Daily Digest: The Sound Of Sweet, Juicy Freedom Edition

Dura-Steel IPSC w/ stand courtesy thetacticalwire.comFrom The Tactical Wire – Minneapolis, MN – Range Systems, a leading manufacturer of live fire shooting products for the military, law enforcement and consumer communities, introduces their newest complete line of steel targets called Dura-Steel. The new targets are manufactured from 3/8″ AR500 steel capable of handling calibers of up to .762 [yes, I know] at 100 yards. Dura-Steel targets are offered in 5 different target head silhouettes including: E-Target, M9, IPSC, 2/3 IPSC and Q-Target and contain no welds which weaken steel. The targets come standard unpainted making it value-priced and are reversible for added target life. Target prices range from $75.00 to $150 MSRP. The Dura-Steel Tripod Target Stand is made from solid steel rod . . .

and sheet metal and is designed to hold the Dura-Steel targets at a 20º forward angle to control splatter, reduce ricochet, and reduce the impact energy allowing for longer target life. The black painted stand also incorporates a pocket to hold an optional “Hostage” head target. The stand has an extra wide base radius for stability, manages easily for set-up and teardown for transport, and weighs just 33 lbs. MSRP is $150.00.

Black Hills Ammunition has worked with Barnes bullets to develop a Black Hills-specific variation of the Barnes TSX, an all-copper round that is designed to hold together while penetrating test barriers and still expand correctly when reaching a human target. Available in a full-power 5.56mm load, the Black Hills Ammunition 50 grain Barnes TSX round is claimed to be the first purpose-built police patrol rifle load. Jeff Hoffman, owner of Black Hills Ammo, found that this design is almost totally barrier blind in barrel lengths from 20 inches down to 8 inches. Black Hills also offers a lineup of pistol rounds loaded with the Barnes Tac-XP bullet, currently available in 9mm, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP, with a .380 ACP load coming soon. The full article is available at policeone.com.

You say gun control doesn’t work? Fine. Let’s ban guns altogether. That’s the headline of an opinion piece in last Wednesday’s L.A. Times. In what he acknowledges is a “decidedly minority viewpoint,” he says “ban them, with a carve-out for hunting weapons.” Hunters can own shotguns and rifles if they pass a safety course, and ammo would be tracked like OTC sales of pseudoephinedrine [sic, The drug’s actual name is pseudoephedrine]. But other than hunting weapons, sorry, you can’t have them. “As for handguns, assault-style weapons, etc., let’s have a flat-out ban … there is no defensible reason for such weapons to be a part of our culture.” Use in self defense is “impossible to measure because of a lack of trustworthy data.” The argument of protection from tyranny is, as always, dismissed, “the idea that a few well-armed patriots would be able to defeat the U.S. Army should the government turn despotic is, at best, a romantic infatuation.” Finally, he acknowledges that the Supreme Court upheld private gun ownership in Heller, but notes that “the Supreme Court has been wrong before,” citing the Fugitive Slave Law and Dred Scott. So, his personal opinion, “Ban the guns.”

Saturday night I told you that it was Los Angeles’ gun buy-up day (too late for some, sorry), so a quick followup. Nbclosangeles.com says that 950 firearms were surrendered over the weekend in exchange for grocery gift cards. There were no notable turn-ins listed among the 476 handguns, 273 rifles, 170 shotguns, and 31 “assault rifles.” LAPD Chief Charlie Beck said at a press conference Monday that, “This is not about the right to own guns, this is about getting rid of those guns that serve no useful purpose. Many of the weapons here are illegal on their face. They don’t belong in a civilized society.” That’s an interesting point of view, isn’t it? I’m struggling to think of how a gun can be “illegal on its face.” Matter of fact, I’m struggling to think of any tangible object that can be “illegal on its face.” Something that is intrinsically illegal based simply on its own existence. I’m drawing a blank. Anyone?

The Yankee Marshal wants to make sure we’re all aware of of an epidemic that’s sweeping the nation. The Handgun Epidemic. [Couple-three random discordant F-bombs]

You see it’s funny, but it makes you think. Gary the GLOCK cameo at the very end.

And just for fun, hickok45, a Winchester 1887, and some very explode-y watermelons. No tannerite required.

.

comments

  1. avatar michael nieto says:

    dura-steel is from star wars can they actually name their product that? star ships are made of that stuff

    1. avatar John L. says:

      Star Wars, plus Starbound.

      I’d say at least half of the combat sci fi I’ve read tries to come up with a clever name for “a better/harder/lighter armor/steel/keep-me-from-dying-stuff than we have right now.”

