Author: Bitter

It’s not here, but in India.

This Ugandan KASHMIRS 80- year- old tradition of making 12- bore guns, used for hunting birds and small game, faces the threat of being wiped out.

Gun making is no longer a profitable business in Kashmir, says Zahoor Ahmad Ahangar, one of the owners of the Subhana gun factory, established in 1925. Subhana, along with Zaroo gun factory are the only large factories left in Bandook Khar locality in the Ranwari area today. Until 1960, Bandook Khar was a gun manufacturing hub.

“I would have given up long ago, but this is our ancestral business. There is nothing left in it for my children,” he says. …

Subhana and Zaroo are not allowed to make much more than 300 guns a year, says Ahangar. “But there are many factories in Jammu and no one touches them. Their quota was increased every three years.

Recently another factory came up in Jammu which can make 1,500 guns,” he adds.

The factories were one of many casualties of the 90s militancy.

Then Governor of Jammu and Kashmir, Jagmohan ordered their closure saying militants trained with AK- 47 rifles might use the 12- bore. People were asked to hand over their 12- bore guns to the police.

“The factories were closed for two to three years. The government later realised that 12- bore guns are different from AK- 47s,” says Muhammad Yaqoob, 60 one of the oldest workers at Subhana.

The government has since allowed the factories to operate, but it did not increase the production quota. …

There are no dealers of 12- bore guns in Kashmir today. Ahangar, who had applied for a dealership four years ago, says despite the no- objection certificate by all the state departments, the police kept the application with itself.

The authorities admit that guns were never misused throughout the long conflict in Kashmir. “ We have never received any malpractice complaint about the gun makers. We have never seen them doing anything illegal,” deputy commissioner, Srinagar Mehraj Ahmad Kakroo told MAIL TODAY. About the issue of licence, he says: “ The home department has to look into the matter.”

It sounds like they took a page right out of the books of the best and brightest of Chicago, New York & DC politicians. We have a problem with X. We’re gonna ban Y to “solve” the problem with X. The problem with X still doesn’t go away, so we might concede on Y, but we’ll still jerk you around just because that’s what we can do. We’re from the government – and we’re here to help!

It looks like some anti-gunners are seizing upon Obama’s (old) platform of banning gun stores in any area you might actually visit. Obama’s idea – banning them within 5 miles of schools or parks – would have effectively shut down just about every gun store in most parts of the country. Here in Pennsylvania, one group appears to be testing the waters on the idea, taking it even further:

CeaseFire PA sent their own questionnaires to candidates earlier this year to test the waters for rather extreme policies – including closing down gun stores within an arbitrary, undefined distance of any school, daycare center, park, or residential area.

That would shut down every shop in Pennsylvania, I can pretty much guarantee it. Turns out some anti-gun parents in Wisconsin are pushing a similar agenda now that a gun store is opening near an elementary school. Because we all know that when a gun store opens near a school, elementary school thugs will get their hands on an uzi and start robbing the younger kids of their milk money – or something.

The City of West Allis is considering limiting where gun dealers can open up shop. It all started with a controversial store right across the street from an elementary school.

During a December 7th meeting the City of West Allis considered where gun businesses and shooting ranges can and cannot set up shop. …

Parents of students collected more than 800 signatures to prevent the business from opening there, but city leaders say the location does not violate any laws.

The proposed ordinance won’t affect current gun shops including Shorty’s. They all will be grandfathered in.

The proposed ordinance will shrink the area gun sellers could operate out of, putting future retailers and shooting ranges in more industrial sections labeled in blue.

I don’t understand the irrational fear of these folks about gun dealers near schools. Their kids can’t buy guns. There won’t guns disposed of on the street when customers come in to buy new ones. I had my first experience with this form of crazy in college when a gun shop opened up about a mile from campus. An alum came in ranting about how things were going to hell in a handbasket because a gun store was nearby. I couldn’t wrap my head around why that was bad then, and I still don’t get it today.

I’ve come to one conclusion in what limited reading I’ve done of Joan Peterson’s blog. If it’s legal and she doesn’t like it, then she assumes it is actually illegal and everyone who does what she doesn’t like is a criminal. If it’s illegal, and yet criminals still find a way to get around the law, then clearly it is actually legal and she wants to regulate EVERYTHING in an attempt to make it illegal(er).

