Month: November 2007

Passing the Buck

If there’s one talent that John Street has, it’s passing the buck.  With two new shootings of police officers in the city, and a sixteen year old drug dealing low-life in custody, there’s no failure of his administration that Street seems unwilling to blame on Harrisburg.

Street and Johnson said the latest round of police-targeted violence underscored the need for stricter gun laws.

Street called on Washington and Harrisburg to react.

“They’re not getting the message,” he said of federal and state legislators who have failed to pass tougher gun-control legislation.

But he also said the city was making “progress” in the fight against violence.

“We’re actually making progress, but we’re not getting the help we need,” Street said. “This city is rallying. . . . It’s an uphill and difficult task, but we’re having great success.”

Pushing for gun control is the last refuge of scoundrels, and Street and Johnson definitely fit that description.   What law do they imagine would have stopped this shooting?  Make it illegal for 16 year olds to possess a gun?  It already is.  Make it illegal for someone to give a 16 year old a gun?  It already is.  Make it illegal to possess a gun while dealing drugs?  It already is.  What new gun law do they imagine is going to fix this problem?

There isn’t one.  Street is passing the buck and the morons who work for the Philadelphia media establishment are letting them get away with it.  John Street has been a disaster for the City of Philadelphia, but that story doesn’t get told, because it’s easier just to blame Harrisburg for the “gun” problem, and the media seems to be fine with that explanation.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. Maybe It’s Time to Look in a Mirror
  2. The NRA Strikes Back at Street
  3. Move Toward Confrontation

A Victory of The Mind

Joe Huffman makes a good observation in the comment in regards to my post the other day, where I suggested, in response to a “Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in!” scenario would be to plaster one up in my wall:

What will become difficult is to practice and receive formal training. You should be putting several hundred rounds down-range each month just for maintenance. If it becomes illegal to own then range availability as well as (black market) ammo prices will make practice nearly impossible.

Without the practice then you really won’t know if that 75 yard shot at the guard beside “the cattle car filled with Jews” will mean the release of the victims or your death. A 400 yard shot? Forget it. With practice you know what you are capable of (at GBR-2007 do you think I would have started off-hand shooting at the 400 yard plate had I not thought I would be able to make at least a few hits?). With this knowledge you can have the confidence to make plans and execute them.

It is my understanding that the “gardens of eastern Europe were well oiled” because of all the guns buried there. Even as tyrants of eastern rose to power, people were dragged off in the middle of the night, and the gulags killed their 10s of thousands those guns stayed buried in their well oiled graves.

To me, burying your guns is little different than turning them over. It’s only a victory in your mind. You must use them or you have lost them.

That’s a very good point.  Practice would be difficult or impossible, and skills would quickly deteriorate, rendering your firearm a short range weapon at best.  Another thing I hadn’t considered is that ammo has a fixed shelf life.  In 50 years, that 2000 rounds of ammo might no longer be viable.

I’ve never been convinced that a violent movement in response to a federal gun confiscation program would spontaneously erupt, but that action would occur through state governments either actively resisting federal power, or by leaving the United States entirely.  I think the place to start would be civil disobedience, as the Canadians are successfully doing with their long gun registration program.

I wouldn’t suggest burying firearms in a wall and then stop fighting, but to continue to push the issue.  While I don’t think most gun owners would have the stomach for violent resistance, I don’t think most people would have the stomach to violently enforce a gun confiscation either.  If a few states refused to do it, and brought the issue to a head, it might be enough to get folks to back down.  Most people aren’t passionate about gun control, and I think that could be used to our advantage if it ever comes to confiscation.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. Todd Jarrett at Work
  2. Should Doctors Have Guns?
  3. New Shooter

Didn’t Blow Up

My reloads worked just fine. In fact, pretty well! But it was only 25 yards. I didn’t want to waste most of my reloads on that distance, but to make up for it, I punched out the 10 ring with my Glock at 10 yards firing about one shot a second. It’s been a while since Mr. Glock got the throw hot lead down range, and I was happy to land most of my hits in the center.

