If you are anti-guns, or afraid of guns, or just don't like them and don't want them in your house, then this blog is for you.
(It might just change your mind)

Thursday, January 31, 2013


Guns Make Women Safer

Gun rights advocates clobber gun ban proposal
By: Dave Workman

During the Senate Judiciary Committee this week, perhaps the biggest surprise came when Gayle Trotter, a senior fellow with the Independent Women's Forum, told the panel, chaired by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), that "In a violent confrontation, guns reverse the balance of power. An armed woman does not need superior strength."

She further stunned the audience by opposing a ban on semi-automatic rifles.

"Guns make women safer," she stated.

Responding to a question from Ranking Republican Sen. Charles Grassley, she
said "Young women are speaking out as to why AR-15 weapons are their weapon
of choice. The guns are accurate, they have good handling, they're light,
they are easy for women to hold, and most importantly, their appearance; an
assault weapon in the hands of a young woman defending her babies in her
home becomes a defense weapon."

It was a devastating observation from a woman that drew some giggles from
anti-gunners, but it may have struck a nerve with other people.

David Kopel, research director at the Colorado-based Independence Institute
told the panel that the semi-auto ban from 1994 through 2004 was a failure.
He referred to a Justice Department study conducted under then-Attorney
General Janet Reno that concluded the law "had done nothing."


"Law-abiding gun owners will not accept the blame for acts of violent criminals."

 - Wayne LaPierre, president NRA

Upstate New Yorkers need to be taking heed of this case.

A Line In The Sand?

The case of Nathan Haddad should boil the blood of any good American. A twelve-year veteran of the Army, with four deployments, is a decorated combat veteran and now, probably, a felon. His crime: possession of five empty 30-round magazines for an AR-15. The magazines were stowed in the trunk of his car at the time of a traffic stop.

This is called manufacturing a felony and the only reason to do so is to disarm as many people as possible by trumping up charges and pumping up sentences to frighten them into pleading to something that should be thrown out of court the minute the charges are brought.

I had a few minutes to speak with Michael Haddad, Nathan's brother, who has started a legal defense fund.

You can contribute to the fund here:  

I have promised to contribute as much as I can afford and to encourage others to contribute. Michael, like his brother, is a good person just trying to help out

Upstate New Yorkers need to be taking heed of this case.


Haddad was selected in 2012 to be a guest of honor at the dinner by the Philadelphia chapter of Blue Star Mothers and the Union League’s Armed Services Council.


Melinda Roney, NEC’s Logistics Branch chief and Haddad’s supervisor, said she fully understands what kind of asset the former Soldier is to the Army.

“Nathan is the type of employee that supervisors wish they had a dozen of,” Roney said. “He consistently works hard, is good-humored and always goes above and beyond without thinking twice.
“Giving 100 percent of himself comes naturally to Nate,” she added.


Clip vs Magazine (just so you know)

Ok, nitpicking time:

There is no such thing as a "30 round clip".  They don't exist.  Clips, aka stripper clips, are small strips of metal that organize ammunition so that it can be more easily fed into "old style" internal magazines for rifles like the WWII model M1 Garand, or the Mosin Nagant rifle that originated in the 1800's.   They come in 8-10 rounds units, not 30.

Removable magazines on the other hand, like those used by the AR-15, do come in 30 rounds.

Magazines. Not clips.

(No go tell your congressman to ban strippers!)

Momma's got a gun!

Can you feel the sarcasm in this article?

Yes, gun grabbing liberals think we would be better off without the means to defend ourselves   In fact, in a recent article, DHS recommends "hiding or grabbing a pair of scissors" when a mass murder comes to visit.  Because if you want to defend your life, or the lives of your loved ones with a gun, well.... you must be a crazy gun nut!

Crazy gun nut shoots man just for breaking into her house (and threatening her with a gun)

Everybody knows that guns don’t protect people. More guns = more gun crimes. Like this one!
MAGNOLIA, Texas – A home invasion suspect was arrested at a hospital after a mother shot him during the crime at a Montgomery County home, deputies said Wednesday. 
Erin, who asked to be identified only by her first name, told Local 2 she was putting her 6-year-old son to bed when she heard a loud noise coming from her bedroom on Mink Lake Drive Friday night… 
Erin said she turned around and saw three masked men, pointing a gun right at her… 
“Somehow the way it happened, as they were going down the hallway, I told them sometimes I keep money under the mattress, which is not true. But I needed to get to where my gun was,” she said. 
The men followed her to her bedroom. 
“I was pretending to move the mattress. It’s really heavy, so I was trying to move their attention to the mattress because they wouldn’t take their eyes off of me. I needed a split second for them to take their eyes off of me. I said, ‘It might be under here.’ They started talking to each other in Spanish and then a roll of duct tape came out,” said Erin… 
“They all turned around and looked. I grabbed my gun, cocked it, I turned and shot him right in the stomach,” said Erin.
I think it’s pretty obvious what happened here. Some hardworking gentlemen from the Hispanic community were just trying to make a living selling duct tape door-to-door. They were going for the hard sell because times are tough, especially when you’re a minority. Then this demented hillbilly racist went nuts and just started shooting at them. 


EricPeters: Will You Submit & Obey?

By - Eric Peters

In New York, we have a prequel of what’s to come – the repeal of the Second Amendment and summary criminalization of peaceful citizens merely for possessing the means of self-defense, even in their own homes. As in Great Britain, citizens of NY face prison if they use proscribed weapons against murderous thugs – even in their own homes. The tyrants Michael Bloomberg and Andrew Cuomo have made their decision. Now New Yorkers will have to make theirs. And so will the rest of us – if, as seems likely, the federal tyrants succeed in issuing a New York-style fatwa that applies to the rest of the country. Which brings us to the question:

What will you do?

It is a very hard question. Perhaps the hardest question Americans have had to face since 1861. As then, there may be no peaceful way to preserve our rights. There may be blood. As then, one side is absolutely determined to impose its will at bayonet-point. To murder us in the thousands – perhaps millions, this time - if we refuse to submit. There is no reasoning, no discussing. What we face is violence against our persons by people who absolutely will not leave us in peace – no matter how peaceful we try to be – until we have submitted to them utterly and for all time to come. We wish only to be left alone – and demand that our right to defend ourselves against those who will not leave us alone be respected. That self-defense is the most basic of rights – a right conceded even to the lowest animal. They do not acknowledge our rights; they despise the very notion of us having any rights at all. They regard their power over us as limitless in principle – and rage at even the smallest assertion of freedom of action. They loathe our guns because our ownership of guns is an expression of our determination to defend our very lives – and thus, of self-ownership.

And that is what cannot be tolerated. Which is why the current bum-rush to disarm us has become absolutely frantic. The moment is at hand. We will either stand up and be reckoned with as free men – or we will sit down forever and accept any degradation, any humiliation. And in that case, we shall have proved worthy of such treatment. Future generations will look upon us with the same mixture of incomprehension and contempt that our generation looked upon those who meekly lined up naked in queue for their turn at the edge of the pit. Because it will come to that, in time.

