TTAG and our Facebook page lit up last night when we announced that CNN chat show host and notorious anti-gunner Piers Morgan had retreated from the electronic field of battle. Coming on the heels of the 9th Circuit Court’s dismissal of California’s “good cause” concealed carry permitting provision, you’d be forgiven for thinking gun rights are ascendent. In many way, in many places, they are. In many ways, in many places, they aren’t. The storm clouds are gathering in Connecticut and New York’s SAFE Act is profoundly unsafe. The courts have rubber-stamped these and other gun control regimes. And anti-gun pols keep getting voted into power. So what’s more important: cultural victories like Morgan’s dismissal, legal battles or the results at the ballot box?
zero
Not very. He pandered to what turned out to be a limited audience. The civilian disarmament movement has far more charismatic and effective spokesliars than Morgan.
Name some. You brought it up.
ABC is reporting that it’s a “.28mm” pistol, which it then describes as a “large” gun.
http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/sports/pro/basketball&id=9444172
From one extreme to the other…
Both.
… Who is this Piers Morgan you blog of?
The voting booth is the most important place to win. If enough of the anti’s get voted out of office they will be backing off for a few years. Just to wait for another bloody shirt waving disaster to start pushing the agenda again.
Yes!
Very little impact. Victories at the ballot box mean most. As many of you do not want to accept it, gun control is one of the top 5 religious tenants of the modern democratic party and the few that vote against gun control are endangered species. Face it, if there was this large swell of liberals that supported 2A, then the majority of the party would not be as rabidly anti as it is. Sadly, while the republicans are somewhat better, many have PTSD or desperately want to be liked by the anti gun media and coastal elite so they are less reliable than they should be.
I think it helps in a limited sense. It shows that the “guns are the problem for everything” line of thinking is a loser in the ratings game. I’ll reserve my final opinion unlit I see which direction CNN takes in (a) replacing Morgan and (b) where they will place Morgan until his contract is up? Until those two questions are answered, I don’t think we can put this in the “win” column. On the other hand, I have no problem with the pro-gun community pushing the “we won” line in the media when able (al la MDA & Starbucks). It might not be a true win except for in the court of public opinion.
To your last line, cultural victories lead to wins at the ballot box, which lead to wins on the legal front.
Culture wars.
When they lose a mouthpiece we can concentrate in other arenas and not worry about the court of public opinion being swayed.
I tried a box of the .22 in a 60 year old Marlin 81 that normally runs about anything I put in it. Wound up individually hand loading the entire box. Mostly shot steel targets at 40 to 50 yds with open sights and was pleased with the accuracy. Even managed to rainbow a few shots out to 220 yds with an occasional light cross breeze. Cannot comment on how clean they are because I went back to CCI’s the rest of the morning. Looking forward to trying the other box in Ruger pistol.
Problem is you been doing these type of laws for years and you have nothing to show for it. Cadmen,Newark,Trenton,Jersey City, out of which of these cities did your great laws work to help reduce crime?
its time to buy a second ar 15, for the children.
THIS
I don’t think Piers Morgan getting removed from his prime network slot was a victory for us so much as a defeat for them. Let’s face it, Morgan self-destructed all on his own without our help. His ratings were sliding long before Sandy Hook. Megyn Kelly was kicking his ass from day one. Morgan was, at best, preaching to his own side and judging by his ratings, a very small portion of his side.
In the vast sea of media personalities arrayed against us, Morgan was just one. His removal will dent their operations slightly, until CNN replaces him with an equally dedicated anti-gun personality. Possibly one who is more of a threat to gun culture through persuasion.
The legal battles are more important. They actually affect lives. Morgan’s loss of a prime time slot affects a handful of people who watch Piers Morgan.
He would have failed regardless of his anti-2A, gun grabbing stand. Americans don’t take kindly to foreigners coming here, making millions of dollars by, not just responsibly criticizing, but mocking and condemning Americans for their opinions and principles. Uniquely American principles, I might add. So, I don’t think he would have ever reached the critical mass of viewers necessary to keep his job.
Guess this kinda puts the “in common use” question to bed…
Yowzers, ***doubled***???
Remarkable
I honestly think Piers insulting transgendered people the other day had a lot to do with his dismissal from CNN, given Anderson Cooper’s pull and staunch LGBT-advocacy.
He got Baldwin’d.
It certainly mattered more to the jokers at CNN than him insulting gun owners. They don’t give a **** about that.
who is piers morgan ?
Exactly; Piers Who?
Oh, do you mean the new guy in the mail room?
Downward mobility at it’s best.