I’ve had my share of experiences at smaller non-profit shops that sometimes have board members who like to speak out on their own. If I worked for the other side, I’m pretty sure my head would be dented from banging it against the desk and/or wall after reading Peterson’s comments. Seriously, Peter, if you don’t have a stash of the Montezuma in your desk for a quick chug every time she posts, let me know and I’ll bring you a bottle next time I’m down there.

I admit that I had to laugh about her post on the Mary McFate story. She was McFate’s roommate in DC, and she gladly told her story of sorrow and opened her mouth about plans for the Minnesota gun rights groups. It’s similar to the actions of the former Executive Director of CeaseFire who invited McFate to stay in her home and attend board meetings. I don’t understand how you meet a woman like McFate and not have every alarm bell going off that something just isn’t adding up. Alarm bells should have been ringing in minutes, if not seconds, of meeting her, and yet she shared a room with the woman. Maybe I’m just protective of my personal space, but if someone creates discomfort for me or starts telling me things that don’t add up, then I am unlikely to continue sharing a hotel room with them while I sleep, bathe, and change clothes. But Joan might call that unwillingness to share my sleeping space with strangers who rub me the wrong way paranoia. I call it self-preservation.

I should feel sorry for Joan. The naïveté on display is almost sad for a grown woman. She laments that McFate was “lobbying” for the Brady Campaign on Capitol Hill. She’s convinced that McFate had full access to Senators and Representatives and was possibly telling them to be more pro-gun. Seriously, how many doors does she think the name “Brady Campaign” really opens on Capitol Hill? Even beyond the group name, how many doors get opened or people who aren’t constituents, large donors, or official lobbyists who can drive donations? Going one step further, on the occasion when doors are opened, they are rarely doors to lawmakers. Let me clue Joan in on the answer to these questions: Very few. Those powerful doors pretty much only open when a) you’re important, or b) they want a photo op.

There’s nothing illegal about allowing other people to spill their guts with little or no prompting. It’s not illegal to take advantage of the fact that the gun control groups will so quickly promote someone who just makes them feel good without asking serious questions. I think the only thing that shocked people was just how little effort, time, and money it takes to become a “leader” in the gun control community.

Of course, on the flip side, there’s nothing illegal about Michael Moore joining the NRA as a life member in an attempt to run for the board. He’s welcome to try. Of course, we require a little more than simply coming up with a sob story and showing up for a few rallies to be a leader of more organizations on this side of the argument. It doesn’t matter if someone just makes us “feel good,” they have to be willing to make an effort for the cause. Not only do we have many members who ask serious questions of those who want to step up into leadership, but those of us lawful gun owners active in the movement tend to ignore those who set off our alarm bells. We have a natural vetting process within our grassroots communities. Joan’s vetting process is limited to those who make her feel good or listen to her tell her stories. She tries to blame us for her lack of awareness, but I don’t think it fools anyone.

According to anti-gun groups in Connecticut, we could end violence with more gun control. How do they want to get more gun control? Give felons behind bars the right to vote to control the rest of us.

The National Rifle Association and rogue gun stores are two of the culprits causing gun violence to increase, the executive director for Connecticut Against Gun Violence said Saturday, adding that residents must speak up to — or vote out — officials to demand change and save lives. …

James Hanton lamented he can’t yet vote and spur change because he’s still on parole. Tucker and others at the meeting encouraged Hanton and those on parole to continue fighting gun violence and speak with friends and family who can vote about town officials’ actions.

“Stay with the movement and keep fighting,” Tucker said.

Keep fighting for what exactly? From another report of the same gun control group meeting:

“This is what we do,” Sheldon Tucker jumped in. … “Part of what we’re doing right here. A lot of the work that we did is the reason people on parole can vote. It wasn’t like that years ago, so we got together and we fought and we fought and we fought,” he said, punching one fist into the other open hand for emphasis. “Until you can vote, still become a part of that movement. And then maybe, people on parole can vote; people in jail can vote,” he concluded to many murmurs of agreement.

When I read these articles, and I look up the records that show James Hanton convicted of burglary and larceny on multiple occasions that caused a couple of juries of his peers to demand he be locked up for 3 1/2 years, I really wonder how the leaders of groups like Connecticut Against Gun Violence can say with any sort of straight face that the NRA is to blame for crime in this country. For what it’s worth, Hanton is out on the streets after less than two years in jail. You’d think he’d see good in the fact that he’s out of prison rather than whining that he can’t vote yet.