Category Archives: 2nd Amendment

Illinois Contemplates Confiscation

The Illinois State Rifle Association has sent out an “urgent alert”  regarding a pair of pending bills in the Land Of Lincoln (LOL) that would effectively ban gun ownership here. These are the bulletins, with relevant links, courtesy of the ISRA:


MESSAGE FROM COMMITTEE DEMOCRATS: “Eliminating law-abiding gun owners is a good ‘first step’ towards a ‘civil society.’”

Votes on HB815 and HB1263 were split along party lines in the Senate Public Health Committee Wednesday night with the committee Democrats voting 6-4 and 6-3 to send the bills to the full senate. If these two bills become law, they will resulting most, if not all ranges in the state going out of business as well as the banning of ALL semiautomatic rifles, pistols and shotguns as well as banning all pump shotguns and rifles.

In comments made during testimony, committee Democrats stated plainly that HB815 and HB1263 were “first steps” and that these bills have as their objective the creation of a “more civil society.” In other words, elimination of lawful gun owners is a required first step for creating a more civil society. Of course, there was no mention of the impact of eliminating criminals.


1. Call Senator Dave Syverson at (217) 782-5413 and tell him “THANK YOU” for supporting lawful gun owners by voting “NO” on HB815 and HB1263.

2. Call Senator Shane Cultra at (217) 782-6597 and tell him “THANK YOU” for supporting lawful gun owners by voting “NO” on HB815 and HB1263.

3. Call Senator Christine Johnson at (217) 782-1977 and tell her “THANK YOU” for supporting lawful gun owners by voting “NO” on HB815 and HB1263.

4. Call Senator Carole Pankau at (217) 782-9463 and tell her “THANK YOU” for supporting lawful gun owners by voting “NO” on HB815 and HB1263.

It is very important that you praise these Senators for their support.

The ringleader of the effort to shut down shooting ranges and take your guns away from you is Senator Dan Kotowski. You may wish to call him at (217) 782-3875 and politely explain to him that, as a law-abiding gun owner, you do not appreciate being treated like a criminal and that you oppose any efforts to regulate shooting ranges, ban semiautomatic firearms, or ban standard capacity magazines.

Posted Wed Jan 2 22:29:34 CST 2013




A pair of nightmare bills is on the move at this moment in the Illinois Senate.

These two bills would:

1. Run all gun ranges out of business by imposing heavy fees, imposing special staffing requirements, warrantless searches of ranges and customers, unlimited unannounced “inspections.”

2. Ban all semi-automatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns as well as pump action shotguns.

Here are direct links to the two bills:






1. Follow the instructions below and contact your Illinois State Senator. Politely tell your senator that you are a law-abiding gun owner and you want them to vote AGAINST HB815 and HB1263. CALL NOW!

2. Pass this information on to your gun owning friends and family, tell them to call as well.

3. Post this alert to all Internet blogs and bulletin boards to which you belong.

The worst of the two bills, HB815 is being sponsored and pushed by anti-gun Senator Dan Kotowski. Go to his link: Call him at the numbers listed and tell him that you do not appreciate him trying to shut down gun ranges and taking your guns away from you. He needs to hear from you!

Posted Wed Jan 2 21:17:56 CST 2013


Illinois Senator Dan Kotowski (pictured above) is touted as the fellow most responsible for this legislation. According to his official biography:

Since taking the oath of office in January of 2007, Dan has quickly become an independent voice for the 33rd Senate district ushering in a new era of progressive leadership for Illinois. He was sworn-in for his second term on January 14, 2009.

Kotowski sponsored legislation in 2007 that would have prohibited assault weapons and .50-caliber rifles. His bill made it through a Senate committee but died on the floor.

Another Illinois State Senator from the 1st District, Antonio Muñoz – pictured below – is responsible for the “Assault Weapon Ban” components of this legislation. He is an ex-Chicago PD cop, and a longtime foe of gun rights. Also, he is pushing to provide illegal immigrants/undocumented workers valid Illinois driver’s licenses. A comprehensive bio of Muñoz can be found here, at Ballotpedia.

Illinois State Senator Antonio Muñoz

Illinois State Senator Antonio Muñoz

Apart from allowing grandstanding “progressive” politicos another chance to stand before the cameras with their arms dramatically outspread, like mini-Mussolinis addressing cheering mobs of fascists on the Illinois floor, I can’t imagine what they expect to accomplish with these bills. Well, sure … they’d like to see us all turn in our guns to the Illinois State Police; and certainly, they’d like very much to get reelected by their “progressive” voter bases. But down deep, they have to realize these bills are about as airworthy as lead dirigibles. Like Kotowski’s Quixotic 2007 attempt to ban .50 cal rifles, this new effort is probably doomed.

I say “probably” because, let’s face it: these are powerful men. Downstate, our representatives will not support these bills. However, just as the super-massive black hole in the center of our galaxy calls the shots way out in the spiral arms where we live, the super-ignorant black hole in Cook County, Illinois has substantial influence all the way down to Cairo at Illinois’ southernmost tip.

So, yes, if you live in the LOL, get on the phone, on your e-mail account, maybe even write a letter using actual paper and raise five kinds of bloody-friggin’-hell with your elected representatives.

Obama To Go “Quickly” For Gun Control, Immigration Reform

An Obama Regime official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told the Huffington Post today the Prez will go “quickly” for gun control and immigration. Some sort of action is expected by the end of January, 2013.

The official, who spoke about legislative plans only on condition of anonymity, said that coming standoffs over deficit reduction are unlikely to drain momentum from other priorities. The White House plans to push forward quickly, not just on immigration reform but gun control laws as well.

