A bit non sequitur for the blog, but regular readers know I am into firearms (though in a minor way, compared to some of you), home defense, a little bit of disaster preparedness, and similar topics. An Oklahoma man faced the nightmare of having his home invaded by hooded, armed, mask-wearing men one day. He was armed with an AR-15 and defended his home. The three criminals, who were apparently teenagers and probably relative newcomers to violent crime, were all killed. Their getaway driver and the apparent mastermind of the crime was later caught and has already publicly admitted to being involved.
The parents of the three dead young men are raising a ruckus demanding the 23 year old who defended his home be charged with some kind of crime. If he lived in a leftist-run state, he might well be in a tight spot, but Oklahoma’s people and government still take a dim view of crime, for the most part, and recognize the right of a person to defend himself in his own home, even to the point of taking a life. I’m sure the parents of these kids are devastated, but they chose to threaten other’s lives and they paid the price for their foolishness:
A 23-year-old Broken Arrow (OK) man who used his AR-15 to kill three masked home invaders with one shot each last week will not face any charges after authorities announced that the shooting was an act of self defense under Oklahoma’s version of castle doctrine.
The Wagoner County Sheriff’s Office and the District Attorney’s Office provided an update into the investigation of last week’s home invasion that left three teens dead in Broken Arrow on Monday at a press conference.
The triple homicide took place on the 9100 block of South Clearview Drive March 27.Wagoner County deputies said at about 12:30 p.m., three masked intruders entered the home, which was occupied by a father and his 23-year-old son, Zach Peters.
Deputies said Peters shot and killed the three intruders with an AR-15.
Peters will not face charges in connection with the shooting, officials said. The Wagoner County District Attorney’s Office ruled that Peters acted justifiably in his use of deadly force to defend the home.
Incredibly, the media is still attempting to claim Oklahoma’s implementation of stand your ground law is how Peters is avoiding prosecution for the deaths of the three suspects.
Elizabeth Rodriguez, the ringleader of the gang of burglary suspects and the getaway driver who left her three accomplices behind after shots were fired, was formally charged with three counts of first-degree murder and several counts of first and second-degree burglary. Rodriguez, who seems to be as intelligent as your average storm drain, confessed to the burglaries in a television interview last week, which should all but assure her conviction for the burglary charges, and since the murder charges are hinged upon the felony murder rule, a conviction on all three murder counts as well.
Oklahoma allows the execution of convicted first-degree murderers, but prosecutors have not yet announced whether they will seek the death penalty.
Despite being reviled by gun control supporters, AR-15s are excellent home defense weapons, featuring low-recoil, good ammunition capacity, and excellent self-defense performance from standard 55-grain FMJ M193 “ball” ammunition originally designed for the M16A1 assault rifle, but which is now also the cheapest bulk practice ammunition in .223 Remington and 5.56 NATO variants.
The three teenaged burglars killed in the home invasion were each struck just once.
The perpetrator’s families are lashing out at the young man who defended his home, claiming using an AR-15 against a knife was an “unfair fight.” As if that matters in the slightest. I understand the families are surely upset, though one does wonder who teen boys came to a life of violent crime, and are desperately trying to rationalize the death of their children, but blaming the victim in this horrific situation is hardly going to win them much sympathy. It is, however, perhaps an indicator of the kind of self-serving and self-deluding thinking that afflicts so many people today.
The remaining living perpetrator will almost certainly be convicted on three charges of first degree murder, to which she has already clumsily admitted being involved in a TV interview. She may well face the death penalty, but she, too, blamed the victim for shooting her homeboys when they invaded his house and refused to leave after being confronted by an armed man.
Some Darwin Award winners in this bunch. I have pity for them all, but especially the young man who defended his home and will now have to live with the memory of this nightmarish event and the deaths he caused for the rest of his life. That is no easy burden to bear, and perhaps the families of those quite rightfully killed should keep that in mind.
