Guns – Page 1136 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Preperations

Bitter and I have been preparing for our trip to Texas for a week of shooting time fun. We went up to Cabela’s in Hamburg, PA this weekend to stock up on some needed goods. For one, we needed some ammunition, and some misc camping supplies. I decided to was time to pick up a Surefire 6P and holster. I generally carry a flashlight on me because I find it useful, and it’s a good idea. This replaces my older halogen, which isn’t nearly as bright or durable as the Surefire.

The rest of the weekend was spent cleaning guns and figuring out plans. The hardest decision to make is what guns to take. I can’t take everything, because I don’t have room. But so rarely do I get to shoot on a large chunk of private land, that I’m going to take most everything if I can. On the list so far to go:

AR-15 Carbine – If I could only take one rifle with me, this would be it. The only problem is, 5.56x45mm is damned expensive these days.
AR-15 – This one has optics and a standard 20″ barrel and fixed stock. The carbine is my “grab and go” AR. This one is just for fun.
AK-47 – If everything else breaks, I know this one will still works.
AK-74 – Same as above, except that it has very mild recoil, and I have about 2000 rounds of ammo for it… all of it corrosive. If I can get rid of even 1000 of it here, that means I get to have a lot of fun for only a single cleaning. After that I can replace it with non-corrosive ammo.
PSL – Time to try some long range shooting with this. I suck at shooting this, hopefully I can get better.
Mosin–Nagant – As long as I’m taking 7.62x54R along for the PSL, might as well.
10/22 – Because if I’m going to shoot all day, I need something I can afford to shoot all day.
Glock 19 – This is what I carry, so it goes, and travels on me, except through Maryland, because their politicians suck ass.
Ruger MK II – Because I’m already taking a lot of .22LR, and there’s room. It’s also fun to shoot.
S&W 629 Classic – Texas has crappy laws about having to carry concealed if you have a license. When I hike in more remote parts of PA, I’ve been known to open carry this pistol loaded up with some hot .44 mag soft nose. For Texas, I got some snake shot too. I don’t plan on gratuitously killing any snake we see, but if one gets too close to camp, and doesn’t make on its merry way, I thought it was a good idea just in case. Most of the rattlesnakes in PA I have familiarity with (timber rattlers) are pretty non-aggressive, and generally avoid confrontations with humans. I’ve seen timber rattlers before, end never had any cause to get aggressive with one. Western Diamondbacks are more aggressive, and I’m not familiar with how much more aggressive.
Makarov – Every outing needs at least one to shoot. Carrie thought that the star on it looked like a Texas star, even though it’s a commie star. But we can pretend for a week.

So that’s the list. At least what I’m taking. Bitter will have her own additions. Carrie as well. Should be a fun week. The drive down should be a blast too. On the way there, and on the way back, we’ll be stopping in various places to meet some folks.

It’s About Power, Not Killing

In perusing the left leaning forums, I’ve come across a pretty common argument I hear from them. This is quoted exactly from a forum, but I forgot the copy the attribution, so if I’m stiffing someone, forgive me:

Right. If you want defend your freedom against the government you need rpg’s, high explosives, heavy artillery and anti-aircraft missiles.

You have about as much chance of defending your freedom against the government with your hunting rifle as you would “armed” with a bb gun or beanie babies. You are defending your right to have toys.

Well, this is a commonly used argument that on the surface makes sense, but if you really think about it, it’s not really true. What is true is one thing: if the government wants to kill us all, it can.

But war isn’t really about killing. The mistake the left is making is failing to understand what power is.Â What gives another man power over you? Did you ever stop to think about that? I’m not talking here about the kind of power your wife has over you, when she makes you take out the trash. Or the kind of power your boss has over you, when he demands you get a report in on time. We all accept some modicum of social controls as part of enjoying the benefits of living as part of a society with other human beings.

When I speak of power, I mean what makes you accept that if you do something that displeases society, it will punish you. If you ultimately rejected anyone’s power over you, including the state’s, what’s to stop you? It all boils down to a very simple relationship. Others have power over you because, ultimately, power is derived from an ability and willingness to use violence to make one submit to the will of another, or the will of society as a whole.

The key aim of war is to get other to submit to your political will. Killing is ancillary to that; a way to cause your opponent to pay a price in order to convince him to submit to your will. That’s one reason we failed to win the Vietnam War; because McNamara and his wiz kids forgot that war wasn’t about a body count, it was about political will, and the North Vietnamese had more of that than we did. If we had just intended to wipe out the Vietnamese, we could have easily done so. But we wage war for political reasons, not because we like killing. As Clauswitz said, war is just politics by other means.