Even if the prices are falling, they are still not inexpensive. You can buy a bolt gun in a far more effective (powerful) caliber with superior out of the box accuracy for the price of a good quality AR barrel. By the time you add in the receiver, handguards, bcg and all the other pieces to make a complete upper, you can buy two bolt guns. Yes, I know ARs are the most popular rifle in America today, but I still don’t understand why.
A semi-auto rifle is a different concept than a bolt gun.
It’s a different plinking experience than a bolt gun; it is more suitable for self-defense than a bolt gun; finally, they say some AR-15 type rifles can be very accurate and are popular in competitions. In the days of yore, Mini-14’s, while not as accurate, were more affordable. I don’t know if they are still more afordable, but they also had (and still have) the advantage of not being as readily classified as “assault weapons” in the more restrictive jurisdictions. It’s even true in Canada, afaik.
Regarding self-defense, one can there’s a pdf file out there for “Basic Firearms Instructor Course PATROL RIFLE Massachusetts Municipal Police Training Committee”, where it is stated, “The ideal choice for the patrol rifle is a semi automatic rifle chambered in 5.56mm or .223 Remington. For the purposes of this paragraph, we will consider them the same round. The 5.56 / .223 perform well in the law enforcement role. While only a 22 caliber bullet, it travels at velocities between 2800 and 3300 feet/second. This results in a tissue devastating hydrostatic shock wave which can literally destroy internal organs. While effective against human targets, the 5.56mm / .223 Remington rounds will not penetrate as many interior walls as your service pistol. Due to the high velocity, the bullet tends to shatter and break up after impacting the first wall.”
They further state, “The two most popular (police service) rifles chambered for this round are the Mini-14 and the many variants of the AR-15. Both rifles have an extensive line of after market accessories and have a proven track record. The Mini-14 may be attractive to those departments that find the AR-15 to “military” looking.”
Ar-15or M1a? I’ve been saving for an M1a Socom but maybe I should just tactic out and build an Ar if prices go lower.
Anti-gun pols keep getting voted into power, but not necessarily on an anti-gun platform. It’s often simply party affiliation that gets them elected. The Democrats, who are invariably antis by default, get elected because a body politic of low information sheeple voters who fancy themselves as ‘progressive’ Democrats mindlessly keep voting for Dem pols even though it isn’t necessarily in their best interest to do so; it’s the ‘in’ thing to do, don’t you know. The barrage of union sponsored ads said so on the TV.
Here in San Diego there are more than a few Democrat state legislators who don’t even mention guns in their newsletters and website content or, when seeking election, their campaign ads. This is for the obvious reason that ‘guns’ is a divisive issue and they don’t want to emphasize being anti-gun because they fear they may lose some votes, even from Democrat voters. They instead highlight a myriad of other issues that are, frankly, more important to their lib-progressive voting base, and to posture themselves in a politically correct light to their constituency. But when the time comes, there is no doubt which way they will vote on any anti-gun bill; tow the party line they do. That too, satisfies the voters who have elected them, even though it may not be a pivotal.
So yes, “the anti-gun pols keep getting voted into power”, but not solely BECAUSE they are antis; rather because they have prioritized the social and entitlement issues most important to the Democrat voters they pander to for votes. Often the gun control element is just a side issue to these voters.
Does this take into account 80 percent lowers?
As a writer, I am pre-disposed to believing that cultural shifts and changes portend changes in public policy, including gun control laws. In our nation, the power of government is derived from the consent of the governed, or the people, and it is in the values and principles held by the citizens that determine what lawmakers dare to do.
As America has become more urbanized, many city dwelling Americans have adopted an interpretation of American values very different than their suburban/rural counterparts. It is really this divide that best describes the polarization between proponents of gun rights and those advocating more restrictions on guns.
Rural and suburban Americans regard firearms as tools for hunting, self defense and providing a deterrent to the worst of what a would-be tyrant might try to impose on the freedoms granted by our Creator. Increasingly, urban Americans who rely more obviously on government services (e.g., infrastructure, security, social services, etc) are more inclined to view government in a positive way and see guns themselves as the threat. If rural and suburban citizens are more concerned about government infringement on their rights, then urban citizens are more concerned about their individual rights and safety being infringed by other people.
The urban dweller turns to the agency of government for security and a feeling of safety. Even if criminals and the mentally impaired fail to comply with the law, gun restrictions (or restrictions on anything) put the onus of personal safety on someone else. Namely, the government upon which they rely more heavily on.