A final quick post for the day, someone leaked a propositional memorandum from a senior ATF official, who advocated – somewhat shockingly – for the roll back of several onerous gun regulations, including ending the ban on the import of so-called assault weapons (imposed by the first Bush, showing yet again how perennially left this family leans) and lifting restrictions on acquiring and owning silencers.
It’s difficult to discern if these proposals have any chance of being implemented, but it’s a positive sign and a massive improvement over the gun-ban-by-stealth that was practiced constantly by the Obamanation, which floated 2nd Amendment destroying notions like trying to ban all non-lead ammo as being “armor piercing,” and all lead ammo as being bad for the environment (doing so would have essentially made all ammunition illegal). Here’s to hoping that the Trump effect starts sinking even into entrenched lefty bureaucracies like the BATF:
The second-highest-ranking official at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has written a proposal to reduce gun regulations, including examining a possible end to the ban on importing assault weapons into the United States.
The “white paper” by Ronald B. Turk, associate deputy director and chief operating officer of the ATF, calls for removing restrictions on the sale of gun silencers; allowing gun dealers to have more guns used in crimes traced to their stores before the federal government requires additional information from the dealer; and initiating a study on lifting the ban on imported assault weapons.
“Restriction on imports serves questionable public safety interests, as these rifles are already generally legally available for manufacture and ownership in the United States,” Turk wrote of the ban on imported AR-15s and AK-style weapons.
The 11-page white paper, obtained by The Washington Post, is titled “Options to Reduce or Modify Firearms Regulations.” The proposal opens with the wording of the Second Amendment and is dated Jan. 20. [Somebody bucking for a promotion?! Nevertheless, eminently sensible proposals. All the ban on so-called assault weapon imports has done is to make many firearms more expensive. You can still buy a used Norinco SKS in Canada for $150, but the same gun costs twice as much (and much more just a short while ago) in the US because of the nearly three decade ban on imports.]
“This white paper offers a disturbing series of giveaways to the gun industry that would weaken regulatory oversight of the gun industry without adequate consideration of the impact on public safety,” said Chelsea Parsons, vice president of guns and crime policy at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank.
“ATF has long described its regulatory function as a core part of its law enforcement mission to fight gun crime, yet this paper seems to prioritize reducing perceived burdens on the gun industry over an interest in protecting public safety from the illegal diversion of firearms,” Parsons said. [No, it is oriented towards reducing the restrictions of rights owed to every American citizen as part of their God-given right to self-defense. Lifting the ban on assault weapons would actually HARM the gun industry in the US as a lot of guns now being made domestically (in part, the receivers have to be manufactured in the US to be legal) would be replaced by cheaper imports. But I’m sure their focus group data tells them that denigrating a faceless industry sells, while being honest about their intent to ban every citizen the right to defend themselves at all manifestly does not.]
……….“Silencers are very rarely used in criminal shootings,” the white paper states. “Given the lack of criminality associated with silencers, it is reasonable to conclude that they should not be viewed as a threat to public safety.”
Gun-control advocates point out that machine guns, regulated under the same law as silencers, are also rarely used in crime because of the difficulty of obtaining them. [Wrong. They aren’t used because they are large, bulky, and hard to hide. Criminals thrive on hiding their intent until the last possible moment, large weapons like “machine guns” are totally counter to that, inane Hollywood depictions aside.]
In 1989, the George H.W. Bush administration banned the import of semiautomatic assault rifles. [As one of its first acts. Bushes I am so totally done with you.] Turk’s white paper, which refers to them as “modern sporting rifles,” notes that their use has “increased exponentially in sport shooting.”
I don’t know anything else about this Ronald Turk in question, but what he proposes is wholly sensible and well suited to the preferences of a large number of Americans. Americans repeatedly demonstrated their hostility to the gun-banning attempts of the previous regime. They demonstrated their desire for a return to the rightful interpretation of the 2nd Amendment through the election of Trump, among many other things. Moving to loosen restrictions like this is exactly what a civil servant should be doing, trying to implement the expressed will of the people.