For decades, in a slow and incremental way, they have progressively increased their claims on us. On the most intimate details of our private lives. On our literal bodies and those of our children. We no longer enjoy even the vestigial liberty of being free in our own homes. They are everywhere. They recognize no limits, no boundary beyond which they may not assert themselves over us. They read and record our conversations. They demand to know the minutia of our finances. They tell us with whom we must do business – and under what conditions. They lay claim to an unlimited amount of our income. They deny us even the prospect of real ownership of anything more than the clothes on our backs. They assert their “right” – that is, their unchecked power to do us violence – for any and no reason at all, beyond the reason that they have power and we do not. We are on the cusp now of literal, physical enslavement. Of being owned – because we are about to be rendered utterly defenseless.

Legally rendered defenseless.

If that is not just cause for resistance, then there is no cause for resisting anything, ever. Which is exactly the point being insisted upon: That we have no right to resist, because we have no rights. It is our role to Submit and Obey. Immediately, quietly. To anything and everything they tell us to do. To complacently accept as natural and right that our lives are the playthings of others – who may do with us as they please. That our lives do not matter. Because we do not own our lives.

Our lives are owned by them.

If we lose this battle, then we have already lost the war. The rest will be a mopping up operation. Having taken away not merely our guns but succeeded in intellectually defrocking us of the principle of self-defense and self-ownership that possessing arms affirms, it will be a very small thing indeed to take away much else besides.To take away anything – perhaps everything. Why not? We have already surrendered – and thus, already accepted the idea that nothing is off limits, that whatever small measure of vestigial liberty we may still possess is not actually possessed but merely tolerated . . . for the moment. And may be taken from us at any time, at their whim.

A defenseless man should expect no mercy. And a man unwilling to defend himself – and his fellow men – against tyranny deserves none.

Michael Bloomberg and Andrew Cuomo have made their decision. Diane Feinstein and Barack Obama will soon make theirs.

Then it will be our turn.

I have already made mine. It is the same decision made by Joshua Boston (USMC):

“I will not register my weapons…

“I am not your subject…

“I am not your peasant… .”

I am not a “tough guy.” I am not looking for a fight. Rather, I desperately wish to avoid one. I’m a middle-aged American just trying to live my life, work, enjoy my pastimes and my friends and family. To be an American. A free American. I dearly value my life. Which is precisely why, if I am backed into a corner by those who refuse to leave me be – even though I harm none – then I will turn and fight. God help me.

God help us all.


DHS Advice for Defending Yourself Against Mass Murders

"Hide under a desk or grab some scissors"

In a new instructional video from the Department of Homeland Security that was posted on the agency’s Web site just a month after the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut, the nearly four-minute-long video opens with chilling scenes from the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre, the 2009 mass shooting at Fort Hood in Texas, and the 2011 attempted assassination of Gabrielle Giffords.

But the video quickly shifts to hokey footage of office workers scampering under desks, crouching in corners and racing into closets to hide from a rampaging gunman on the loose.
“To protect your hiding place, lock the door if you can. Block the door with heavy furniture,” recommends the male narrator, speaking in measured, authoritative tones.

Richard Feldman, president of the Independent Firearm Owners Association, said he has a better option for consideration than a pair of scissors when confronting an armed mass murderer — a legal firearm.
“That’s why I prefer a gun, and I usually do carry a gun when it is lawful to do so,” said Feldman.

Businesses that post "No Guns" signs.

For the purposes of this discussion, I will be referring to businesses and signs in the state of Texas.  Other states may have similar laws, signs, and businesses.  I am not a lawyer.  This is not legal advice.

Businesses that post "No Guns" signs.

Businesses need to be educated about Second Amendment rights, and post "unlicensed possession" signs instead of 30.06. 

There are several types of "No Gus Allowed" signs in use today, but only 2 are the correct signs to use:  The "unlicensed possession" sign and the 30.06 sign.

Each has its own distinct purpose, and business owners need to understand them.



Incorrect signs:
There are several types of "No Gus Allowed" signs in use today, but only 2 are the correct signs to use.  The "unlicensed possession" sign and the 30.06 sign.  Each has it's own distinct purpose, and business owners need to understand them. The incorrect signs have no legal meaning whatsoever. They just waste time, money and space.
Incorrect signs come in many forms:

Some of these signs quote old laws that are no longer valid.  Others simply contain graphics or espouse the fallacy of "safety" as their reason for prohibiting firearms carry.

The "unlicensed Possession" Sign

The "unlicensed possession sign is the correct sign to use.  Unless your business allows rifles to be carried on premises (such as a pawn shop, gun range, gun shop, or sporting goods store) and you want to prohibit unlawful carrying of weapons, then your businesses should be posting this "no guns" sign: 
The "unlicensed possession sign notifies people that the unlicensed possession of a weapon on the premises (ie: inside the building) is illegal.  In Texas it is illegal to carry a handgun unless you are properly trained, background checked and licensed.  Anyone who would do so without a license is breaking the law already.

The 30.06 Sign

We are witnessing today, a gross over usage of the 30.06 sign.  The only purpose of the 30.06 sign is to prevent individuals who are licensed by the state department of public safety and background checked by the FBI from carrying a sidearm on the premises.  If you run a business and intend to prevent others from carrying, you should be using the "unlicensed possession" sign.  Using a 30.06 sign creates a so called "Gun Free Zone" which prohibits the properly trained and licensed "good guys" from protecting your employees, customers, and cash registers in the event of a robbery or shooting.
 Additionally, a 30.06 sign is HUGE, measuring, at a minimum, almost 2 feet by 2 feet.
In order to be legally valid, the 30.06 sign must be: 
(A)  In language identical to the following: "Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (concealed handgun law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun" 
  • (i) Includes the language described by Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish 
  • (ii) Appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height
  • and (iii)  Is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.

For the letters to be 1" tall and all the statutory language to appear the minimum legal size of a 30.06 sign would be about 17" x 21" give or take a little.   Larger, if there are any graphics on it like a "gunbusters" logo.
In order to be conspicuous and prevent a duly licensed individual from entering the building with a handgun, the the sign therefore can not be posted INSIDE the building.  
Some businesses post a smaller version of the 30.06 sign, often 3"x5" or slightly larger, and often in English only.  Some businesses post them inside the door, or next to the cash register.  These signs are not valid.  
By letter of the law, a 30.06 sign must adhere to the regulations above.  Invalid signs do not prevent a licensed carrier from entering, and will only cause confusion for the license holder, police officer, and other customers.
If a licensed individual were to be hauled into court and have to spend time and money defending themselves from an invalid 30.06 sign, they would likely sue both the arresting officer and the store owner for damages to cover both  court expenses, and lost time.


Doing so immorally obstructs Second Amendment rights and creates dangerous environments.

Boycott businesses that post a 30.06 sign

When faced with a 30.06 sign, I typically just turn around.  Not because I'm giving in or disarming, but because I don't like to patronize businesses that post 30.06 signs.   
It's it a silent 1 family boycott.  And we are not the only family that does this.  In Texas, one in every 40 people is armed and licensed to carry.  And that number is growing fast.  Are you willing to lose that much business in an economy where every sale counts?

