Idle Threats

From My Cold Dead Hands!

We've all heard the slogan about taking our guns from our cold, dead hands. But is it really that way? How many gun owners would really resist? How many would defy the government? It's one of those questions that cannot be answered directly without experience. But is it true that we don't have any experience by which to judge?

Perhaps not.

In a recent Page Nine email from Alan Korwin, the founder of Gunlaws.com, one of his contributors named "Counterintuitive Man" recently opined the following;

During Katrina, when obedient slavish Americans meekly turned over their guns, handle -- not bullets -- first, to cooperative authorities, the gun show buyers were preparing by stockpiling. The assumption was that authorities were preparing to take the guns from their warm live fingers with either a smile (we're from the government and we're here to save you) or with a tough gritty face, at gunpoint. Not one gun owner fired one shot during the Katrina confiscations, to avoid "news" broadcasts that would have said, "Crazed maniac shoots at peaceful peace officers maintaining neighborhood safety after disaster, and is shot dead in a hail of police gunfire along with his entire family and dog; neighbors thank police for their brave efforts and propose statues; dead gunman may have had mental problems, motive is still unknown, police found 300 rounds of live assault ammunition in his flooded compound bunker; more news at six."

The revolution will not be televised. It will not be brought to you in three parts by any sponsor, and it will not feature guns taken from cold dead fingers.

He does have a point. And a good one.

Aside from all the slogans, rhetoric and chest-thumping, American gun owners remain law-abiding, even in the face of what many of us see as unlawful acts by the government. Internet armchair warriors brag about giving up their guns bullets first, but when police show up, much of that spirit melts away into compliance.

The question is why?

Because American gun owners have faith in their system of government. There is a large percentage of the gun owning public that believes the system will correct the wrongs committed by the government. They would rather fight using the legal system than "turn outlaw" by shooting at police. This speaks well of the average American gun owner - that he would rather argue the legalities before a court than begin taking lives or injuring people.

In a positive light, when the anti-gun lobby makes statements that gun owners can "just flip out" or "just start shooting" over trivial matters, we can point to the lack of resistance after Katrina to show that gun owners are primarily law-abiding. If there was any time where resistance could be excuseable, it would have been at that time, when police were not available to respond to calls.

Before making the brave statement "from my cold, dead hands", think about what such an act will do to your life. The media certainly isn't going to paint you as a patriot standing against the illegal use of power. Nor are gun owners across the country going to hear how you're standing off police because they want to violate the constitution, and then rush to your aid. Not unless people can get the word out quickly and with credibility. Otherwise, the last three words in your epitath could be "film at eleven".

Reasons To Carry

Why Carry?

Because some men are just Evil

I could easily call this column Reality 101 and it'd work. These are real individuals, not actors. This is the real, dirty, gritty life some people live. These are people who will murder you for the coins in your pocket (or $2 in your wallet).

Every once in a while a news story reminds us that there are people in the world who are simply nothing more than animals. They prey on others for their own gain and care nothing about the consequences of their actions.

It doesn't matter that this was a black on white crime. Black, brown, white or purple-spotted, the skin color makes no difference. They could have easily been white kids and my response would be the same. Animals belong in cages.

So it was on the night of June 18th, 2008. Two Texarkana teens, Demarius Cummings and his cousin James Broadnax had smoked some marijuana and were looking for some kind of action. Riding the buses in Dallas, they decided to commit a robbery and boarded a DART train for Garland, Texas. Why go to Garland? Because, as James Broadnax put it...

Cuz that's where all the rich white folks stay at, y'know what I'm sayin'?

Demarius Cummings claims they were not planning on committing murder in Garland, only robbery. They had stolen their aunt's "chopper" (a Kalashnikov rifle) to swap on the street for a pistol, and taken the handgun on the trip. The two discussed killing, but Cummings claims he did not believe it would happen. Broadnax concealed the pistol, and the two boarded the night train to Garland.

Around half past midnight, in Garland, the two teens spotted Matthew Butler and Stephen Swan as they left Butler's Zion Gate Records, a Christian music studio. The two business-men stopped to chat and smoke cigarettes in the parking lot near Butler's car.

The teens approached the two men and asked for a cigarette. Suddenly, Broadnax pulled his gun. Without warning or hesitation, he shot Swann, then Butler. As each man struggled to get back up, Broadnax shot them again, this time in the head, killing them. The killers rifled the pockets of the dead men, getting a whole two dollars, and the keys to Butler's car. They drove Butler's tan 1995 Crown Victoria to Dallas, and hid the pistol.

