"What are the Benefits of Gun Registrations"?

 

 I saw this question and decided to answer it honestly, I did it while I was on break at work, and here and there if you know what I mean.  I decided to give it a fair answer than rant and scream about it.   here is the answer I gave on the Quora forum:

     Initially it could be used to track the ownership of a firearm in the case of its use in a crime and if the owner can account for it. Basically, narrows down the subject pool. That being said, once the government goes from benevolent to tyrannical, once the government has that information, once they decide that a certain class of people cannot own any sort of firearms, they already know who they are. This happened to the German Jews in the 1930's when their rights as German citizens were stripped by edicts from the Nazi government, one of them being that they had to wear that “Star of David” on their clothing, and all jew owned businesses had to identify as such with signs. This of course led to “ Krystallnacht” where the brownshirts trashed Jewish owned businesses because they were blamed for the “Reichtag” fire which the Nazi's actually set but used to blame the Jews. The results were the destruction of the identified Jewish businesses. They also had their firearms seized earlier because the German government knew about them before the Nazi's took over and the Nazi's used the power of government to strip away the means of defense of their political opponents. You can't do the “Final solution to the Jewish problem “if they make it difficult on you. “ It can't happen today” is the phrase bandied about, but I will bring up a recent history event….Covid…remember during the height of the scare there were talks of stripping the rights of the “unvaxxed” putting them in camps, taking their kids away “ firing them, and banishing them from society, all in the name of “ the public good”, the same language used by the brownshirts against the Jews in Germany in the 1930's. Remember the hysteria? The fear? Certain groups tapped into that fear for their own purposes. We as a society are still recovering from it. Australia did put people that refused to vaxx into camps. As I recall in Victoria I believe, going by memory here. That is one of the fears is that if the government goes full tyrannical, and your guns are already seized they can do to you and yours with no repercussions. Sure, they can put you in a camp but if they get pain in the process, it slows them down.

I have used this quote before, the government is to serve the people, not the other way around, and right now there are a lot of people that believe that they by their schooling, family and beliefs have it in their hearts that they know what is best for “us” and if we just would get with the program under their tutelage utopia will arrive. Well real life doesn’t work like that, they believe that there should be 2 classes of people, the rich and the poor and the poor would be beholding to them for leadership, guidance, sustenance and so forth. Such people if they depend on you, will do what you say. Well, the middle class we tend to have our own wealth and tend as a group to be armed. so, they can’t run roughshod over us because we don’t depend on them.

It is a truism of history, registration always eventually to confiscation. And after confiscation, comes persecution, The Turks did it to the Armenians, Stalin did it to the Ukrainians, The Holomdor is real to them. Pol Pot did it to his fellow Cambodians, and there are more examples in history. The truth of it is that there comes no good if the government knows how among the citizens are armed. kinda keeps them honest. And if someone says “You can’t fight an F-15” or some other high tech weapon system, as I recall the Vietnamese did pretty good as did the Afghans.

"How Do Gun Rights Advocates respond to the claim that AR-15's are useless..........."

 Same as before...

  And it will be this way, I will blog when I can.  I have a rant peculating and some things that happened at Casa De Garabaldi.  I will try to get a post up on Sunday, or I might sleep in, LOL

    Well anyway I saw this on Quora while I was on the throne. As I was taught a long time ago "The bossman gets paid a dollar, I get paid a dime, so I get paid to crap on company time". Well anyway I saw this and thought it was worth "Nicking".  Afterwards, I added a post I had done back in 2013.

       

How do gun-rights advocates respond to the claim that AR-15s are useless because a tyrannical government would send drones, A-10s, and tanks to quell any civilian revolts?

because a tyrannical government would send drones, A-10s, and tanks to quell any civilian revolts?

AR-15s?

Some of these people don’t have proper shoes. I have seen shoes made out of Kumho tires. And they’re not even U.S. citizens.

The U.S. has employed drones, A-10s, artillery, guided missiles… a whole hell of a lot of resources. Hundreds of billions of dollars.

After nearly 20 years of fighting these “poorly armed” people, we’re about to finally quit. Because there is no [feasible] way to win. We don’t even know what “winning” looks like today.

---

War is not simply killing the enemy. War is a struggle between two hostile, independent, and irreconcilable wills, each trying to impose itself on the other by force.

You do not win a war by killing the enemy. You win a war by destroying his ability to fight. Killing your enemy is just one tried-and-true method of destroying your enemy’s ability to fight. But it is not the only way. It is not even the most efficient way.

Unless you’re willing to slash and burn, asymmetric warfare is not won by having the biggest or most expensive toys. It’s by using the toys you do have to grind your enemy down in materiel and morale. To undercut his economic and social support. So that even if your enemy has all the toys to fight, you’ve attrited him so badly that he no longer desires to pay the high cost of using them.

So, your military personnel are murdering civilians in mass numbers with expensive toys?

Well, let’s get down to brass tacks. I mean, really basic, gritty uncomfortable stuff about occupying an armed society. At the end of the day those military personnel are greatly outnumbered. And they live in homes and have families and they have to sleep. Right in those angry civilian’s backyards.

Sure, Lieutenant Smith can reach out and touch someone by predator drone. If Ireland taught us anything, one night Smith will go to the local off-base watering hole. And he won’t come home that night. They’ll find him dead in an alley or floating in a river.

Oh, sure. They’re not supposed to talk about what they do. But, it happens. Loose lips. Internal leaks. It’s inevitable—especially close to home. Today, the Air Force has about 900 drone pilots. How many pilots could a tyrannical government afford to lose? How fast can you re-train them?