      Just off the top of my head…Dura-steel; battle steel; collapsar armor; dwarf star alloy; battle bronze (a personal favorite); allotropic iron (an oldie but goodie, thanks Doc!); duralinium; corbomite; hullmetal; scrith; and so forth ad nauseum.

      In fact, I’m pretty sure I’ve come across durasteel or some variant of it somewhere other than in Star Wars.

      1. avatar Vhyrus says:

        Don’t forget mithril!

        1. avatar John L. says:

          I’ve been trying to ever since it got Jacksoned…

        2. avatar Todd S says:

          We need ceramite!

      2. avatar Scottlac says:

        Don’t forget about transparent aluminum from Star Trek IV

      3. avatar Alan Longnecker says:

        Plasteel, and my favorite Ceremet.

      4. avatar Matt says:

        Durasteel aint got nothin on my molecularly bonded quantum armor.

        Another notable one is plasteel used for canopies and viewing ports.

  2. avatar DTAL says:

    “the idea that a few well-armed patriots would be able to defeat the U.S. Army should the government turn despotic is, at best, a romantic infatuation.”

    For some reason, these idiots always think “fighting back against a despotic government” means lining up like it’s the 18th century and firing at their tanks and Apaches with our ARs. They don’t realize how ridiculously hard it would be for a government to conduct a 4th generation warfare “war” on home soil, where their commanders, soldiers, and politicians (and their families) live amongst the “rebels.” He ignores the number of soldiers and commanders that would defect, the police that would defect, the hardware and intel they’d bring with them, the power of psychological warfare and sabotage, the list goes on. I don’t really expect complex thinking from the dull minds of antis, but come on. And, since it always bears being said, the idea of a bunch of illiterate farmers with 50 year old rifles fighting the most powerful military force the world has ever seen is equally ludicrous sounding, and yet, there’s Afghanistan and Iraq. Ditto colonists and the British.

    And hey, maybe it’s the “romantic” side of me, but I’d rather have the option of fighting back than just surrender to slavery like him and so many people are willing to do. Well, most would surrender to slavery, the others (like him, I’d guess) would actively help the tyrannical government.

    1. avatar DisThunder says:

      It’s not surprising that a hack job like this guy misses this, but I’m often surprised how little people actually think about it: having worked a civilian contract job for the Army, I can tell you that it, like every other modern fighting force, is utterly dependent on the massive chains of supply that come from off-base. Food, fuel, ammo, tools, medicine, clothes, armor, tires, and especially personnel– ALL that dries to a trickle once the word gets out the armed forces have been sicced on their own. Without the never ending parade of civilian-supplied workforce and supply, the trucks don’t run, the troops don’t get fed, and the guns run out. Simple as that.
      And as bloated and elongated as these supply needs were back in the day (pre-9/11), I can only imagine they’ve gotten worse than even my most pessimistic ideas.
      Now, your average fighting grunts are very, very aware of this, and I think they truly appreciate it, they understand the honor of serving those that serve. I don’t see many of them having the heart, and even fewer having the stomach, for following that set of orders.
      And the few that do? They won’t be able to keep fighting for long. It’s pretty tough to run a convoy through middle America on fumes.

    2. avatar Sabrewolfe says:

      The part I love about this is that it clearly disregards the massive disparity between the civilian population and the military. I’ve run the numbers and, for the ENTIRE military (including the Reserves), you have 2.2 million personnel vs 316 million civvies, which works out to 145:1 against the military. Even if you presume only 25% of the population as willing/able to fight, it’s STILL about 36:1. And again, this assumes the ENTIRE military (Navy and Coast Guard included) stands against the Constitution and their families, friends and neighbors. I call BS, especially with asymmetric warfare/guerrilla tactics factored in.

    3. avatar Rad Man says:

      There are about 2.2 million active duty and reserve personnel in our standing military – and not all of them are soldiers or fighters. In fact most act in a support or non-fighting capacity. Contrast that with 100 million private gun owners at least 10% of which would potentially stand up to tyranny. I’d give civilians a 10 to 1 advantage. It’s not a fantasy, it’s mathematics.

    4. avatar Yossarian says:

      Probably the only reason they haven’t tried yet – And the reason global dystopic slave-dom hasn’t yet occurred – Is because of we armed Americans.

      The next time you aren’t wearing a slave collar within some mining colony in Europe and licking the hand of your feudal lord, thank me and my guns!

