♫ That’s what we are. ♫ (with apologies to the late, great Nat King Cole)
From Caleb @ Gun Nuts:
Carrying a gun does not make me special. It doesn’t make me different, it doesn’t make me a sheepdog, and it shouldn’t be treated like an occasion. The act of every day concealed carry should be no more interesting or dramatic than the act of buckling your seatbelt, washing your hands during flu season, or changing the batteries in your smoke detectors.
Stop treating CCW like it’s special. It’s not. You’re just carrying the most effective tool available to defend yourself from violence. It’s a fire extinguisher. There’s nothing special about keeping a fire extinguisher under the kitchen sink. I want owning and carrying a Glock 19 to have the same level of remarkableness as owning a Toyota Camry.
You should really go to the link above and read Caleb’s entire editorial.
He is correct, of course. Unless you are military, spec ops, civilian police or private security, you are NOT a sheepdog, superhero or James Bond. You are just a piece of flotsam out there taking some responsibility for your own protection. Good for you (as far as that goes) but your adrenaline and bp shouldn’t go up just because you gear up.
Putting on an IWB holster should be no different than picking up your keys or clipping your folding knife in your pocket!
There is no big red S on your chest.
For years, it was pointed out that Richard Nixon believed he was an imperial president. He even made statements to the press in that regard.
And the Democrats ran with that.
And sometimes won.
Now, we have one of the current President’s closest advisors making this assertion…
Valerie Jarrett: Americans ‘hungry’ for Obama to act like an imperial president
With regard to the State Of The Union Address, Ms. Jarrett stated the following (in part):
On Tuesday, White House Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett told MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” that Americans are “hungry” for Obama to take unilateral action, bypassing Congress wherever he can to get things done, CNS News reported.
“People around our country are hungry for action,” she said. “And what you’ll hear from the president tonight is going to be all about action — creating opportunity — and it’s going to be a very optimistic speech.”
According to Jarrett, Obama will “set forth very specific, concrete proposals that he thinks will move our country forward — create opportunity for hard-working Americans who want to succeed.”
Although Obama will prod Congress to act on his agenda, Jarrett said Obama “will make clear tonight that he will take action on his own,” bypassing Congress when he sees fit.
Can we invoke Nixon now?
I can only speak for me, but I don’t want a President from any party “bypassing Congress when he sees fit.”
I’m not that hungry.
I’ve posted before about sharing ‘the facts of life’ with my daughter. Not reproduction (although we did speak of such things) but letting her know I was discretely armed in her presence, and providing a few basic signals for her to keep safe.
Should terrible things happen.
Hand signals and verbal commands. To be acted upon without question.
I.E. We’re in a shopping mall, and I observe bad guys attempting to shoot other bad guys. The signals mean find cover immediately, and failing that, hit the deck! Things are getting serious very soon.
This doesn’t necessarily mean I’ve plans on engaging multiple gang members.
Molly didn’t know much about my immersion in the gun culture, except not to touch any firearms without permission, and sometimes Dad went shooting, until she was six. Then I shared the ‘facts of life’ (that I carried whenever possible for all our protection, and it was no one else’s business) and devised the signals.
It never occurred to me to consider my tactics when she was younger. A preschooler, a toddler, a baby.
And I think of that mother who was shot to death in the Walmart by her two-year-old!
LIMATUNES opened my eyes!
IF you are an armed mother (or father) involved in the protection of your charges, you should go and read her. She has THREE children of a young age, and considers things I never have.
Armed, with children, of any age is wholly different from just being armed.
(I believe the ‘and helpless’ part was photoshopped in, and unnecessary.)
Of course, they may be part of a conspiracy to lure in unwitting bank robbers to their death, but I doubt it.
h/t David Codrea
Or perhaps I should have worded it the former Republic’s government policy…
It was recently announced that the BATFE was moving to ban certain ammunition familiar to users of the AR-15 rifle, specifically:
In a move clearly intended by the Obama Administration to suppress the acquisition, ownership and use of AR-15s and other .223 caliber general purpose rifles, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives unexpectedly announced today that it intends to ban commonplace M855 ball ammunition as “armor piercing ammunition.” The decision continues Obama’s use of his executive authority to impose gun control restrictions and bypass Congress.
It isn’t even the third week of February, and the BATFE has already taken three major executive actions on gun control. First, it was a major change to what activities constitute regulated “manufacturing” of firearms. Next, BATFE reversed a less than year old position on firing a shouldered “pistol.” Now, BATFE has released a “Framework for Determining Whether Certain Projectiles are ‘Primarily Intended for Sporting Purposes’ Within the Meaning of 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(c)”, which would eliminate M855’s exemption to the armor piercing ammunition prohibition and make future exemptions nearly impossible.
Now, aside from petty power and control, why would they bother to do this? Because they see a future where armored troops are engaging the
citizenry serfs for power and control? Perhaps.
But I think it’s that time ‘honored’ reason – because they can. And have.
Which brings us to the larger question. Should anything be BANNED in a Free Republic? Or should the marketplace be the controlling factor?
Possessing, manufacturing or distributing child pornography is essentially banned. This doesn’t stop possession, manufacture or distribution. How about drugs? Substandard (or poisonous/dangerous) products from overseas? Or those domestically produced? Remember cyclamates and hexaclorophene?
Perhaps it’s a bit callous of me, but I think the marketplace should be the deciding factor. If you don’t want cyclamates, poisons or substandard foreign crap, don’t buy it! Child pornography harms children in the production prima facie, so banning that is acceptable and appropriate. Drugs? If you are an adult, it should be up to you. But, driving under the influence or committing crimes to support your habit is another thing altogether. Then you are bringing others into the mix. Without their permission.
If you inadvertently purchase something harmful, sue the bastards! But, you have a responsibility – you should be an informed consumer.
Now, to the proposed ammunition ban. The ‘sporting purposes’ argument. Obviously, the Second Amendment is not about hunting.
Their regulation and argument is invalid.
h/t Alphecca, NRA
Go Rick Go!“We” score a Victory – and Alan too!
Civil Rights UpdateOpinion in PDF via InstaPundit
From the CONCLUSION:
Accordingly, the Court DECLARES that 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(3), 18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(3), and 27 C.F.R. § 478.99(a) are UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and Defendants are ENJOINED from enforcing these provisions. The Court will issue its final judgment separately.
SO ORDERED on this 11th day of February, 2015.
[Emphasis in the original]
Civil Right Victory in Federal Court – Shall Not Be Questioned
Win in Court!, Breaking News- Maddened Fowl
Ban on FFL handguns sales to nonresidents struck down! – Of Arms & the Law
Courtesy of Not Clauswitz et al
In English – Non-residents may now purchase firearms in Texas, and presumably anywhere else it is legal.
Could removal of ridiculous restrictions on citizens BE any cooler? – Chandler Bing
Of course, this was from a federal district court. And as the bloggers above suspect, until there is an edict from the BATFE, I don’t see much of this kind of activity.
I see a Supreme Court battle in our future.
The firearm blogosphere is replete with tales about armed folks taking down charging water buffalo from 100 yards, and failed suicides using .25s to the temple, which subsequently fell out of their largely undamaged head.
PawPaw’s House tells us yet another story whose lesson is USE ENOUGH GUN.
You should visit the link and read.
There’s a rule with regard to gunfighting – ‘have a gun’. Certainly, if a knife-wielding bad guy is advancing on me, or if there’s a crew of street thugs, it’s comforting to know I have something with which I can defend myself.
God made Man; Colonel Colt made them equal.
That is certainly true.
But, there is (or rather should be) an addendum to the have a gun rule.
And that should be have ENOUGH gun.
This goes back to carrying a talisman, or one of those decoy guns companies are selling now to wear as a deterrent!
There is a rumor that some of the neo-Gunsite folk have backed off of the .45 ACP/1911 meme of Jeff Cooper, since his passing, in favor of calibers such as 9mm – because it is ‘easier’ to shoot!
Have enough gun. Or at least a real gun, in a real caliber.
Street criminals might just call your bluff. And then you are stuck with an antique in VeloDog, or a worthless look-a-like.
Conservative media folk like to paint John Kerry as a defacto traitor. Or at least as a wimp. His Swift Boat companions did derail him, albeit temporarily. And now he’s out there making innocuous statements about war, terrorism and Iran. As the United States’ Secretary of State.
Speaking of who knew (this is what’s known as a segue – albeit a poor one) RINO Arizona Senator John McCain has always been a mystery to me. Sometime-Republican, sometime-conservative, sometime NOT, the man has made more waffles than the WAFFLE HOUSE!
And now THIS:
Ed Routh (the guy accused of killing American Sniper Chris Kyle) has been painted with the ‘Post Traumatic Stress Disorder’ brush.
The poor bastard.
We know about PTSD – didn’t you see Bruce Dern in Coming Home?
The problem is, perhaps he is actually a terrorist?
When we evaluate cases for potential Muslim terrorists, we always look for physical signs like a trimmed mustache and a beard that is lesser trimmed. And when it comes to a crime that was committed, we look at who the victims are. In the story on Eddie Routh who murdered Chris Kyle, there are signs of concern, especially the facial hair, it does match the profile of a convert.Also, Routh was a prison guard over Muslim terrorists at Bilad Airbase in Baghdad in 2007. He never served in battle, but spent most of his time looking and talking to Muslims in jail. He could have likely interacted with the inmates and got converted; prison has a higher conversion rate than any mosque. Also, why would he kill a Navy seal who was known to have killed so many terrorists?Although there needs to be more investigations to prove that Routh converted to Islam, the possibilities are there. After all, there could be a motive to kill Kyle who became a wanted man for the Sunni insurgents he was targeting, had a price put on his head and was dubbed the Shaitan – devil – of Ramadi. That plus Kyle was an ‘Islamophobe’ who was open about his rightful hatred for Islam and the Quran. This makes him wanted.Examining his killer gives also clues. “During a phone call with his father, Routh expressed sympathy for the detainees and discontent over how the US was conducting the war as well as his reluctance to engage in combat” and “While working as a guard at Balad Air Base, Routh laments his [Muslim] prisoners’ poor living conditions”.What the media says that Routh had Post Traumatic Disorder is simply untrue. According to The Warfighter Foundation:
“Eddie Routh served one tour in Iraq in 2007, at Balad Air Base (the 2nd largest U.S. installation in Iraq), with no significant events. No combat experience. Let me say that again, he NEVER SAW COMBAT or any aspect of traumatic events associated with a combat deployment (i.e. incoming mortar or rocket fire). He never left the base, EVER.”
The Warfighter Foundation, a nonprofit veterans group, filed a Freedom of Information Act request to obtain information about Routh’s service record. It was through the information they received…
Surprised the Administration hasn’t labelled him with workplace violence, as they did the Fort Hood shooter…
h/t Mike Miles
It’s a problem as fresh as today’s headlines.
A Pennsylvania woman with a concealed carry license drives over the New Jersey line with a gun in her car. In a routine traffic stop, she is arrested and charged for violating New Jersey’s unconstitutional gun laws. Only a national campaign saves her from a decade in prison.
And that’s just the point: In an era where states like New York and California use draconian and labyrinthine gun laws in order to try to outlaw guns by fiat, a legal gun owner shouldn’t risk a life behind bars because he or she drives across a state line into a socialist-leaning state.
A Floridian shouldn’t live in fear of a move that takes him through New York, or a Virginian, of a trip through Maryland.
So it is good news that, after a campaign that has lasted for over a decade, we are now within striking range of passing reciprocity legislation that is friendly to citizens living in constitutional carry states.
Congressman Marlin Stutzman (R-IN) has told Gun Owners of America that he will be introducing this reciprocity bill within the next few weeks. This bill will prohibit states like New York and California from cancelling the Second Amendment rights of Americans from other states.
If you have a concealed carry permit — or if you come from a freedom-loving state that doesn’t require one — you can carry anywhere in the country without fear of losing your constitutional rights because of where you are.
With six constitutional carry states — and at least four other states which may pass those laws this year — the Stutzman bill is a particularly important contrast to competing bills which would require states like Vermont to change their pro-gun laws in order to benefit.
Now, we know that some of our members would argue: “Why shouldn’t principles of federalism allow states to spit on the Second Amendment if they want to?” We respect this view, but respectfully disagree. Gun grabbers have no problem creating national rules to take away our Second Amendment rights, irrespective of what we do. So it’s time they were hoisted on their own petard.
In addition, the Supreme Court (correctly) ruled in McDonald v. Chicago (2010) that the reach of the Second Amendment extends beyond just the federal government and applies to all 50 states.
In this landmark decision, the Court noted (approvingly) that anti-gun Justice Stephen Breyer was “correct that incorporation of the Second Amendment right will to some extent limit the legislative freedom of the States, but this is always true when a Bill of Rights provision is incorporated.” (p. 44)
Why are we so optimistic about Stutzman? The answer is that we now have a filibuster-proof majority to pass it in the Senate — if we can get the new GOP leadership to give us the opportunity to offer it as an amendment to a must-pass bill.
ACTION: Contact your Representative. Ask him or her to call Congressman Stutzman and sign up as an original cosponsor to the Stutzman “constitutional carry” friendly reciprocity bill.
Of course, in a perfect World, all freemen would be able to carry whatever they want anywhere, with impunity. Riding their unicorns into the sunset. – Guffaw
h/t Gun Owners of America