But the entrenched elites, including the very lucrative NGO issue-advocacy industry, do not like that. That represents only a tiny portion of the resistance Trump, for all his warts, is running into. Hopefully he can overcome this and implement at least some of his reforms. At the very least, Hillary Clinton will never be president, and that’s an awesome thing in and of itself.
Czech Gov’t to Citizens on How to Fight Islamist Terrorists – Shoot Them Yourselves January 13, 2017Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Ecumenism, family, firearms, General Catholic, Immigration, Restoration, Society, the enemy.
That’s a novel approach, especially for Europe:
A couple of months ago, Czech President Milos Zeman made an unusual request: He urged citizens to arm themselves against a possible “super-Holocaust” carried out by Muslim terrorists.
Never mind that there are fewer than 4,000 Muslims in this country of 10 million people [that’s supposed to be a bad thing?!? Good for the Czechs from keeping the invading hordes of military-age males out of their country]— gun purchases spiked. One shop owner in East Bohemia, a region in the northern center of the Czech Republic, told a local paper that people were scared of a “wave of Islamists.”
Now the country’s interior ministry is pushing a constitutional change that would let citizens use guns against terrorists. Proponents say this could save lives if an attack occurs and police are delayed or unable to make their way to the scene. To become law, Parliament must approve the proposal; they’ll vote in the coming months.
The Czech Republic already has some of the most lenient gun policies in Europe. It’s home to about 800,000 registered firearms and 300,000 people with gun licenses. Obtaining a weapon is relatively easy: Residents must be 21, pass a gun knowledge check and have no criminal record. By law, Czechs can use their weapons to protect their property or when in danger, although they need to prove they faced a real threat.
This puts the country at odds with much of Europe, which has long supported much more stringent gun-control measures. In the wake of the 2015 terror attacks in Paris, France pushed the European Union to enact even tougher policies. The European Commission’s initial proposal called for a complete ban on the sale of weapons like Kalashnikovs or AR-15s that are intended primarily for military use. Ammunition magazines would be limited to 20 rounds or less.
That bill subsequently passed in slightly modified form over the Czech government’s opposition, meaning that this vote is more than a bit of kabuki theater – the EU’s laws will supersede whatever laws the Czech government puts in place. it also means a great many weapons currently legal in Czech and some other nations will soon be illegal. If I were the Czechs, I’d be working towards a Czexit right now.
Most of Europe has long been much less free with basic human rights – like the right to self defense – than this nation has been. While Europeans will giggle and say that’s why Europe has a lot fewer firearms deaths than the US, I would retort that the US also hasn’t ever had a concentration camp nor an endless cycle of totalitarian regimes. The Czechs used to live under one of those. That has more than a little to do with Czechs’ desire to own firearms, which is something I’ve seen personally (though I think the number of firearms and firearms owners listed above severely under-represents reality).
A Record Number of Americans Oppose Gun Bans……. October 28, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, error, firearms, foolishness, huh?, Revolution, silliness, Society.
……..but a substantial majority also favor “more strict gun laws”, while simultaneously believing firearms are not too easy to get.
No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the average American. These people are just a bunch of fickle mush-heads:
A poll published on Wednesday shows record opposition to gun bans from the American public.
The survey, conducted by Gallup, found 76 percent of respondents thought there should not be a law banning civilian ownership of handguns, a four-point increase from last year and an all-time high in the 57 years the question has been asked.
The poll also found that 61 percent of respondents are “against” a ban on certain semi-automatic rifles—often referred to as “assault weapons”—, a ten-point increase since the last time the poll was taken and an all-time high since Gallup began asking the question in 1996.
Support for the gun bans are at all-time lows. The poll shows only 27 percent support for a ban on handgun ownership, a three-point drop from last year. It also shows support for an assault weapons ban at 36 percent, an eight-point decline from the last time the question was asked……..
…….. Last September, a CNN poll showed a majority of Americans believed, for the first time, that guns are not too “easy to get.”….
………The Gallup poll asked respondents if they would tighten or loosen gun laws, and whether or not they owned a firearm.