Sure, you can take increasingly drastic action to control the civilian population. And you’ll only exacerbate the pushback. And where’re your bullets and beans coming from? Who is producing and packaging it? Is it still safe? Those aircraft burn fuel. After several months of these operations, where are you going to get that fuel? Other civilians? Supply chains coming from civilian contractors are vulnerable. And collaborators are just targets. How are you going to operate when over 300 million people can deny you—and all of your supply chain—freedom of movement?

Like I said. This is ugly stuff.

So now, in addition to this murderous government killing civilians, you’ve got to protect your personnel, their homes, their families, food production and processors, private contractors, fuel lines, highways, etc. And that’s before we even consider external threats who might smell opportunity.

So you really have a tyrannical government? The scale of operations you’ll need to contemplate will quickly explode in complexity and resource requirements. Yes, you can have a bit of fun oppressing your civilian population. But the logistics will ultimately sink whatever tyrannical fantasies you have.

Yes, even a poorly trained, armed populace is capable of defending and prevailing against a much larger, better equipped military. Not at any small cost. People die in armed conflict. But they can win. And that is the way things are.

And the fact that this is the way things are, tends to “discourage” ambitious and corrupt men from future actions they might take. Which would lead us down the path where such a tyrannical government would be willing to inflict such heavy casualties on their citizens with impunity.

Petty tyrannies maybe. But, outright tyranny isn’t logistically possible. So long as people have the means to resist you.

People who state this absurd objection are effectively saying, “And that’s why we need to disarm the people. So they can’t fight back at all.”

       Something else to think about, I had posted this back in 2013 I believe and it is still pertinent to what is going on, 

I ran across this from Here.  I remember seeing this posted before right after Sandy Hook.  Since then, the government has tried to ban certain ammo for a very popular rifle platform.  BATF is just doing the bidding of the petulant boy king.   I have commented in the past that there is only one way to enter Valhalla and kneeling before the executioner ain't it.  I am adding some points to the below essay.  I have this thought going through my mind if the time came and I had to choose to die with honor or live as a coward....

     If the decision came, I hope I acquit my self as well as the vikings did in this battle, yes I know that this is a movie, but the Alamo was real as was other places that fought against overwhelming odds.    I sincerely hope that it never comes to this and we pull away from the abyss that is looming in front of us.  There is a lesson here, if everybody choose to fight, the enforcers will quickly lose heart for we vastly outnumber them.

Stick to your guns–no matter what!

This is a re-post from a couple of years ago. Matt tells it like it is. If we don't resist, it's just a short boxcar ride to a "re-education" camp. Or a bullet in the back of the head. I have made my stance very clear on more than one occasion.
  My line in the sand;
     I would rather be shot by a government thug while standing in the middle of my street 
      than to be shot in the back of the head by a government thug while kneeling next to a pit.

by Matt Bracken

If they come to take away your guns by force, they have declared war on the Constitution, and on you. At that point, war is joined, just as it was during another famous gun confiscation raid on April 19, 1775.

If a firearm was legal in 2012, under the 2nd Amendment it’s still legal in 2013 and it will be legal forever, no matter what so-called “executive orders” are handed down or new “laws” are passed by a panicking Congress. Those who say otherwise are liars and traitors and oath breakers and domestic enemies.

Every survivor of every genocide says the same thing: when they come to take your guns, shoot them! Make them take them, and their system of repression will be overwhelmed, because they don’t have millions of jack-booted thugs ready to do armed battles all over the country.

If you give up your arms, you are placing your entire trust in the permanent future benevolence of the U.S. government. This trust is invariably fatal: ask the American Indians about those treaties that were guaranteed forever.

History is clear, with numerous examples, of the danger of gun registration and gun control. The German gun registration laws were enacted during the 1920s Weimar Republic, years before Hitler came to power. German gun registration was mandated in the name of “public safety.” Note that phrase well. I’m sure today’s liberal utopians would agree that they were “common sense” and “reasonable” gun control laws. Don’t we all want “public safety?”

Then Hitler rose to power, and used the gun registration lists to first disarm the Jews, and then to force them into starving, overcrowded ghettos, and finally into mass graves and gas chambers. The Nazi genocide of the Jews was enabled by those “common sense” German gun registration lists.

Millions of Polish Jews were rounded up by German military police battalions. The German military police only needed a 1-10 ratio to their victims. A mere 100 German military police, (4-Fs in their forties, bottom of the barrel conscripts, not rabid SS), would round up and murder a town of a thousand Jews over the course of one day.

The Germans would force them to sit tightly packed together on town plazas or sporting fields under the watch of only a handful of armed guards. The Germans would then march groups of twenty or thirty at a time at gunpoint into the woods for point-blank executions. A 1-10 ratio means the military police were not worried at all about meeting resistance. The victims were all previously disarmed.

During the Armenian Genocide from 1915-23, two million Christian Turks were exterminated by being marched at gun point into burning deserts with no food or water. The Turkish gun registration laws were enacted in 1911, in the name of “public safety.” The genocide began a few years later, after the Armenians’ firearms were confiscated.

Entire divisions of Russian troops hiked home from WW1 in 1917/18, carrying their rifles and swords and other sidearms. Very early on, Lenin decreed that “public safety” required they all be turned in, under penalty of death. And so the Russian war veterans were disarmed—but not the Communist Party members. Then came the Soviet purges, the Great Terror, the Gulags, and tens of millions of disarmed Russians were murdered.

