5333 private links
“No amendment to the Constitution is absolute. You can’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded movie theater and call it freedom of speech. From the beginning, you couldn’t own any weapon you wanted to own.”
This is what the government politicians say, right before they are about to impinge on your rights. The phrase about yelling fire in a crowded theater is often used by people trying to curb speech without really understanding the context in which it was used. It was in non-binding dicta in a case that was then later overturned so it was never a binding thought on anything. So when people use it, it reveals they’re not aware of the law.
From The Atlantic:
As Rottman wrote, for this reason, it’s “worse than useless in defining the boundaries of constitutional speech. When used metaphorically, it can be deployed against any unpopular speech.” Worse, its advocates are tacitly endorsing one of the broadest censorship decisions ever brought down by the Court. It is quite simply, as Ken White calls it, “the most famous and pervasive lazy cheat in American dialogue about free speech.”
“Lazy cheat” excuse to impinge on your rights.
The US has by far the highest number of privately owned guns in the world. Estimated for 2017, the number of civilian-owned firearms in the US was 120.5 guns per 100 residents, meaning there were more firearms than people. The world’s second-ranked country was Yemen, a quasi-failed state torn by civil war, where there were 52.8 guns per 100 residents, according to an analysis from the 2018 Small Arms Survey.
Another way of looking at that: Americans make up less than 5 percent of the world’s population, yet they own roughly 45 percent of all the world’s privately held firearms.
I read this and I have to admit, I am horrified.
These are some rookie numbers. //
The way I see America’s “gun problem” is the exact opposite of the way Vox sees it. I think America’s gun problem comes from the fact that not enough people carry guns at any given time at any given place. An armed society is a polite one, and I have the numbers to back it up.
For instance, did you know that 98 percent of mass shootings that occurred since the 1950s happened in gun-free zones? Did you know that over a million people in Texas are licensed to carry a firearm and that 0.4 per 100,000 have committed a homicide? Compare that to the .99 per 100,000 homicide rate in jolly ol’ Britain where guns are banned.
The fact is, when there’s a gun present, would-be attackers take a good long while to weigh their action with their life and usually they’ll choose their life.
https://www.dps.texas.gov/RSD/LTC/Reports/ConvictionRatesReport2016.pdf
According to a 2013 report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, almost every major study on the issue found that Americans use their firearms in self-defense between 500,000 and 3 million times a year. We have good reason to believe that many of these defensive gun uses aren’t reported to police, much less make the local or national news.
For this reason, The Daily Signal each month publishes an article highlighting some of the previous month’s many news stories on defensive gun use that you may have missed—or that might not have made it to the national spotlight in the first place. (Read accounts from 2019 and 2020 here.)
The FBI conducted more than 4.3 million gun background checks in January 2021 – the highest number of checks completed during a single month in the agency’s recorded history – as one expert says the staggering figure indicates a “growing” demand for firearms from the American public.
Our Second Amendment, the one that actually secures all the others and arguably written with Captain Parker at Lexington Commons in mind, is still the only one we need “permission” to exercise and is still under constant attack by the left. As A.R. Hawkins puts it, “No other rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights are interpreted so as to allow the government to stand between the people and that right.” I would add to that our Supreme Court seems to foster this aberrant viewpoint by its willingness to “incorporate” almost every other Amendment in the Bill of Rights except, of course, the Second. //
Here is a very small extract from the latest proposed theft of American rights, H.R.127 – Sabika Sheikh Firearm Licensing and Registration Act
§ 932. Licensing of firearm and ammunition possession; registration of firearms
“(a) In General.—The Attorney General, through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, shall establish a system for licensing the possession of firearms or ammunition in the United States, and for the registration with the Bureau of each firearm present in the United States.
“(b) Firearm Registration System.—
“(1) REQUIRED INFORMATION.—Under the firearm registration system, the owner of a firearm shall transmit to the Bureau—
“(A) the make, model, and serial number of the firearm, the identity of the owner of the firearm, the date the firearm was acquired by the owner, and where the firearm is or will be stored; and
“(B) a notice specifying the identity of any person to whom, and any period of time during which, the firearm will be loaned to the person. //
There are further prohibitions on ammunition and standard magazines (30 round capacity, is standard ). There are also grossly expanded firearm prohibitions, including the AR-15 type. Then there is the federal database that has as its primary objective, listing every firearm owned by every American. What could possibly go wrong?