The next morning they switched the license plates at the home of a relative, pawned a few tools found in Butler's car, and tossed Stephen Swann's ID out the car window as they left in the stolen automobile heading back to Texarkana. There, they were apprehended after a traffic violation.

A bicyclist had discovered the two dead men's bodies lying in a pool of sticky blood and spent shell casings at about 1:00 AM the previous night. Both criminals are charged with capital murder. Bond is set at one million dollars each. Both victims are dead.

The video below is a jail interview of James Broadnax. The video is chilling in that it shows just how callous and uncaring the killer is about his victims and the impact his actions will have on the families of his victims.

Caution: Graphic Language!

Because his life was "hell", Broadnax uses that as an excuse to brutally murder two men to get something he didn't have. Their stuff. He did not give them any chance to survive nor does he show any remorse for killing them.

Reason to Carry #83

It's shocking the number of You Tube videos that show crimes occurring. Type in "sucker punch" in the search bar and you get plenty of videos. But this one I selected below shows just what kind of human excrement exists on our streets and the their attitudes towards others.

The story, as I understand it, is that a production crew was doing a documentary on drugs. When they attempted to interview this man, he went wild and then demonstrated that he wasn't afraid of "nuthin'".

Warning: Very Graphic Language!

I'm sure many of you feel like I do. Had it been my car, his attack at the driver's window would have earned him a 230-grain frontal lobotomy. A touch of chlorine to the gene pool, as it were.

These are the kinds of animals that the gun-control lobby fails to acknowledge. The kind that will kill you for trivial gain. The kind who will take what they want instead of working for it honestly.

The next time you argue with anti-gun types, ask them if to look up Broadnax on You Tube and then tell you if this is the kind of person they seek to protect with new gun laws. Because that's what their laws do by disarming the honest citizens.

Random Access

More Random Thoughts

Today's Diversion: Mars - The red planet's name brings up many thoughts and memories of science-fiction adventures. But Arthur C. Clarke's wise observation that "the universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine" rings true. Check out this story and the astounding images from Mars.

The .327 Federal Magnum

After looking at the data, I think the .327 Magnum is the cartridge the .32 H&R Magnum should have been all along. I will acknowledge that H&R had to tone down the performance for their less robust designs. But they could have really impacted the market if they had pushed a bit harder.

The .327 Magnum does a few things that a .357 Magnum revolver won't. First, it has an excellent ratio of energy-to-recoil. That is, the low recoil belies the amount of muzzle energy it puts out. Second, it can put six rounds into the same space as five .357 rounds. This extra shot is comforting as few people have ever complained about having too much ammo in a fire-fight.

The lower recoil means that a larger number of people who would otherwise use marginal rounds like a .32 or .380 ACP can now carry something more effective. Who are these people? Most will say women, but there are men who are recoil shy too. Or people with arthritis in their hands for which recoil is painful.

Let's face it. The .357 Magnum is a great, versatile cartridge. But in its most effective loadings, it produces a ferocious blast and muzzle flash accompanied by wrist wrenching recoil, especially in concealable snubby revolvers. The .327 Magnum, though, reduces that recoil and flash considerably out of a 3-inch revolver. I suspect that the noise will be sharp and loud since the cartridge operates at pressures beyond that of the .357 or .44 Magnum.

If you look at energy figures, the .327 Magnum fits neatly between the power of a 9mm and the .357 Magnum. It just about duplicates the power range of the .40 S&W in a smaller, easier to use package. The .327 Magnum produces between 350 and almost 500 foot-pounds of energy at the muzzle. The 9mm tops out into the low 400's. The best performing .357 defense load makes about 585 ft-lbs, although full goose gonzo loads will top out around 700 ft-lbs.

Better than a 9mm and about equal to the .40 S&W. That's not bad for something you can slip into your pocket. And the comparisons even get better in short barreled guns. Most of the .357 data is published for 4-inch barrels which means you lose some velocity in a 2 or 2.5" revolver. But all of the data for the .327 Magnum is based on the 3 1/6-inch Ruger SP-101.

When it comes to versatility, the .357 Magnum is still one of the best. Especially if you include the .38 Special loadings. But if we compare all of the .32 caliber loads to the .38/.357 loads, we see the little .32 has quite a bit of versatility. The chart below shows the range of performance between the .32 and .357 caliber cartridges.