  3. avatar Bud says:

    “The argument of protection from tyranny is, as always, dismissed, “the idea that a few well-armed patriots would be able to defeat the U.S. Army should the government turn despotic is, at best, a romantic infatuation.”

    Ah, wait a minute.

    A few not even well armed patriots have been kicking the US Army’s ass for the last fifty years. I can remember seeing photographs of US Army helicopters, CH-21s, coming back from landing zone insertions with crossbow quills stuck in their fuselage in Vietnam. Vietnam was not an epic win for us was it?

    We’ve been in Afghanistan since 2002. How’s that working out?

    1. avatar DTAL says:

      It’s hard for totally subservient statists like him to admit or even comprehend the fact that the government and its armed enforcers are not invincible and omniscient.

    2. avatar Roger says:

      Operation Enduring Freedom began on 7 October 2001. We’ve been in Afghanistan for almost 13 years.

  4. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    Yeah,
    I’m drawing a huge blank trying to come up with anything that is illegal.
    I even went nuke. Nope.
    142 pounds of meth? Nope.
    A truck load of machine guns? Nope.

    1. avatar LongBeach says:

      I heard 143 is illegal as f*ck, though.

    2. avatar Mark N. says:

      It’s California. Everything is illegal unless they say it is legal. Mags with more than 10 round capacity, evil features on “assault weapons”, off roster handguns, the list goes on. Funny, I don’t recall any restrictions on shotguns or reg’lar huntin’ rifles, though, only MSRs

      1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

        Think outside the box.
        The chief was saying the gun was illegal.
        Nothing is illegal. Maybe the possession of “X” but not “X”.

  5. avatar Mike says:

    Up to .762 caliber at 100 yards? Guess it’s not meant for .9mm then…

    1. avatar Charles5 says:

      Well, since they moved the decimal point and left off the “mm” designation, we are talking about .762 caliber here, which would be quite massive, vs. the .9mm moniker which, having the “mm: designation, would be incredibly tiny.

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        Didn’t the Springfield musket come in that caliber? Or was that the Brown Bess? Fired a .68 caliber patched ball. (Big ouch.)

    2. avatar Paladin says:

      I’m pretty sure .762 caliber would classify it as a destructive device unless it had a sporting purpose.

      1. avatar DJ9 says:

        Heck, we shoot stuff that size all the time!

        It’s only slightly larger than a 12 gauge bore (.73″), but still smaller than a 10 gauge (.77″).

        …and a 6 gauge would take care of that pesky .9 (at .92)!

        http://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/units/scales/shotguns.html

    3. avatar Todd S says:

      As we all know, the .9mm caliber round bullet is the most destructive device ever devised. Just as the New York Times.

  6. avatar the ruester says:

    A “few” well armed patriots would, indeed, be useless for defending liberty. A “whole shitload” of well armed patriots, on the other hand…

    1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

      Ha!
      Excellent point.

  7. avatar Hannibal says:

    “…use in self defense is “impossible to measure because of a lack of trustworthy data.”

    Hmm. Why is it that we’re constantly told we need studies about gun violence but there’s never any done (with our taxpayer money) that might measure DGUs?

    1. avatar Dev says:

      Well, obviously because they have no interest in safety, they just want to control us.

    2. avatar Mark N. says:

      So that means John Lott’s massive study (and available database) was “untrustworthy”? Or the other 18 studies all but two of which came to the same conclusions? Oh, sorry, sorry, I forgot that inconvenient proofs must be ignored.

      1. avatar the ruester says:

        John Lott has been “discredited” like Obamacare has been “vindicated.” With a bunch of contrarian horseshit. Peer review isn’t good enough when precious children are at stake, don’tcha know?

    3. avatar Ardent says:

      There have been actually, lots of them, but Hannibal, this is a liberal we’re dealing with. Facts are only facts when they support the narrative. Got it? Ok!

    4. avatar DTAL says:

      For an anti, “trustworthy” equals “supports my side.”

    5. avatar Chip in Florida says:

      Listen to the wording….. ‘trustworthy’ data.

      Not a lack of data.

      A lack of ‘trustworthy’ data.

      Basic True Scotsman argument of a setup. ” *We* don’t like what the data shows therefore the data is suspect!”

      Remember… ‘they’ took a half-assed study that showed 90% support and keep repeating those results over and over again as if they were gospel.

  8. avatar GS650G says:

    Look how two bozos in Boston caused a total lockdown. How about 100?
    Against a handful it’s no contest. Against several thousand, they will need to place their bets. But we can be sure of one thing, he won’t be part of the help.