But in 2021, it is not only the pandemic and other factors that account for heightened gun sales. The Biden administration’s anti-gun agenda, which his team announced last year, is undoubtedly contributing to the empty gun shelves. //
It appears that Van Cleave sees something that the others don’t. Biden and the gun control lobby wish to see fewer Americans owning firearms, but by taking such a radical stance against the Second Amendment, they are pushing more Americans to own more guns. //
If even a few Democrats decide to break ranks, it will mean that the Biden administration could get very little of what they want. Indeed, it’s possible that they won’t be able to pass any meaningful gun control legislation at all. In the end, this whole plan could easily bring about the scenario they wish to avoid. //
Robert_A_Hahn
5 hours ago
This is how we achieve unity. As we all know, the Democrats don't care what happens so long as everybody is saying the right things and talking purty. Our guys don't care what the Democrats say so long as they don't actually do anything. This could work. //
ericl
4 hours ago
I don't know, guns seem to be a lot safer than they were years ago. This focus on gun safety might be misplaced. For instance, of all the guns at the Capitol Hill demonstration - only one of them (held by a government agent) killed someone. And an unarmed person no less. Maybe we need government safety, not gun safety.
Maybe we can start talking about common-sense government control. Perhaps a waiting period for high powered politicians to enter federal buildings. Mandatory background checks for dark-money contributors. Do politicians really need fully automatic assault-media organizations? How about a tracing program for "Saturday night special" contributions from foreign terrorist organizations? Come to think of it, does anyone really need federal governments? Because I feel threatened by them, and I was told it's my body/my choice.
Many gun owners prefer to wear protection when practicing at firing ranges, where there are various guns and gun owners around.
Is it illegal to rack the slide of a pistol in order to issue a threat?
Miyamoto Musashi, the legendary swordsman, said something that you might find beneficial. It goes something like this:
“If a man insults you and you feel he must die for his insult, draw your sword and cut him down. If you simply want to humble him but not kill him, keep both your tongue and your sword sheathed for only a fool communicates his intent before he acts.”
Now, to your question:
In most localities, I believe it is illegal. It’s also stupid. If you are carrying, you should have a round in the chamber because violence happens quickly and adding extra movements- especially with the adrenaline dump that often happens when shit goes down- could get you killed. Remember that, in most cases, people experience that dreaded adrenaline dump and lose their coordination among other things.
Do not brandish it to threaten- that’s called “menacing” in many locations. If you are going to draw your firearm, do so because you couldn’t leave safely after the other person showed his/her intent, means, and had the opportunity to do it. At this point, you are drawing to stop a threat from which you cannot safely escape. If the aggressor then moves forward, drop him like a bad habit. It is generally considered self-defense.
If you do, you must be able to clearly articulate “why” you did it, though, or you’re in for a lot of trouble.
Just for fun, let’s say you “rack your slide” to cycle a round and the object of your intimidation tactic is carrying concealed. While you’re showing off, he shoots you and you have a new anus in the middle of your forehead. That’s a terrible reason to die, don’t you think? Getting your head ventilated because you were showing off to intimidate?
On a more calm note, though, I’ve found that when I’ve had to draw (I’m one of those concealed carry folks), the weapon itself is usually enough to change someone’s mind- predators like easy targets and have no desire to get hurt for a number of reasons including that being injured then makes them prey to other predators. I had that experience with a young man not too long ago who apparently thought my Cocker Spaniel and me were an easy target.
A little-noticed casualty of Democrats’ impeachment push against President Donald Trump last year was gun control, Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., says.
In an interview for my book, “Abuse of Power: Inside the Three-Year Campaign to Impeach Donald Trump,” Massie noted that the president was ready to pull the trigger on a federal law allowing orders to disallow possession of a gun because of extreme risk, commonly known as a “red flag law.”
“I’ve told my colleagues, the one good thing to come out of impeachment is that it knocked gun control in the head,” Massie said. //
Pelosi pushing for impeachment pretty much scuttled gun control efforts that appeared to be all but a done deal.
The Democrats in the House wanted it. President Trump signaled his willingness to sign it. Republicans in the Senate were ready to defer to the president. All the stars had aligned. We were going to get gun control.
Then Pelosi went after impeachment.
At that point, Trump no longer had any reason to work with Democrats. Republicans in the Senate were now free to oppose the bills and let them die from inattention. Gun control was no longer going to happen because the parties weren’t interested in doing anything.
Especially since every Democrat had to know that impeachment wasn’t going to go anywhere in a Republican-controlled Senate.