The HuffPo article mentions U.S. Rep Zoe Lofgren as spearheading Obama’s efforts on immigration reform; there is no word as to which moonbat will command the Push For American Citizen Disarmament, but it seems likely their name will end with einstein and start with F.

What is being suggested is a legislative push on both issues, rather than Executive Orders. But Democrats seem to see passage of sweeping gun control and immigration reform as a cakewalk, and are cheered by the fact that House Speaker John Boehner seems to be tucking tail in dealing with the White House:

Good news for immigration advocates may have come Tuesday night, when Boehner broke the so-called “Hastert Rule” and allowed the fiscal cliff bill to come for a vote without support from a majority of his Republican conference. Given opposition to immigration reform by many Tea Party Republicans, the proof that Boehner is willing to bypass them on major legislation is a good sign, the Democratic aide said.

Indeed. Neither Boehner nor former VP Candidate Paul Ryan offered much resistance to Obama’s demands on the “fiscal cliff” crisis. If this sort of invertebrate behavior continues when gun control comes up for a vote, we gun owners may have a real problem.

Taking a lead from USMC Corporal Joshua Boston, we should be contacting our elected representatives and reminding them that Democrat efforts to ban guns, and register owners like sex offenders, will not be tolerated.

U.S. Marine Gives Feinstein The What-For

Joshua Boston, a former U.S. Marine who was deployed to Afghanistan from 2004 – 2005, has sent a scorching letter to Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Ca) in regards to her plan to disarm the American public. The letter has gone viral all across the Internets. It is so succinct I have to reproduce it here:

Senator Dianne Feinstein,

I will not register my weapons should this bill be passed, as I do not believe it is the government’s right to know what I own. Nor do I think it prudent to tell you what I own so that it may be taken from me by a group of people who enjoy armed protection yet decry me having the same a crime. You ma’am have overstepped a line that is not your domain. I am a Marine Corps Veteran of 8 years, and I will not have some woman who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one.

I am not your subject. I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant. I am the flesh and blood of America.

I am the man who fought for my country. I am the man who learned. I am an American. You will not tell me that I must register my semi-automatic AR-15 because of the actions of some evil man.

I will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and your misinformation campaign against the American public.

We, the people, deserve better than you.

Respectfully Submitted,

Joshua Boston

Cpl, United States Marine Corps

As harsh as this letter sounds, I imagine it is quite gentle next to some of the mail Madam Senator has surely received in recent days from gun owners.

Feinstein Ban “Political Suicide” For Dems

Attorney Mark Kogan is certainly no friend to firearm owners. Only last week, he hyperventilated over the NRA’s Wayne LaPierre calling for armed guards at schools.

Since then, Kogan has penned a piece entitled, “Dianne Feinstein Assault Weapon Ban Is Political Suicide For Democrats“:

In one sweeping stroke, Feinstein intends to instigate the pro-gun lobby, alienate the majority of Americans who oppose re-instating a federal assault weapons ban, and run head long into a constitutional battle, all without even the faintest hope of bill passage.

While the bill sounds great on paper if you’re playing to a politically progressive base, it will do little if anything to actually address gun violence in this country.

In 1994, Congress passed the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. The ban outlawed the new manufacture and sale of specific models of semiautomatic weapons and high capacity magazines.

After a decade in existence, the bill did little more than cost Democrats the control of Congress.

Kogan argues that the problem of gun violence is more a cultural phenomenon than a function of the ease of purchasing so-called “assault weapons”. He recommends more pragmatic solutions, such as better background checks to ensure mentally ill persons cannot purchase firearms, and better enforcement of existing laws. Welcome to the NRA, Mr. Kogan.

Calling an attempt to pass Feinstein’s ban “divisive” and “bone-headed”, he warns his progressive comrades that they will lose, and lose big, in the next election for even supporting such a bill.

Already, even the threat of such a ban has had unhappy consequences for gun-grabbers. As pointed out by Mike Adams at InfoWars, in a story entitled, “By Calling For Gun Control, You Are Unleashing Your Own Worst Nightmare“:

By screaming about how they wish to destroy the Second Amendment and disarm the American people, collectivist media gun grabbers and “school shooting doomsday” fear mongers have managed to do exactly what they hoped NOT to do: They have pushed millions of AR-15s and hundreds of millions of rounds of ammunition into the private hands of Americans.

This has certainly been my observation, watching recent action at gun shops and shows. Since the financial crash of 2008, and the onset of the Obama regime, there has been an explosion of ordinary, everyday people deciding to purchase serious ordinance. Every time the word “ban” is uttered by someone in Washington, there is a tsunami at the gun shops and gun shows. Just the other day, I was shopping in the housewares section of Walmart when I happened across an attractive, well-dressed woman talking with a teenage girl, presumably her daughter. They were talking about buying guns for home defense. Firearm ownership has become ubiquitous in America, along with the fear that something bad – a natural disaster, economic collapse, etc – could happen.

It gets even better. Bill Owens, author of So You Want To Own A Gun, and an accomplished gun writer, did a column for the Western Rifle Shooters Association entitled, “What You’ll See In The Rebellion“. In it, Owens makes the following observations:

Ironically, while the gun grab was intended to keep citizens from preserving their liberties with medium-powered weapons, it completely ignored the longer-ranged rifles perfect for shooting at ranges far beyond what a security detail can protect, and suppressed .22LR weapons proven deadly in urban sniping in Europe and Asia …

The 535 members of the House and Senate in both parties that allowed such a law to pass would largely be on their own; the Secret Service is too small to protect all of them and their families, the Capitol Police too unskilled, and competent private security not particularly interested in working against their own best interests at any price. The elites will be steadily whittled down, and if they can not be reached directly, the targets will become their staffers, spouses, children, and grandchildren. Grandstanding media figures loyal to the regime would die in droves, executed as enemies of the Republic.