In our media-satured, hyper-political society commentators like Piers Morgan have become cultural spokesmen for the urban American. The fact that Morgan could not muster enough of a following for CNN to justify keeping him in prime time probably says two things. First his subject matter, specifically his fetish for gun control, was not popular enough to overcome the second factor that is his distasteful persona. The guy was just never happy unless he was lecturing Americans about everything wrong with them!
The cancellation of Piers Morgan’s show is indeed a win, but just one battle in the long campaign to preserve and strengthen freedom and Self government in America. Just because Piers Morgan has lost his current job, it does not mean that the gun control culture has gone away. It does, however, emphasize the point that gun rights advocates need to do a better job promoting our culture in a positive way that develops more adherents, not only in a negative and blaming way. Over the long run, that will manifest more progress.
Let’s all be good, articulate and thoughtful ambassadors of the gun rights movement, worthy of the rights we hold so precious.
Okay, for the dummies among us (i.e., me), how did you determine that from that report? I only see it distinguish among pistols, revolvers, rifles, shotguns and misc.
Where does it distinguish AR pattern rifles?
The old cartoon needs to be updated so that both examples are from Boston – 1774 and 2013.
Automatically removes truth and facts from his position. Like a politician trying not to be caught either lying or being dumb as dirt.
It’s like the phrase “to the best of my knowledge.”
You can get away with any ridiculous position you want and still come off as either smart or, worst case, simply not privy to the knowledge when you whip one of these reality-nullification clauses.
Imagine if non-intellectual fields allowed this. Your mechanic saying “I’ve never heard of an accelerator sticking so this isnt the problem here” or your doctor saying “To the best of my knowledge only homosexuals can contract HIV”
You’d rally for termination or at least find another doctor or mechanic. Where the virtual reality of intellectualism as a career is concerned (news reporting, politics, education) that doctor and that mechanic are perfectly innocent of their own stupidity.
Ya know Hitler had the same thoughts as Winston.Now the orher Winston ( Churchill) had a different point of view! HMMM?
They have to keep up the propaganda.
“No one is trying to take your guns.”
– Don’t look at those in Congress (and other various parts of the government that have said exactly that).
“There has never been gun confiscation in the US.”
– Katrina, NYC, CA, CT
“Registering your gun isn’t going to hurt you of affect your rights.”
– Journal News publishing names of those who have handguns in NY.
– California confiscating guns from a guy that smoked weed in the 1970’s.
– High River, Canada
On magazine limits: “If it will save just one life.”
– Didn’t do it a Columbine
– Didn’t do it at VT
– Didn’t do it at the Navy Yard, etc
On magazine limits again: “You don’t need more than 10 rounds.”
– Pick a state/city and a number
– MD, CO
NJ: 15 rounds– MA, CA, NJ,
NY: 10 rounds– NY: 7 rounds
– NYC: 5 rounds
– Joe Bidenland: 2 rounds (shotgun specific, probably loaded with rock salt… or pixie dust)
There are more of course, but the takeaway is that the anti’s own positions are not only consistently changing, but are always moving to more restriction and tighter control. The “common sense” laws, that you couldn’t possible oppose before, just weren’t good enough and you can’t possible oppose the “new and improved” common sense laws. They have to keep your attention on the lesser laws in order to achieve that latter. They understand this perfectly and they also completely understand to whom they are pandering this line thinking. After all, “it’s common sense”.
Expecting unbiased reporting on guns from any news media source is sort of like trying to pee up a rope. Fortunately, Idaho’s 81% Republican legislature is going to pass this bill, and Gov. Otter (who is facing a conservative GOP challenger in this year’s primary) is going to sign it – he knows where the votes are in Idaho, and they are NOT at the lib colleges.
My favorite “total gibberish” quote from a leftist anti-gun editorial was in the Boise “Idaho Statesman”, from an Education Dept. associate professor at Boise State U:
“As a faculty member at Boise State University, I am convinced that SB1254 is an unwarranted annulment of the authority of public institutions’ leadership to uphold an important provision that helps us define our unique context. … Institutions of higher education continue to be special places where we engage in learning and exploration together – in community. Legislation that celebrates the cult of the individual ready only for self-preservation is antithetical to our mission and should therefore be summarily dismissed.”
“…the cult of the individual ready only for self-preservation…” that would be the right of self-defense, correct? As far as I can tell, a real-world translation of this academic gibberish would be as follows: “We are a really special socialist fantasy world, and we don’t want no stinkin’ laws telling us that we have to give students any civil rights. Plus, we think college students should be willing to die like sheep, and not try to defend themselves. So there!”