Pelosi caved to the more extreme elements of her party and the net result was nothing. Most Americans don’t even think about impeachment anymore. Sure, they might remember it happened if someone brings it up, but they don’t consider it on a day-to-day basis. Meanwhile, a national-level red flag law would have played on everyone’s minds as reports surfaced of just how many times it had been used.
That’s not likely to work out well for them come November.
I, for one, have to thank Pelosi for that. Her plan yielded Democrats absolutely nothing, but especially no gun control, something the party has campaigned on for ages to some degree or another.
Her self-preservation instincts worked out well for the pro-Second Amendment side.
U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) encapsulated in 384 pages of his new book “The Violence Inside Us” one central theme: America can’t be trusted with freedom.
“You know, it’s called ‘The Violence Inside Us’ because the conclusion I come to is that America is a violent place. We have always been a violent place,” Senator Murphy explained to MSNBC’s Kasie Hunt.
: The problem is Senator Murphy didn’t arrive at that conclusion, he started with it. He got there by cherry-picking historical facts, isolating them out of context, and wedging them to fit a narrative that American freedom is bad and must be restrained by a benevolent and all-knowing government made up of people like him. //
Now, I don’t believe Americans are inherently violent. I believe some individuals are, but Americans as a whole? Not so much.
But let’s say that Murphy’s contention is correct, that America is a nation that is mired in violence and always has been. If that’s the case, then it would seem imperative that good, decent, law-abiding citizens have the means to defend themselves from the violent criminals that exist everywhere.
See, while guns do make up a large portion of the weapons used to take human life every year, somewhere around a third of all homicides currently use something other than a firearm, according to the FBI. For some, that’s somehow evidence that gun control is needed, but only a fool would believe that the other two-thirds of all homicides would simply not happen.
(It should be noted that many, if not most of the guns used for these homicides are obtained illegally in the first place.)
Because most of those murders would still likely be attempted regardless of the existence of guns, let me ask Sen. Murphy just what the hell their law-abiding victims are supposed to do to prevent these murders?
We’re talking about aggressive predators in many of these cases, people who will pounce on those they perceive as weaker and will capitalize on their advantages. They’ll prey on people and not think twice about it. It won’t matter if they have a gun, a knife, or a freaking rock, they’ll try to victimize other people because that’s what they do.
So where does that leave us?
Murphy would leave us to the mob. He’d leave us unarmed to face the predators. These are the same predators that lead him to believe that this country is inherently violent, but he’d leave us to them.
The truth is—and should be—frightening: the overwhelming majority of police officers are not competent shooters.
Many police officers own few, if any, handguns, and many more own only a shotgun or a .22LR rifle of some kind. They rarely, if ever, practice on their own, and only a tiny portion of all police officers use their own time and money to attend advanced shooting or tactical schools, things a great many citizens routinely do. Far too many officers have only a single firearm: their issued duty handgun. Often, that handgun, as in the case of New York City, is a serious problem in and of itself. //
A major contributing factor is the NYPD requires 12-pound triggers on their officer’s issued handguns. Twelve-pound triggers greatly complicate accurate shooting, particularly when repeat shots are required. The heavier and longer the trigger pull, the more difficult it is to obtain consistent shot to shot accuracy. Triggers in the 12-pound range predictably cause officers to miss, and to miss badly. Consider that standard Glock triggers, those sold to the public, require only a 5.5 pound pull. Combine extremely heavy triggers with the mediocre training common to police agencies, and it would only be surprising if the police didn’t shoot innocents.
Many Law Enforcement Organizations (LEOs) are inherently anti-gun. They don’t trust their officers, and they fear accidental discharges far more than the consequences of accidently shooting citizens. Rather than spending the time and money necessary to maximize shooting accuracy and effectiveness, they focus on trying to prevent accidental discharges through mechanical means. //
Consider my experience. At the last law enforcement agency where I worked, I was given my handgun, a S&W Model 686 in .357 magnum, at my basic state academy. I was told the weapon was “sighted in,” but the sights were badly misaligned for me, and I qualified–barely–by employing artillery-like Kentucky windage. I had to hold about a foot right and about 8 inches high. The instructors wouldn’t allow me the time or tools necessary to properly align the sights; we had only a day for training and qualification. People unfamiliar with handguns had no idea why they couldn’t hit anything, and many failed to qualify.