It found a majority of people, 55 percent, want “more strict” laws, a figure unchanged from last year. It found 40 percent of people have a gun on their property, a number that is down three points from last year and at odds with a recent Pew poll showing all-time high gun ownership.
So, no bans, and guns are not too easily obtainable, but a solid majority favor more strict laws. Hooookay.
As for the supposed drop in gun ownership, if you were surveyed, would you answer honestly? Or might you use some broad mental reservation?
I actually think there is a semi-rational explanation for the discrepancy in the polling results. Americans are constantly bombarded by false stories in the media about how terrorists and mentally ill people obtain firearms all the time (not true), and other scare stories that lead a large number of people to believe that I can literally walk into a gun show tomorrow and come out with a full-auto AK and even a rocket launcher without even providing an ID, let alone face a background check. All of these reports are complete fabrications, but a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth. For that percentage of Americans who have no experience of trying to buy a gun in the past 25 years or so, these fantasies might seem plausible. And so while some people may not favor an outright ban, they probably are convinced, wrongly, that there is a need to “tighten gun show loopholes” and things like that. Loopholes, mind, which do not, in fact, exist.
Or, people are simply dumb and amazingly inconsistent. You decide.
Coming National Gun Ban? – And How States Can Resist October 14, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, disaster, error, family, firearms, General Catholic, horror, persecution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society.
Time to stock up? I must admit, I was totally unaware of HR 4269 prior to reading this article. I’m not totally surprised to learn this, but I am disconcerted that there is already extant legislation that would make many of my favorite (and the best, in many respects) guns to buy illegal.
Coupled with the fact that several states and federal agencies are also moving to declare high-level body armor illegal, it is obvious the democrats and their Repubnik allies are highly desirous to see the populace more or less disarmed, or at least start down that path.
The law of averages predicts that at some time in the future, perhaps as soon as 2017, the Democratic Party will once again control the White House and majorities in both houses of Congress. When that happens, the next Democratic president — be it Hillary Clinton or someone else — will sign into law a sweeping, foreign-style gun ban.
The legislation has already been written. H.R. 4269 would enact a national, permanent ban on the manufacture and sale of so-called “assault weapons” and all firearm magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds. The bill, introduced last December, already has149 Democratic co-sponsors (218 are needed to pass the House). [How similar is this to the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban? That, at least, came with a 10 year expiration date, and was thankfully allowed to die]
H.R. 4269 would ban all AR-15 and AK-type rifles and all civilian versions of military rifles produced anywhere in the world within the past 60 years or so. The bill would also ban all parts kits, stripped receivers, “bump-fire” stocks, thumbhole stocks, trigger cranks, so-called “compliant” rifles, and “any… characteristic that can function as a [pistol] grip.” Law enforcement is exempt from the bill’s provisions. [So this is perhaps more comprehensive than the 1994 ban]
H.R. 4269 is not a “kick down the door and confiscate ‘em” bill. Existing rifles and magazines are “grandfathered” (but the transfer of existing magazines is permanently prohibited). Gun banners know that it is literally impossible to perform a door-to-door gun confiscation in a nation of 300 million people, and that any attempt to do so would certainly be met with violence. Consequently, they have pre-empted the “Come and take it” crowd by employing a long-term strategy. Once the manufacture and sale of certain weapons is prohibited, it is only a matter of time before the legislation would be amended to outlaw the transfer of “grandfathered” rifles as well as magazines, thus enacting a de facto confiscation within a generation.
Although banning “assault weapons” is a Democratic proposal and a plank that Hillary Clinton has campaigned upon (she called the National Rifle Association an “enemy” along with Iran) it should not be assumed that all Republicans would oppose it. Republican presidential hopefuls Chris Christie, John Kasich, and Rudy Giuliani have all supported gun control in the past.