While Owens is not advocating the armed overthrow of the US government, he understands not just the mood of the country, and the capabilities of its citizens as well. His blunt description of a hypothetical armed rebellion in the wake of a gun ban from Washington should give progressives pause.

Liberal or conservative, no matter which way you slice it, a renewed Assault Weapon Ban, in which legal gun owners would be registered like so many child sex offenders, is bad news for all concerned. It would be far better if Feinstein and her ilk recognized the foolhardiness of such a law, and stood down. Absolutely no good will come of it, for anybody.

For Every Action …

Whatever you’ve been hearing about what madhouses gun shops and gun shows have become the last week or two, the reality is far, far more intense.

Here’s a gun show I myself attended in St. Charles, Missouri. The sheer volume of people in attendance was unlike anything I’ve ever experienced; the footage fails to approach the reality of this:

No, I’m not the guy at the 0:00:05 mark wearing the black “Punisher” hoodie. But if you look closely at the crowd footage, you might see me somewhere in the background.

There have been plenty of remarks in the media about “panic buying” at gun shows and gun shops. I didn’t get a sense of “panic” at this event; buyers were calm and polite. “Determined” would be a better word. Many of the buyers of I spoke to said they already owned several guns, realized some day they’d need to invest in a “black rifle”, but had put the decision off as long as possible. Now, with the threat of a new Assault Weapon Ban, they believed the window for buying was in danger of closing.

“Time to fish or cut bait,” said one.

So I wandered the maze of tables, watching the noobs haggling over AR15s while the old hands stocked up on springs, bolt carriers and other spare parts.

As demand has skyrocketed in the wake of recent events, prices on select semiautomatic rifles have at least doubled – or even tripled, in some cases. What’s more, people – and lots of them – are actually paying these incredible prices.

People are not deterred by the thought of paying close to $3000 for a RRA Elite Operator 2 that, a couple of months ago, went for $1000. Even in these strained financial times, no few people are scraping the money together to buy as many of these arms as possible, before a ban of some sort can hit. The determination of ordinary people to arm themselves – while they can, in their view – should give pause to the gun grabbers. What the Dianne Feinsteins of the world should take from this is that the American people will not easily allow themselves to be disarmed.

This morning on “Meet The Press”, Obama said:

“I’m going to be putting forward a package and I’m going to be putting my full weight behind it. I’m going to be making an argument to the American people about why this is important and why we have to do everything we can to make sure that something like what happened at Sandy Hook Elementary does not happen again.

“Will there be resistance? Absolutely there will be resistance,” he said.

The Chattering Class, Obama’s seemingly endless cadre of media propagandists are having a field day. Two of the highlights: morbidly obese filmmaker Michael Moore, who thinks Fidel Castro is a swell guy, burbling, “Calm down, white people, and put away your guns“; and CNN talking head Piers (rhymes with … oh, never mind) Morgan, boasting about his expertise with firearms (he says he once fired a gun in the imaginary caliber of “Magnum 45″), while whining about the petition to deport him at White House dot Gov; and being veddy, veddy angry at how Americans are still buying AR15s – a teddible, teddible thing, old fellow …

Facebook – hardly a Conservative bastion to begin with - has been busily purging pro-Second Amendment and pro-Liberty pages this weekend. It would seem that Mark Zuckerberg has finally figured out that being a plutocrat means stifling dissent wherever possible. Yes, leave the hoi-polloi to play Farmville, post meaningless tripe about nothing at all, and not discuss anything of importance. Sleep, sleeeeeep …

(I once had a Facebook account, for about two months. I found it the most incredibly stultifying experience I’ve ever had, even worse than playing Tetris. But Facebook seemed consumed with mouthy liberals even then – perhaps because liberals are masters of wasting time.)

The relentless pressure from government and media to abolish firearms was on a lot of people’s minds at St. Charles. If I could attribute the massive attendance to a single factor, it would be this one. Liberals think they can stamp out the Second Amendment and everything that goes with it. But their efforts have exactly the opposite effect.

In biology, when a colony of organisms is stressed, it responds by adapting, by evolving. This is why we have antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Bacteria are pretty stupid – though not as stupid as most liberals. Yet bacteria can change, growing harder and stronger, when we attempt to wipe them out. Excepting liberals, people are a lot smarter than bacteria. Place downward pressure on them, and they adapt and evolve with remarkable aplomb.

Try to wipe out the Jews and they create Israel, and stockpile 400 or so nuclear weapons, in no time.

In Russia, as Lenin and the communists came to power, there were “thieve’s guilds” – loose affiliations of pickpockets and petty burglars plying what they considered their trade. Lenin and, subsequently, Stalin tried to wipe them out. These low-level mopes were systematically hunted down, sent to gulags, or lined up in front of open trenches and machinegunned en masse. The USSR was the most powerful, successful police state the world has ever seen … yet, they could not eradicate the thieve’s guilds. Today, the descendants of these petty criminals – the Russian Mafiyas – pretty much run the country, selling purloined submarines to interested buyers.

Attempting to wipe out gun ownership in America will fare no better.

The left has set out to eliminate conservatives in general and gun-owning conservatives in particular. That is an old story, but the right has been changing to address this existential threat over the last couple of decades. The transformation is occurring rapidly, and may explain why Mitt Romney lost the 2012 General Election. Romney was adapted to the conservative environment of the 70s or 80s. He seems never to have gotten the memo that the conservative movement in America was rapidly evolving. These days, even the Tea Party is growing passé.