I saw the gun again at my first LEO qualification shoot. There, I had the time and tools to sight in the weapon and managed a 100% score. To that point, all shooting was done with light-loaded .38 special wadcutter ammunition. I wouldn’t shoot full-charge duty ammo in qualification for another year, though I shot considerable duty ammo on my own.
I was one of only about five people in a 100-person agency capable of 100% shooting. At least 10 struggled to make a minimally passing score whenever they qualified. About 50 were average and the rest somewhat better or worse.
Because virtually no one did anything to improve their abilities on their own, those averages never changed. //
Officers that don’t regularly train, that are unfamiliar with their weapons and ammo, are more dangerous to the public than to criminals. The NYPD, with its 12-pound trigger mandate, illustrates the problem.
In 1990, NYPD officer hit potential was only 19%. Eighty-one percent of the rounds they fired at criminals missed. At less than three yards, they hit only 38% of the time. From 3-7 yards, 11.5% and from 7-15 yards, only 9.4%. //
The lessons, for the police and the public alike, are obvious:
1) Shooting accurately at any distance with a handgun takes regular, correct training and practice.
2) Hit probabilities of most police officers are mediocre at best, even at inside-a-phone-booth ranges.
3) Only correct, professional training increases office hit probability. Mere qualification shooting does not.
4) The greater the distance, the lower the police hit probability. The lower the ambient lighting, the lower the hit probability.
5) Most police officers are much more likely to miss than hit their targets.
6) The idea that officers can shoot well enough to incapacitate criminals by shooting to wound is Hollywood nonsense. In most cases, they can barely hit their targets at ridiculously close ranges.
7) The more officers involved in a shooting the more likely a greater number of rounds will be fired and the higher the probability of misses. The Dorner case, where eight LAPD officers–including a supervisor–unleashed 103 rounds at two innocent women delivering newspapers, is a case in point. They only wounded both women, but bravely shot seven nearby homes and nine parked, and thankfully unoccupied, cars.
One of the most common lies of anti-Second Amendment forces is that the police not only have the duty to protect everyone, they have the skill and the means. No one needs guns; leave it to the professionals.
The truth is the police have no legal duty to protect anyone, only to deter crime by their presence, and investigate it after it happens. As I’ve just demonstrated, most police officers don’t have the ability to reliably protect citizens with their weapons, even though most sincerely want to do so. //
No one can rely on the police to protect them. They are few, and when danger threatens, almost always far away, too far to save lives. Anyone claiming otherwise is either mistaken, or lying to take American’s liberty, and ultimately, their lives. Unlike on TV, the police aren’t going to be our salvation, and often, they’re the opposite. We’re ultimately responsible for our safety; no one else.
Opinion In the true spirit of never let a crisis go to waste, Peter Ambler, who serves as the executive director of Giffords: Courage to Fight Gun Violence, penned an article in Fast Company with a similar title, “CEOs: It’s time to take a stand on gun safety. It will help your business.“ Politician and gun control advocate Gabrielle Giffords and husband retired astronaut ....
He's telling you what he's going to do. Believe him.
A legally armed citizen intervened during an instance of domestic violence in a convenience store parking lot, police said, possibly saving a woman’s life. //
The coalition of “50 prominent hunters and anglers” stated that Joe Biden would “protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans to purchase and responsibly use firearms for hunting and sporting.”
Unfortunately for gun control advocates, the Second Amendment is not, and never has been, concerned with the protection of hunting or sport shooting. It is concerned with the protection of something much more fundamental to American democracy—maintaining the “security of a free state.” //
An armed citizenry is the best and most natural defense against threats to individual rights, whether those threats stem from a tyrannical government, a foreign army, an anarchic mob, or an individual criminal. //
The Daily Signal each month publishes an article highlighting some of the previous month’s many news stories on defensive gun use that you may have missed—or that might not have made it to the national spotlight in the first place. (Read accounts from 2019 and so far in 2020 here.)
Two things can be true about the Rittenhouse situation.
America's gun ownership has exploded and this is a great thing.
Survival is paramount. //
Jack ended with a quote from Cicero; I’ll take his lead and do the same:
“There exists a law…inborn of our hearts…by natural intuition. … If our lives are endangered by plots or violence or armed robbers or enemies, any and every method of protecting ourselves is morally right.”
The first insurance-backed membership organization in America to offer immediate, comprehensive, nationwide, 24-hour support for gun owners who are forced to defend themselves or their family with a firearm.
After using a firearm in justified self-defense, even if you don’t shoot it, you may be facing significant legal troubles (and large financial costs).