    1. avatar Bud says:

      Look at one rogue cop did to Southern California.

      How incredibly naive these people are

  9. avatar Rokurota says:

    “…ban them, with a carve-out for hunting weapons.”

    AR-15: hunting weapon
    Glock 20: hunting weapon
    Benelli M3: hunting weapon

    Any more dumb ideas?

    1. avatar mountocean says:

      Using my SIG 229 as a “hunting weapon” was an admittedly dumb idea. but it worked.

      1. avatar S.CROCK says:

        What did you hunt?

        1. avatar mountocean says:

          A small (but legal) deer presented itself as a target of opportunity. It was close and a rifle wouldn’t have killed it any faster.

      2. avatar the ruester says:

        Whoa, whoa, whoa… was the caliber legal? What state were you in? Did you have on proper attire?

  10. avatar Dave s says:

    So long as the POTUS is releasing terrorist masterminds in trade for a US Army deserter, you cannot expect anyone else in the country to make much sense…

  11. avatar Sock Monkey says:

    The Yankee Marshal should shoot a family-friendly version of that video. That could have some real legs.

    1. avatar Matt in FL says:

      Yeah, those f-bombs were a little discordant, first because it was a humor video and second because language is unusual for him.

  12. avatar Ardent says:

    If a ‘handful’ of patriots organized and armed are no threat at all, why does it take 50 police officers with a helicopter and an MRAP to serve a warrant on every non violent drug dealer?

    Really, let’s follow that like of thinking for a moment. Gun owners out number LE (federal state and local) by something like 79-1 using Mother Jones’s numbers (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check). I don’t know of anyone with anything approaching an education in warfare who would start a fight with those odds regardless of force disparity. But as we say, 3%, or only (still with MJ’s numbers) about 2.4 million active patriots. That’s roughly 2.4 to 1, much better, but the veil is still on. There is of course the force disparity issue, but as Omar Bradley said, amateurs talk tactics and professionals talk logistics, of which there simply wouldn’t be any mean for once 2 and a half million people get busy with the infrastructure. Perhaps the nail in the coffin is simply food; you can’t starve a guerrilla force without starving the whole population, but you can starve a standing army without doing this.

    It’s all academic anyway though. Long before a victor was decided the Russians would invade Europe and the Chinese would invade the middle east and in no time at all we’d have a global Armageddon and the outcome of our second revolution would be irrelevant.

    No, really, the most likely outcome of a serious, sudden deterioration of US stability is WWIII. The kinds of people who advocate for civilian disarmament here underestimate the resolve of large numbers of the people and the likely outcomes of their policy suggestions. It’s what happens when short sighted, narrow minded and utterly unremarkable people get a voice to the masses; they advocate policies that have disastrous results.

    That’s not even the worst of it though. Advocating simultaneously the demise of the 2A along with that of the Posse Comitatus Act in a single sentence is, as nearly as I can tell, traitorous speech.

    Let’s return to that disparity of force thing: If semi trained riflemen in huge numbers, decentralized into pockets, anonymous, popular with large segments of the population and bent on resistance are really no match for government forces, why do police need automatic rifles, huge numerical advantages, helicopter surveillance, drones, and armored vehicles to serve a simple warrant. Let’s try to prove the theory that patriots are no match for a government turned to tyranny; lets remove automatic weapons, armored vehicles and all the other hall marks of militarization from the police. It’s clearly not needed since one non-violent drug dealer must less than equal a cabal of militia armed to the teeth and hell bent on resistance. If the police can’t handle a drug addled common criminal at less than 20-1 odds and with armored and air support, how could the possibly handle being 2.5 to 1 in the negative in man power facing a threat with equal armament and more resolve? Prove the theory by advocating that police never serve warrants with more than 2 officers per expected suspect and never no knock, and never with armor. Then I might believe the author of the opinion piece actually believes what the author has said.

    (Note for clarity; I’m not anti-cop or pro-violence, and I realize it’s perfectly reasonable to only engage when outnumbering the adversary, true for military operations and police. It’s rhetorical to prove a point.)

    1. avatar DisThunder says:

      Those were some damn fine points. Especially on just how badly it would destabilize an already shaky world scene. That’s a scary thought, and one more very good reason to not touch those enumerated rights.

    2. avatar Phil says:

      Absolutely agree with the destabilization point. It would be THE chance for the world to take the US out. Scary. Would we push it that far? Would they, the government? Pray for cooler heads and wiser voters.

    3. avatar DTAL says:

      Very good post.