So it’s with that idea in mind that the founding fathers understood the value of an armed citizenry. Who can blame them? They had just defeated the most powerful military on the face of the planet. How many people of Boston do you think would have said, “You’ll never defeat the British Army. And even if you could, you’ll certainly never defeat the Royal Navy. Just look at what they have?” And let’s face it, if the Royal Navy had just decided to open fire and shell Boston after blockading Boston Harbor in June of 1774, I suppose there wouldn’t have been much the city could have done to survive. But the British crown did not want bodies, it wanted submission.

In our country today, the crown is the state, and it has planes, tanks, rockets, nuclear weapons, submarines, and all manner of deadly weaponry. But those are instruments of killing, and while they can translate into political power, they are not political power in and of themselves. If the government wishes to force us to submit to its will, rather than just merely killing us all, eventually someone has to get out of that plane, submarine, or tank and come shove a rifle in my face. When one talks of power between humans, that’s what it really boils down to.

What the founding fathers meant to protect, when they wrote the second amendment, was not a guarantee against getting myself killed by my government. They had just fought a war where a lot of that went on, and they knew better. What they meant to preserve was someting else; if on the day that an unlawful government came to stick rifles in our faces, demanding submission, that we could point them right back and say “NO!”.

It was Patrick Henry who exclaimed on the floor of the House of Burgesses in 1775:

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace– but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

The second amendment is not meant to be an indivdual guarantee against death, it’s about us, as a free citizens, being able to choose to say no; the freedom to choose to risk death, and rather than submit to an unlawful government, to fight it.

This is what the left of today fails to understand, and a big part of the reason I find their philosophy repugnant. Given that war is about political will rather than body counts, there’s a reasonably good chance that a body of armed people, collectively saying “NO!”, and backing it up with force of arms, will be enough to deter any government that might forget who they work for, and what constitution they are supposed to operate under.Â A lot of individuals might perish in such a process, true, but the second amendment was meant to guarantee that we, as free Americans, always had a choice of whether or not to go gently into that good night.

And that folks, is why I’m a gun nut.

Return of the Zumbo Zombie

… the issue that just won’t die!

Over at SayUncle, it would appear the Zumbo thing arises from the dead yet again. I agree with Unc that it would seem Zumbo is getting it. Let’s welcome him back to the party, because it would appear he’s been ~~gotten to by us crazy frothing at the mouth gun nuts who’s brains have been programmed by the NRA super secret thought control machine to seek out and destroy anyone who doesn’t toe the NRA line~~ educated.

Sorry, couldn’t resist poking a little fun at the lefty view of things there ;)

H&K 416

Dave Hardy posts about an Army Times news article that talks about Delta Force’s new rifle, the H&K 416, and highlights the army’s reluctance to replace the M16.Â For a while there was a lot of talk in the military about replacing the standard small arm, but that appears to be off the table for now.

It seemed the M16/M4 would be around a bit longer when they killed the H&K XM8, largely because they included a proprietary optics mount that would have also necessitated that the military switch out all its optics.Â I think SOCOM hasÂ adopted the FN SCAR for special forces, and I guess Delta is using the HK416 now.

The problem I have with H&K building our next generation rifle is that they have basically said there will be no semi-auto versions of them for civilians.Â FN is working on a civilianized version of the SCAR.

It’s bad enough I can’t get an M16/M4 inexpensively.Â It would be a real shame, if for the first time in American history, civilians can’t shoot the same type of rifle our soldiers do.

Some NFA Myths I’m Hearing

I think some gun folks may be a bit confused as to the law (an easy thing when it comes to the NFA. I won’t claim to be an expert either). I’ve heard a few pro-gun folks say recently:

Having a â€œmachine gunâ€ permit, you open up your house to the ATF to come in and search your house any time they want

Whether this is true or not depends. If you get a fully transferable pre-86 machinegun because you paid your NFA transfer tax, filled out ATF Form 4, and undergone the background check, police permission and fingerprinting, and the ATF issues your stamp, you’re good to go from that point. The ATF can’t just walk into your house without a warrant because you possess an NFA tax stamp (which is, in effect, your license. Legally, it’s just proof you paid the tax, which is required for possession.).

The only time ATF inspections become an issue is if you become a licensed Class III dealer (or SOT – Special Occupational Taxpayer). These days you can’t do that if you don’t have a fixed place of business, with regular hours, that’s zoned for such purposes. The “kitchen table” dealer is largely a thing of the past.

If you have a Class III SOT and FFL, you can obtain pre-86 and post-86 dealer samples. To obtain post dealer samples, you have to have a signed letter from the local police department on letterhead stating that they wish to have a demonstration of a certain machinegun. If you get a post-86 dealer sample, you’re permitted to possess firearm as long as you retain your SOT status. For pre-86 dealer samples, you may retain the firearm even after your SOT status expires or is relinquished. Pre-86 dealer samples are generally firearms imported prior to 1986, but after 1968, when the Gun Control Act made importation of fully transferable machineguns illegal. My understanding is that prices on pre-86 dealer samples are not really any lower than fully transferable machineguns.

