The Minuteman » Tag » Firearms

Tag Archives: Firearms

Quote of the Day – Joe Biden (2/28/2013)

By | | , , , , ,
2 Comments

I said, “Well, you know, my shotgun will do better for you than your AR-15, because you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door.” Most people can handle a shotgun a hell of a lot better than they can a semiautomatic weapon in terms of both their aim and in terms of their ability to deter people coming.

Joe Biden – Field and Stream Interview

February 25th, 2013

 

[I don’t know how many times I need to say it, but seriously folks do not take any of the advice this man is offering.  He obviously does not know what he’s talking about and does not have the slightest clue when it comes to the laws around self-defense.

All I have to say is yeah Joe, and then you find out it was your kid running up to the door afraid of the same noise you heard.  How many different times can you give a rule 4 violation as good advice?  Seriously, WTF Joe? -B]

How much is enough?*

By | | , , ,
18 Comments

So I’m beginning to wonder if this whole “boycott” is going to turn into our own worst enemy.  We’ve known for a while that the civilian market for firearms has some serious muscle behind it, but I’m beginning to wonder if some are trying to flex it when in the grand scheme we really shouldn’t be.

I bring this up mainly because Sean has placed MagPul on the bubble and is thinking about putting them on his naughty list.

First, let me state, this isn’t an attack against Sean, I love him, I read him, I’m even hosting his site for him.  It isn’t really a smack against the boycott either, it’s a good thing and it helps bring eyes to the subject and show sincerity.

Where I do think we have a problem though is just placing an automatic pass fail on something without really thinking things through.  This becomes much like the “zero tolerance” policies at schools that we often joke about being “zero brains”.

Let’s look explicitly at the MagPul situation.  MagPul made the following comment on the AR15.com forums.

Have they and do they continue to sell and allow their distributors to sell to LEOs and departments in ban states? Yes or no. It’s simple really.

The answer is yes, our Distributors are allowed to sell to LEOs in ban states. Our founder has also said regarding LEO restrictions, “We have not considered such a move as we are not convinced that this tactic will have any effect on those in power (they will just buy Israeli or some other generic parts). It also adversely punishes street cops, local sheriffs and individual military members for the actions of those in power. The last thing we want to do is hurt those who support our cause.”

So, we see that we can support Law Enforcement and Military members while standing up for our convictions and will continue to do everything in our power to protect our inherent rights.

JUSTIN BEARD

Sales and Service Manager

MagPul Industries Corp.

1-877-4MAGPUL

On it’s surface, applied in a zero tolerance situation, yet they fit the “naughty” list.  Except there are some potential hangups for some companies with joining the boycott.  Not to mention would it be worth MagPul pulling out of it’s distributors for one state?

Further while MagPul may be able to help influence a distributor, they cannot out right tell a distributor what to do.  For example, say I was a distributor and bought a York Arms rifle.  Someone had a “law enforcement” exemption, we know there isn’t but for argument sake, and wanted to buy it from me. We do the proper FFL level paper work and I sell it because the price is right to me, read I just paid for two new rifles from Wally.  Tell me, did York Arms violate his boycott of shipping arms into New York?  While one could create a contract with a distributor detailing those facts, you cannot just throw out existing contracts or get a new contract if your distributor isn’t interested.  While you could just stop working with that distributor, that would also mean lost revenue for the manufacturer.

Ultimately though there’s more going on here than just New York.  Yeah the NY SAFE act sucks, it’s a big deal, and yes we need to stick it to them.  Tell me though, where should MagPul’s priority be regarding the support for the current fight regarding gun rights, with New York or it’s home state of Colorado?

Since the beginning of the flareup in Colorado MagPul has been at the forefront of the fight. Not only is it at the front, they have laid plans to leave Colorado should the magazine ban pass.  This isn’t a joke folks, that means either moving tooling, investing in new tooling, new buildings, hiring workers, there is a massive investment and a hit to revenue in that.  Injection molding machines aren’t cheap and they aren’t light, and a move is going to be costly.  Nothing comes for free.

Then to move further in the fight for their local community MagPul is now directing all of it’s production to residents of Colorado:

We are proud to announce that within a matter of days we will be going live with a new program. Due to a bill currently moving through the Colorado legislature, there is the possibility that Colorado residents’ ability to purchase standard capacity magazines will soon be infringed. Before that happens, and MagPul is forced to leave the state in order to keep to our principles, we will be doing our best to get standard capacity PMAGs into the hands of any Colorado resident that wants them.

Verified Colorado residents will be able to purchase up to ten (10) standard capacity AR/M4 magazines directly from MagPul, and will be given immediate flat-rate $5 shipping, bypassing our current order queue.

Our customers outside of Colorado, please know that our PMAG production will continue at an ever-increasing rate until we do relocate, shipments to our distributors in other states will continue, and that we do not expect relocation to significantly impact PMAG production. We are also aware that Colorado is not the only state with existing or pending magazine capacity restrictions; we are working on programs for other affected states as well.