Conservatives in general, gun owners in particular, are being radicalized at a breathless rate. This is not to say they’re ready to start blowing up police stations, as did leftist radicals in the 1960s. Applied to modern conservatives, the word “radical” subtends a worldview unlike anything we’ve seen in the past. Continued oppression by liberals will ultimately result in a tough, armed, conservative subculture that liberals will be able to neither recognize nor cope with.

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Gun Control As Castration

by Michael Enoch, Alternative Right

Is there really any rational basis for the idea of gun control? Or is it just a desperate grasping for some kind of symbolic control after an outbreak of mass violence? Or is it something even deeper? On its face the idea of gun control is ridiculous. Conservatives, libertarians and gun enthusiasts have been making the same basic points for years whenever the issue comes up in response to whatever the latest mass shooting incident happens to be. The fact that there will be such incidents is a social inevitability at this point.

The simple argument is that whatever the latest mass murder happens to be, it was the act of a deranged or vengeful criminal and law abiding folks ought not be deprived of their means of recreation and self defense for the crimes of another. Such shooting rampages inevitably happen in areas where the shooter is the only armed individual and thus faces no resistance. Criminals, and particularly those driven enough to carry out such a rampage, will find a way to arm themselves one way or the other no matter what the law may be. Gun restrictions would only leave the law abiding defenseless against such psychopaths. Some even assert that the proper response ought to be putting more guns in more hands rather than vice-versa.

Some of these points have merit, and some may be stretching it, but the fact remains that gun control is just damned impractical. It cannot actually be done with anything close to the degree of effectiveness that the liberal fanatics would wish. There are hundreds of millions of firearms in private hands in the US. The culture of gun ownership is a part of the fabric of society in areas outside of the liberal havens of the northeast. Any attempt to ban or restrict guns will inevitably lead to far more social unrest and potential violence than it would ever solve. Even if one finds this distasteful, it is the only conclusion that can be drawn based on a sober assessment of reality.

Yet the issue is still pushed with religious fervor by the true believers and social crusaders. Gun rights groups and gun owners are cast as evil accomplices to murder by these do-gooders merely for engaging in pro-gun advocacy. Such was the case earlier today when members of the women’s protest group “Code Pink” – a sort of liberal, feminist version of the Westboro Baptist Church — interrupted an NRA press conference by screaming slogans and unfurling a banner accusing the NRA of guilt by proxy in the recent school killings.

How to explain this? Why such hysterics over the NRA, a fairly moderate and mainstream group by most standards? Do these women really think that they can stop such outbreaks of violence merely by passing some petty bureaucratic measures, all the while continuing to hide their heads in the sand about the real social roots of the “mass shooter” phenomenon?

The answer is that killings and violence are not really the issue as far as the deeper impulses and desires these women have to ban or restrict access to firearms. The fact that it was a feminist group protesting the NRA is not an accident. Gun control is an issue that has historically been pushed by feminist and women’s groups. It comes down to the psychological roots of feminism and the desperate need of such women to control, manage and limit male agency. Essentially gun control is an attempt to perform a symbolic castration of all men in society, in particular those men that would outwardly manifest strength and a will to power by owning a gun, being committed to self defense and engaging in hunting or sportsmanship with firearms.

A gun is an obvious symbol of male power, sexuality and virility. This is the real reason why the gun issue is such an emotional flashpoint for feminists and prompts them to frantic outbursts such as the one at the NRA press conference. Unfortunately as our society gets ever more feminized, as masculinity is ever more marginalized and the traditional male virtues of strength, agency and vitality are ever more demonized, a growing number of virtually cuckolded liberal beta males can be expected to fall in line with this agenda and willingly castrate themselves on the altar of feminism. And of course in a democracy politicians are all too willing to indulge this sort of movement in exchange for power.

In a 1994 research paper titled “Sex and Guns: Is Gun Control Male Control?” Canadian sociologist H. Taylor Buckner documented three surveys he conducted of his undergraduate students concerning their attitudes on guns and gun control. He concluded that:

…students who were pro gun control were also pro homosexual, pro censorship of pornography, and not experienced with guns.

and that:

…men and women have different patterns of motivation for being pro gun control. The men who favor gun control are those who reject traditional male roles and behavior. They are opposed to hunting, are pro homosexual, do not have any experience with or knowledge of guns and tend to have “politically correct” attitudes. The women who support gun control do so in the context of controlling male violence and sexuality. Gun control is thus symbolic of a realignment of the relation between the sexes.

One of the exercises in the survey invited students to do a sentence completion exercise to express in their own words their feelings on guns, gun owners, gun clubs and hunting  The responses are revealing:

When I think of Gun Clubs, I think… (female, unfavorable)

People who seek power/control… Boys trying to prove their value… No guns whatsoever should be allowed anywhere… I am totally against those clubs, first of all guns should not exist, only purpose is killing people and animals… Violent men with a violent pastime… Men collected there to show off their strength and women who go along with it… Of heartless men and wonder about why they attend those clubs; I hate gun clubs… Fear, unacceptable activity… Men who have something to prove by acting “macho.” They are dangerous to society and to themselves… Masochistic people who have to live their lives behind a gun in fear… Kinky, weird people… Ignorance, uneducated… Power through sick minds. Violence.

The psychology here should be apparent. The idea of powerful males or males expressing some sort of dominance, even if only in imagination, is clearly distressing to these women. Their immediate response is to want to control it and shut it down, to appeal to a higher power to enforce the rules on those naughty men and boys. The general hostility and suspicion with which feminists regard male only or “boys club” type social spaces is also at play.