  • I'm choosing to vote with my wallet.  And I don't give my money to those who don't respect my rights. 
  • I dont frequent "Gun Free Zones" because they are targets for criminals, and that makes it a "bad part of town" - someplace I don't want to be.
Better yet: licensed citizens should say this, loud and proud, as they turn around and leave; To make other people in line think about what they are doing... giving their money to oppressors and walking into a target zone.

Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Henson Ong at Gun Violence Prevention Public Hearing - Hartford, CT

Henson Ong at Gun Violence Prevention Public Hearing - Hartford, CT

My name is Henson Ong.  Forgive me, English is not my first language  I am a legal immigrant and an American by choice.

Thank you for giving me this opportunity to express my opinion and give my testimony in opposition to the majority of the proposed bills which do nothing to deter future crimes.

Gun control does not work.  Your own history is re pleat with high school rifle teams, and boy scout [rifle] merit badges. You could buy rifles at hardware stores.  You could mail order them to your home.  Your country was awash in readily available firearms and ammunition and yet in your past you did not have mass school shootings.  Other people have already expressed the question.  What changed?

It was not that the availability of guns suddenly increased, it was actually decreased.  What was changed was societal decay.  If gun control actually did work, Washington DC and Chicago would be the safest cities in your nation but it is no.  They have the toughest gun laws and the highest crime and murder rates.

Now some people have called the AR-15 a weapon of mass killing.  It turns out that there are a few government agencies which disagree with that characterization.  The department of Homeland Security has stated that a rifle chambered inn 5.56 NATO with a 30 round magazine is suitable for personal defense.  HSCEMS-1212-00011 solicitation 4, Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.

Now how needs an Ar-15 with 30 round magazines?  That question has also been brought up.  I would like to put forward that had the Koreans in the LA Riots not had AR-15s and AK-47s with 30 round magazines, and Rugers 30s, their businesses would have been burned to the ground like all of the other businesses in their neighborhood.  Theirs stood because they stood their ground.

I would also put forward the conjecture that, had the 10,000 students in Tienanmen square not been unarmed, things may not have resulted in so many of them disappearing.

In your own laws, United States vs Miller 309US174 1939, it was made clear that the types of firearms protected by the Second Amendment were those specifically useful and common for military use in defense of the state.  I would like to note that the state is not the government, the state is the people.

In Lewis VS United States 1980, it is stated that the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearms that does not have some reasonable relationship to the preservation and efficiency of a well regulated militia.  It has nothing to do with hunting.

The militia debates in the convention shows plainly enough that it is composed of all males physically capable of acting in concert for common defense; And further that ordinarily, when called for service, these men were to appear, bearing arms supplied by themselves, and of a kind in use at the time.  The RA-15 is the most common and popular rifle in America at this time.

I would like to wrap up with a statement from Judge Alex Kozinski in  Silveira v. Lockyer 2003:
"My excellent colleges have forgotten these bitter lessons of history.  the prospect of tyrannt may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime usually do.  But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late.  The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision; One designed only for those exceptionally rare circumstances when all other rights have failed.  A free people can only afford to make this mistake once."

Oregon Sheriff's letter to White House: "We refuse ot participate or allow our law abiding citizens to be criminalized"

Oregon Sheriff Writes to Joe Biden

Ore Sheriff
Many have seen this letter by now, but I am posting for those who haven’t.
sheriff in Oregon writes to Joe Biden

“A lot of sheriffs are now standing up and saying, ‘Follow the Constitution,’” said Josephine County Sheriff Gil Gilbertson, whose territory covers the timbered mountains of southwestern Oregon.
Sheriffs throughout the country are vowing to fight gun control measures.


Tuesday, January 29, 2013

A Letter From The Special Forces Community Concerning The Second Amendment

A Letter From The Special Forces Community Concerning The Second Amendment

29 Jan 2013
Page 1 of 3
Protecting the Second Amendment – Why all Americans Should Be Concerned
We are current or former Army Reserve, National Guard, and active duty US Army Special Forces soldiers (Green Berets). We have all taken an oath to “…support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same.…” The Constitution of the United States is without a doubt the single greatest document in the history of mankind, codifying the fundamental principle of governmental power and authority being derived from and granted through the consent of the governed. Our Constitution established a system of governance that preserves, protects, and holds sacrosanct the individual rights and primacy of the governed as well as providing for the explicit protection of the governed from governmental tyranny and/or oppression. We have witnessed the insidious and iniquitous effects of tyranny and oppression on people all over the world. We and our forebears have embodied and personified our organizational motto, De Oppresso Liber [To Free the Oppressed], for more than a half century as we have fought, shed blood, and died in the pursuit of freedom for the oppressed.
Like you, we are also loving and caring fathers and grandfathers. Like you, we have been stunned, horrified, and angered by the tragedies of Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, Fort Hood, and Sandy Hook; and like you, we are searching for solutions to the problem of gun-related crimes in our society. Many of us are educators in our second careers and have a special interest to find a solution to this problem. However, unlike much of the current vox populi reactions to this tragedy, we offer a different perspective.
First, we need to set the record straight on a few things. The current debate is over so-called “assault weapons” and high capacity magazines. The terms “assault weapon” and “assault rifle” are often confused. According to Bruce H. Kobayashi and Joseph E. Olson, writing in the Stanford Law and Policy Review, “Prior to 1989, the term ‘assault weapon’ did not exist in the lexicon of firearms. It is a political term [underline added for emphasis], developed by anti-gun publicists to expand the category of assault rifles.”
The M4A1 carbine is a U.S. military service rifle – it is an assault rifle. The AR-15 is not an assault rifle. The “AR” in its name does not stand for “Assault Rifle” – it is the designation from the first two letters of the manufacturer’s name – ArmaLite Corporation. The AR-15 is designed so that it cosmetically looks like the M4A1 carbine assault rifle, but it is impossible to configure the AR-15 to be a fully automatic assault rifle. It is a single shot semi-automatic rifle that can fire between 45 and 60 rounds per minute depending on the skill of the operator. The M4A1 can fire up to 950 rounds per minute. In 1986, the federal government banned the import or manufacture of new fully automatic firearms for sale to civilians. Therefore, the sale of assault rifles are already banned or heavily restricted!
The second part of the current debate is over “high capacity magazines” capable of holding more than 10 rounds in the magazine. As experts in military weapons of all types, it is our considered opinion that reducing magazine capacity from 30 rounds to 10 rounds will only require an additional 6 -8 seconds to change two empty 10 round magazines with full magazines. Would an increase of 6 –8 seconds make any real difference to the outcome in a mass shooting incident? In our opinion it would not. Outlawing such “high capacity magazines” would, however, outlaw a class of firearms that are “in common use”. As such this would be in contravention to the opinion expressed by the U.S. Supreme Court recent decisions.
Moreover, when the Federal Assault Weapons Ban became law in 1994, manufacturers began retooling to produce firearms and magazines that were compliant. One of those ban-compliant firearms was the Hi-Point 995, which was sold with ten-round magazines. In 1999, five years into the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, the Columbine High School massacre occurred. One of the perpetrators, Eric Harris, was armed with a Hi-Point 995. Undeterred by the ten-round capacity of his magazines, Harris simply brought more of them: thirteen magazines would be found in the massacre’s aftermath. Harris fired 96 rounds before killing himself.
Now that we have those facts straight, in our opinion, it is too easy to conclude that the problem is guns and that the solution to the problem is more and stricter gun control laws. For politicians, it is politically expedient to take that position and pass more gun control laws and then claim to constituents that they have done the right thing in the interest of protecting our children. Who can argue with that? Of course we all want to find a solution. But, is the problem really guns? Would increasing gun regulation solve the problem? Did we outlaw cars to combat drunk driving?
What can we learn from experiences with this issue elsewhere? We cite the experience in Great Britain. Despite the absence of a “gun culture”, Great Britain, with one-fifth the population of the U.S., has experienced mass shootings that are eerily similar to those we have experienced in recent years. In 1987 a lone gunman killed 18 people in Hungerford. What followed was the Firearms Act of 1988 making registration mandatory and banning semi-automatic guns and pump-action shotguns. Despite this ban, on March 13, 1996 a disturbed 43-year old former scout leader, Thomas Hamilton, murdered 16 school children aged five and six and a teacher at a primary school in Dunblane, Scotland. Within a year and a half the Firearms Act was amended to ban all private ownership of hand guns. After both shootings there were amnesty periods resulting in the surrender of thousands of firearms and ammunition. Despite having the toughest gun control laws in the world, gun related crimes increased in 2003 by 35% over the previous year with firearms used in 9,974 recorded crimes in the preceding 12 months. Gun related homicides were up 32% over the same period. Overall, gun related crime had increased 65% since the Dunblane massacre and implementation of the toughest gun control laws in the developed world. In contrast, in 2009 (5 years after the Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired) total firearm related homicides in the U.S. declined by 9% from the 2005 high (Source: “FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Master File, Table 310, Murder Victims – Circumstances and Weapons Used or Cause of Death: 2000-2009”).