The impetus to push such legislation through Congress would likely come from a high-profile shooting or terrorist act that, like the Reichstag fire, would receive extensive media attention and provide the propaganda necessary for gun controllers like Chuck Schumer, the next Democratic Senate Majority Leader, to enact their pre-existing agenda……..[Having said that, dems had control of the House, Senate, and White House from 2008-10 and did not, or were not able, to enact any severe firearms legislation. But the movement within the party to do so has grown enormously since then, thanks to a media campaign oriented towards stoking fear and near-panic every time a large-scale shooting occurs (unless perpetrated by a muslim or BLM type, then it is swept under the rug to the greatest extent possible)]
…….If banning “assault weapons” has nothing to do with crime or terrorism, why are the Democrats so eagerly in favor of it? The answer is that they have a Hobbesian worldview, in which an all-powerful “Leviathan” government has a complete monopoly on the exercise of power. The Founders recognized that military-quality arms, not sporting arms, are an indispensable tool for challenging government oppression. Contemporary Democrats, who reject the Founders’ teaching, believe that such arms must be banned precisely because they can be used to challenge Leviathan’s authority. [That pretty well sums it up. I would expand on that by noting that every leftist government that has come to power has invariably banned civilian firearms ownership as one of its first acts. Once the population is disarmed, the repression and murder can “finally” get started]
If H.R. 4269 or a similar bill becomes law, do not expect the Supreme Court to come to the rescue and strike it down. [If Hillary elected, this is a certainty]
Now, what can states with large populations that still believe in the 2nd Amendment do about this potentiality? Here’s a fairly novel suggestion:
………pro-gun state legislatures could turn the “militias only” argument against the gun-banners by passing legislation expanding the membership of their state militias to all adult residents of the state, and specifically empowering all adults to purchase military-style semi-automatic rifles and magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds.
Were such a scenario to occur, the Federal government might try to suppress the arming of the newly-redefined state militias by banning arms and ammunition sales to them through the Interstate Commerce Clause. Such action would precipitate a constitutional crisis between the states and the Federal government.
So what do you think of that solution? Seems kind of direct and obvious to me, I’m sure the libs would lose their minds and get a court to say a militia requires basically active military service. And since the “militia” – or Guard – has become totally bound to the active duty military through the total force concept, that would probably provide about all the rationale a court would need.
Stock up on as much as you can afford now. If Hillary wins in 3 weeks, prices will surely skyrocket and ammo will become super-scarce. It’ll be late 2012-3 all over again, but probably a lot worse.
Non Sequitur Post of the Week – NIJ Standards for Body Armor October 12, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in Admin, blogfoolery, Dallas Diocese, firearms, fun, non squitur, silliness, technology.
Totally non sequitur, just an FYI for those who have no idea what we’re talking about in some other comment threads, the National Institutes of Justice body armor rating levels. I wonder if Bishop Farrell would have ever gotten around to impugning those of his flock who make use of passive defense, as he did so often against active defense (firearms)?
Drat, I guess we’ll never know now. Keep praying for our new bishop, whoever he may be.
BTW, Camper, this list more or less confirms that you are correct, Level IIIA is generally considered proof against most submachine gun rounds, which makes sense, since most subs fire 9 mm, .45, or similar handgun rounds, though at somewhat higher velocity than standard hand guns. Also remember that all soft body armor is pretty much useless against pointy weapons like knives, swords, battleaxes, broad-point arrows, etc.
|NIJ LEVEL I:
This armor protects against .22 caliber Long Rifle Lead Round Nose (LR LRN) bullets with nominal masses of 2.6 g (40 gr) impacting at a minimum velocity of 320 m/s (1050 ft/s) or less and 380 ACP Full Metal Jacketed Round Nose (FMJ RN) bullets with nominal masses of 6.2 g (95 gr) impacting at a minimum velocity of 312 m/s (1025 ft/s) or less.