To further hammer home the point that the desire for gun control is essentially irrational and not based on any facts or real world knowledge Buckner tested the students on their own personal knowledge and experience with guns and then correlated those results with their attitudes on gun control. He found:

Less than 1% knew that there is a five year penalty for an unregistered handgun (the most frequent guess was a $500 fine). Only 6% knew that handguns account for less than 20% of the murders in Canada (most guessed that it was around two-thirds, as in the U.S.). Only 11% knew the difference between a rifle and a shotgun. Thirty-two percent knew that the magazine of a gun does not have a trigger. Figure 5 shows, knowledge of the subject is not widespread. Pro gun control attitudes do not appear to depend on knowledge or rationality.

Figure 6 The less knowledge of and experience with guns a student has the more pro gun control they are. In fact, the more experience and knowledge one has of guns the lower the support for gun control.

It is clear from these results that the gun control attitude is not an informed opinion that one comes to after sober reflection and analysis. Rather is a product of ignorance, irrational fear and the desire to control and manage what is perceived as the threat of out of control male sexuality and agency. Gun control is castration.


Originally published at The Right Stuff

Feinstein’s Folly

Corpulent Senator Dianne Feinstein announced today she will be introducing legislation early in 2013 to “stop the spread of deadly assault weapons“.

In a nutshell, her idea is to reclassify “assault” weapons, as well as magazines accepting more than ten rounds of ammunition, as Title II Firearms. People who currently own such things will be permitted to keep them. However, those owners will have to register these arms, submit to photographing and fingerprinting, and pay a surcharge for each weapon (if I read the proposed law correctly, each magazine as well). This surcharge, authorized under the decades-old National Firearms Act of 1934, has previously been applied only to machineguns, silencers, destructive devices, and rifles or shotguns with barrels less than 18″ in length. It is the “Federal Tax Stamp” we all know and love costing, at current rates, $200.

Just the threat of this is causing mass hysteria. One of our detectives commented today that base-model DPMS AR15s, which normally go for around $600, are currently being sold for three times that at some dealers. Over at InfoWars, Alex Jones is saying – not to put too fine a point on it – that we are in “deep shit”.

My view is that just because some grizzled hag from the Land Of Fruits And Nuts (California) introduces legislation, it doesn’t mean it will pass. In the current political climate in Washington, D.C., gridlock rules. While the GOP does not have a majority in the Senate, and while the White House is occupied by Obama, the GOP still calls the shots in the House – enough to throw a giant wrench into the works, so long as we keep them properly motivated.

Obama could sign an Executive Order, as some have suggested, to reclassify semiautomatic firearms as Title II weapons under the NFA. However, analysts on both sides of the aisle realize that such a hamfisted act would carry consequences – the least of which would be widespread noncompliance. Challenges would quickly be brought in the U.S. Supreme Court. Republicans have signaled they would defund the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, which would be responsible for enforcing the measure. As with the previous Assault Weapon Ban, Democrats would lose their jobs en masse.

This is not to say the current regime will not try, and try hard, to reclassify semiautomatics and high-capacity magazines as falling under NFA. They would do so not to reduce violence by maniacs (if that were the case, they’d pass laws allowing lunatics to be more readily locked away). They will try to pass such a law, either by legislation or Executive Order, simply because they are broke, and they desperately need the money.

If you think those in government care – on a human, emotional level – about the children killed by madman Adam Lanza at Sandy Hook K-4, think again. I can say that, because I’ve worked for government these past 27 years. Government cares about exactly two things: (1) money, and (2) power.

When legislators in Illinois passed mandatory seatbelt laws some years back, the public mantra was, “Think of the lives we will save”. But during unguarded moments, political figures – hoping to appeal to the dark side of police – privately said, “Think of the revenue you cops will be able to generate for your departments by writing seatbelt tickets. Of course, the State of Illinois gets a cut. But you guys’ll have plenty of revenue left to buy all kinds of new equipment, get pay raises, and so forth, with this law”. I myself believe seatbelts are good things. Call me crazy, but I believe writing legislation for the express purpose of fleecing the public is a bad thing.

In a similar way, I doubt Feinstein is emotionally invested in the deaths of the children at Sandy Hook. No, this harridan sees dollar signs, not dead children. She sees lots and lots of dollar signs that can be used to feed the insatiable monster on the Potomac.

Nobody really knows how many firearms are privately held in American hands, but the best estimates are around 300 million. Let’s say half of those, 150 million, would require a Federal Tax Stamp at $200 a pop. That’s $30,000,000,000 – a tidy sum, even in this era when the word “trillion” is casually tossed about in government circles. Throw in some magazines for these firearms, each requiring a separate tax stamp for lawful ownership, and we’re in trillion-dollar-revenues territory.

Those in government, like Feinstein, have held onto their power for decades and decades because they buy votes. “I’ll give you goodies – checks, programs and benefits,” they say, “as long as you keep voting me back into office”. The problem is, they’re just about out of money, despite running the printing presses full-bore, and despite borrowing heavily from the People’s Republic of China (who is due to cut up our credit card any day now). No more money, no more goodies; no more goodies, no more votes; no more votes, no more “Senator” Feinstein. She’ll be a nobody, working as a functionary for some nonprofit, with no real salary or influence to show for it.

(I was going to write, “She’d be waiting tables at Denny’s” – a humorous exaggeration. But I wouldn’t want to disparage Denny’s waitresses by comparing them to a worthless beast like Feinstein.)

What we as gun owners need to do, in order to ensure this scheme is thwarted, is to keep the heat on receptive political figures of both parties. Yes, there are pro-gun Democrats or, at the very least, Democrats who don’t want to be voted out of office at the midterms.