Sheriff says: Don't wait for the police; arm yourselves

Milwaukee County sheriff: Don't wait for the police; arm yourselves

By Matt Pearce

Milwaukee County Sheriff David A. Clarke Jr. has a message for residents in his jurisdiction: You can't rely on him anymore. You need to arm yourself.
On Friday, the nominally Democratic sheriff issued a recorded public safety announcement on the radio and on the Web that encouraged residents to take their lives into their own hands.
Here's the full transcript:
"I'm Sheriff David Clarke and I want to talk to you about something personal: your safety. It's no longer a spectator sport; I need you in the game. But are you ready? With officers laid off and furloughed, simply calling 911 and waiting is no longer your best option. You can beg for mercy from a violent criminal, hide under the bed, or you can fight back. But are you prepared? Consider taking a certified safety course in handling a firearm so you can defend yourself until we get there. You have a duty to protect yourself and your family."
"Apparently, Sheriff David Clarke is auditioning for the next Dirty Harry movie," Milwaukee MayorTom Barrett's office said in a statement.
That remark drew this retort from Clarke: "Several years ago, a tire-iron-wielding suspect beat Mayor Tom Barrett to within inches of his life. I would think that he would be a lot more sensitive to people being able to defend themselves in such instances. A firearm and a plan of defense would have come in handy for him that day."
In the days after the December shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., Clarke again raised the proverbial call to arms in an Op-Ed article on a tea party website.
In those remarks, Clarke said gun control advocates were "sheep" and called for "an armed tactical trained officer or security officer in every school and public place [theaters, malls, etc.] in America."

Monday, January 28, 2013

CHL Grandma fires 11 Shots at Mugger in Detroit


By: Hope Hodge

In Detroit, it pays to be armed for self-defense–particularly if you are a nonthreatening great-grandmother.

A male mugger in the Detroit suburb of Southfield made the wrong assumption last week and ended up fleeing under a hail of bullets, reports local station Click on Detroit.

Ramona Taylor Kamate, a 56-year-old with a concealed carry permit, was attacked on a city bus on Thursday, the station reports.

The gutless mugger grabbed Kamate’s book bag and the two started grappling while the rest of the bus looked on. Kamate even tried to bite her attacker on the hand, but when he got off the bus with her stolen purse, she decided to give chase. An observer said the mugger had a gun, and when he turned to face Kamate, she pulled own her own 9-millimeter handgun and fired on him.

She squeezed off 11 shots, Click on Detroit reports, but it’s not clear if the assailant, who got away, was hit.

Kamate told the station that at first she felt remorse shooting at the young man, because she had young grandchildren. But, she said,  ”if my grandchildren are out here doing what these punks are doing, they need to get the same thing.”

Authorities are still searching for the mugger and looking for anyone who might check into a local hospital with a bullet wound.


Thought for the day

We're better than you: Politicians exempt themselves from gun ban

2nd Amendment for Some: Feinstein’s Gun Control Bill Exempts Government Officials

The Weekly Standard reports that the elected representatives aiming to infringe on citizens’ right to self-defense have exempted themselves from gun control legislation proposed by Senator Dianne Feinstein. Nowadays, those of America’s self-imagined ruling class are acting more like aristocrats than servants of the people.

Should anyone take this to be unfounded, knee-jerk reaction, the author of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban Dianne Feinstein once said if she could get Americans to turn in all their guns, she would do it. Meanwhile, the former concealed-carry permit holder explained that she once armed herself so that, “If somebody was going try to take me out, I was going to take them with me.”

Now that it is established that the main legislator at the forefront of the reflexive gun control push is a one-time pistol packing, would-be gun-grabbing politician, the exemptions proposed for government officials should be all-the-more stark in their hypocrisy.

What about background checks for all politicians? If gun control is going to be so effective, why do government officials need special exemption and armed protection?  If all men are created equal, as President Obama made a big show of mentioning in his second inaugural address, why do the laws apply unevenly to citizen and citizen-legislators?


Police Gun BuyBack gets hijacked by gun collectors: Turns into Gun Show

Seattle Gun BuyBack Get’s JACKED! Turns Into a Gun Show! LOL

"Police officers in Seattle, Washington held their first gun buyback program in 20 years this weekend, underneath interstate 5,  and soon found that private gun collectors were working the large crowd as little makeshift gun shows began dotting the parking lot and sidewalks. Some even had “cash for guns” signs prominently displayed. 
Police stood in awe as gun enthusiasts and collectors waved wads of cash for the guns being held by those standing in line for the buyback program. 
People that had arrived to trade in their weapons for $100 or $200 BuyBack gift cards($100 for handguns, shotguns and rifles, and $200 for assault weapons) soon realized that gun collectors were there and paying top dollar."