      Sad how traitorous speech like his has become mainstream and lauded rather than fringe and decried, isn’t it?

  13. avatar Phil says:

    Yankee Marshall was funny until he broke the bit to explain away. Obviously, you replace the word “gun” in his rant to the words “welfare recipient” and it’s suddenly not satire. In keeping with the theme, does it mean that he’d be racist for pointing out those “lazy military-style rifles?”
    And the op-ed stating a handful of patriots vs the American military; A) it seems like that’s how the country was founded and B) the military is composed of people similar to us that took an oath to defend the Constitution, not the government.

  14. avatar Ardent says:

    Additional reply because I can’t help it:

    The sort of person who asserts that we, the people, are no match for government makes an excellent argument that the government is too big and the people too poorly organized, trained and armed.

    The sort of person who asserts such with no facts at hand is a fool, either way.

    The sort of person who asserts that the people cannot resist the government and so should surrender any remaining means of resistance is patently irrational.

    The sort of person who asserts that the people cannot resist the government and is gleeful for this is either an excellent potential slave or else an excellent potential tyrant.

    No good has ever long lasted among a people with no means by which to defend their liberties from their government. Much of the rest of the world is depending on some other government to defend them, sometimes that works, often it doesn’t or the price is too high. For Americans, the only entity in any position to defend our liberties from our government isus. The only other likely contenders are Russian and China, and I, for one, don’t feel very safe depending on those governments to fight my government to ensure my liberties.

    1. avatar Phil says:

      Would China support the US people or the US government? I tend to think the later since they practically own the government through outstanding and future debt. They would protect their golden ticket.
      I think Russia would help the weaker side just to impose the most casualties, then destroy the victor. Scary.

  15. avatar DTAL says:

    Edit, directed above to Ardent, site messed up.

    An ever diminishing optimistic part of me wants to believe that people like those you listed are just misguided or ignorant. I want to believe that there are decent people beneath those slave-minded, tyranny-loving subhuman demeanors. After all, who wants to acknowledge that many of his neighbors, fellow Americans, are loathsome creatures that represent everything America was founded to oppose?

    But it’s getting harder to be optimistic with each passing day. The simple fact is that bad people exist. People who would gleefully enslave you do exist, and they call themselves Americans, and “civil” society dictates that we’re forced to live beside them. It’s a harsh, cold reality.

  16. avatar Marcus Aurelius says:

    “Gun control doesn’t work, so fine! Lets do ALL THE GUN CONTROL!”

  17. avatar Tommy Knocker says:

    Don’t forget Admiral Nelson and his X tempured Herculite.

  18. avatar Tile floor says:

    Apparently that fool doesn’t realize that if it came down to a situation involving tyranny and gun confiscation that at least half of the military and police would desert? And even if they didn’t, it it was just a small handful of people versus the U.S. Government, who cares if the odds would be low, it’s still their right.
    This guy probably lives in some cushy gated neighborhood and has never seen something terrible and violent happen in his life and lives under the illusion that the almighty government will keep you safe

  19. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

    I find it interesting that every single anti-gun liberals never takes into account the realization that a despotic government could possibly come from a right wing regime…

    Putting them at the losing end of the despotism.

    Do you think they would feel so strongly about gun control if there was not a staunchly socialist leader at the helm…?

    You think liberals would be favor of an all-out ban on civilian weapons weapons if a Republican was attempting to overthrow the government and establish permanent regime…?

    I think not.

  20. avatar Skyler says:

    Yes. Yes it would be virtually impossible for people armed with merely semiautomatic rifles to fight against the might of the American military. This is why the second amendment allows us to be armed like the military. We should be able to have private artillery, machine guns, tanks, anti-aircraft missiles, and aircraft.

    That is the meaning of the second amendment, not this strangulated version that we have today.

    1. avatar lolinski says:

      Trust me, you don’t need a tank or a jet to fight the army. The money spent on those would be much better spent on explosives and improvised sniper rifles (mostly hunting rifles with decent scopes).

      Would have a higher damage to cost ratio than expensive vehicles.

      1. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

        You don’t have to fight a tank or plane….

        Just shoot the guy in the refueling truck.

        Resupplying a plane is not like putting 87 octane in a Buick down at the local gas station.

        Not every yahoo off the street can do it.

  21. avatar Yellow Devil says:

    I’m surprised he didn’t take that statement further.

    “the weapons here are illegal on their face,
    They are constant disgrace to the human race,
    all should disappear without a trace,
    no need for these guns all you need is mace,
    so c’mon down to turn in post-haste!”

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email