scratches.Then, last week a friend of mine emailed me to inquire about a blued Model 58 he'd seen in a local gun shop. It was an older gun with an "S" serial number prefix and he said it had a mild case of rust-freckling on the backstrap and part of the frame. So I drove 80 miles to look it over. With gas prices here hovering around $3.30 a gallon, a Model 58 is one of the few guns I'd drive my green gas-hog pick-up truck to see.
In the ambient lighting of a gunshop it didn't look too bad. But I pulled out my Surefire 6P flashlight and the Xenon lamp revealed the true extent of the corrosion. Sadly, the gun didn't only have rust-freckling but some larger areas of corrosion under the triggerguard. It appeared that it sat in a drawer at one time, probably near a bathroom where moisture from the shower could reach it. But none of the rust appeared to have pitted the gun...yet. Reluctantly I paid a princely sum for a gun in this condition, but with nearly new specimens hitting the $800 range (or more!) I thought this might be a decent shooter. If necessary, I could always clean it up and send it to either S&W or Ford's custom gun refinishing for a professional job. And I justified all of this by reminding myself that my birthday was coming up in four days.
Not that I'll be able to have it on my birthday, however. California has a ten day waiting period. Thus, I'll pick up this S&W hand-cannon the day before Independence Day. But those ten days are agonizingly slow, especially since I feel like a kid with ten days until Christmas. I can only imagine how it feels to someone who is waiting those ten days because they need a gun now. I wrote previously about Global Warming and I can make a lot of comments about the stupidity of attempting to "fix" it. But it seems to me that California should repeal this 10-day waiting period and use NICS because of Global Warming. Why? It would elminate a second trip to the gun shop - especially ones far away - and lower pollution while saving oil! If most states can rely on NICS, why can't California? (Yes, we all know it is really to inconvenience gun owners and has little to do with "safety".)
Once I get this previously owned and slightly neglected Model 58 out to the range, I'll update here with a range report. For those of you who are fans of the .41 Magnum and the Model 58 in particular, read Payton Miller's article in the June issue of Guns & Ammo on this gun.
Global Cooling?
"Climate is what we expect. Weather is what we get."
--Proverb
Everyone seems to want to do something about Global Warming. I have noticed a trend in the media to press very hard to remind us that we have to do something and we have to do it now. In the meantime, quietly, in less well-known publications, the so-called "settled science" is springing leaks left and right. I read this National Post article out of Canada that claims we are in for a period of global cooling, not warming. Curious, I found that there is plenty of information on how sunspots affect our climate. What does this have to do with guns? Consider that at least one California city has raised the issue of taxing any products that put carbon into the air. This includes toner cartridges for your laser printers, production of carbon-fiber products and, of course, your charcoal BBQ. Sooner or later, one of these bureaucrats will realize black-powder is charcoal based. Never mind that its use is so small as to be insignificant on a global scale, once the bureaucrats can find a way to tax gun products out of existence, they'll certainly try.
--Proverb
Everyone seems to want to do something about Global Warming. I have noticed a trend in the media to press very hard to remind us that we have to do something and we have to do it now. In the meantime, quietly, in less well-known publications, the so-called "settled science" is springing leaks left and right. I read this National Post article out of Canada that claims we are in for a period of global cooling, not warming. Curious, I found that there is plenty of information on how sunspots affect our climate. What does this have to do with guns? Consider that at least one California city has raised the issue of taxing any products that put carbon into the air. This includes toner cartridges for your laser printers, production of carbon-fiber products and, of course, your charcoal BBQ. Sooner or later, one of these bureaucrats will realize black-powder is charcoal based. Never mind that its use is so small as to be insignificant on a global scale, once the bureaucrats can find a way to tax gun products out of existence, they'll certainly try.
19 June 2007
Thrust, Parry, Riposte, Touché!
18 June 2007
Living in California, I get to hear a lot of anti-gun opinions. It usually does no good to try to argue with facts, to point out the history of the RKBA or legal issues. But it sometimes works to make a witty comeback that sticks in their minds.
I found these on the web and just had to share them with our members.
Guns are only made to kill.
Sure makes 'em handy for self-defense, doesn't it?