We need to avoid overly-militant talk, I think. Drudge ran this story today under the headline, “CIVIL WAR”. While this sort of language is fun, because it drives Blue-Staters stark raving mad, it accomplishes very little. A calm, firm statement of, “If this passes, we will not comply with it” rattles them far worse than calls for Civil War 2.0. In the end, you can only govern those who are willing to be governed. When swaths of the country start laughing in Feinstein’s face, because the cops in those places won’t enforce such a law, what can they do?

Personally, I don’t think it’ll pass. Even so, we gun owners need to stay on guard, especially against those reach-across-the-aisle types.

History Of Gun Control Is “Cautionary Tale”

There’s an interesting piece in the Washington Post today entitled, “History of Gun Control Is Cautionary Tale For Those Seeking Regulations After Conn. Shooting“.

But although Newtown has supercharged the conversation on how to stop another massacre, the history of gun control is a cautionary tale for those who push for more regulations. If past is prologue, the legislative fights ahead will be protracted and brutal — and any resulting legislation may well be riddled with loopholes.

While the authors of the story clearly have an anti-gun bias – though not as extreme as elsewhere in the media – they correctly point out that gun control legislation is always an uphill battle; that passage of such laws cost many political seats for legislators supporting the bill; and that the resulting legislation is always porous, and hardly accomplishes what it set out to do.

After the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban hit, I purchased more “assault weapons” that at any time in my life – up until the advent of the Obama regime.

“If there’s a thing the government doesn’t like me having,” I told him, “I say, ‘I’ll take two, please’.”

For example, I purchased a cheap SKS rifle, retrofitted it with a compliant Fiber Force Stock, and retooled it so it would accept high-capacity AK-47 magazines, to include 75-round drums. I bought two of these on the cheap from an individual. Had I been a maniac, rather than a police officer, I could have had a heyday with this rifle alone.

But I wasn’t satisfied. I purchased two ban-compliant Norinco AK47 semiautomatic rifles, one for $350, the other for $400. These came with no slant muzzle breaks, no bayonet lugs or cleaning rods, and cheesy wooden thumbhole stocks. Now, I could have gone to various sources and bought original wood stocks and pistol grips, and installed them on these rifles. I did not, because that would have been illegal. Instead, I purchased some high-end composite stocks for them that were ban-compliant. These felt better in my hands than original woods would have. And I bought a total of about 40 30-round magazines, a 40-round magazine, and two 75-round drums for them. All perfectly legal.

At one point, I’d stockpiled around 8000 rounds of Russian-made, steel-core, steel-case ammunition for them. The boxes were generally stamped, “Hunting Ammunition”. But these rounds would easily penetrate things like bodywork on vehicles, or even engine blocks, with zero difficulty … so you can imagine what they would have done to ballistic vests, or the persons wearing them.

I bought a progressive reloading set for my pistols. I’d come home after work, and work the lever – ka-chunk, ka-chunk, ka-chunk. The wife and kids learned how to reload pistol cartridges as well. At one point, We”d built up a stockpile of about 10,000 rounds of .38 Spl, .357 Magnum, 9mm para and .45 ACP. That’s on top of 8,000 rounds of 7.62 x 39, and probably well over 10,000 rounds of .22 LR.

I bought a “PCR-7″ from Olympic Arms. This was an AR-15 rifle lacking a bayonet lug. Instead of a “flash suppressor”, which was strictly forbidden by the 1994 AWB, it featured a “muzzle brake” which served the same purpose. It shipped with a ten-round magazine, but pre-ban 3o-round magazines were everywhere. So I stocked up. I had a boxful of mags, and thousands of rounds of 5.56mm ammunition to feed it.

A fellow I knew had a pre-ban Cobray M11, a banned “assault pistol”, complete with extended, screw-on barrel shroud. Telling me it was a little “buggy”, he sold it to me for a couple of hundred bucks. I stripped it and discovered some previous owner had polished the sear down to the point that, every time you pulled the trigger, it would “bump” or “inertia” fire at a submachinegun-like rate. Because of its uncontrollability, I ordered a new sear and installed it.

I bought a pre-ban, reproduction M1 Carbine with a folding paratrooper stock from another individual. It came with about a dozen 30-round magazines …

… and so, there I was, in the middle of the Clinton Assault Weapon Ban. And my family and I had stockpiled more arms and ammunition than we could easily find storage space for.

One of the other cops at work, seeing my collection, said, “Damn! Whaddaya need all this hardware for?”

“If there’s a thing the government doesn’t like me having,” I told him, “I say, ‘I’ll take two, please’.”

- which was the whole point of developing this vast arsenal, I suppose. I didn’t really need things like Cobray M11s and paratrooper M1 Carbines. But every time I’d buy one of these things, I’d smile to myself and mutter, “Screw you, Bill Clinton” under my breath as I took position of each new toy.

I knew a lot of people like me: cops and law-abiding citizens alike. Generally, we resented being controlled by bone-headed, liberal politicians writing dumb laws. As honorable, law-abiding people, being told there were certain types of weapons we could not be trusted with was an affront, an insult, a slap in the face. It pissed us off, bigtime – motivating us to transcend mere voting and become activists. We manned phone banks and raised money for candidates opposing any oaf who signed off on the 1994 AWB; and the majority of our targets didn’t get to be called “Congressman” or “Senator” anymore; or go on lavish junkets; or have nice offices in the Capitol Building. Buying AK47s … er, MAK90s became a form of silent protest. None of us ever carried out a massacre, or any sort of crime. Not unless calling the likes of Sarah Brady, Bill and Hilary Clinton, or Janet Reno sonsabitches was a crime. We did a lot of that.

 As honorable, law-abiding people, being told there were certain types of weapons we could not be trusted with was an affront, an insult, a slap in the face.