Sunday, January 27, 2013

The entire text of Senator Feinstein's gun-ban bill

The entire text of Senator Feinstein's gun-ban bill can be found here:


Proposed "Assault Weapons" ban would ban far more than "assault weapons"

The implications of Senator Feinstein's Proposed gun-ban go much farther than so called "Assault Rifles"

The ban not only targets the misnamed "Assault Rifles" that have been such a hot topic by the Main Stream Media, but also targets pistols, shotguns and rifles.  In fact, it targets pretty much all "self defense" shotguns and the vast majority of semi-automatic pistols.

‘‘(36) The term ‘semiautomatic assault weapon’ means any of the following, regardless of country of manufacture or caliber of ammunition accepted:
(E) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds"

"36(F) A semiautomatic shotgun that has any 1 of the following: 
(i) A folding, telescoping, or detachable stock. 
(ii) A pistol grip. 
(iii) A fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 5 rounds.

This legislation will, with only a scant few exceptions, affect pretty much every handgun that exists.  The vast majority of handguns sold today are semiautomatic .38 cal to .45 cal which have standard magazines that hold 12 or more rounds.  There are only 5 basic types of  pistols that I can think of off the top of my head that NATIVELY hold less than 10 rounds:
  • a revolver, 
  • a derringer, 
  • bolt action competition target pistols
  • a sub-compact "pocket pistol"
  • a 45 cal 1911

And rifles and shotguns don't fare much better.  Most "home defense" shotguns have either a pistol grip, an 8 rounds magazine, or both. Even some old west rifles, like the Uberit 1873 model .44/40 with it's 13 round tube fed design.  You cant seriously believe that a 139 year old model of "old west" rifle is somehow more dangerous than a modern hunting rifle?

In an email from a friend of mine:
"Do you realize that my 10 year old son's little marlin training .22 is going to be illegal under this new ban?  Yes, that's right, a little bitty .22 target rifle.  Because the magazine holds 12 rounds.  No, I can not just get another magazine, the rifle is tube fed - the magazine is integral to the weapon." 

Actually,  that is the ONLY type of firearms that will be excluded from the detachable or internal 10 round limit - and only because it is chambered for .22 LR rimfire ammunition.  A tube-fed shotrun or rifle of any and all other calibers will be banned if it can hold more than 10 rounds. Not even the smaller caliber .17 HMR will be exempted.
"36(B) A semiautomatic rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10
rounds, except for an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition"

The entire text of Senator Feinstein's gun-ban bill can be found here:


Holder begins gun-control push

By Megan R. Wilson

Attorney General Eric Holder on Friday released three proposals to strengthen the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which was one of the 23 actions ordered by Obama last week to tackle gun violence. 

The proposed regulations would give local law-enforcement agencies access to the gun-sale database that is maintained by the FBI. The rules would also preserve records of denied weapons sales indefinitely.

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act already requires federal background checks for gun purchases, but not every firearm sale is covered under the law.

Currently, law enforcement agencies cannot perform a NICS check when transferring, returning or selling weapons that have been confiscated, seized or recovered. The new rules would change that, allowing officials to perform a background check on people who receive those weapons to ensure that they are permitted to own a gun.


Friday, January 25, 2013

NY Dem Votes for Gun Ban While Admitting Conservatives Are Right

VIDEO: NY Dem Votes for Gun Ban While Admitting Conservatives Are Right
By David Stein

...believing, as many conservatives do, that the problems lie not with the weapon, but with the character and the mind of the person holding it.

Well, this is odd. New York State Senator Ruben Diaz, Sr., while announcing that he had every intention of voting for S.2230, the draconian anti-gun “Democratic bill,” chided his fellow Democrats with a simple admonition: “It will not make a difference in the committing of crimes.”

I assure you, nothing’s gonna change. We have lost respect for life, we have no respect and fear of God,” Diaz told the senate. “Not until we go back to those standards, nothing’s gonna control crime.”

“It’s the mind. It’s not the weapon, it’s not the revolver, it’s not the rifle. It’s the mind,” Diaz said as he concluded his remarks.

Diaz, who is pro-life and anti-gay marriage, has clashed with his party bosses before. But what I find particularly interesting about this incident is that it illustrates the power the anti-gun lobby holds over the Democrats. While the media incessantly focuses on the big bad NRA, and the “gun lobby’s” mighty grip on the GOP, few in the media…well, probably none in the “mainstream” media…question or explore the power of the anti-gun lobby within the Dems.

But here you have it. A Dem voting for an anti gun bill, not only knowing that it will make no difference regarding crime, but believing, as many conservatives do, that the problems lie not with the weapon, but with the character and the mind of the person holding it.

Gosh, it would be great if the New York press examined how the Dems and the anti-gun lobby wrangled that vote out of Senator Diaz. And it would be great if I were six-foot-five. Neither is about to happen any time soon.


Democrats New Fascist strategy: Crony Anti-Capitalism

Emanuel To Banks: Stop Supporting Gun Makers

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel is putting more pressure on gun makers to get behind his push for an assault weapons ban and criminal background checks for gun purchasers.
This time, he wants to go after their bottom line.
Emanuel is pushing two major financial institutions to stop their financial backing of gun makers, unless those companies support [new gun laws].
In a letter sent Friday to the CEOs of Bank Of America and TD Bank, the mayor is urging that banks to stop lines of credit, financing for acquisitions and expansions and financial advising.

More Proof that AR-15 is good for home defense


By Jason Howerton

After seeing the barrel of an AR-15 staring them in the face, the two [intruders] fled from the apartment.

Two home intruders, one holding a handgun, broke into a New York apartment on Tuesday and waited at the bottom of the stairs for a potential “victim” to come down. While their intentions are unknown, it is clear they were criminals up to no good.

After hearing some noise coming from the basement, Christopher Boise, a student at Rochester Institute of Technology, went to check it out.

“They were waiting for me at the bottom of the stairs,” Boise told WHAM-TV. When they saw him, the man with the gun pointed the barrel towards him.

Relying on pure instinct, Boise let out a blood-curdling scream in order to alert his roommate, Raymond, who is also a RIT student.

“It wasn’t like a, ‘I stepped by stepped on a piece of glass’ kind of scream,” Raymond said.  “So, I instinctively went to my gun bag.”

In that bag was a AR-15 semi-automatic rifle, one of the very guns at the center of the current gun control debate.

About five seconds after he retrieved his gun, one of the intruders began opening the door to the room where he was waiting. But he was ready.

“By the time I had it out and ready, one of the men came at my door, slowly opened it, saw that there was a barrel on the other side and from there backed out,” Raymond recalled.

After seeing the barrel of an AR-15 staring them in the face, the two men fled from the apartment. No shots were fired and no one was injured. In fact, the rifle wasn’t even loaded at the time of the incident, Raymond said.

It’s not the kind of story that always makes national headlines as bullets never went flying, but it certainly shows why so many Americans are adamant about protecting the Second Amendment as it is written in the U.S. Constitution. It also shows that, in some cases, a gun doesn’t even have to be used in order for it to protect its owner and others.

“I’m happy he saved my life. I was very thankful he had his (gun),” Boise said of his roommate.

Rochester Police Chief James Sheppard said Raymond’s gun was legal and effectively protected his property.