I’m sorry, but I do NOT trust that our federal government won’t turn as brutally tyrannical as the old USSR at some point in the future, perhaps after an economic crash or other major crisis. The Obama regime already perceives that we “Bitter Clingers” are “reactionaries” who are not only standing in the way of social progress, we are actively blocking it.

That makes us pure Evil, since their plan for a socialist utopia is pure Good. And that means they will ultimately come to feel totally justified in seeking a “final solution to the Bitter Clinger problem,” in the same way that the Turks, Soviets and Nazis did. Can anyone guarantee Americans that tyranny will never visit our shores?

If the socialists in power are scapegoating us as national villains now, what will they do when they have no reason to fear us whatsoever? Did the Turks, Soviets or Nazis treat their despised minorities better, or worse, after disarming them? Think!

And once a despot’s enemies (that’s us) are disarmed and helpless…the temptation grows to simply do away with them. Obama mentor and ghost-autobiographer, the Weather Underground bomber Bill Ayers, stated that they would need to murder ten percent of the American population to achieve their socialist nirvana. Thirty million bitter clingers. Guess who that is?

Don’t relearn this bitter lesson the hard way. Learn from history’s many examples. As it was for the Turkish Armenians, German Jews, Russian Kulaks, Chinese, Ugandans, Guatemalans, Cambodians, Cubans, Rwandans, and on and on, history’s lesson is crystal clear:

Stick to your guns–no matter what!

I think this passage says it all. If we resist, what are they really going to do? What happens when the enforcers are afraid to go out and do their jobs? 

“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? After all, you knew ahead of time that those bluecaps were out at night for no good purpose. And you could be sure ahead of time that you’d be cracking the skull of a cutthroat. Or what about the Black Maria sitting out there on the street with one lonely chauffeur — what if it had been driven off or its tires spiked. The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!”

~~Alexander Solzhenitsyn

5 Myths of Gun Free Zones

I'm still on vacation, and it will be my last break before my change over to night shift in a couple of weeks.

 I snagged this from "Dave Morris" who runs a shooting school and training courses, I subscribe to his email list and I regularly get emails about courses and tidbits about current events.  I normally don't replicate them on my blog.  This one was a bit different, it talked about a mindset as well as training and the myths of the "GFDZ" as my friend  "Miggy" calls them.

5 Myths About “Gun Free” Zones

In light of the Uvalde murders, I wanted to re-share an article that I wrote awhile back about the myth of gun free zones…

There’s been a lot of talk recently about “Gun Free” zones and, frankly, a lot of it has been useless blather from people who know nothing about guns and reveal more and more of their ignorance with each additional word they speak.

With that in mind, I want to share 5 “Gun Free” zone myths and responses you can use when you hear them.

Myth #1. Gun Free Zones make us safer and reduce crime. It should be obvious by now that gun free zones don’t make us safer. Any time you hear this argument, ask the person who makes it if they have “gun free zone” stickers on their cars to stop carjackings, “gun free zone” signs in their yards to stop home invasions, and wear “gun free zone” shirts and hats to stop muggings, robberies, rapes, etc.  If they balk, remind them that “Change starts with me” and that they should “Be the change you want to see.”

If “gun free” zones make us safer, suggest that they tell that to the Secret Service and the State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security. I’m sure they’ll change how they protect people right away.

The fact that these signs don’t exist in large numbers is a tacit admission that gun haters and people who are ignorant about guns KNOW, at some level, that gun free zones don’t work.

Equally silly is the thought that gun free zones reduce crime…they simply change the location.

First off, someone who intends on murdering large numbers of people will commit 5 or more misdemeanors and/or felonies in the process of firing their first shot. Do you really think that someone intent on murdering innocent people cares about breaking 1 additional law? Do you really think that someone who intends on killing themselves or committing suicide by cop cares about additional penalties from a judge? Of course not.

Next, gun free zones don’t reduce crime because they change the behavior of moral and ethical people who carry guns more than the behavior of murderers.

Concealed carry permit holders tend to be law abiding citizens…both because it’s their general nature and it’s kind of a requirement to get the permit. As a result, a higher percentage of concealed carry permit holders obey gun free zone signs and laws than murdering psychopaths.

Myth #2. Highly Trained Law Enforcement Will Arrive Immediately And Save You. Law enforcement is my literal and figurative family.  They are short-changed when it comes to the training they get and what’s expected of them.  The average officer receives about as much firearms training as a dog groomer before starting work.  MANY patrol officers across the country only do their 1 day of mandatory training and qualifying per year and do zero practice with their firearms the rest of the year.  Other officers are world class shooters who regularly do extensive reality based training and are training for the fight every day.

On average in the US, it will take 11 minutes for law enforcement to arrive (assuming that someone is connected with a HUMAN 911 operator the instant that the murdering starts).  If a motivated murderer is unchallenged, they will historically shoot an average of 6-20 victims per minute.  When law enforcement arrives, you may get an officer who shoots once a year and doesn’t really like guns or you may get an officer who does dry fire before every shift and has mentally rehearsed and prepared themselves for this situation.  They have trained themselves to fight through the pain of minor gunshot wounds (like the officer in Uvalde).  They have no quit in them and will finish the fight.

It is rare that a school resource officer has both the temperament to be a school resource officer AND be able to flip the switch and pursue a lethal aggressor.  It happens and I’ve trained with one, but it’s rare.  It’s much more likely that in a school full of teachers, administrators, and support staff that there will be a frustrated warrior or two who will already have the mindset and training to solve the problem…we just need to make sure they aren’t prevented from having the tools they need.