Firearms and ammunition designers found workarounds, too. If one could only fire ten rounds before reloading, then each shot needed to be delivered as accurately as possible. Quality went way, way up. So did the lethality of ammunition. Hydrashocks, Glaser Safety Slugs, Black Talons and all those other species of hyper-deadly ammo were developed under the 1994 AWB. Where the “wondernines” had ruled the 80s, the 90s saw renewed enthusiasm in the 10mm and the (at that time) almost antiquated .45 ACP. The .40 S&W was a new cartridge that was introduced during the AWB. Also, supercalibers like the .50 AE stepped onto the stage.

No matter which way you look at it, the Clinton Assault Weapon ban did precisely zilch to disarm the American people. All it did, apart from costing many liberal politicians their jobs, was make guns more efficient and lethal.

Just the threat of a renewed AWB has triggered a gun-buying frenzy that is beyond anything I would have ever thought I would see in my lifetime. Liberals should take note, and understand this is merely the leading edge, the slightest portent, of what a new AWB would set in motion. Also, they should realize a new AWB, should it be signed into law, will cost them far more seats than they are willing to lose in coming elections.

My wife and I spoke today of our existing gun collection – one that is pretty small by most standards – and our response should a new AWB be passed. We decided that, in the event of a new AWB then, screw it – we’ll pay the Federal Tax Stamp and purchase some fully automatic weapons, probably starting with an HK MP5. Why not? I’ll be a highly-decorated ex-cop by then. Sure, we’ll have to contend with the occasional BATF inspections. But I have friends who are ATF agents. They don’t intimidate me; an ATF agent is just a fellow cop, as far as I’m concerned: “Hey, Agent Jones! Glad you could drop by, buddy! C’mon in! Want some coffee? Angie just baked a great apple pie … here, have a slice while I bust out my new Uzi …”

Yup. I’d previously written I saw no point in owning a fully-automatic weapon. But there is one purpose to having such a thing, besides taking it to the Knob Creek Machine Gun Shoot and making noise with it:

It’s a way of saying, “Screw you, Barack Obama”.

War Declared On Gun Ownership

As I read the news today, it is pretty clear that the Left in America is going full-bore in their goal of disarming the American people. They believe that last weeks events in Newtown, Connecticut has given them all the cover they need to accomplish this task, and more. Hysterics and hoplophobia is everywhere – on television, on the Internets, on the radio, and even as the lead story in my town’s local rag of a newspaper.


On CNN last night, Britisher Piers Morgan “interviewed” NRA President Larry Pratt. I put quotation marks around the word “interviewed”; really, it was more an attempted verbal beatdown in which Morgan called Pratt, “an unbelievably stupid man” and telling him, “You shame your country”. This is nothing new. Effete British elitists have been urinating their trousers over American-held firearms since 1776 or so. Even before that, in their own country, only knights and lords could bear arms. Many, though certainly not all, UKers seem to have a congenital fear of ordinary citizens having the means to defend themselves.

Hollywood has jumped in the middle of the debate. Notably, actress Marg Helgenburger – who has waived her fair share of firearms around on TV and in movies – tweeted that “one can only hope” that NRA members get shot … a sentiment expressed by many, many other Twitter users.

Commentators and other blowhards far and wide are asking, “Why does anybody need a 30-round magazine?” Those of us on the right side of the issue remind them that, unless it can be proven that no criminal, terrorist or other fiend on American soil possesses a high-capacity, semiautomatic firearm, we shall keep ours, thank you very much.

“AR15s are made to hunt Al Qaeda terrorists on foreign soil,” they whine. “Nobody needs such a thing for self-defense”. True, even a short M4 variant is a daunting thing to conceal on the street. But in a home-defense setting, an AR15/M4 excels because of the tendency of the 5.56mm/.223 round to disintegrate upon penetrating stud-and-sheetrock walls. If some threat were in my home, I would reach first for my own AR, knowing that if I have to let a couple of rounds of 5.56mm off the leash, they are much less likely to penetrate an interior wall, endangering other members of my family; or exterior walls, endangering neighbors or passersby. I will here recommend liberals Google the term “Fackler Box”. I’d provide links, but there are many, many of them and, in any event, I’d rather make you bastards work for it.

In the meantime, President Obama has assigned VP Joe Biden to take over Administration efforts to address the “complex” issue of gun violence. In the unlikely event VP Biden seek to address the mental health issues inherent in this latest atrocity, I can think of no person more qualified for the job. Forgive me if I lack the same enthusiasm with regards to his knowledge of firearms, self-defense and Constitutional Law.

Legal and political experts are today saying that a new Assault Weapon Ban would be an uphill battle were a bill introduced in Congress. The Republican-dominated House of Representatives would not pass such a bill. And politicians of all stripes still remember the fierce asswhoopin’ they took at the polls when the original AWB was passed in 1994. Then again, politicians tend toward abysmal stupidity, and may try it again anyway.

There are Presidential Executive Orders: Obama may use this totalitarian tool to appease his liberal, hoplophobic base. However, legal experts opine today this solution would be legally untenable. Suits in Federal Court would be filed, and these orders probably struck down by the Supreme Court – as currently constituted. This is not a certainty, however. During the Obamacare hearing, supposed-conservative Chief Justice John Roberts went through amazing contortions of both law and logic to assure this heinous bill was declared Constitutional, as a tax.

Something we all need to remember is this is not a knee-jerk reaction to the Sandy Hook massacre. No, liberals have been plotting the disarmament of we law-abiding citizens for some time now. Sandy Hook is just the right opportunity at the right time. Now we see the machine they’ve been cobbling together for decades finally roaring to life with full force.

