“Our country has a problem with gun violence,” former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman write at washingtonpost.com. “It’s a problem for our cities and suburbs, churches and schools. Sadly, Americans have gotten used to watching massacres occur where we work and shop and where our children learn and play. With ever greater frequency, it seems, dangerous people with dangerous weapons are inflicting tragedy on individuals, families and communities.” Note: “it seems.” Because the statistics are clear: violent crime continues to decline across America even as gun ownership continues to soar. That is what the man who invented the Internet calls an “inconvenient truth.” It undermines the gun grabbing duo’s entire argument (i.e. something must be done!). But what the hell . . .
In response, responsible citizens around the nation are delivering a simple message to Washington: Keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the dangerously mentally ill.
But even as we are shocked time and again by mass shootings such as those in Columbine, at Virginia Tech and in Tucson, Aurora, Newtown and, most recently, at the Washington Navy Yard, Congress has produced only stalemate and dysfunction. Our national leaders have failed to pass meaningful laws to ensure that people who should not own guns cannot get them.
Correct! So why pass more laws? If current laws don’t work why would new laws do the trick?
The antis remind of nothing so much as people suffering from Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. Specifically, people who constant “check” to see if they left the gas stove on. These sufferers believe that their constant checking keeps them safe; they refuse to believe that it’s a waste of time. In fact, the more they check, the safer they feel. Not are. Feel.
Put the word “background” in front of “check” and you have the gun control advocates’ perspective. The more background checks there are, the more onerous the restrictions they place on lawful gun ownership, the safer they feel. Not are. Feel.
[Quick aside: I find the term “national leaders” in this context a bit disconcerting. At best it brings to mind Boris Badenov’s boss Fearless Leader. At worst, worse. Shouldn’t Ms. Giffords and Mr. Schneiderman use the term “elected representatives”?]
In the absence of leadership from Washington, it is up to citizens to speak out — and imperative for state and local officials to lead.
Consider background checks. They are supported by nearly 90 percent of Americans — gun owners and non-gun owners — just as vast majorities of Americans accept our constitutional right to own guns for self-defense, hunting, shooting or collecting.
Although Congress has refused to act, 17 states and the District have implemented laws to ensure that gun buyers undergo background checks. And in those places, local leaders are stepping up and creating innovative models for background checks that serve both gun owners and public safety.
It’s official: the civilian disarmament industry has decided to erase any distinction between Americans’ support for “background checks” with the antis’ desire for “expanded background checks” or “universal background checks.” The antis have also decided that the best way to attack Americans’ Second Amendment protections is to pay lip service to them.
Let me be clear: Ms. Giffords and Mr. Schneiderman do not accept the Second Amendment’s clear ban on government regulation of firearms ownership. The Amendment says that Americans’ right to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed.” Background checks, whether limited to new gun sales or extended to sales between private individuals, are an infringement. Period.
As for these newfangled state-sponsored background checks “serving gun owners,” serving them what? In fact, background checks put the “servile” into “serving.” They make Americans seek permission from the government to exercise their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. Gun control serves government’s purpose (agglomerating power), not ours.
Last weekend, at the Saratoga Springs Arms Fair, one of the largest gun shows in New York, we saw firsthand a new model for background checks at such events. It would ensure that all gun purchasers get background checks quickly and easily.
It works like this: Guns are tagged at the entrances to the show. Show operators provide access to federally licensed gun dealers to do background checks before completing a sale. All guns are checked on the way out to ensure that background checks were performed.
It’s that simple.
I grew up with the children of mafioso. “Just because it’s organized doesn’t mean it’s complicated,” one of them told me. “You do what I say or I’ll hurt you. You disobey me enough times and I’ll kill you. Simple.” Background checks may be just as simple, but they’re just as sinister. They enable firearms confiscation. When guns are confiscated from a free people, bad things happen, on a scale that would make Giffords and Schneiderman’s opening lament seem like a description of paradise.
These procedures do not infringe on anyone’s constitutional right to bear arms. Rather, they recognize that responsible gun laws go hand-in-hand with the free exercise of gun rights. They recognize that protecting the rights of responsible gun owners, vendors and gun-show operators means ensuring that people who should not own guns can’t get them.
What’s more, this new model for responsible gun ownership was drawn up in cooperation with gun-show operators after undercover investigations revealed several years ago that vendors were illegally selling guns to anyone who wanted one. Show operators agreed to work with the New York Attorney General’s Office to close this dangerous loophole — and now nearly every known gun-show operator in that state has signed on.
Yes, these background checks do infringe on our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms—although it’s great to see gun control advocates talk about Americans right to “bear” arms—in a state whose main city denies that right to its residents. Great in the sense that it reveals the utter hypocrisy of their position.