|NIJ LEVEL IIA:
(Lower Velocity 9mm, .40 S&W). This armor protects against 9mm Full Metal Jacketed Round Nose (FMJ RN) bullets with nominal masses of 8.0 g (124 gr) impacting at a minimum velocity of 332 m/s (1090 ft/s) or less and .40 S&W caliber Full Metal Jacketed (FMJ) bullets with nominal masses of 11.7 g (180 gr) impacting at a minimum velocity of 312 m/s (1025 ft/s) or less. It also provides protection against Level I threats. Level IIA body armor is well suited for full-time use by police departments, particularly those seeking protection for their officers from lower velocity .40 S&W and 9mm ammunition.
|NIJ LEVEL II:
(Higher Velocity 9mm, .357 Magnum). This armor protects against .357 Magnum jacketed soft-point bullets with nominal masses of 10.2 g (158 gr.) impacting at a velocity of 425 m/s (1,395 ft/s) or less and against 9mm full-jacketed bullets with nominal velocities of 358 m/s (1,175 ft/s). It also protects against most other factory loads in caliber .357 Magnum and 9mm as well as the Level I and IIA threats. Level II body armor is heavier and more bulky than either Levels I or IIA. It is worn full time by officers seeking protection against higher velocity .357 Magnum and 9mm ammunition.
|NIJ LEVEL IIIA:
(.44 Magnum; Submachine Gun 9mm). This armor protects against .44 Magnum, Semi Jacketed Hollow Point (SJHP) bullets with nominal masses of 15.55 g (240 gr.) impacting at a velocity of 426 m/s (1,400 ft/s) or less and against 9mm full-metal jacketed bullets with nominal masses of 8.0 g (124 gr.) impacting at a velocity of 426 m/s (1,400 ft/s) or less. It also provides protection against most handgun threats as well as the Level I, IIA, and II threats. Level IIIA body armor provides the highest level of protection currently available from concealable body armor and is generally suitable for routine wear in many situations. However, departments located in hot, humid climates may need to evaluate the use of Level IIIA armor carefully.
|NIJ LEVEL III:
(High-powered rifle). This armor, normally of hard or semirigid construction, protects against 7.62mm full-metal jacketed bullets (US military designation M80) with nominal masses of 9.7 g (150 gr.) impacting at a velocity of 838 m/s (2,750 ft/s) or less. It also provides protection against threats such as 223 Remington (5.56mm FMJ), 30 Carbine FMJ, and 12-gauge rifled slug, as well as Level I through IIIA threats. Level III body armor is clearly intended only for tactical situations when the threat warrants such protection, such as barricade confrontations involving sporting rifles.
||NIJ LEVEL IV:
(Armor-piercing rifle). This armor protects against .30–06 caliber armor-piercing bullets (US military designation APM2) with nominal masses of 10.8 g (166 gr.) impacting at a velocity of 868 m/s (2,850 ft/s) or less. It also provides at least single-hit protection against the Level I through III threats.
Level IV body armor provides the highest level of protection currently available. Because this armor is intended to resist “armor piercing” bullets, it often uses ceramic materials. Such materials are brittle in nature and may provide only single-shot protection since the ceramic tends to break up when struck. As with Level III armor, Level IV armor is clearly intended only for tactical situations when the threat warrants such protection.
Liberals Clutch Pearls at Thought of “Super-Gun Owners” September 22, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, family, firearms, fun, General Catholic, manhood, secularism, silliness, Society.
I’d like to own a super gun. Isn’t that what got Dr. Gerald Bull killed by the Mossad, building the Baghdad Gun for Saddam Hussein?
Seriously, gun control advocates are now collectively hyperventilating – we are supposed to believe – over the fact that, it turns out, a relatively few people own an awful lot of guns. Even more shockingly, a fair number of those are women. Don’t these women know it’s their job to be helpless victims, after which they can be “empowered” by raging feminists demanding vengeance for their brutal rape-murders by getting federally-mandated child care?