Many collectors obtained their own FFLs and Class III SOT status to trade in these firearms before the practice was ended, so that’s where the idea that the ATF could come into your home without a warrant probably came from. If you hold a type 1 or 2 FFL, the ATF can conduct inspections at your place of busines, and if that’s your home, then they can come into your home for inspections.

If you’re thinking of getting into NFA collecting, don’t let that fear stop you. If you get a fully transferable pre-86 machinegun, along with your stamp, the only business you need have with the ATF beyond that point is filling out ATF form 5320.20, if you want to transport your NFA firearm out of your state of residence, or to a new residence out of state.

Interesting factoid. If you possess a valid C&R license, and your NFA machinegun is C&R, you do not need to fill out 5320.20; your Type 3 FFL will do. Type 3 C&R FFLs subject you to possible ATF inspection, but not in your home. If the ATF would like to audit you, they will arrange a time at an ATF office. You don’t surrender your 4th amendment rights by having a C&R license.

Ah, yes. The joys of “reasonable gun regulations”

A Little Question for the Bradys

In 2004, when the federal ban on “assault weapons” expired, many of us might remember the anti-gun people boasting that they would take the fight to the states, and had at least five to seven other states that they could get one passed in.

Well, it’s now two and a half years later.Â I have one question for the gun control advocates:

How’s those state level assault weapons bans you’re working on going?Â Looking real successful there.Â Got a whole safe full of them.Â Getting more too!Â Still waiting for those bans you were talking about.Â Any day now!

OK, so I’ll have a little fun rubbing it in their faces, but we still need to be vigilant.Â I think we may have saved Maryland for another year, but that issue won’t die there, or anywhere.Â We’re still the front line of the gun rights movement.

Maryland Assault Weapons Ban – SB43

Pro-Gun Progressive has the scoop:

[T]he first question I was asked was universally â€œwhat do you need with an assault weapon.â€ I explained that it wasnâ€™t a question of needs, but a question of rights, but then quickly moved into the pragmatics of the issueâ€“I responded that the most commonly used target and competition shooting rifle in the US was the AR15, probably followed closely by the M1A. I pointed out that the weapons they were looking to ban do indeed have sporting purposes, and that hundreds of thousands of law abiding Americans use them lawfully every day.

I’m glad to see my evil twin representing us so well. It’s very important that the false meme that these rifles have no sporting use is debunked and stomped on. That’s never been true, except in the Bradys’ collective minds.

Good showing to everyone in Maryland. Two hundred and ten folks will definitely make the politicians pay attention. The best news of the day:

As for the billâ€™s fate, last I heard was that Sen. Jacobs was fairly certain it would die in committee. But this is a dangerous one, and needless to say it bears watching.

Indeed, but color me impressed guys. I think you just killed an assault weapons ban in a fairly anti-gun state! Good show!

Early Good News from Maryland

The other Sebastian says some very interesting things about the hearing for the MD Assault Weapons Ban. For one, the anti-gunners mentioned the Zumbo statements. For two, he says in the comments about 210 people turned out. That’s a good turnout for a committee meeting! State legislature committee meetings usually don’t attract any attention. That’s likely to get the politicians nervous, and that will work in our favor. I anxiously await PGP’s full report, and will link when it goes up. Good job Marylanders!

Dave Hardy Warns of False Flags

Of Arms an the Law has some thoughts about “false flag” operations:

The problem here is that folks who like the first may assume (as traditionalists) that traditional values apply. People may be taken at their word. The other side is not obsessive, but has rational limits. If they say they only dislike AR-15s and certain handguns, they must mean it. There are no “false flag” operations. A group with shooters and hunters in their name is a group of shooters and hunters, and a blog named “The Gun Guys” must be run by gunnies.

That’s an interesting observaton I hadn’t thought about before.Â It’s my hope with “Gun Control and Hunting Day”, I’ll be able to unmask some of this.Â It’s not my intention to drag out the whole Zumbo thing.Â As far as I’m concerned that’s water under the bridge now.Â But I would like to get a collection of writing out there that associates gun control with its effects on hunters.Â Hopefully this will turn out.Â I’ll be working on it a bit more tonight.

Over at HuffPo…

…they pick up the Zumbo story.Â Not really that postworthy in itself, but check out the comments.Â I have to wonder, is there’s any other group of people the left looks down upon more than shooters?Â Even the religious right doesn’t seem to draw this kind of vitriol.

It’s pretty clear to me that the left fails to understand guns or the gun culture, because they are wholly ignorant on the subject.Â I’ll extend an open offer to any left thinking people who come across this to introduce them to shooting, or offer some respectful dialog, either in the comments, or through other means, if you’d like to be better informed about these issues.