Forget Fukushima. We should call the specialists and have them test the rad levels in Lake Michigan . ComEd hiding a reactor leak at their Zion plant is the only logical explaination for this level of collective derpness in Northern Illinois , with apologies to folks west of I-39
The only thing I could think of at the end of that MG shoot was that was probably my annual salary (or more) in ammo, but damn, that would be a fun way to blow it.
I PRESENTLY OWN MANY SIG SAUER GUNS, AND ATTEMPTED TO BUY ON YOUR PROMOTION
BUT UNABLE TO FIND ANY STOCK AT THREE DEALERS. I WILL CONSIDER OTHER BRANDS ON FURTHER PURCHASES. WHY ADVERTISE THAT YOU WILL DO SOMETHING, AND DO NOT ATTEMPT TO DELIVER. WHOEVER SUPPOSEDLY THOUGHT THIS UP SHOULD BE FIRED.
WHAT A POOR WAY TO RUN A COMPANY. AFTER ALL THE ONLY THING YOU ARE REMEMBERED FOR IS GOOD WILL, DO YOU HAVE ANY?
If even a picture of a gun ‘scars children for life’, then we MUST require ALL cops to switch to concealed carry IMMEDIATELY!!!! It’s for the CHILDREN!!!!! /sarc
The stupidity we see from our politicians is truly astounding.
Every civilized nation does this. It’s called “the rule of law”. You (or your police chief) might believe that your community would be safer if you were to arrest a certain individual, regardless of whether you have any evidence they committed a crime, and just made them disappear. But we don’t allow you to do that – the law takes that power out of your hands. You might think your community would be safer if certain “dangerous ideas” were suppressed and could not be spoken aloud. If newspapers had to run their copy by your censors first. If everyone followed your religion. You might sincerely believe all these things, but you are a public servant and your beliefs don’t come remotely close to trumping the rights of citizens.
Well I find it entertaining.
If you drop in an Apex trigger/spring upgrade, will it still be considered “approved”?
I have the same amount of firearms in my home. And well over a thousand rounds of ammunition as well. Is that a stash, or the ar15 and m9 sitting right next to me? I have 15 in the mag of the M9, 30 in the mag of the ar15, plus 2 more full mags. By reading this I have more ammo ready to be fired just with those 2 firearms then he did his entire household. To hear her tell it I am the most dangerous person in the world. However I am sure there are readers here who have more. Plus I do not have a million dollar bounty on my head.
While I’ve never made a secret of the fact that I prefer revolvers I think that a free person should have a choice.
If that’s an arsenal, they’d have a field day with me
Don’t forget your speedy loaders!
He came to the US with a dark cloud of fraud over him, went to a has-been network that isn’t even a news organization anymore, and harped on a very narrow array of topics.
Even the left wing media was citing his LOW ratings.
England, you can have him back.
The NFL lately has been acting more like a quasi government agency than a club for millionaires and guys playing a kids game. When they start paying taxes like normal rich organizations then they can talk.
The skeletonized lower would be great for me. I have a spinal cord injury from service that limits me to lifting 5 pounds, and making a sub 5 pound AR isn’t easy. This would go a long way toward that.
Lol! The Afgan jumping jack! Add the “MCA” and the Village People will live again!
I like the skeletonized lower. It’s probably not very functional for hard use (gravel is one thing, but drop it in the mud and you might see issues), but it could definitely be useful for demonstrating operation and assembly. Also, it really demystifies the operation of the AR platform. It could be an excellent tool to show non-gun people that there’s no hidden black box of death trapped inside of your AR-15 waiting to be unleashed, in fact, it’s just a couple of metal bits and springs.
From the information in the article, the Wassell case kind of sounds like BS. I mean, presumably the undercover officer was not an actual felon. SAFE Act provisions of the case aside, if someone tells you they are a felon, even if they’re not, you can be prosecuted for selling them a gun. If someone is a felon, but you have no reasonable cause to believe that they are, you can’t be prosecuted for selling them a gun. Strange. Also, it seems that without the government setting up the deals, no crimes would have existed. It reminds me of when alphabet agencies announce they stopped a potential terror attack, and then you read the article and find out that they themselves planned the scenario, recruited the attackers, supplied them with the fake explosives, and then arrest the attackers prior to them carrying it out. Good job guys, way to stop the crime you created.
But nobody is going to take their guns away right? Obama promised! /sarc
Oh, come on – we’re just paranoid thinking anyone wants to confiscate our guns. I mean, there’s so many it would be impossible – that’s what all the libs say! Well, when they’re not saying our guns should be banned and confiscated, which they’ll be the first to tell you isn’t what they’re saying…