Category: Gun Rights

I am quite pleased to report that all four proposed gun control amendments (to an appropriations bill) have failed:

• Chuck Grassley (R-IA) floated an amendment that would sweeten the pot yet again for states to report records to NICS. It failed 53-47, needing 60 votes to invoke cloture and pass. This was largely a party line vote, with only Kirk and Gardener voting “no,” and with Donnelly voting “yes.”
• Diane Feinsten’s (D-CA) Amendment to prohibit suspected terrorists from possessing firearms failed outright 47-53. Kelly Ayotte, was the only Republican to cross the aisle and vote “yes.” Toomey was a “no.” Heitkamp was the only Dem to cross and vote “no.”
• John Cornyn’s (R-TX) Amendment, which would have delayed purchase 72 hours to give the FBI a chance to act also failed 53-47. Jeff Flake crossed the isle to vote “no.” with the Democrats. Voting yes with the Republicans were Donnelly (D-IN) and Manchin (D-WV). I’m not going to hold it against anyone for voting “no” on this, but now we have the Dems on record as rejecting any compromise solution.
• Chris Murphy (D-CT) proposed an amendment that would ban private transfers. It failed outright 44-56, party line. Kirk (R-IL) crossed to vote “yes” with the Dems. Heitkamp (D-ND), Tester (D-MT), and Manchin (D-WV) crossed the aisle to vote “no” with the Republicans.

Pat yourselves on the back, even if your name is Pat Toomey. He voted with us where I expected he’d vote against us. Must be an election year! Bloomberg is going to be one sad panda.

Just a reminder, if you haven’t already, contact your lawmakers. NRA has a handy method to do it quickly, but sending your own usually has more impact. Every person who writes gives more leverage to the lobbyists on the Hill to beat this crap, and it’s all crap. Tell your elected officials to vote for none of it. They already rejected the compromise offer, so screw them. Tell them no more gun control. Period.

The Dems decided they needed to strike while the iron was hot, and to capitalize on the raw feelings of the public after the terrorist attack. Politico is reporting the vote could be happening as we speak. It looks like Toomey is floating his own proposal separate from Cornyn, which the NRA is OK with. Keep in mind we haven’t seen any language yet. I’m thinking they believe a big mistake they made after Sandy Hook was taking enough time so that we could actually read the bills and find out we (or rather Senator Toomey) were being hoodwinked.

Both failed in December and are likely to fail again, senators and aides said. Universal background checks also stand no chance of passing the Senate. Conversations between Cornyn and Feinstein on a middle ground broke down on Wednesday after the NRA endorsed Cornyn’s bill, and Democrats loathe the bill written by Toomey that he developed while speaking to Everytown for Gun Safety, the gun-control group led by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

I really want to nail Toomey in a primary. I don’t honestly care if it throws the seat to the Dems at this point. Both Casey and Toomey got into office by lying to gun owners, and then screwing us. I’m very interested in how the Junior Senator from Pennsylvania votes. I will also be paying close attention to the bill he wrote with Bloomberg.

The Dems end their filibuster while the GOP agrees to hold a vote. We also have word that Pat Toomey is working with gun control groups again on “producing a bill that could pass Congress.” Hopefully this time, the good Senator won’t get hoodwinked by Chuck Schumer into gutting the FOPA safe travel provision.

Next time Toomey is up, it’ll be an off year, and his ass needs to get primary’d.

This better be one of those “we give up almost nothing and get something in return,” or “we have the votes to beat this and just want to get some more lawmakers on record.” If not the GOP majority in Congress is about as useful as a screen door on a submarine.

This is the time to start calling. No more gun control. Period.

In the coming days, a lot of you are going to be having conversations with friends and family, and I think it’s important to get your facts right. I see a lot of people saying the AR-15 is no more deadly than a handgun. In a mass shooting scenario, tactics matter much more than the choice of weapon. The Virginia Tech mass murderer, the worst mass shooting in history until Saturday, managed to do that with two ordinary handguns. But it’s not quite accurate to say a handguns and rifles are equal in lethality.

Bullet for bullet, rifles are generally more powerful and thus more deadly than handguns. It is accurate to say that the AR-15 no more or less lethal, bullet for bullet, than any other rifle chambered in the same caliber. It is accurate to say that the .223 Remington / 5.56x45mm (NATO designation) is a medium powered cartridge.

So what makes the AR-15 different? As a rifle goes, it has fantastic ergonomics. I have a lot of different rifles of military pedigree, and the ergonomics on most of them are pretty terrible. Even the venerable M1 Garand is pretty awful ergonomically, even though it’s far more powerful bullet for bullet than the AR-15. If I had to pick a military rifle that I would rank on my “enjoy shooting” list, the M1903A3 would probably rank not too far behind my AR-15s, and ahead of the M1 Garand.

The ergonomics of the AR-15:

• The pistol grip makes it easy to control
• It’s low recoil impulse, due to aligning the barrel with the stock, makes it easy to bring the sights back down on target.
• Easy to understand sights (even easier if you use one of the newer holographic sights).
• Intuitive safety (selector in the military M16/M4)
• Intuitive drop free mag release. You can have another magazine in your hand coming up when you drop the emptied one.
• Intuitive bolt release to slap the bolt carrier home once the magazine is inserted.

It is very easy to teach an untrained person to land accurate shots with an AR-15. I’ve seen people go from awkward to landing decent shots with just a few hours training (and I’m a horrible trainer!). In addition to the ergonomic features, proper ammunition won’t over-penetrate and risk hitting bystanders. This is why police departments have almost universally adopted the AR-15. This is why it’s become the standard in NRA high-power competition and 3-gun competition. This is why the AR-15 is now chosen often by civilians for home-defense. It’s also, unfortunately, why mass shooters choose it. The features that make the AR-15 easier for a novice to shoot accurately also make it easier for mass killers, most of whom are novices. There is probably some role that the media plays in suggesting it’s “the mass killer’s choice,” but that’s the truth of the matter. Could using a shotgun be more deadly? Sure. But the recoil of a shotgun is punishing, and the ergonomics of most shotguns aren’t remarkably good. I almost never bring out shotguns for novices unless they express a specific interest in shooting trap or skeet.

I think we rest on pretty firm ground to argue that firearms should be easy for novices to use. Unless you’re a seasoned competitive shooter, most gun owners, most police, and most people in the military are novices. They can exercise a base level of competence and safety when running their firearms, but Annie Oakley they are not. We should not be banning semi-automatic rifles, which truly aren’t especially more deadly than other semi-automatic rifles, just because they are easy for novices to use. This gets back to the base argument of gun control vs. gun rights: should arms belong only to the special elite, or is it a birthright of all citizens?