Even if one child were saved, banning guns would be worth it.
Uh-huh. But wouldn't it also be true that if a gun saved a child's life, having guns would be worth it?
Only the military and police should have guns.
Tell that to someone who survived the "purges" by Stalin or Chairman Mao, or Cambodia's killing fields, or the Holocaust.
Guns cause crime.
The Earth is flat, the sun revolves around the Earth, blacks are inferior to whites... oh, we aren't discussing myths and falsehoods?
I don't believe in guns.
Apparently, neither did Nicole Simpson.
Why do you carry a gun?
Because it gets all scratched up if I drag it behind me.
I don't know why you need a gun.
Ever hear of someone being killed in a robbery? Well, there ya go!
Guns should be banned.
We tried banning booze once too, look how well that turned out.
Living in California, I get to hear a lot of anti-gun opinions. It usually does no good to try to argue with facts, to point out the history of the RKBA or legal issues. But it sometimes works to make a witty comeback that sticks in their minds.
I found these on the web and just had to share them with our members.
Guns are only made to kill.
Sure makes 'em handy for self-defense, doesn't it?
Even if one child were saved, banning guns would be worth it.
Uh-huh. But wouldn't it also be true that if a gun saved a child's life, having guns would be worth it?
Only the military and police should have guns.
Tell that to someone who survived the "purges" by Stalin or Chairman Mao, or Cambodia's killing fields, or the Holocaust.
Guns cause crime.
The Earth is flat, the sun revolves around the Earth, blacks are inferior to whites... oh, we aren't discussing myths and falsehoods?
I don't believe in guns.
Apparently, neither did Nicole Simpson.
Why do you carry a gun?
Because it gets all scratched up if I drag it behind me.
I don't know why you need a gun.
Ever hear of someone being killed in a robbery? Well, there ya go!
Guns should be banned.
We tried banning booze once too, look how well that turned out.
Father's Day 2007
17 June 2007
I hope all of you had a good Father's day. Those of you who are fathers, I hope you were able to spend quality time with your children, letting them know how blessed they make you feel. I also hope those who could, called or visited their fathers and let them know you're thinking of them. Nothing warms a parent's heart like hearing from their kids, unless it's hearing the love in their voices.
I visited my dad on Father's day at his resting place in Golden Gate National Cemetery. Dad left us in October of 1983 and there are few days when I don't miss him. I think back on the things he did for me, from teaching me basic gun safety to help with my geometry homework. He taught me to play golf, to respect your elders, be courteous to ladies, avoid trouble when you could and defend yourself when you must. We weren't a big "outdoors" family, unless you include golf. Many weekends were spent trying to knock a little white ball into a hole with tools ill-suited to the purpose. When I started shooting I learned that shooting is a lot like golf. The only person you really compete against is yourself. More control, don't tense up, focus, concentrate.
My dad was not perfect and I'm well aware of his faults. But he made up for those faults by teaching my older brother and myself things we needed to know. I don't miss the lectures I received for misbehavior, nor his stern look when I tried to wiggle out of yardwork. But I do miss him. A lot.
So I visited my mother after visting dad. Now in her mid-eighties, mom keeps our family - one that now includes two beautiful great-grandchildren - firmly rooted. We talked about dad, some of the personal moments they had, how she worried during his around-the-world flight in the Air Force, and how he, unknown to us, worried about taking care of his family. It's been 24 years since he left us, but he will always be a part of us. If I can leave you with any thoughts at all, it would be don't wait for Father's day to be important in your child's life, do it every day.
I hope all of you had a good Father's day. Those of you who are fathers, I hope you were able to spend quality time with your children, letting them know how blessed they make you feel. I also hope those who could, called or visited their fathers and let them know you're thinking of them. Nothing warms a parent's heart like hearing from their kids, unless it's hearing the love in their voices.
I visited my dad on Father's day at his resting place in Golden Gate National Cemetery. Dad left us in October of 1983 and there are few days when I don't miss him. I think back on the things he did for me, from teaching me basic gun safety to help with my geometry homework. He taught me to play golf, to respect your elders, be courteous to ladies, avoid trouble when you could and defend yourself when you must. We weren't a big "outdoors" family, unless you include golf. Many weekends were spent trying to knock a little white ball into a hole with tools ill-suited to the purpose. When I started shooting I learned that shooting is a lot like golf. The only person you really compete against is yourself. More control, don't tense up, focus, concentrate.