Myth #3 Common sense laws will stop mass shootings. We have more than 20,000 gun laws on the books in the US. What’s the magic next law that will make all of the bad people stop doing bad things?

The only thing that would take care of gun crime would be to eliminate guns. By definition, a country with zero (not even 1 gun) guns would have zero gun crime.

We’ve got more than 300 million guns in the US. They’re not going away. If they’re outlawed, then the law would disproportionately affect law abiding citizens. (remember, murderers don’t care about laws or the consequences of breaking them.)

But if we look at how this has worked out in DC, Chicago, Australia, the UK, and other places with strict gun laws, we see that it doesn’t work out well for law enforcement or the general public.

It didn’t work out well for Jews in Germany in the 30s, or minorities in ANY country throughout history that has been disarmed.

Look at Austria…one recent Muslim extremist mass murderer ran his car into a crowd and then got out and started stabbing the survivors.

Look at China…in the last few years, they’ve seen almost a dozen mass school stabbings and hammer attacks, including one where the attacker beat preschoolers in the head with a hammer and then lit himself on fire. Within 24 hours of the Sandy Hook attacks, one murderer stabbed 22 children in an attack in China. In another attack, 4 Muslim extremists used knives to kill 29 civilians and injure 140 others at the Kunming railway station.

Look at Northern Ireland…when gun ownership was prohibited for certain groups, those groups became targets of violence from the groups who could still own guns. Explosives, knives, rocks, and deadly modifications to potato guns took their place to fill the role of the gun. Violence didn’t go away with gun confiscation.

When someone thinks that gun laws will solve the problem of mass shootings, they need to ask themselves what the point is, to protect innocent people or convict guilty people more harshly after they’re dead?

Additional laws only allow for harsher penalties to be enforced, after the fact, on a murdering psychopath.

If you want to protect innocent people from murdering psychopaths who are comfortable breaking laws, you need to look to another solution than more laws. A solution like the most effective way to STOP the attacker.

Myth #4. Locking doors, hiding, throwing cans, and pleading/begging are effective strategies for stopping the threat.

We live in a time where we can find out an amazing amount of detail about EVERY active shooter situation that has happened in the US in recent history. We can see where these strategies were all tried and the outcome. None of them STOP the threat. They may delay death, reduce the number of innocent deaths, change who dies, create time and space for additional attacks, or change the location of deaths, but they don’t stop the threat on their own.

Myth #5. You’re unarmed if you don’t have a gun. This mindset is absolutely toxic. Poisonous. Corrosive. Venomous. Deadly. Wrong.

Yet it’s a common line of thinking for people who have it in their mind that a gun is a magical laser beam that gives the holder supernatural 1 shot killing ability that can only be matched by another gun.

The gun is just a tool that allows the mind to exert it’s influence kinetically at a distance.

The mind is the weapon that decides whether or not to wield tools in a moral and ethical manner or in a psychopathical/sociopathical manner.

As an example, what would have happened if some of the people who kneeled/layed down would have fought the attacker after he shot his first victim? Would they have been killed trying to stop him? Maybe.

We know that at the Umpqua shooting in 2015, at the first sign of armed resistance (from police in this case), the killer ran, hid, and shot himself in the head, ending the killing. If that would have happened after he shot his first or second victim, it wouldn’t have even been considered a “mass shooting.”

I need to be clear…I’m not surprised that nobody who was lined up to get executed fought back.

One soldier, Chris Mintz, actually did fight back at Umpqua…and a lot more. He set off fire alarms, directed students away from the shooting, and then headed towards the gunfire, and attempted to block a door so the gunman couldn’t get through.

He stopped fighting when he was mechanically unable to…because he had one or both legs broken from being shot.

But nobody joined him. And it doesn’t surprise me. And I wouldn’t have expected them to act any differently than they did unless they had different training. The phrase, “you’ll perform half as well in battle as you do in training” applies. If you have zero training, then your expected performance will be that you’ll freeze, cower, or run…and running is probably the best option for someone with no training, but history tells us that the untrained are much more likely to freeze or panic than deliberately run.

When someone who has no training cowers, it’s not cowardly. It’s a reflection of a lack of training. You can’t be expected to perform beyond the level of your training…and that’s why training is SO important, like the Praxis Dynamic Gunfight Training course that goes WAY beyond static, sterile, paper-punching skills that most gun owners call “training.”

But an effective response could have been simple, like grabbing fire extinguishers and, as Clint Smith says, “spray ‘em with the white stuff and then hit them with the red thing.”  It completely baffles me that every classroom in the country doesn’t have at least 2 fire extinguishers for this purpose.  It’s relatively inexpensive, most likely donated, not threatening, and it’s something that could be implemented any day of the week.  A big crowd-control sized pepper spray can may freak out parents, but would a fire extinguisher attached to the teacher’s desk?

It could have been deploying a concealed carry firearm. We have super-stupid federal “gun free zone” legislation that should be eliminated immediately, as well as state laws regarding carry at schools, but that brings up a VERY important point that few concealed carry permit holders know.

In many cases, it is “against the rules” but not illegal to carry a concealed carry firearm in a gun free zone. In other cases, it results in being asked to leave. In other cases, it’s a simple, minor misdemeanor, like trespassing. In other cases, it’s a serious misdemeanor. In other cases, it’s a felony. We have an inconsistent, illogical patchwork of gun laws in this country and you NEED to know the laws where you live.