As the chart shows, the .38/.357 caliber has a large useful range. However the .32 caliber has about as much useful range, stopping short of the .357. Quite impressive for a small caliber.

If you are already heavily invested in the .38/.357 caliber, with guns, holsters, reloading equipment as well as shooting ability, the .327 Federal Magnum may not offer you much. However, a first-time gun owner or someone who doesn't want the recoil of the .357 Magnum should be well armed if they select the .327. They can practice with mild .32 S&W Long loadings or even .32 H&R Magnums. These equate with shooting .38 wadcutters and .38 +P to practice with.

Cost will certainly be a factor with any new cartridge. There is no economy of scale, which means they'll be more expensive. But a huge number of people buy a gun, shoot about 50 to 100 rounds through it and it sits in a drawer for years. So the expense for many will be minimal. For active shooters, however, reloading will cut expenses considerably. Reloading spent .327 brass to .32 H&R Magnum levels will prolong the brass life.

This little cartridge begs for a single action six-gun too. The performance is like the old .32-20 which means it'll be potent medicine for coyotes and similar vermin. With a longer barrel, at least one article says the factory ammo can hit 1600 ft/sec (in a 6 1/2-inch barrel). That drives the muzzle energy up over 600 foot-pounds. One can only speculate how well it would perform in a small lever-rifle to accompany a six-gun, but the SASS cowboy shooters would flock to it, I'm sure.

If S&W were to bring back their Model 16, perhaps with a traditional looking magnum underlug, it would look like a small-bore Model 19. If it was available in a 4-inch and 6-inch model it might sell quite well. Though my preference would be a 3-inch M&P style Scandium lightweight that would be similar to the old Model 12.

Random Thoughts Today

To understand what a handgun is, we should define it. This definition should do fine:

Entry: hand·gun

Function: noun

Date: 20th century

A compact, portable and concealable one-handed, all-weather personal defense weapon, capable of being successfully employed by men, women and youngsters of varying sizes and degrees of skill, from contact-distance out to 50 yards, against one or multiple attackers, with potentially lethal results, and the sight of which can cause attackers to cease or withdraw.

Yup. That'll do fine.

Guns in the Home

Many gun control laws were passed to increase safety in the home. "Guns in the home are dangerous" we are told. "There is a substantial risk people will be injured in a home that contains a gun" says the VPC. Just where are these homes and who lives there?

I purchased my first handgun 34 years ago, in 1974. My first long gun, a Marlin .22 bolt rifle, was purchased the prior year. In the years since, no one has been injured by any of my guns unless you count cutting a finger on a sharp edge or the morning I dropped my 1903 Springfield on my little toe.

Since purchasing my first gun, I graduated college, worked in 4 different fields, with 13 different job titles in 8 companies, got married, got divorced, had room mates, got rid of them, had girlfriends, including one long term live-in relationship, bought & sold 4 motorcycles, 3 cars, my father died and I lost a nephew, had good bosses and lousy ones, was unemployed for two years and much more. Zero injuries, zero fatalities.

Where's all this danger and risk?

Good News

ABC News reporter and Libertarian John Stossel has an excellent column on the Second Amendment and self-defense in the New Hampshire Union-Leader.

We have seen the collapse anti-gun laws in Morton Grove and Wilmette in Illinois. Other cities are undoubtedly looking at their laws, deciding if they should do something now or wait until a suit is filed. But even better news comes from the Nevada Chapter of the ACLU. Breaking with the National organization in New York, a chapter of the ACLU had publicly stated it's intent to defend the Second Amendment as it defends other constitutional rights. Time will tell if they are as "creative" in defending our right to arms as they have been elsewhere.

I was pleasantly surprised by a Chicago Tribune article on guns and suicide. Editorial board member Steve Chapman's piece is a must read. This is in direct contrast of the Tribune's previous, uncredited editorial to Repeal the Second Amendment. Perhaps Chapman can ask the other editorial board members if they'd like to comment on the U.K'.s problems. After banning guns and suppressing the "Gun Culture", their news media complained about replica guns and Airsoft guns. Now, papers are bemoaning the "Knife Culture" as a serious threat. New laws ban many knives in public. What will be next? The "Cricket Bat Culture"?

Are they really that stupid? (Part II)

Yes - They really are!

Washington D.C. got it's head handed to it by the U.S. Supreme Court over their handgun ban. It was clearly unconstitutional the court said, to deprive people of the right to self-defense and their right to own handguns (as well as other guns).

So here we have the "emergency" D.C. laws, just released by the D.C. city officials. In my view, they are just begging for a federal court to declare them in contempt and inches from having a court declare they have violated their oath of office. See the pamphlet D.C. is handing out here.

The D.C. council needs a swift kick in the ass from the courts. Their "new" restrictions still require guns - to be unloaded, disassembled or trigger locked, except when there is a "threat of immediate harm to a person" in the home.

Acting Attorney General Peter Nickles, said residents could neither keep their guns loaded in anticipation of a problem nor search for an intruder on their property. The porch is off-limits, he said, as well as the yard and any outbuildings.

Well, let's see... Mr. Nickles says you can't have your gun loaded "in anticipation" of a problem. That would seem to rule out a loaded gun on the nightstand or in a secure lockbox (that thousands of people use). Thus, we are back to the situation where one must first see or hear something before loading the gun. By which time it may well be too late.

Seems like a denial of self-defense rights to me. Especially when you consider that D.C. is seeking to limit residents to only revolvers and derringers and that most citizens aren't going to be able to legally practice with speedloaders.

And what does Nickles mean by "search for an intruder on their property?" Does that mean I must remain in whichever room I've loaded the gun? What about my children? Or what about my 85 year old mother watching TV downstairs? Or does Nickles simply mean that going outside with the gun is prohibited? Can I shoot the man on my front lawn about to throw a molotov cocktail at my front door?

To qualify to register a gun in D.C., besides the usual lack of felony convictions (and D.C. adds indictments) you must not suffer from a physical defect which would make it unsafe for you to possess and use a firearm safely and responsibly. Such as? About the only think I might think of here is someone who has no fingers or who is blind. Does arthritis count? What about someone with Parkinson's?

Also, you must not be found negligent in any firearm mishap causing death or injury to another human being. Amazing what "dangerous" things the D.C. council can fabricate out of nothing. I wonder if they will include such "mishaps" that occurred in a war-zone?

To obtain a handgun in D.C. the new regulations require;

• Proof of residency (D.C. Driver's license)
• Criminal Background Check
• A written examination or test
• Pay a fee ($48)
• Fingerprinting
• Provide two (2) passport sized photographs of yourself.
• A ballistics test of the firearm
• Good vision
• No semiautomatic pistols allowed

The first four requirements are, at this juncture, "reasonable" for those who are control freaks. But I do have issues with their restrictions, as would most of you.

For purchases of a new firearm, the purchaser already undergoes an NICS "prohibited person" background check. And a new handgun will not have had a chance to be used in any crime, so both the background and ballistic checks are a waste of taxpayer dollars.

Fingerprinting is a gray area. I object to it from the standpoint that it is largely unnecessary. It'll cost you $35 to be fingerprinted. It treats those wishing to exercise their constitutional rights as a criminal.

Paying a fee should not be necessary to enjoy one's constitutional rights. Poll taxes are illegal. You cannot tax or require a fee to speak out or go to church. D.C. will charge a $13 fee per firearm to register it. So it will cost you an extra $48 to exercise your right in D.C.

A written test for which there are written study materials might be acceptable. But if California is any example, both the test and study materials will contain propaganda, such as "Unloaded and locked firearms in the home save thousands of lives every year." If a lot of people fail the test, we'll know it's merely a method to deny their rights.

D.C. Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier said the entire process could take "weeks or months." This is despite the fact that the pamphlet issued by her own department say it will take 14 days. Which is it "Chief"? Let us know when you get your lies straight.

"Weeks or months", of course, is unacceptable. A right delayed is a right denied. Especially in the case of a new handgun. In the meantime, the handgun sits where, exactly? At what point does the District become responsible for damage, loss or lack of care? One can imagine it taking 3 months to get through the process, only to find your new, $721 gun covered with rust due to poor air conditioning or neglect by the district.

I wish I could suggest that some D.C. residents "test" the program by purchasing some odd caliber guns. Submitting a .38-40 or .41 Magnum might make testing expensive or difficult for the department. And it might delay their procedure unacceptably. Is anyone moving to D.C. who owns a nice old .455 Webley or perhaps a .41 Long Colt revolver?