Americans own an estimated 265m guns [I had read several places it was more like 350 million?], more than one gun for every American adult, according to the most definitive portrait of US gun ownership in two decades. But the new survey estimates that 133m of these guns are concentrated in the hands of just 3% of American adults – a group of super-owners who have amassed an average of 17 guns each. [Oh goodness, how terrible, head for the hills, we must have a federal gun ban! Actually, any serious hunter could easily run into that number of guns and not have anything but bolt actions and pump or single-action shotguns. 4 or 5 bird guns, maybe a turkey gun, one or two each for deer, varmints, elk, bear/moose, a revolver or two, and you’re at 17 quickly with just a hunting hobby. These numbers are meant to scare, but don’t mean anything. Also, I’m again saddened to learn I’m way, way below average. If only I had the money to buy another 5 guns and come up to spec……hint hint]
The unpublished Harvard/Northeastern survey result summary, obtained exclusively by the Guardian and the Trace, estimates that America’s gun stock has increased by 70m guns since 1994. At the same time, the percentage of Americans who own guns decreased slightly from 25% to 22%.[Do you think fewer Americans own guns now than before? The biggest decrease seems to be among young men, fewer than ever seem interested in owning guns. Of course, fewer than ever also seem interested in having a job, getting a married, raising a family, or doing anything other than playing video games, watching porn, and wasting time on 4Chan in mom and dad’s basement. Kidding aside (or was I?), the steady transition of populations from rural to urban tends to explain a lot of the overarching firearms ownership trends]
While there are an estimated 55 million American gun owners, most own an average of just three firearms, and nearly half own just one or two, according to the survey results. [Truth be told, before Obama came along, I only owned 3 guns. Now I have lots more]
Then there are America’s gun super-owners – an estimated 7.7 million Americans who own between eight and 140 guns. [Yay, I’m a super-owner!]
This kind of concentrated ownership isn’t unique to guns, firearms researchers noted. Marketing experts suggest that the most devoted 20% consumers will typically account for 80% of a product’s sales.
You know what they really wanted to say…….You filthy mouth breathing bitter clingers. Don’t you know NO ONE needs 8 or 11 or 27 or 55 of 112 guns?!? How dear you invade nice liberal dreams at night with the knowledge that people like you, people different from us, exist! Just crawl under a rock and die, Trumpistas.
Turning the snark around, perhaps they could fix this horrible awful gun inequality by getting the federal government to “even the playing field” by distributing a hundred million or so firearms to the “underserved” public?
Can you spot the reasons this guy is my (secular) hero of the week?
All real men……..all. real. men.
Not satisfied with your guns, they’re coming for your knives August 31, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, disaster, error, firearms, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, It's all about the $$$, persecution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society, unbelievable BS.
Proof that the “gun control movement” has never been about mass shootings or reducing crime, but about disarming the populace? As if we needed more? The Obama administration has apparently been using executive fiat to achieve what unpopular, unpassable legislation cannot – punishing those in the firearms industry by pressuring banks and other financial institutions to “divest” of any involvement with such evil, icky enterprises. But not satisfied with going after firearms-related manufacturers, they are apparently moving onto those who make knives, because knives kill, dontcha know. Be especially afraid of the deadly assault knives!:
Operation Choke-point is the scandal-ridden Department of Justice’s initiative aimed at
punishingmaking business difficult for those industries they don’t like. Payday lenders (ok, these can be dicey but are still better than loan-sharks), coin dealers (precious metals throw a wrench in their fiat currency scam), and firearms manufacturers and dealers (because…guns are icky and stuff) have all been targeted by the Obama’s highly-politicized DOJ. Since the Administration’s frontal assaults on the Second Amendment have not yielded the results they want, they have resorted to Executive Branch action to try to move the ball. In this they are pressuring financial institutions to deny banking services to the targeted industries.
While Congress is trying to put an end this abuse, Operation Choke Point is expanding into new realms. This past Friday Hogue Inc. announced that Wells Fargo has refused to do business with them, because they ostensibly manufacture “weapons”.
…….It is bad enough that the Executive Branch uses the levers of government to target their political enemies. What makes this situation worse is that these companies are not just engaging in legal commerce, they are producing and selling products that are not only legal but actually specifically protected under the Second Amendment.