You could be a teacher somewhere where carrying a gun in a gun free zone on campus might be legal but against school policy and just mean a firm talking-to or it could be losing a job or a serious crime with possible jail time.

If not a fire extinguisher or a gun, then Tasers (not stun guns), knives, pepper spray, or other purpose built or improvised defensive tools combined with offensive strikes can easily change the number of innocent people who were murdered.

But, again, these things are simply TOOLs. The only weapon is the mind. And an effective tool in the hands of someone with an ineffective mind is useless. You must train the mind.

You must train the mind to see targets on the human body.

Watch any UFC fight and you’ll see trained fighters hitting each other in the head and body for 5, 10, and 15 minutes at a time. This illustrates just how ineffective most strikes—even really hard strikes from professional fighters—are at stopping a threat.

A fighter will absorb massive kick after kick after kick and keep fighting, but if their left nut gets grazed, the ref will stop the fight and give them a chance to recover.

A fighter will absorb dozens of punches to the face, but if they barely get touched with a pinky finger in the eye, the ref will stop the fight and give them a chance to recover.

Fighters will try to “knock a guy’s head off” for an entire fight with strikes you can feel from home, but any one of these strikes delivered a few inches lower, to the throat or side of the neck, would instantly knock him out or crush their opponents’ windpipe.

Targeting matters, but conditioning the mind matters too. You must train the mind to be able to switch from the loving, caring, empathetic, socialized person that you are to a cold-hearted robot with ice flowing in your veins JUST long enough to stop the threat with the minimum force necessary to preserve human life.

And the most scientific and proven way that we know of to do this is with the Fight To Your Gun training

It’s based on gross motor movements and what’s in your environment, so it’s effective on younger, faster, bigger, and stronger attackers and it’ll allow you to stop a lethal force threat at bad breath distance faster than you could with a concealed carry pistol.

 

"Which Weapons Are Most Commonly Used in a Homicide?"

 This is compliments of "JPFO" and the Joslyn Law Firm.  I snagged this from JPFO, they sent it to my email and I thought it was very informative.   I have been super busy, My spologies for not posting something after Monday I have another rant perculating, I will try to get it posted in a few days.

 

With the renewed push by the federal government for an assault weapons ban, we couldn’t help but wonder, just how often are assault rifles really to blame for crimes? More specifically, how often are they used as murder weapons when compared to all of the other types of weapons available?

Using FBI homicide statistics from the 2019 Crime in the United States report, the insights team at the Joslyn Law Firm charted out how often different types of weapons were used in homicides in the U.S.. Of the 16,425 homicides that occurred in 2019, the FBI was able to collect supplemental data for 13,922 of them, which is what our data is based on. The weapon types are broken down into the different types of firearms: handguns, rifles, shotguns, and a category for homicides in which the type of firearm was unknown. It also compares the number of homicides that were committed by non-firearm weapons such as knives or cutting instruments as well as bodily weapons, which include people’s hands, fists, and feet. Non-firearm weapons were used for one-quarter of all homicides in the United States.

Would a ban on assault rifles actually help to curb the violence? With rifles being a relatively uncommon type of weapon used in homicides in the United States, an assault rifle ban may not make much difference when it comes to the number of murders that occur. Homicides are overwhelmingly committed using handguns; they were found to be the most common murder weapon for nearly half of all homicides in the United States in 2019. Even hands, fists, and feet are used to commit homicide almost twice as often as a rifle is. An NIH study that investigated the levels of criminal activity committed with assault weapons or other high-capacity semiautomatics also found that these types of weapons are only being used in a small percentage of crimes: “Assault weapons (primarily assault-type rifles) account for 2–12% of guns used in crime in general (most estimates suggest less than 7%).” Wouldn’t all of the time, money, and resources being used to push for an assault rifle ban be better used elsewhere, such as creating a better mental health-care system that is accessible to those that need it most?

 

Here We Go Again.........More Bullcrap, Compliments of the Donks.

 I wanted to wait a bit before commenting on the Boulder Colorado Shooting...I wanted to wait a bit and let the families mourn...it is a respect thing...Something I wish the politicians especially those on the left seem to unable to locate or use.  We have Senator Dianne Feinstein immediately before the blood was even cold schilling for more gun control. We have "Uncle Joe" pontificating about "Banning Assault Rifles" and "Using Executive Actions to further his goals".  I'm not even going to identify the asshole who did the shooting.

  The same politicians that had a hearing to restrict the first amendment rights of those she considers "alternative media".  It is all about control, the elitist which she is part of believe that we the great unwashed masses need our betters in Washington D.C. on how to live.  That is a big issue with me is the blatant hypocrisy displayed on the left.  She and the other leftists has their bodyguards to protect them from the same masses that she wants to restrict our ability to defend ourselves and control the information so we will become the drones that the statist believe in to help run the utopia that they envision for us.

"Lawdogs Famous Gun Control Cake Meme"

      Now we will have to endure more calls for gun control, they keep telling us that we need " to compromise on our rights...Lemme get my dictionary....Compromise

COM·PRO·MISE

   [kom-pruh-mahyz]  Show IPA noun, verb, com·pro·mised, com·pro·mis·ing.

noun

1.

a settlement of differences by mutual concessions; an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims, principles, etc., by reciprocal modification of demands.

2.

the result of such a settlement.

3.

something intermediate between different things: The split-level is a compromise between a ranch house and a multistoried house.

4.

an endangering, especially of reputation; exposure to danger, suspicion, etc.: a compromise of one's integrity.