DC Man saves boys life, may face charges for defense of others

D.C. man who shot dogs biting boy could face charges
City wants to know if gun he used was legal

The incident unfolded Sunday afternoon, after three pit bulls attacked an 11-year-old boy as he rode his bicycle through the Brightwood neighborhood of Northwest, according to a police report.

When the man, a neighbor, saw the boy being mauled by the dogs, he went inside his home and got a gun. The man killed one of the dogs. The gunfire attracted the attention of a police officer in the area near Eighth and Sheridan streets, where the attack occurred. The officer responded and shot the other two pit bulls as they continued to attack the boy.

The police report, which did not identify any of the people involved, said the boy suffered severe lacerations.

While public opinion might be supportive of the man’s actions, he could still face significant charges depending on the outcome of the investigation, criminal defense attorney Daniel Gross said.

“I’ve seen cases where people used weapons in defense of others, but the U.S. attorney’s office is not always so understanding,” said Mr. Gross, who represents many clients charged with firearms-related crimes in the District. “There are certain defenses one could try, like self-defense or defense of others, but that wouldn't really go to whether they charge you.”

The man could face a host of charges depending on the specifics of the case, including whether the gun used is a registered firearm that the man was legally permitted to own, Mr. Gross said.

Possession of an unregistered firearm or ammunition is punishable by up to one year in prison and a $1,000 fine, and determining whether the man legally possessed the gun used will likely have greater bearing on the way the case is handled, Mr. Gross said.

Low-level unregistered firearms and ammunitions charges generally are prosecuted by the D.C. office of the attorney general, but additional charges could mean the case is bumped up to the U.S. attorney’s office.

“In this case, it would likely be the U.S. attorney’s office, and their discretion is sometimes less than local prosecutors,” Mr. Gross said.

Also to be taken into consideration is whether the man was within his property line when he fired the weapon — a small but significant distinction. Mr. Gross said it could mean the difference in whether he could be charged with carrying a pistol without a license.


Thursday, January 24, 2013

Why Shouldn't we Renew the Assault Weapons Ban?

From kontradictions.wordpress.com

Why Not Renew the “Assault Weapons” Ban? Well, I’ll Tell You…

[EDIT: Since this article was published, the Democratic party has officially added support of the assault weapon ban renewal to their party platform and Senator Feinstein has vowed to introduce it again in the upcoming session, hoping the Newtown massacre will help it push through. This bill WILL be debated and voted on, and I hope you can learn something about it here.]

Between Two Worlds

It’s not easy being a leftist who loves guns. It’s like being a Republican who listens to NPR or supports single payer health care. But being a leftist, I get exposed to all the liberal publications and media that invariably call for gun control every time someone does something stupid with one. Being a gun enthusiast, I also get exposed to the political Right’s oversimplification of those liberals as somehow lacking moral fiber or true appreciation of freedom. Rather than agreeing with both, I tend to end up arguing with both. It’s exhausting to always feel like I’m apologizing for the other “side”.

This article takes a point of view, but aims to do so in a way that members of both sides of the political spectrum can understand. I’ll try to give some idea as to why we on the political left roll our eyes at the rhetoric of the NRA, and how we in the “gun culture” can possibly defend something called “assault weapons”.

We all know the cycle by now: Tragic incident occurs, both sides attempt to use it for their political gain, both sides act shocked that the other would attempt to use it for political gain, insults are flung, statistics are cherry-picked, rinse, repeat.

I began writing this some time after the Aurora massacre, but it was just this morning that news started coming in of the mass shooting at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin. I knew the wave of cries for a renewal of the “assault weapon” and “high capacity” magazine bans hadn’t yet faded from Aurora, and that they would be reinforced by this next event, regardless of how relevant either of the topics were to the incident.

So in order to get around to why the assault weapons ban was an utter and absolute failure in its attempt to deter violent crime, I have to start with mass shootings.

Misleading Vividness

I’m just going to submit this uncomfortable truth to both camps up front, with the vain hope that it will not sound callous:

Mass shootings are a tiny, tiny problem. Which isn’t to say that they aren’t utterly horrifying in more than one way. People’s lives are destroyed, both literally and figuratively. What I mean to say is that if we were to prioritize our political attention to topics according to how many lives were at stake, mass shootings wouldn’t even be on the radar.

Factoring in the rate of death caused by mass shootings from Columbine to the present (about 210 people in 13 years), it will be more than 300 years until we reach the number of casualties that occur from accidental drownings every single year in this country. In a little more than 150 years from now, we’ll approach the number of people who are poisoned to death every single year in this country. Sometime in 2014 we might surpass the number of people struck by lightning every single year in this country.

Which is to say that mass shootings are incredibly rare and don’t kill a lot of people when they do happen.

It is tempting to ask why accidental drowning is not 340 times more important a social issue than gun control. Or why poisoning isn’t 150 times as pressing a political issue. (If the number of people dying is truly what’s important, almost anything would be more pressing.) The problem is not hard to understand though, and rests in a psychological concept known as the “logical fallacy of misleading vividness”.

The fallacy of misleading vividness is when the thought, imagery or reality of something is so emotionally potent – positively or negatively – that you begin to overestimate the likelihood and frequency of its occurrence. This is why many people are afraid to fly. They can understand intellectually that crashes almost never happen, and that airplanes are statistically the safest way to travel, but the idea of being torn apart mid-air, or knowing that they’re about to die for a full two minutes in freefall, or being dragged under the ocean while stuck inside the cabin is so vivid and disturbing, that they actually experience intense fear about a process that is safer than their drive to the airport.

This is what happens to us collectively as a nation when mass shootings occur. Yes, it is terrible, for both the person who was so disturbed and all the people they harmed. It puts on graphic display the absolute worst aspects of our culture, which is painful to watch.

However, it is also an incredible statistical deviation from the norm, objectively inflicting far less suffering and death than many other ways that people are far more likely to die. This is an important point. When our policy becomes based on emotional content rather than facts, we are heading in the wrong direction.

With that in mind, let’s take a look at how things are in the world of guns and how they got to be that way.

Obama & the NRA: Frenemies of the State
It is a running joke in gun-interest circles that Obama is the “gun salesman of the year”[1]. From the moment he won the Democratic nomination, gun sales in the US surged dramatically. If the joke were more honest, he might be called “gun salesman of the decade”. According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the economic impact of the firearm industry grew more than 50% (from $19 billion to $31 billion) between 2008 and 2011[2] In 2010, a record was set for the number of background checks filed for firearm purchases. That record was broken again in 2011.