My dad was not perfect and I'm well aware of his faults. But he made up for those faults by teaching my older brother and myself things we needed to know. I don't miss the lectures I received for misbehavior, nor his stern look when I tried to wiggle out of yardwork. But I do miss him. A lot.
So I visited my mother after visting dad. Now in her mid-eighties, mom keeps our family - one that now includes two beautiful great-grandchildren - firmly rooted. We talked about dad, some of the personal moments they had, how she worried during his around-the-world flight in the Air Force, and how he, unknown to us, worried about taking care of his family. It's been 24 years since he left us, but he will always be a part of us. If I can leave you with any thoughts at all, it would be don't wait for Father's day to be important in your child's life, do it every day.
Random Thoughts
15 April 2007
Guns purchased for self-defense are like your car insurance. You may be a safe driver, always wear your seat-belt, double-check your blind spot and pay careful attention to your driving, but you still buy auto insurance. You pay large sums of money to protect yourself and your assets just in case something happens, even if it isn't your fault. Likewise, many people spend large sums to purchase a gun for self-defense and then spend almost half the gun's price in ammo to practice with it. The gun, like insurance, is there to protect the owner, their family and their assets, just in case something happens.
----- o -----
Speaking of costs, a neighbor of mine, here in California, wanted to know how to purchase a handgun. It seems a family member is something of a black sheep and will be getting out of prison soon, something he and his wife dread. He wanted to know how much it would cost to buy a decent 9mm pistol and practice enough to be comfortable with it. When I told him to expect to shell out between $900 and $1,200 I thought his eyes would pop out. I explained he should expect to pay about 1/2 to 2/3 of the price of the gun in ammo and range fees to practice, plus the cost of cleaning supplies, and a lockbox (he has two nice kids). When he got through sputtering, I told him the good news - he only has to pay that much once, not annually like his insurance. The on-going costs of ammo, range fees and cleaning supplies amount to less than about $200 a year for non-competitive shooters.
----- o -----
I have to admit to being biased in favor of the older Smith & Wesson revolvers. Not only did my family own a Victory model, but my first duty and carry guns were S&W's. Lately, however, I've been trying to find S&W target grips for a couple of my revolvers and they seem to be scarce in supply and expensive. I see all sorts of after-market standard or "Magna" grips, but few grips patterned after the factory "target" grips. I think someone is overlooking a profitable market here.
----- o -----
In a gunfight, the most important thing to do is to score effective hits. The second most important thing is to make hits. Why is this an important distinction? Because the human body is a remarkable resilient design, able to take some serious damage before it quits. Most of us have been taught to fire center-of-mass (COM) to stop an attacker and targets reflect that concept. We have seen instances where people are hit center-of-mass and still keep going or even survive. A shot to the lungs, which occupy most of the chest, are not immediately incapacitating (Andrew Jackson carried a musket ball in one lung for over 30 years). Even a shot to the heart may not cause rapid incapacitation because the muscle can sometimes close up around a puncture with little leakage.
Look at a diagram of human anatomy and it quickly becomes clear that center-of-mass is a narrow, vertical line between 4 to 6 inches wide, from the head to the pelvis. In this area are the spine, heart, and the major veins and arteries of the body which transport blood to organs and muscles. In self-defense, you want to hit an area about as wide as the subject's neck anywhere in this vertical zone of the body. Preferrably higher, but certainly on this center of mass line
Because the spine and major arteries are closer to the back, when shooting at an angle, you need to imagine your target's position relative to the body. At shot centered on the sternum from a 45-degree angle can miss the critical zone by several inches.
Guns purchased for self-defense are like your car insurance. You may be a safe driver, always wear your seat-belt, double-check your blind spot and pay careful attention to your driving, but you still buy auto insurance. You pay large sums of money to protect yourself and your assets just in case something happens, even if it isn't your fault. Likewise, many people spend large sums to purchase a gun for self-defense and then spend almost half the gun's price in ammo to practice with it. The gun, like insurance, is there to protect the owner, their family and their assets, just in case something happens.