  So to compromise..I have to give up something......what does the anti-gunner give up....NOTHING>>>ZIP >>>NADA...They don't give up crap.  Until the next time another squirrel uses a firearm, then they will want more compromise which basically means..we lose more of our rights.   I am not going to give up anything anymore.  All we have done in the past is try to be reasonable....Well I am done being reasonable.     

The Anti-gunners keep missing the point...They are trying to legislate morality and it doesn't work.  The people that do bad things already broke other laws...What will passing more laws accomplish...

 Any excuse to chisel away at the 2nd amendment.  All in the name of "Common-Sense" gun control.  I will state the obvious, they use any tragedy to continue to ratchet down on the 2nd amendment.  It isn't gun control, they want, it is "people control" .  Liberals are busy bodies that want to not only control their life...they want to control yours also.  And if they can get away with killing the 2nd amendment, you will have no choice because the liberals control the tools of the state and they will try to bend you to their will.  If you don't comply they will send you to a gulag for "re-education" until you have paid your debt to their society via labor, you think I am being an alarmist?  Stalin did it in the 30's with his purges, Hitler did it in the 40's with the work and death camps, and Mao did it in the 60's, and history has a nasty habit of repeating itself.    Remember Saul Alensky, the hero to our "Uncle Joe" The Squad and the other democrats, they had stated that to fundamentally transform the United States to the socialist utopia that they want, that they will have to kill 10% of the American people, the ones that will not toe the line.  This is the price that they are willing to pay for this socialist utopia, the great city in the hill that the progs have dreamed up. .  As long as we have the 2nd amendment and our right to defense of persons from tyranny and oppression, they cannot do that.  Remember these are the same people that stampeded everyone into wearing Face diapers and pushing to make them permanent.  

I keep wondering how these elitist is going to persuade the average American to give up their guns?   They gonna have the PoPo go bust down doors to get the guns.....all you gonna get is a bunch of dead citizens and dead police...and the average police officer ain't keen on kicking in doors.  Now the weenies from the federal side of the house might be game...but the local law enforcement ain't going to have a lot of excitement.  The feds would try it because it isn't their community...and they want to keep their benefits and paychecks..but they would have to get the support of the local PoPo....
    

American gun owners are beginning to respond with a fresh, powerful argument when facing anti-gun liberals. Here it is, in its entirety. Ready?
“Screw you.” That’s it. Except the first word isn’t “Screw.”
The fact is that there is no point in arguing with liberal gun-control advocates because their argument is never in good faith. You can’t argue with someone who is lying about his position or whose position is not based upon reason.

 "Scratches from the Ovens at Auschwitz"

They lie about their ultimate aim, which is to ban and confiscate all privately owned weapons. And they adopt a pose of reasonability, yet their position is not susceptible to change because of evidence, facts or law. None of those matter – they already have their conclusion. This has to do with power – their power.

Put simply, liberal elitists don’t like the fact that, at the end of the day, an armed citizenry can tell them, “No.”

   I am disturbed that the democrats really believe that they can force gun control on the populace.  There are a lot of gun owners that will not hand them over...and I am not sure that the government knows exactly what they are in for..If memory serves...There are something like 400 million firearms here in the United States and most people ain't going to just hand them over.....it will be ugly fast.  I find it ironic that the people that espouse gun control want somebody else to go physically take the guns away from the citizens.  The people that are pushing this to support their nanny state big government agenda will not lead the stack into somebody's house in the middle of the night...they will be behind their keyboard and living in their guarded enclaves that insulate them from the results of their actions and we the people in "flyover country" will have to deal with the crime and other actions.  The liberals especially the limousine variety like the idea of the unwashed masses being totally subservient to their "betters" whom thanks to the knowledge imparted by their professors in their Ivory towers in their Ivy League colleges that haven't worked a real job in their life and have no idea how the world actually works, just what they believe would work if the right people are in charge.

    There is a growing disconnect with the people who are in charge, there is an undercurrent of anger and frustration and I am afraid that it will boil over and it will get ugly fast, we have the people in D.C doubling down in stupid and actually pushing for a confrontation....they believe that the power of the state is superior to all and that a people need to do what they are told.  This is Anathema to a free people and it will force a fight for the direction of the United State...If we will remain a free nation or continue the slide toward socialism and the chains of slavery where all we are is a resource to be used by the state and discarded when we have no value and the dream that was the United States will be in the dustbin of history.  

      And Finally

   The Assorted Pics and stuff are compliments of my folder of stuff on my laptop.

    

9 Reasons the Latest Democratic Gun Control proposal is faulty.

 I snagged this from Massad Ayoob, This was emailed to me and it was filled with a lot of good information.  The Author was praised by Mr. Ayoob about the information presented.

Two years ago, House Democrats pushed a bill requiring so-called “universal background checks” at the federal level, which would have effectively outlawed private sales throughout the country. That bill was H.R. 8, or the “Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019.”

Now, after taking control of all three branches, the Democrats are trying again and have just introduced, you guessed it: H.R. 8, the “Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2021.” Who says Democrats can’t come up with new ideas?

This new bill, just like the old bill, would require that a federal background check be

 conducted prior to all transfers of firearm possession. To many Americans, this may

 seem like a reasonable idea. After all, law-abiding gun owners abhor the criminal

 misuse of firearms

However, on closer examination, none of the claims from gun control proponents backing this bill holds water. We’re going to explore the top nine reasons this latest piece of gun control legislation is a bad idea..

Federally mandated universal background checks won’t end gun violence nor stop the criminal misuse of firearms, but they will significantly increase the burden of millions of law-abiding Americans who wish only to exercise their Second Amendment right to self-defense.