All of this was largely the result of a campaign by gun rights advocates like the NRA to convince the country that Obama would be a gun control activist. To be sure, their concerns weren’t entirely baseless. In a 2004 NPR interview, then-senator Obama clearly stated that he not only supported the Federal Assault Weapons ban, but that he would “continue to support a ban on concealed carry laws” altogether.[3] The administration reaffirmed its support of the assault weapons ban in 2009.[4]
But, lacking political capital, Obama made no such push for gun control legislation. In fact, quite the opposite. During his first term he signed laws making it legal for people to carry concealed weapons in National Parks and in their checked luggage on Amtrak trains, provided they met their state’s requirements to do so. As a result, the Brady Campaign, the leading gun control lobbying group, gave Obama an “F” rating. When the administration was asked about how it would respond to the Aurora shooting, the first words out of spokesman Jay Carney’s mouth were, “We plan to uphold the second amendment.” When the Sikh shooting happened, his press conference informed people that the President “will continue to instruct his administration to take action towards common-sense measures that protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens but make it harder and harder for those who should not have weapons under existing law to obtain them”.

Despite this conspicuously moderate viewpoint, the NRA continues to stoke the flames of fear, promising that once Obama is reelected to a second term, he’ll have no reason to hold back on the gun control legislation he’s been wanting to implement since 2004. In fact, at a recent CPAC conference in Florida, NRA vice president Wayne LaPierre went so far as to suggest, without offering any evidence, that Obama’s failure to act on gun control has been a “massive Obama conspiracy” to postpone his attack on the second amendment until his second term.[5] While I appreciate the NRA’s vigilance on an issue I feel strongly about, I can’t help but think that it is rants like this that make much of the populace totally unable to identify with the organization.

Meanwhile, the Aurora shooting, like all shootings, has revived the cries for gun control from the political Left. At a loss for somewhere to direct their grief, outrage and sense of justice after such a senseless tragedy, they are again calling for renewal of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994. If a second Obama administration will have the political capital to promote any gun control legislation at all, it will be the renewal of this ban. It will therefore benefit anyone interested in gun politics to review what the assault weapons ban was, what it was not, and how it affected (or failed to affect) the nation.

Creating the Category or How Do I Look?

The most important question, of course, is: “What exactly is an assault weapon?”

The term was specifically designed to conjure images of military machine guns, but for those totally unfamiliar with firearms, it should be made clear that automatic weapons (those that fire more than one bullet with each pull of the trigger) are already illegal for the average citizen to own. They are heavily regulated by the federal government, registered with the ATF and very difficult to obtain licenses for. Almost no crime is ever committed with them.

So in 1994, legislators were forced to ask themselves, “What exactly will this ban do away with?” The category of “assault weapon” didn’t actually exist, and this was an opportunity for gun control advocates to create it, to say exactly what they wanted off the streets.

As it turns out, they were mostly opposed to things they saw in movies. Which is to say that most of the features that now defined “assault weapons” had to do with form and not function, totally sidestepping the issue of violent crime altogether. Three quick examples:

1) Stock Manipulation
This is the Ruger 10/22. It has been in production since 1964 and is one of the most popular rifles in the country.

It is an ideal first rifle, small and manageable, which is why my parents bought one for me in my mid teens. It is well-made, inexpensive and easy to maintain. Its small caliber (.22) means that it is cheap to shoot and has almost no recoil. It can be used for very small game hunting (foxes, rabbits, etc) or varmint control, but is generally a sport (target shooting) gun.

What you see is also an assault weapon.

Not because of anything it actually does, but because of the stock. You might be able to tell that it is hinged, allowing it to fold up against the rest of the gun. This was one feature of an “assault weapon”, according to the new law. Another was the grip, which is vertical like a pistol rather than horizontal. A non-”assault” Ruger 10/22 looks like this:
There is not a single difference in the functioning of these two firearms. All the moving parts that make up the actual firing mechanisms are identical. The diminutive size of the ammunition means that it isn’t even recommended for self defense purposes. But the ban was far more concerned with the way guns looked than their ability to actually assault anything.

2) Suppressing
Can you tell the difference between these two guns?

The gun on the bottom has a slightly longer barrel, which is threaded to allow a suppressor or other accessory to screw on. This too was now illegal. Suppressors are usually called “silencers” by the general public, though they do no such thing. (That little *ptew* sound you hear in the movies whenever a gun with a “silencer” is fired? It was dreamed up entirely by the film industry.)
As an acquaintance of mine wrote:
    In the early 20th century, before guns lost social acceptability and marksmanship was publicly encouraged, people with enough space were known to practice in their back yards. No one wants to annoy their neighbor with fussilades of afternoon gunfire, so the Maxim Silencer found success being marketed as a relatively inoffensive and civilized way to increase shooting proficiency.
In addition to being polite, home defense uses also prevent the temporary and permanent loss of hearing that is sure to occur when firing a pistol indoors, while also reducing recoil and eliminating muzzle flash, which can be temporarily blinding or disorienting.

Modern criminals have never really used suppressors, and its hard to understand where the gun control crowd were getting their ideas about the world if not from bad movies. Did they really think that assassins were creeping around executing people with suppressed pistols? Surely not. Nonetheless, one of the pistols you see above is an “assault weapon”, while the other is not.

3) Shrouds

As it turns out, even the most vociferous and high-ranking gun control advocates didn’t actually know what was being legislated. After the Virginia Tech massacre, Democratic House representative Carolyn McCarthy went on MSNBC to explain why she had introduced legislation even more extensive than the elapsed Federal Assault Weapons Ban. After some discussion, Tucker Carlson picked a banned feature from the list – a barrel shroud – and asked her to explain what it was and why it should be regulated.

After some hemming and hawing she admitted that she had no idea what her own legislation was referring to, but made a wild guess anyway, and thus another gun-culture joke was born:
For those interested, a barrel shroud is simply a metal cover that prevents the operator of a firearm from burning their hands on a hot barrel.
It would have been interesting to me if Carlson had explained the barrel shroud, and then asked again how cooler barrels contributed to violent crime. It is hard to imagine what her response could possibly have been. But it looks mean, and this was apparently what mattered to whoever actually wrote the legislation.

These are some examples of what the ban in question covered. Perhaps most tellingly, semi-automatic (legal) versions of automatic firearms were banned just because they looked like illegal guns.

When the category of “assault weapon” had finally been conjured into being, all of its included firearms together accounted for less than 2% of violent crime.[6] None of them had any more functionality than a hunting rifle. It couldn’t have been clearer that this was a war founded on image rather than reality.

The foreshadowing of just how much it wouldn’t accomplish was clear. Years later, a study of the ban’s effectiveness by the National Institute of Justice seemed to scratch its head out loud that “[a]lthough the weapons banned by this legislation were used only rarely in gun crimes before the ban, supporters felt that these weapons posed a threat to public safety…”

There was only one banned feature that had anything to do with practical function.

“High Capacity” Magazines

The ban on “large capacity ammunition feeding devices” was the most far reaching aspect of the legislation, as it applied to magazines for allguns, not just guns that were illegal due to other cosmetic features. Again, the question became: “What exactly is a high capacity magazine?” No such thing had been defined, and an arbitrary number of rounds would have to be selected.

Legislators settled on the number 10 for rifles and pistols, while 5 shells would be the maximum for a shotgun.

The strongest focus by gun control advocates in the wake of various shootings has been a return to these limits on magazine size.[7](During Carol McCarthy’s question-avoidance in the above video, notice that her stump speech is an assertion of the importance of banning high capacity magazines. This has been duplicated on countless news and talk programs, blogs and websites, especially those that lean politically to the Left[8].) The idea is that if mass shooters have larger magazines, they will be able to kill more people before police or an armed citizen can intervene.