A position that requires torturing the English language in ways that would make George Orwell shake his head in dismay. For example, what definition of the word “free” fits the authors’ contention that “responsible gun laws go hand-in-hand with the free exercise of gun rights.” And what, pray tell, separates a “responsible” gun law from an “irresponsible” gun law?
Hey! I’ve got a definition of “irresponsible,” at least when applied to government. A government is irresponsible when it uses its power to force free enterprise to curtail its legal activities for what it, the government, considers the greater good. The idea that gun shows signed on to Schneiderman’s background check system willingly, gladly even, would be laughable if it didn’t fit my mafia buddies’ definition of simple.
That sort of cooperation is unheard of these days in Washington, especially around contentious issues such as gun safety — but it doesn’t have to be. All it takes is for both sides to recognize that gun ownership is part of American culture and that people on both sides of the debate are responsible citizens worthy of respect and protection under the law. From that respect can come thoughtful and productive dialogue.
By finding common ground and crafting creative solutions, responsible gun owners and state and local officials can take the lead in reducing gun violence.
The people who want to restrict my gun rights—-putting myself, my family, my community and my country in harm’s way—deserve respect and protection under the law? I don’t think so. OK, sure, they have a First Amendment protected right to argue for civilian disarmament under the guise of “responsibility.” But if they think The People of the Gun are going to respect those who would enslave them, then they really are nuts.
Heads-up! There is no common ground here. Either you are for firearms freedom or you are against it. No matter how many times Giffords and Schneiderman repeat the word “responsible” they’re not going to convince intelligent people that they respect that which they are working to destroy. That is, as we all know, their ultimate goal: civilian disarmament.
Anyone who doubts their end game should consider a simple question: why does the New York Safe Act (which both Giffords and Schneiderman consider “responsible”) require that gun owners load their firearms with seven rounds? Why seven? Why not five? Three? One? Why have a gun in the first place? Well exactly.
Americans deserve to live in safe neighborhoods, and they have the right to own guns. If law enforcement, elected officials and responsible gun owners work together, we can make both happen.
Let’s all join hands and sing Kumbaya while we’re at it. Either that or let’s recognize the fact that a responsible gun owner is one who uses his gun responsibly. Not one who supports the degradation and eventual elimination of their right to do so.
Something they don’t mention in the article (but IS in one of the links within the article):
“The dealer performing the NICS shall complete and file the ATF Form 4473 and maintain the forms for inspection by law enforcement agencies for ten years, per the Gun Show Law.”
Which, as we all know, is defacto registration.
“…responsible gun owners and state and local officials can take the lead in reducing gun violence.”
What are WE supposed to do, exactly? Drive through the ‘hood and adopt the first kid we see?
Marry the first hood rat?
I’m sorry, Gabs, but this responsible gun owner is only willing to do so much for the “greater good.”
We are the problem to them. Even though we know we are not the problem.
Here’s responsible for ya:
Hey Gabby, stay away from gun shows. You have brain damage. Ergo mentally incompetent to touch any firearm.
While I totally agree, would you have made the same comment if she got shot in the head and became totally pro 2a?
None of what they propose will stop the next mass shooter. That’s what pisses me off more than anything.
Everything they propose just makes it harder for law-abiding citizens, and any gun owner who is nodding their heads in agreement to any “compromise” these or other gun grabbers are proposing are fooling themselves, or just fools.
I used to be a big proponent of NICS and making everyone go through a background check. After the Navy Yard shooting, not to mention the whopping 44 prosections (not even convictions!) of people who attempted to illegally purchase a firearm I am convinced the system is doing absolutely nothing it was intended to do.
At this point, what difference does it make if a hoodlum buys their gun legally at Wal-Mart or on the street corner? They will still have a gun and will get it no matter what laws we put in place while only the law abiding will bother going through with it.
1. 90% of Americans can’t agree on anything. If China were invading probably 15% would be ok with it. So right away we know the poll is BOGUS.
2. Is this OCD condition gun grabbers have enough of a mental health issue to deny them their gun rights?
3. Regarding the “serving gun owners,” bit…I refer your dear readers to revisit the Twilight Zone episode titled, “To Serve Man”.
That is all….
1.)Response should be “then run on repealing the 2nd amendment, you should win easily by 80%!”
2.)OCD for a gun owner would actually be a GOOD thing, no?
3.)Good one!
One more reason to love Ricky Gervais.