1. Demands For New Gun Control Are An Admission That Gun Control Doesn’t Work

Background checks are used to ensure that a potential firearm possessor is not one of a class of “prohibited persons” who are prohibited from possessing firearms or ammunition under federal law. This class includes felons, fugitives, those subject to certain restraining orders, those convicted of crimes of domestic violence, and more.

This means current gun control laws already make it illegal for these people to

 possess a firearm. Requiring more background checks is an admission that the

 current law prohibiting these people from possessing firearms is not enough to

 prevent their possession. This is true for all gun-control laws, because if we know one

 thing about criminals, it’s this: they do not care if they break the law.

Every mass killing is caused by one thing: an evil person intent on killing many innocent people. The tool, whether it be an airplane, a pressure cooker, or a firearm, can change. Making even more laws restricting access to the tool will not stop mass killings, but it will make it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves from potential violence. By definition, criminals don’t obey the law.

The horrific mass shooting at a school in Newtown, Connecticut, was not prevented by banning murder, banning guns on schools, banning the theft of firearms, nor requiring so-called universal background checks for every gun sale (Connecticut is one of the states that requires this). Adding yet another law on top of dozens of other laws that failed to prevent mass gun violence is an admission that these laws simply don’t work.

2. Gun Dealers Already Conduct Background Checks

Federal law, promulgated via Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) rules, already requires all gun dealers to meet stringent requirements for getting their Federal Firearms License (FFL). As an FFL, they must ensure that a customer has satisfied the background check requirements prior to allowing the customer to have possession of a firearm.

Under current federal law, gun dealers are required to confirm, prior to any and all

 sales, that a customer has passed a background check as part of every FFL transfer If

 you head into a gun store to purchase a new firearm, that dealer must confirm that

 you have satisfied the background check requirements before you can take

 possession of that new gun and take it home. This is the case regardless of where you live

If you’re traveling across state lines and see a gun in another state that you’d like to purchase, you must either have that gun shipped to an FFL in your home state if it’s a handgun or, if it’s a rifle or shotgun, you must still pass a background check there before you can purchase and possess the firearm.

Nearly two dozen states place additional requirements beyond federal law on firearm transfers and already either require a background check to be conducted for every firearm transfer (even between private same-state resident individuals, like the Universal Background Check bill proposes) or a valid firearm possession license that is issued contingent upon a background chec

3. There Is No ‘Gun-Show Loophole’

When someone brings up a desire for more background checks, it is often offered as a solution to close the “gun-show loophole.” There’s one big problem with that claim: there is no “gun-show loophole.” It is a myth.

As covered above, federal law requires that all sales from firearm dealers, or sales between residents of different states, must satisfy the background check requirements, regardless of whether those sales happen in a gun shop, at a gun show, or out of the back of somebody’s trunk in a parking lot. Many states also require background checks for individual sales.

There is simply no law anywhere that says if a gun is bought at a gun show, then the buyer doesn’t have to undergo a background check. A dealer who tries to sell a gun at a gun show without confirming that the buyer has passed a background check would be breaking the law.

Furthermore, federal law also prevents sales to anyone that any seller (not just FFLs) believes to be a “prohibited person” (e.g., a convicted felon). As a result, gun dealers regularly turn away potential customers if they think they are not legally allowed to purchase or possess a firearm. There is simply no special exemption or “loophole” in federal law that allows gun show sales to occur without background checks. Therefore, there’s no loophole to close.

4. There Is No ‘Online Gun Sales Loophole’

Another common call for universal background checks is based on a so-called “online gun sale loophole.” Similar to the “gun show loophole” above, it doesn’t exist. Firearms can be legally purchased (paid for) online as long as the purchaser is not a “prohibited person,” the firearm is legal to possess in the purchaser’s state of residence, and the state otherwise allows the sale.

The current legal process for online gun sales requires that the firearm be shipped to a federally licensed dealer (FFL) in the purchaser’s home state, where the purchaser must show up to fill out the required federal paperwork and satisfy the background check requirements prior to possession.

Just because you click “BUY” on a website that sells guns doesn’t mean you’ll have it shipped to your door without having to process the transaction through a federal gun dealer, who is required to confirm that you have passed a background check before you take possession of that new gun. Again, no loophole equals no loophole to close.

5. Universal Background Checks Won’t Stop Criminals From Getting Guns

There are two categories of people looking to purchase a firearm: law-abiding citizens with clean criminal records and therefore not a “prohibited persons,” or people who are already legally prohibited from purchasing a firearm. As discussed above, the former category follows laws. The latter doesn’t.

Even under a legal regime that requires universal background checks, the person who is banned by law from owning a gun will continue to get a gun the same way criminals do today: by stealing it, having someone else by it for him or her, or purchasing it in the black market. A federal background check requirement will do nothing to prevent that already illegal sale.

Thinking this will stop the criminal misuse of firearms is like insisting upon a background check before someone can purchase crystal meth. Users of crystal meth, much like criminals with guns, act contrary to the law. If they can’t legally buy it, they’ll do it illegally. And the people in the business of illegally selling aren’t about to start complying with laws that require them to conduct their black market sales in a particular way.

Remember, it’s already illegal for a prohibited person to possess a firearm. If that law doesn’t stop them, requiring background checks in more types of transactions won’t either.