----- o -----
Speaking of costs, a neighbor of mine, here in California, wanted to know how to purchase a handgun. It seems a family member is something of a black sheep and will be getting out of prison soon, something he and his wife dread. He wanted to know how much it would cost to buy a decent 9mm pistol and practice enough to be comfortable with it. When I told him to expect to shell out between $900 and $1,200 I thought his eyes would pop out. I explained he should expect to pay about 1/2 to 2/3 of the price of the gun in ammo and range fees to practice, plus the cost of cleaning supplies, and a lockbox (he has two nice kids). When he got through sputtering, I told him the good news - he only has to pay that much once, not annually like his insurance. The on-going costs of ammo, range fees and cleaning supplies amount to less than about $200 a year for non-competitive shooters.
----- o -----
I have to admit to being biased in favor of the older Smith & Wesson revolvers. Not only did my family own a Victory model, but my first duty and carry guns were S&W's. Lately, however, I've been trying to find S&W target grips for a couple of my revolvers and they seem to be scarce in supply and expensive. I see all sorts of after-market standard or "Magna" grips, but few grips patterned after the factory "target" grips. I think someone is overlooking a profitable market here.
----- o -----
In a gunfight, the most important thing to do is to score effective hits. The second most important thing is to make hits. Why is this an important distinction? Because the human body is a remarkable resilient design, able to take some serious damage before it quits. Most of us have been taught to fire center-of-mass (COM) to stop an attacker and targets reflect that concept. We have seen instances where people are hit center-of-mass and still keep going or even survive. A shot to the lungs, which occupy most of the chest, are not immediately incapacitating (Andrew Jackson carried a musket ball in one lung for over 30 years). Even a shot to the heart may not cause rapid incapacitation because the muscle can sometimes close up around a puncture with little leakage.
Look at a diagram of human anatomy and it quickly becomes clear that center-of-mass is a narrow, vertical line between 4 to 6 inches wide, from the head to the pelvis. In this area are the spine, heart, and the major veins and arteries of the body which transport blood to organs and muscles. In self-defense, you want to hit an area about as wide as the subject's neck anywhere in this vertical zone of the body. Preferrably higher, but certainly on this center of mass line
Because the spine and major arteries are closer to the back, when shooting at an angle, you need to imagine your target's position relative to the body. At shot centered on the sternum from a 45-degree angle can miss the critical zone by several inches.
Springfield's EMP-9
9 April 2007
I finally managed to get a look at the new Springfield EMP 9 pistol yesterday and I'm impressed with this small pistol. It's a scaled down version of the 1911, chambered for 9mm with just the right number of "add-on" features. Balance, ergonomics and handling qualities are very good. This thing is about the size of a Kahr K-9 pistol and feels lighter. There are only two shortcomings with this pistol. Because it is a smaller-than-normal 1911, parts won't interchange with standard 1911 parts. I guess this is to be expected due to the size. However, I'd suggest purchasers procure replacement extractors, springs and a firing pin in case the gun is discontinued. Why would it ever be discontinued? That's the second shortcoming - price! My retailer had it listed at $1,105 and said that he had gotten this first one on a discount! Nominal retail price is $1,250. It's a nice gun, but for that price, I can buy a pair of other 9mm pistols.
I finally managed to get a look at the new Springfield EMP 9 pistol yesterday and I'm impressed with this small pistol. It's a scaled down version of the 1911, chambered for 9mm with just the right number of "add-on" features. Balance, ergonomics and handling qualities are very good. This thing is about the size of a Kahr K-9 pistol and feels lighter. There are only two shortcomings with this pistol. Because it is a smaller-than-normal 1911, parts won't interchange with standard 1911 parts. I guess this is to be expected due to the size. However, I'd suggest purchasers procure replacement extractors, springs and a firing pin in case the gun is discontinued. Why would it ever be discontinued? That's the second shortcoming - price! My retailer had it listed at $1,105 and said that he had gotten this first one on a discount! Nominal retail price is $1,250. It's a nice gun, but for that price, I can buy a pair of other 9mm pistols.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)