With all due respect, by your definition of the 2nd Amendment (based on what I just read), it would be legal for anyone to own and carry a SAW, a grenade launcher, or a flamethrower wherever they went. I don’t care how how pro-2A anyone is, if you see someone walking through the grocery store with a bandolier full of 40mm, you are going to have some serious concerns. My point is this: any argument, taken to the extreme, is absurd. I don’t believe that you or anyone else on this forum truly believes that anyone should be able to buy their own anti-aircraft battery, but your insistence that “Heads-up! There is no common ground here. Either you are for firearms freedom or you are against it.” suggests that there are only two options; no laws of any kind, or no guns at all. This is patently false. Living in a civilized society is predicated on the idea that you give up some freedoms so that you do not have to do everything yourself. For example, we give up the freedom to dump toxic chemicals wherever we want so that we don’t have to worry about (and forcibly prevent) our neighbors poisoning our land or water. We give up the right to part of our earnings so that we don’t each have to figure out how to pay for our own roads, policing, or aircraft carriers. The nature of living in a country means that there is a balance between personal freedoms and societal needs; it’s a grey area by definition. As a country it’s pretty clear that we want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, the question is how do you do that? Background checks, in some form, are the only way to ensure that your local gangbanger can’t just walk into a store to get what he needs. They don’t need to be onerous, time-consuming, or expensive, but I would argue that they do need to exist.
Long story short, I worry that the core truth of your message is lost when you insist that any gun law of any kind is a bad gun law.
Flamethrowers are already legal. Funny how no one is committing crimes with them though.
Legal, but limited, which is what my argument is all about.
Your argument is about ignorance. Anyone advocating background checks, when that isn’t anything but an infinitesimal source of crime guns, is speaking out of abject ignorance
The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The Second Amendment doesn’t say what type of arms are protected because they all were. The Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Boston was a private outfit with cannons. Modern civil war re-enactment companies can also own cannon. And?
And laws dictating the lawful use of weapons are A-OK with me. And if they’re not, they can be changed. But the right to keep and bear these weapons—handguns, rifles, shotguns, machine guns, flamethrowers, grenade launchers, tanks, artillery pieces—is clearly protected by 2A.
So where is the line drawn? Should people be able to buy Sarin or VX? You have to draw a line somewhere. This is why I argue that it is not unreasonable, at least in concept, for there to be some limits on the kinds of weapons civilians are allowed to own. The Heller decision makes this exact point.
I guess the point I have repeatedly been making is really the same one that has been made by you and others with reference to the advertising machine of MAIG and others; message matters. It’s not just what you say but how you choose to say it, and I fear that those “on the fence” about gun rights will be turned off by an absolutist message.
As a side note, I think it is a credit to the TTAG readership that there were no derogatory replies to my comments. I think that says something very positive about what you are doing here.
I once had a Jehovah’s Witness explain to me why they do not worship the Cross or use the Cross as an image. He said that it was tantamount to worshipping a weapon of murder. He further explained it in simple modern terms. He said “If your best friend ever was shot and killed with a revolver would you make an image of a revolver and wear it around your neck as a sign of worship?” Weird logic (regardless that it came from a JW) but I get his point.
Okay Mark and Gabby. You like guns. We get it. It sucks what happened to you but be honest and drop the hypocrisy. We like guns too but what happened to you is not anyone on this forums fault. Seriously Mark and Gabby, Pick a side.
The picture is missing one of the most vital tools for good AR assembly: blue painter’s tape. Without painter’s tape you WILL mark up your anodizing on at least one roll-pin installation.
Also, I know it seems like yet another $25 to spend (even for the cheapest set off Amazon) but I highly recommend getting a set of roll-pin starter punches. These are hollow-end tools which squeeze down the roll pin a bit and hold it from the outside, making it about 100X easier to install.
I fscking hate dealing with roll pins. I’m now a big fan of AR lowers which use threaded dowel pins instead of roll pins in critical places like the bolt catch pivot point.
Yep… right up until the point when you realize that there’s a very good reason to not use steel screws in aluminum.
You can (and should) check the headspace before installing the barrel onto the upper. There’s nothing about the installation of the barrel into the upper that changes the headspace. The barrel extension, the length of the barrel tenon and the depth of the chamber control headspace.
All I do is put in a “go” gage onto a barrel (with extension) that is held in a vise. I then take the assembled bolt and push it into the extension. If it rotates to full lockup, we’re good. OK, now pull the bolt out. Puff some air into the muzzle while you hold your hand over the breech, capturing the “go” gage.
Put in a “no go” gage. Repeat. The bolt should NOT be able to cam to full rotation.
Puff out “no go” gage. Now you can proceed with the installation of the barrel+extension into the upper.
If your bolt will not close on the “go” gage, this means that your chamber is less than minimum depth. There’s too much of the case head sticking out of the rear of the chamber in the barrel, and this is preventing the bolt from fully closing. This is what can result in a problem, as the bolt blows open before the gas pressures have fallen to safe levels. OK, you’ll need to do one of two things:
1. Deepen the chamber. You’ll have to carefully hand-ream the last few thousandths of the chamber. You’ll need a chamber reamer and a T-handle.