I’ve been a proud member of the “gun culture” my entire life. I’ve seen all the pry-it-from-my-cold-dead-hands bumper stickers, listened to all the rants. But I’m an eternal optimist. Somewhere, in the back of my mind, a little voice has always looked at these expressions of paranoia and whispered, “Nahhhh. Never happen.”

Today, that little voice was silent. I realized the Big Gun Grab the left has been striving for has finally arrived. This time it’s for-real, actual, DEFCON-4.

And with that, I realized that my own government is seeking to disarm me. I realized that, as a gun owner, our collectivist government, and its many acolytes in the media, considers me an actual enemy. A sobering thought.

What will happen in coming days and weeks is anybody’s guess.

Whatever is headed our way from Washington, D.C. … it isn’t good.


How Do You Stop A Shooting Rampage?

(*Note: This piece contains salty language, as quoted by the author. If you are easily offended, don’t read any further.)

A lot of liberals, examining the carnage in Newtown, Connecticut with a jaundiced eye, are trying to arrive at laws, policies, procedures, steps, Presidential Executive Orders, programs and other words-on-paper ways to prevent another shooting rampage from occurring.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is vowing to introduce new gun legislation on the Senate Floor.

Senators Mark Warner and Joe Manchin, referring to the Connecticut Massacre as a “game-changing moment”, are down with a new “assault weapon” ban, or other stupid and Draconian laws targeting law-abiding gun owners.

The aptly-named Don Lemon, a correspondent for CNN, rails that we should “get guns and bullets and automatic weapons off the streets“. Not to be outdone, professional MSNBC loudmouth Ed “Sergeant” Schultz is agitating for door-to-door confiscations of firearms.

I could go on, and on, and on indefinitely. Liberals are exploiting this tragedy for everything its worth in pursuit of their age-old objective of disarming the American people.

“Think of the children,” they caterwaul. “Think of those presents beneath Christmas trees in those shattered homes and blah – blah – blah …”

There’s just one problem: Banning “assault” weapons, high-capacity magazines, etc, will not work. The problem isn’t the guns themselves, but the batshit-crazy people roaming at large in society. Pass all the laws you want, they’ll get a gun. Or an edged weapon. Or, they’ll stew up bombs in their basements.

(Actually, I learned today that the school massacre that yielded the most victims in American history occurred on May 18th, 1927, when an evil bastard named Andrew Kehoe used dynamite to kill 38 elementary school children, two teachers, and four other adults; at least 58 people were injured. This occurred in Bath Township, Michigan. Kehoe committed this atrocity because he lost an election for the lowly office of City Clerk. Forty-four dead, 58 injured. And in case you missed it, no guns were involved.)

See, when a bad guy wants to kill lots of innocent people all at once, he’ll find a way, guns or no guns.

If banning guns won’t stop, or at least reduce, these horrific incidents, then what will?

When I went through Police Academy, I was fortunate to have a Defensive Tactics instructor who was both competent and blunt. On day one, he gave us a simple rule to follow when attacked by criminals. His exact words were, “Hit the motherfucker.” I jotted his salty wisdom verbatim in my notebook, and I reproduce it here:

“It’s not complicated or, at least, it doesn’t have to be. Maybe you’re a martial artist, an 8th-dan blackbelt. Maybe not. No matter. If your instincts say ‘hit the motherfucker’, then hit the motherfucker. Play “Great Baby Seal Hunt’ with his sorry ass. You guys aren’t getting paid enough to get hurt. So hurt the other guy first, if possible, or at least hurt him the worst. Don’t hold back, because he sure as hell won’t. Somebody tries to hurt you, first he goes to the hospital, then to jail. Or the morgue, if his behavior warrants it. Follow your instincts. You’ll know what to do.”

Sergeant (I omit his name for the nonce)’s advice has never failed me. Ever. Nor has it failed any other police officer who followed it.

Put in a more polite way, if someone comes at you aggressively, you use physical force, up to and including lethal force, to stop them.

St. Louis County Police Chief seems to have received the same doctrine in his training. Today, he is calling for the arming and training of civilian school personnel.

Fitch said the killing will not be stopped by legislation or laws. “If there’s somebody that’s really hellbent on doing something like this, they’re not going to care what the law is.”

Texas GOP lawmaker Louie Gohmert agrees. He said of heroic Sandy Ridge K-4 Principal Dawn Hochsprung, in an interview on Fox News Sunday:

“I wish to God she had an M-4 in her office locked up so when she heard gunfire she pulls it out and she didn’t have to lunge heroically with nothing in her hands but she takes him out, takes his head off before he can kill those precious kids.”

While leavened with emotion, these expressions represent sound doctrine in dealing with armed maniacs.

“But Uncle Dave,” you liberals will say, “That kind of antiquated thinking will transform America into the Wild West! You can’t go around shooting bad guys all over the place! That sort of thing will never work in real life, only in your sick, depraved, Rambo-wannabe, gun-nut fantasies!”

Wrong. This approach worked quite well just yesterday, in San Antonio, Texas, where a maniacal, would-be mass murderer attempted to open fire in a restaurant. When his gun jammed, bystanders fled to an adjacent theater where The Hobbit was showing. The gunman chased them, cleared his weapon, and assaulted the theater. Too bad for him: an off-duty female deputy in plainclothes, moonlighting as security, corked him with her pistol, ending the tragedy before it even began.

If you were looking to find that story on network news, or in the mainstream media … you won’t. Liberals don’t want to admit that, when faced with a crazed, homicidal bad guy, the only thing that works every time is to shoot the bad guy. Law, policies, bans and all that are no deterrent to madmen. A bullet or two placed center of mass, fired by a trained shooter, is proven effective ten times out of ten.

How do you stop a shooting rampage? In the immortal words of my DT Instructor, “Hit the motherfucker” – with a bullet, if necessary.