I also tried out those 20 and 30 round AR-15 magazines from Brownell’s that I got a few weeks ago, and they worked just fine. Not a single problem with them, so they get a passing grade from me. Even the 20 rounder did fine, and I have two others of a different brand that don’t feed so well.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. Glock Foregrip Dangers
  2. Reloads and Backup Guns
  3. Wishing You a Very Merry Christmas

CSGV On Gun Shows

I guess with John Timony and other South Florida gun control hacks picking up the slack on the evil assault weapon issue, the other gun control weenies feel safe in, once again, targeting gun shows.

I guess they figure if you recycle the same bullshit often enough, someone might buy it.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. Gun Shows Don’t Cause Sky to Fall
  2. The “Gun Show Loophole”
  3. The Jamacian Gun Canard

Gun Show Bogeyman

The gun show bogeyman is back in the media at the Richmond-Times Dispatch:

Massengill, who headed the eight-member Virginia Tech Review Panel, said more-thorough background checks on gun-show purchases are needed in Virginia, if only to reduce the availability of guns for illicit purposes.

Private sales or trades at gun shows involving unlicensed dealers are exempt from background checks, which can turn up information on criminal histories and hospitalizations for mental illness.

Supporters of the exemption argue that data is lacking to show a direct link between gun violence or crime and private sales. Such sales often involve a single weapon and another collector.

Massengill, who describes himself as “a strong supporter of Second Amendment rights”, at least agrees that checks “could be eased by exempting background checks for trades or sales among family members.”  Gee, that sounds a lot like what we did in Pennsylvania.  Of course, that doesn’t mean it worked here, and that doesn’t mean they aren’t asking for Just One More Law.

But Massengill said even if a background check had turned up Cho’s name, Cho could have purchased weapons at a gun show.

Outlaw private sales now, or the Bogeyman will be able to buy a gun at a gun show.  It would appear to be that for Massengill, staunch defender of the second amendment that he is, Cho is the new Bogeyman.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. Paul’s Common Sense
  2. But Does it Work?
  3. More on the Austin Gun Show Controversy

Supremes Announce Nothing

SCOTUSBlog tells us that The Court has not said whether or not they’ll hear the case. Looks like we’re waiting a while longer folks.

The next date for possible action on it is likely to be November 26, following a pre-Thanksgiving Conference set for November 20.

It’s interesting. I wonder whether they didn’t get to it? Or did were they unable to come to an agreement? I don’t really know how this stuff works. Perhaps someone could enlighten.

UPDATE: I kind of wonder whether they perhaps would prefer to deal with it before the holidays, when people aren’t paying much attention to the news cycle. Pure speculation on my part. What think you all?

UPDATE: SCOTUSBlog has updated:

The Court, of course, does not explain inaction. But among the possible reasons for delaying the case are these: one or more Justices simply asked for more time to consider the two cases; the Court may be rewriting the question or questions it will be willing to review — especially in view of the disagreement between the two sides on what should be at issue; the Court may have voted initially to deny review of one or both cases and one or more Justices are writing a dissent from the denial. The appeal in 07-290 (District of Columbia v. Heller) raises the key issue about the Second Amendment’s meaning and the appeal in 07-335 (Parker v. District of Columbia) poses a question about who may bring lawsuits to challenge laws before they are actively enforced. Together, the cases thus present a somewhat complex mix for the Court, and it perhaps was not much of a surprise that no order issued on Tuesday. At no point is there likely to be an answer to what happened to bring about the delay. Both cases are expected to be re-listed for the Nov. 20 Conference.

Not sure if this indicates anything about what result we might be able to expect.  My guess is no.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. We’re Going Back to the Supreme Court
  2. Limit Your Issues on Appeal
  3. Parker vs. DC