2. There’s a chance your extension is out of spec – in which case, you would need to pull the indexing pin in order to unscrew the extension from the tenon. Good luck with that. I suppose you could TIG a bit of welding rod onto the pin and pull it that way. They’re usually just an interference fit.
Damned good where my Nephews go.
My Brother, their Father, is a Texas Police officer/US Army Veteran and their School Resource Officer.
I’ve rarely seen him miss and Have seen the results when he has participated in live fire Simmunition training at the schools when closed during summer.
You won’t have to worry about a lengthy trial for anyone stupid enough to try it at his schools.
Just the cost of a pauper’s grave.
Doing simunition training in closed schools during the summer is a great idea. And publicity about the occurrence of that kind of training would probably have some deterrent effect.
How’s Active Shooter Security at Your Child’s School? It amounts to lock the doors, hide, and hope for a quick end if discovered. In other words there is no security; zip, zero, zilch.
I got on the board at my kids’ school and have slowly been making suggestions. . . . Board members are agreeing with me. Eventually, gonna raise some defense weaponry.
I would feel more sympathy for Gabby had she not refused security for the event prior to her being shot. A great deal of the blame for her shooting rests on Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, who had received numerous reports of Loughner making felonious threats, but did not act on them because Loughner’s mother was a County employee.
I’d quickly return the book to its proper pedestal beside the Necronomicon before the ancient Evil Ones notice that their toady Piers Morgan stole it and put his name on the cover.
My daughter’s old school was a deathtrap, her current is a bit better. One main entrance with camera and electronic lock, you enter office before school, and every classroom has an emergency exit.
My brother carried an M-79 as a grunt in the 1st ID. He’ll agree with the comments about the weapon’s accuracy. He could hit out to about 300 meters but needed a spotter because he was shooting beyond the sights and needed somebody to watch where the rounds were falling. At the other limit he popped a guy at very close range with an HE round and the round hadn’t flown far enough to arm. Pat knocked the very skinny NVA soldier down with the impact of the round and finished him off with a .45. Spare rounds were carried in Claymore mine bags. He also stated that the buckshot rounds were pretty much useless. The shot pattern opened up so fast that you were probably not going to do any harm to the bad guy.
Lots of “experts” have claimed that few if any enemy soldiers were ever killed with a .45 automatic. Ask old 79 gunners if that’s true – from what I understand they tended to be very good pistol shots and used their side arms quite often in close combat.
We shouldve seen this comin they already do it at most parts stores like Advanced Auto those guys know no matter where I go what year make and model I need parts for after I give em my name same with most car lots everything is going digital may as well learn to embrace it.
Also look at it from the FFL’s side they can keep better track of their records they can track who buys what and focus marketing they can keep better tabs on inventory far as what’s hot and what’s not it’s a handy business tool for them.
In direct answer to the title of this post: piss-poor.
My offspring attending elementary and middle school are under standing orders to GTFO in an active shooter situation, regardless of teacher instructions. They each have multiple escape routes off campus.
My offspring at the high school has an even worse tactical situation. Depending on location, the response may be to GTFO (again, multiple escape routes) or, if forced to shelter in a classroom, to improvise the best possible counter-attack just inside the door with friends and the materials at hand.
All of them have been briefed on the vulnerability continuum: visibility < mobility < concealment < cover. Frankly, though, if anything happens I just hope they have the presence of mind to orient themselves to the sound of gunfire then run for the escape route in the opposite direction.
Exhibit A: an Airsofter in their natural habitat.
“Look, Mom, I’m Seal Team 7!”
Or…
“28 days, 6 hours, 42 minutes, 12 seconds. That is when the world will end.”
Jed never did figure out what they meant by “Bullet hose.”
Why couldn’t they both claim the father gav… I mean, “gave back” the money, thus making it a gift? Why wouldn’t that work?
Hk hates me, HK HATES ME! PLEASE HK HATE ME!!!!!!
The string of bad decisions that led him here started years ago when he bought those drapes.
In other news, a mistrial was declared in the Sgt. Grisham case in Texas. The dude hiking with his son and carrying an AR.
Can you see me now?
A well made gun of a type already made by other companies. Still a good gun (I’m sure), but nothing new. It’s what I’ve come to expect from Ruger.
I’m a little too young *in my opinion* to be a father. However, I do work in an after school program for children ages 5-12.
My building director and head of maintenance have access to a secure safe with an M&P9 in it.
And I “don’t” carry. As in – I have been told that it’s “not allowed by policy”, but I can “do what you believe in your heart as long as nobody else is the wiser.”
“My” kids are safe.
Dave finally had to admit he got hosed on his Gun Broker Tavor purchase.
Obviously these new enhanced background checks are useless; the picture shows a Non NY resident, thus no NY permit, handling a revolver. Isn’t that a felony in NY? Or do you get special privileges if you’re politically connected?