There’s also a real problem with “straw purchases” of firearms, wherein someone with a clean record buys a gun from a gun store for someone who can’t legally purchase it on his or her own. This is already illegal and our nation’s gun dealers are the front line of defense against these illegal transactions. However, despite the current background check requirements for gun dealers, straw purchases still happen, and illegal straw purchases will only become more popular and more difficult to discern if H.R. 8 becomes law.

6. Background Checks Won’t Stop Mass Shootings

Demands for more gun control typically seem to follow mass shootings. It makes sense that we want to do something—these mass shootings are horrific, and we should do what we can to stop them. However, universal background checks will not end mass shootings nor gun violence.

Before proposing a new law that will create a hurdle to the exercise of a fundamental right, we should at least ask if the law would have prevented in the past whatever we’re trying to stop in the future. For example, universal background checks would not have stopped the deadliest mass shootings following the enactment of federal background check requirements in 1994:

Las Vegas 2017: Shooter purchased his firearms from a gun dealer (where background checks are already required).

Orlando 2016: Shooter purchased his firearms from a gun dealer.

Virginia Tech 2007: Shooter purchased his firearms from a gun dealer.

Sandy Hook 2012: Shooter stole his firearms.

Sutherland Springs 2017: Shooter purchased his firearm from a gun dealer. He had a criminal record and the background check system failed to stop him (the same system that would be used for private transfers).

Parkland 2018: Shooter purchased firearm from a gun dealer.

San Bernardino 2017: Shooters’ firearms were “straw-purchased” by someone else.

Fort Hood 2009: Shooter purchased firearm from a gun dealer.

Columbine 1999: Shooters’ guns were straw-purchased for them by someone else.

Thousand Oaks 2018: Shooter purchased firearm legally with a background check.

Navy Yard 2013: Shooter purchased firearm from a gun dealer.

Aurora 2012: Shooter purchased firearms from a gun dealer.

Democrats often cite stopping these mass shootings as a reason for enacting universal background checks. However, after seeing that universal background checks would have had zero effect, it invites the question: why are they really so eager to add burdens to lawful gun ownership?

7. In-State Commerce Is a State Issue

Under current federal law, only firearms transactions between private, non-dealer residents who reside in the same state are exempt from federal background check requirements. That is because the federal firearm licensing system and background check requirements apply only to interstate commerce.

This is not because the federal government doesn’t want more power (since when has that happened?). Instead, it is a valid constitutional restriction on what types of activities and commerce the federal government may control.

As noted above, many states have their own gun laws and have placed additional restrictions on firearm possession above and beyond what the federal government already requires. These purely in-state transactions between private residents of those states should continue to be handled at the state level, as different states have different challenges that are best addressed with local solutions implemented by local representatives.

Furthermore, each state should retain the authority to decide whether it is willing to incur the additional costs and burdens that will arise from new gun control restrictions.

8. Universal Background Checks Are Too Burdensome

The current National Instant Criminal Check System (NICS) used for firearm background checks can only be used by federally licensed gun dealers or government entities. This restriction by the FBI on their system is due to them not being able to handle the burden of additional checks.

Opening the background check system, which already experiences significant backlogs and delays, especially with the record-breaking gun sales figures lately, will introduce an extra burden on the government, and on those who wish to exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The universal background check bill will amount to a delay and a tax on the exercise of a fundamental right.

First, a seller and buyer must find, and travel to, a local gun store during the store’s hours and wait for paperwork and a background check to be processed. Second, unless the federal government intends to force dealers into servitude, the dealer will charge a fee for his services conducting the background check. This fee, typically around $25-50, will be, in effect, an additional tax on every sale of a firearm.

There will also be a burden on gun dealers. Most gun dealers are small business owners who are focused on keeping their businesses running. This extra burden will take their time away from customers and other business duties including helping to spot and stop straw purchases. It will also significantly increase their ATF compliance burden, as they are liable for every piece of paperwork and transfer that takes place.

9. Universal Background Checks Create a De Facto Federal Gun Registry

It is currently illegal for the federal government to maintain a database of ownership of standard firearms (not including silencers, machine guns, etc. that require an FFL to have an “SOT License”). There is a good reason for this ban on a federal gun registry: a tyrannical government can only confiscate firearms if it first knows where they are all located.

Although a registry is not mentioned in the bill, it is a logical conclusion. After all, how could such a universal background check law ever be enforced absent a national gun registry showing who passed a background check, when, and for which particular firearms?

For law enforcement to prove that a firearm was purchased in a private transaction, they would need to know who was the most recent lawful possessor. Of course, someone with a lawfully possessed firearm could have a receipt from a gun store, but that could be lost or faked.

The natural conclusion to this law’s enforcement would be the creation of a database tracking the lawful transfers, and therefore current possessors, of all firearms in this country. It would be bad enough if the government were to maintain and use such a list, but what if hackers stole that list, just as they stole the personnel records of millions of federal employees? Suddenly, violent criminals in search of weapons would have a perfect map showing which homes to ransack when nobody’s home.

Mass shootings and gun violence are horrible, and we should try to stop them. However, demands for more gun control only make plain the truth that gun control cannot stop violence.

Current gun control doesn’t stop criminals. The latest gun control proposal is no different. It would do nothing to end gun violence, but it would drastically increase the burdens on law-abiding citizens who only wish to defend themselves and their families from violent criminals who don’t care whether something is against the law.

Ryan Cleckner is a former special operations sniper and a current firearms attorney, university lecturer, entrepreneur, and best-selling author of "The Long Range Shooting Handbook." His most recent projects include online training to help people get an FFL and helping to educate gun owners at GunUniversity.com.