The DOJ didn’t see fit to stop at guns, they are now going after knives and knife companies. Why stop there? Why not go after automobile manufacturers? Any tool can be used as a weapon. An ISIS terrorist killed more than 80 people with a truck in Nice……..
……..Congress is attempting to right this wrong, but the wheels grind slowly in Washington. There have been hearings on Operation Choke Point and a bill has passed the House which would stop this abuse and discrimination, but it is bogged down in the Senate. Senators Mike Lee and Ted Cruz are leading the effort try and fix the problem. [Even if they can get it to pass the Senate, Obama has already indicated he would veto any such legislation that attempts to curb his preference to rule by decree.]
It’s always been about power. A well-armed populace is at least a latent threat to the dreams of the planners and schemers who so fervently believe they know much better than the rest of us. One can imagine just how far the sexular pagan left wants to carry its power into the daily lives of citizens by their intense compulsion to deal with this threat. It has nothing to do with mass shootings or concern over a safer world, and everything to do with dealing with threats to unlimited power.
For a bit more on Operation Choke Point, which is blatantly unconstitutional, I would think (where are the lawsuits?!?), see below:
So, how do you think our dear, departed Bishop Farrell would come down on this? To ask the question, and all that…….
Just a fun gun post. I happen to own both a Marlin 60 and a Ruger 10/22 “tactical.” Both are .22LR rimfire semi-auto rifles. Both tend to be quite affordable, the Marlin much more so than the Ruger, especially when the Ruger is tricked out with folding stock, 25 round magazines, Picatinny rails, red dot sight, etc.
I happen to like both guns quite a bit. I’m not a big fan of “tacticool,” modding out guns with all kinds of synthetic stocks, rails, and accessories. They can certainly add a certain amount of utility to a firearm, but they tend to make them heavier and more unwieldy. I’m just the kind of guy who would freeze at a critical moment trying to decide whether to fire, turn on the laser, use the flashlight, or grab the pistol grip. Having said that, because it kind of came that way from the start, I’ve tricked out my 10/22 to a probably silly degree. Pretty much all my other non-hunting rifles are bone stock.
Having said that, in many ways, I prefer the cheap little Marlin to the Ruger. I think the Marlin’s action is better and smoother. I think it’s slightly more accurate. It weighs about half as much (acknowledging, much of that difference is my own fault). And, rather significantly, I’ve never been able to overrun the action of the Marlin with my finger, while I have done that with the Ruger, especially if the ammo isn’t of the best quality. That is to say, I get a misfeed and the gun jams when trying to fire very quickly in semi-auto. Most of that is probably on the ammo, but I get the impression at times I’ve just flicked my finger faster than the action can work. I’ve never had that happen with the Marlin.
The Ruger has a big advantage in being magazine fed, and holding far more rounds (25 vs. 14 or 15 for the Marlin), if you have BX-25 magazines. Even if one only has the “stock” 10 round cylindrical magazine, it is far easier, and faster, to slap a new magazine in, than it is to reload a 14 round tube, even with speed-loading aids. It is very customizable. The folding stock can be very handy. As an entry-level “tactical” or “sporter” type gun, it’s very inexpensive and easy to handle. With the Marlin, there’s very little around to customize it with, and even adding a scope requires buying special hardware for the rings. Which, is no big deal, but I bet more than one owner has been frustrated to find that awesome new scope he just bought won’t mount on his rifle as it came from the store.
I really don’t think you can go wrong with either gun. I agree with the gentleman in the first video, the Marlin 60 makes a very good first gun. Perhaps not the first gun a child ever shoots – a break action gun might be a more prudent choice – but for a child somewhat experienced with firearms, it is an awesome “first gun” for them to own. My kids have largely learned to shoot on one. Even my more skittish daughters like the light weight and ease of handling the Marlin 60.
Pretty thorough review from the great Hickok45 on both guns:
One gun owner who agrees with my take, though most prefer the 10/22 to the Marlin. I agree with his reasons: