A Criminal Level of Congressional Ignorance

I watched a bit of the House Committee hearing on HR1808 (Federal “assault Weapons” Ban). And I’m re-watching the entirety on YouTube today.

I’m almost speechless. I’ve long said that Congress, especially where it regards gun control, is fundamentally and willfully ignorant about the lawful and Constitutionally protected item that they wish to legislate against.

The stunning display of un-education by the Democrats on the Committee not only spoke to my statement above….but underlined it, bolded it and finished with an exclamation point.

Even if you support gun control, do you support such ignorance? Either they’re stupid…..or they think you’re stupid.

My favorite debacle so far:

Rep Cicilline on stabilizing braces: “When attached here, it turns this weapon into an automatic weapon. It becomes a bump stock, and so it will allow that to essentially be fired like an automatic weapon. That’s the danger.”

Cue the (((Facepalm)))……..

But wait, the genius from Rhode Island isn’t done!

“No one has said it is a bump stock, but what we are saying is it harnesses the semiautomatic fire recoil and it operates like a bump stock because subsequent shots occur in rapid succession. That’s exactly what a bump stock does.”

And another gem: “It (AR-15) was designed to kill someone wearing a military helmet. What that does to a civilian wearing nothing — is liquify organs.”

This from a PhD who used to fly helicopters for the Marines and “her research focuses on the intersection of social integration and military effectiveness, with a focus on gender and unconventional warfare.” Uh huh.

And from Eric Swalwell, D-CA: “There is never an instance where an assault weapon can be classified as a “weapon of defense.” The only way to describe these dangerous firearms are “weapons of war.”

There is no such animal as a “defensive firearm”….or an “offensive firearm”.

Gun Control Canards

I invite any gun control proponents [as I long have] to define the following:

“Weapons of war” – Please identify a class of firearms that have NOT been used in armed conflict.

“Military Grade” – Define please.

“Military style” – Define please.

“High Capacity” – Define please. And while you’re at it, please justify an arbitrary number of a lawful item, where having that number is lawful, but having one more than that number is criminal.

“High powered” – Define please.

“Assault / offensive / defensive weapon” – Define please.

Hunting – Please define what firearms are suitable for hunting and which, in your opinion, are not.

Sure, I know that nobody is likely to try and define the above, from the gun control perspective. But my point is this, legislation that seeks to curtail, regulate or restrict a Citizens actions with regard to a Constitutional Right……it should be deliberate, thoughtful and based on definable metrics and endstates…..not emotion.

The Media Gets off it’s Ass, at least for one Falsehood *Updated*

*An even better article was just published today at LawfareBlog, outlining the myth-making occurring over divested equipment in Afghanistan.*

The media should consider it a duty, to dispel false political myths and memes….but it so often doesn’t.

Everyone by now has seen, I’m sure….the long and illustrious list of U.S. military equipment that “we” “left” behind. Below is what I posted on a fellow Blogger’s site:


Nonsense.

In almost every instance, when we essentially invade a foreign nation and rebuild their military from the ground up…we equip them. We sometimes take different approaches with regard to standardized equipment [as in Iraq, where we tended toward ‘Soviet-bloc’ items*].

In AFG, we leaned heavily on U.S. equipment, and a smattering of Czech and Russian, especially with regard to airframes.

This equipment, again over the past almost 2 decades, has been Divested through the Foreign Military Sales Program [which ensures that only our export models of equipment is eligible]. The equipment left behind, for the most part anyway, was divested to the ANSF. We no doubt left some ancillary gear when we withdrew from various Forward Operating Bases and Bagram…nothing of great import.

All of this equipment was dropped in place by the surrendering and running ANSF….and now the Taliban are able to kit themselves out like westerners, on the cheap.

We saw this as well in 2014 in Iraq, where ISIS took control of the vast amount of equipment we had divested to them, and gifted by running and surrendering ISF.

Our media has generally done a poor job, as they always do…of educating our public on issues such as these, and this…they become fodder to be trafficked by folks who want. to try and score political points.


Today, the WaPo finally ran the claim being made by the Right, regarding this equipment….with the full implications that the current Administration simply ‘leaving it all behind’.

U.S. military equipment was given to Afghan security forces over two decades. Tanks, vehicles, helicopters and other gear fell into the hands of the Taliban when the U.S.-trained force quickly collapsed. The value of these assets is unclear, but if the Taliban is unable to obtain spare parts, it may not be able to maintain them.

But the value of the equipment is not more than $80 billion. That’s the figure for all of the money spent on training and sustaining the Afghan military over 20 years. The equipment portion of that total is about $24 billion — certainly not small change — but the actual value of the equipment in the Taliban’s hands is probably much less than even that amount.

It’s About Time…

Now copy/paste to the other 49 States……and end the enforced ignorance of firearm safety and the demonization of one of the salient tools that built and defends this nation, from enemies both foreign and domestic.

House Bill 612, filed this week by Representative Jay Adams, would give the state room to develop a firearms education course and allow the class, which would include “firearms safety education as recommend by law enforcement agencies or a firearms association”, to be offered as an elective to high school students.

The course, which would be developed by the North Carolina Board of Education, would not allow live ammunition in the classroom and would also cover the history and mechanics of firearms with a firm emphasis on the importance of gun safety.

From Bearing Arms

 

 

American Thinker: Interview with AR-15

Posted in it’s entirety from the source.

untitled.png

Hi, my name is AR-15. Some of you know me, but many more of you know of me — through the media. But you may not know the real me.

I’m that cool, sleek-looking black gun you’ve seen profiled by the press. They put me in newspapers and on TV, showing my picture as if it’s a mug shot, even though I’ve never committed a crime. Oh, bad people have at times used (and abused) me to do bad things, but not really that often; as even The New York Times admitted in 2014, firearms such as me — which that paper and others call “assault weapons” — are only used in two percent of gun crimes (most are perpetrated with handguns).

And that’s another thing. For a long time I didn’t mind the misnomer; it massaged my ego and made me feel like the big man on the block when I was called an “assault weapon.” But Mr. Duke convinced me that “pride goeth before a fall,” as the Good Book says. He pointed out that the term “assault weapon” was popularized by anti-gun zealot Josh Sugarmann, whose goal was to besmirch my reputation and get me banned. In fact, Sugarmann, not at all a sweet man, actually once said, “Assault weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons — anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun — can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.”

And it’s true, especially in my case. The public knows my appearance well; people have seen my cousin and dead ringer, M-16, fired machine-gun style in war movies for decades. But, alas, I, AR-15 — the weapon available to the public — can only be fired semi-automatic. This means that every time you pull my trigger, one shot, and only one shot, is released.

So even if we accept the term “assault weapon,” that’s not me. To qualify, a gun must be capable of fully automatic fire (machine-gun style), and no such weapons are readily available to the public. So unlike cousin M-16, who originally had a select-fire feature allowing him to be shot in various ways, I’m just a one-trick pony.

Despite this, I’ve become a media whipping boy. Even when those rare crimes are committed in which a gun of my class is used, but which don’t involve me personally — such as the horrific Orlando incident, where Muslim terrorist Omar Mateen used a Sig Sauer MCX — my face is front and center.  In fact, that’s what finally inspired me to speak out, articles such as this outrageous one from Daily News writer Gersh Kuntzman. Reporting on how he tried me at a Philly gun range, he actually wrote:

The recoil bruised my shoulder, which can happen if you don’t know what you’re doing. The brass shell casings disoriented me as they flew past my face. The smell of sulfur and destruction made me sick. The explosions — loud like a bomb — gave me a temporary form of PTSD. For at least an hour after firing the gun just a few times, I was anxious and irritable.

None of the above is true; I know because I was there. Oh, in my younger and more impetuous days, I would’ve gotten a thrill out of being portrayed as such a macho guy. But the Truth will set you free (something the propagandizing Mr. Kuntzman should ponder).

And the truth is that I never bruised Mr. Kuntzman. One thing I can rightly puff up my chest over is that I have very little recoil because I’m high-tech — my mechanism is designed to absorb much of the energy of the blast. And you don’t have to take my word for it. Mr. Duke had the opportunity years ago to fire me on multiple occasions, and he says that I have by far the least kick of any firearm he ever used. And if you don’t believe him, trust your own eyes. Below is a video of a seven-year-old girl trying me for the first time (forward to 2:55 if you want to see just the actual firing).

Did the little lass say “Ow!” or register discomfort in any way? Did she rub her shoulder? A 12-gauge shotgun loaded with buckshot could have knocked that little tyke on her kiester, but me? Also know that Kuntzman fired me only three times before bowing out, grousing that I was a “dangerous weapon.” And that fact, my friends, comes from Frank Stelmach, who was quoted by Kuntzman and who owns the gun range the journalist visited. You see, Mr. Duke actually called Stelmach, and one of the first things the man said to Duke — as he complained of how Kuntzman misrepresented his words and the experience at the range — was “It would be nice if journalists would write what you actually say!”

And by the by, Stelmach said that Kuntzman never mentioned anything about his shoulder or expressed that he was experiencing any kind of discomfort. Stelmach also called the notion that an ultra-low-recoil weapon such as me could bruise a grown man’s shoulder “nonsense.”

As for my “explosions” being “loud like a bomb,” well, I can belt out a song, but not like some other firearms. And no wonder. I fire the .223 cartridge, a small-caliber round the same diameter as a .22 (yes, .22s are those cute little rounds you put in your Marlin as a kid). Of course, my round is a lot more powerful than a .22 (in your face, Marlin!), but just take a look at these “killing power” rankings of rifle rounds. It’s hard to admit, but my small .223 has the second least power of the 41 cartridges listed. In fact, when a lady friend of Mr. Duke’s tried me years ago, she remarked that, owing to my almost non-existent recoil, I was “like a toy.” It’s quite emasculating.

Of course, then there are my magazines; for the Kuntzmans of the world, no, those aren’t things you read that usually contain liberal propaganda. They’re objects loaded with cartridges that, assuming they’re removable, you then insert into firearms. It’s true that high-capacity magazines are available for me. But criminals would always get them on the black market; moreover, with just a bit of effort, any gun’s removable magazine can be modified to hold a large number of rounds. So why am I singled out?

Am I not a sharp-looking guy? Black is beautiful!

But it’s also seen as “menacing,” especially by liberals in the media. Face it, since I’m functionally no different from other legal firearms — semi-automatic just as most guns sold in America are — I can only conclude that I’m profiled as dangerous because of my sleek military-like appearance and my color. If I looked like those much more powerful hunting rifles, would you really be troubling over me?

As Mr. Duke likes to put it, this is standard liberal style over substance. Never sparing my ego, he points out that assuming I’m a machine gun because I look like cousin M-16 is akin to putting a Porsche body on a Yugo chassis and expecting to go 0 to 60 in under 6 seconds. Of course, my self-image will survive, but being misunderstood, mischaracterized and discriminated against is a bit depressing.

It’s enough to make me want to shoot myself.

 

 

Bernie hopscotch’s around firearm liability

Sanders: I sell you a gun legally, you go out and kill somebody, should I be held responsible? But this is what I also believe. If you walk into my shop and want 10,000 rounds of ammunition, here it is, chris. that’s pretty crazy. i should be held responsible. If I am a gun manufacturer, selling guns into areas where I know they’re ending up in the hands of criminals, I should be held liable for that as well. – Mediaite

So, Bernie…..in his cowardly backpedaling from Hillary’s nonsensical arguments for punitively punishing a manufacture of a lawful item…..now claims that a certain threshold of that lawful item, should remove the common sense legal protections afforded by our justice system, if it/they are used criminally by a third party. And further, that if one sells said lawful item, to a legal customer, in an area where crime is rampant [read: any urban district….ironically run by Leftists], that said protections should also be null and void.

Where Bernie’s cowardice….and Hillary’s idiocy….is at the forefront, is that neither of them would support the same surrender of common sense protections in the case of any other industry.

Why doesn’t even the alleged conservative media, call them on this fact?

The gun control lobby cannot explain their own proposals

* As expected, even after asking the following question of me: “I’m extremely interested in the logical train of thought behind the positions of someone who supports the poll tax rhetoric.”….to which I obligingly answered, the proprietor of the misnomered anti-gun blog “commongunsense” has decided to not make my reply visible. So of course, I’ll just leave it here:

Constitutional Insurgent says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
I’ll gladly oblige. The proposed taxes on firearms and ammunition are in excess of excise and sales taxes, and designed as a punitive measure to dissuade citizens from purchasing firearms. As to paying for NICs checks…..it would be instructive if you actually explained the enforcement mechanism for said law, before proceeding with by it is equal to a poll tax. That ball is still in your court.
Why do you support taxes on the exercise of your Constitutional rights? These are not State privileges.

Intellectual cowardice. No surprise there. And they wonder why their submissive fealty to the State doesn’t get more legislative [not to mention advocacy group membership] traction.

————————————————————-

I’ve been engaged in a [generally] respectful conversation with the opposing camp at “Commongunsense“, in which I’ve tried to have the gun control advocate explain not only their general support for “universal background checks”, but specifically…..how said law could/would be enforced. The opposing camp merely offered citation of the law and the penalties. And only that again, when pressed. He/she was utterly unable to explain how a transgression of a UBC law would be enforced.

My point in part: without the State knowing who owns which firearms, said State cannot truly enforce a law that requires private sellers to seek out and pay for a NICs check. So I’m left wondering why it is so important for some to support legislation that is nothing more than an honor system.

Most of you will understand where I was going with this. Since the gun control industry has publicly stated, on numerous occasions, that their strategy was incrementalism……we know full well, that a UBC among private transactions, is un-enforcable without a distinct component. Thus, when criminal shootings continue to occur…as criminals will always be able to obtain a firearm….the call will be for the only method to enforce a bad law….registration. The proprietor of “Commongunsense” likely knows this, and all but halted the conversation on this line. But we know better.

Since the gun control industry is composed largely of the left, I found it curious that the radical liberals of decades past, have thoroughly morphed into the very entity they were standing against…..totalitarian statism.

I began to start listing what the gun control industry appears to believe, based upon their statements and actions, to illustrate the obvious deficit of logic, but I’ve decided to make that it’s own post….as, quite obviously….said list would make this an enormous post.

Coming soon.