Keeping in mind the statistical rarity and relatively tiny death toll of mass shootings to begin with, is this true? Will high capacity bans lower the number of people killed in mass shootings? All we have to do is look at one of the deadliest shootings in the world: the Virginia Tech massacre.

With one pistol of 10-round capacity and one pistol of 15-round capacity, Cho killed more people than anyone has ever killed in a single U.S. shooting incident. He didn’t need any massive magazines or custom weapons. The embarrassingly simple reason that magazine size restrictions can’t lessen the lethality of mass shooters is that it doesn’t matter how many rounds fit in a magazine if a shooter has multiple magazines. When one runs out, they can simply drop it and pop another in, a process which takes five seconds at most. (Less than half a second, if you happen to be this guy.) Cho was able to carry out this massacre because he carried a backpack containing 19 magazines, a fact not well-publicized.

Of course, most semiautomatic pistols hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. In preparation for this article I asked a gun dealer to guess what percentage of new pistols came standard with magazines of more than 10 round capacity. His estimate was 70-75%, and he took model after model out of the display case to illustrate. The most popular (best selling) handgun in the world, the Glock 17, holds 17 rounds of 9mm ammunition. In fact, after looking at all available Glock models, I found that less than half them even had magazines smaller than 10 rounds available at all.

This is the model I own, a Ruger P95. It’s a standard sized pistol, small enough for me to regularly carry concealed. It was made to hold 16 rounds, more thaneither of the standard-sized magazines used by Cho.

My point here is that “high capacity” magazines are not some specialty aftermarket part that criminals obtain shadily over the internet. They were defined arbitrarily into existence, and before the ban were considered standard production to give consumers a decent product. (If you’ve made the decision to be an armed citizen to defend your self, home or family to begin with, why would you want less capacity than you could practically fit into one mag?)

Bottom line: Whether you have two magazines that hold 15 rounds or three mags that hold 10 rounds, you’ll be able to shoot all 30 bullets in less than 45 seconds. This fact, combined with the statistical rarity and low death rate of mass shootings and the statistical prominence of guns used in self defense (2 million times every year) make it difficult for me to justify the criminalization of what has, throughout American history, been considered a perfectly normal capacity – that is, however many rounds fit comfortably inside the firearm.

Remember, the only sensible reason for a capacity ban of any kind is the specific class of crime whose degree of success depends on the 5-10 second difference between having to reload and not having to reload. Mass shootings, it turns out, are the only time this is the case, and only to an incredibly slight degree, as demonstrated by Cho. I have already discussed why I do not believe that mass shootings should guide our policy to begin with.

And yet, I can almost hear the voices I have heard before, asking whether it is realistic to think that people actually defend their homes with “assault rifles” that have “high capacity” magazines…

(The gun used to defend both of these homes was an AR-15, the same gun Holmes used in Auarora, banned for production because there existed models of it elsewhere that were automatic.)


This ban presented gun control legislators with another huge problem, which can’t be overstated.
There were about 1.5 million of these “assault weapons” already ownedby Americans, and far more high-capacity magazines. In order to actually ban them, the government had to do one of two things:

1) Turn many thousands of law-abiding citizens into felons overnight, even though the guns were legal at the time of purchase or receipt.

2) Demand that the whole country surrender 1.5 million guns and millions of magazines.

Both options were practically and politically impossible, especially the latter. Images of the federal government confiscating and destroying the firearms of veterans, families and law-abiding Americans would not sell to most of the nation, and in some areas, might result in open revolt or civil unrest. It would also ignore a fundamental flaw with gun control legislation in general – that people willing to abide by laws aren’t the ones we should be concerned about.

The predicament resulted in what is generally referred to as the “grandfather clause”. It essentially meant that all “assault weapons” and “high capacity” magazines manufactured before the ban remained legal to own, sell and use.

To reiterate, millions of these banned firearms and high capacity magazines were legal to own and sell during the ban.

This meant that prices for these firearms and magazines shot up along with demand. Manufacturers had churned out as many soon-to-be-banned items as they could before it went into effect, then sold them at nearly twice what they had originally cost. Individual dealers who had already stocked up made small fortunes. You might even say that the Federal Assault Weapons Ban was the gun salesman of that particular decade.

10 Years Later

When the ban expired in 2004, everyone was anxious to study the results. Had it reduced crime?
How could it have?

The National Institute of Justice found that the ban hadn’t reduced gun crime or crime involving “high capacity” magazines, and that the effects of renewing the ban were “likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.” It then added: “Assault weapons were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban.”[9]

The Center for Disease Control released a study of gun control legislation, including the assault weapons ban and found “insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence.”[10]

The National Research Council noted that all of the studies they had looked at “did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence” and noted “due to the fact that the relative rarity with which the banned guns were used in crime before the ban … the maximum potential effect of the ban on gun violence outcomes would be very small…”[11]

Slippery Slope

If there was ever a single quotation that summarized the fears of the gun rights crowd surrounding the “assault weapon” ban, it is this one:
    “No one should have any illusions about what was accomplished [by the ban]. Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control.”
    – Washington Post editorial, September 15, 1994
As we have seen, the battles of gun control have been fought, won and lost with definitions. Categories are created, connotations ascribed with the stroke of a pen. The Brady Campaign, the strongest advocate for these bans, has taken this particular work one step farther since Aurora. They have now redefined “mass shootings” to include all drive-bys involving a shot fired toward three or more people,regardless of whether anyone was even actually hurt, leading them to assert that there are “20 mass shootings every year”. People who follow the news with some regularity may sense that there is something wrong with this statement, but this sort of redefinition does influence many people who don’t have the time or will to investigate such a claim.

It is intentional deceptions like this that have peaceful, gun-loving folks like myself looking over our political shoulders all the time. Add to this the fact that the Brady Campaign strategically changed its name from the more honest designation of “Handgun Control, Inc”, and perhaps it’s easier for the Left to understand why those of us who believe in the importance of ALL of the items in the Bill of Rights (including firearm ownership) are worried about the progressive nature of these bills.

With intentionally dishonest lobbying groups pushing already-failed legislation while calling it a “stepping stone”, we can see the slippery slope right in front of our feet.


If gun control advocates want to actually have meaningful discussion and debate about the “assault weapon” and “high capacity” ban, they MUST address these questions:
  • Why ban cosmetic features?
  • Why ban guns used in a mere 2% of crime?
  • Why base gun control legislation on rare and statistically insignificant mass shootings to begin with?
  • Why ban magazines that have been consistently sized since their invention?
  • How would banning these magazines have saved lives, given that all a shooter needs is multiple magazines and 3 seconds of time (i.e. Cho)?
  • How will a ban on either these weapons or magazines reduce crime, since there are many millions of them legal and available anyway, especially since production has ramped up after the ban’s expiration?

And most importantly:
After a decade of failure, why assume that the bans will reduce violent crime THIS time around?