Full details and instructions will be announced when we are able to go live; please watch here for the coming announcement.

No one else is getting anything.  The residents of the community in which they call home gets first dibs.  That is an honorable thing, overall it probably won’t cost them much, but the fight overall in Colorado with the possible move as well as other stress will cost them money.

I would like to remind everyone that MagPul hasn’t raised prices for their mags.  The increase in price seen retail is from distributors and retailers raising prices due to limited supply.

So tell me, why are we going to label MagPul a pariah, boycott them, and otherwise cause them economic harm because some of their distributors still sell to law enforcement in New York?  It doesn’t make sense to me and it seems an awful lot like the knee jerk reactions against Alan Gottlieb.

MagPul is making a decision on more than just the black and white we see.  They need income to continue their fight in Colorado and to help shield them from the potential losses from a move.  While they are fighting all of this, we stand out in the wings ready to turn our backs on them.  We need to be very careful about who we label an enemy and it needs to be clear and concise and pretty much black and white.

There is no black and white with MagPul.  They are a business and they are trying to protect their business while doing the right thing for their local community first.  Had MagPul not had to be in a fight at the local level it is possible they could jumped on the NY boycott train, we ultimately don’t know.  The fact is MagPul is doing a lot of things right and undertaking a lot of risk and for us to turn our backs for the actions of distributors seems like a solid way to stab a friendly in the back.

If we’re so upset by it, why aren’t we leading the train to boycott those distributors so that MagPul isn’t the only one stuck with the final bill?  How much revenue does MagPul have to sacrifice to prove they’re on our side?

If we’re going to hang MagPul because they don’t further extend their neck over the NY Safe Act, we must immediately hang both Ruger and Remington for their refusal to move out of the state of New York with the passage of the Safe Act.  Not to mention Beretta USA has issued the same threat to move to the Maryland state assembly, but I don’t see them on the boycott list either.  We either start applying this blindly over all companies equally or we actually use the grey matter between our ears.

Update: So Sean gave me a call tonight and we had a nice discussion.  Many of you are going to read through this and you may not catch why the above equaled the naughty list being removed.  The reason is simple, we can effectively determine who is actually out there supporting us on the front regarding the NY SAFE Act.  We cannot actually determine who is really throwing gun owners under the bus.

MagPul is a great example and they do not deserve to be knifed in the back as a traitor.  As Tam has said, we in this community are fantastic at stabbing traitors in the back but we need to be sure they actually are a traitor.  Some may not support the boycott not because they support police over the rest of us, but because of legal fears from being publicly traded, or disagreement on how effective that tactic will be at garnering support among the people who actually use the products.

What his list has become though is a fantastic resource for promoting businesses that do support our rights.  If you’re in the market for a new AR or something else, you can go down the list and send your business there.  We can use that tool to promote companies that have done things that prove their support.

Trying to create a list of those deserving of our wrath is a bit more difficult.  Doubly so as we start to try to lean on the bigger companies.  What can happen is we paint them into a corner with absolutely no way out.  Once that happens we’re no longer seen as friendly or something to be positive for them.  When that happens we start to lose our momentum, and on the boycott side that would be very bad.

Don’t look at this as we shouldn’t pay attention to companies who stab us in the back, look at this as, be sure you know a company is a traitor before you knife them.  Make sure you have a clearly defined boundary and not an arbitrary one that is honestly self-created and being imposed.  The best example of this would be Smith and Wesson deal Clinton Administration in 2000.

Many have had a long grudge with Smith and Wesson over that, myself included.  However if you refuse to allow a company to recover and learn from its mistakes, your boycott ultimately becomes self-defeating.  Smith and Wesson is a huge supporter of the shooting sports and pulled out of the ESOS during that incident.

Being able to bring the positive and the negative is what makes a tool like this most effective.  In this case we can only see clearly those who support us, not those against us and the tool should be used as such.

*Alternate title, In which some people will misconstrue my thoughts into something else.

Quote of the Day – Andrew (2/27/2013)

By | | , , , ,
Comments Off on Quote of the Day – Andrew (2/27/2013)

If he honestly thinks that’s the case maybe they should take guns out of the hands of the police.  That way they wouldn’t be able mistakenly shoot up little old ladies delivering newspapers…

Andrew – Comment after the discovery of the chauvinistic comments found in here.
February 26th, 2013

[He’s been busy with a new kid so he’s been a little out of the loop on some of the latest stupidity out of the mouths of different representatives.  When I pointed out the comments of Joseph Salazar he read them the same way I did.

His reply though almost made me fall out of my chair, actually just about everyone in the bullpen erupted in laughter.  If you don’t get it, here’s your reminder. -B]

 

Don’t Panic and Remain Calm…

By | | , , , , , ,
7 Comments

So evidently a bunch of people on our side of the debate have gone into PSH and labeled Alan Gottlieb a traitor.

I dont trust ANY media, they lie…

But Allen Gottlieb, if this is true as stated, you suck moonbat dick. Fuck you. 

Never Compromise….. come fucking take them.

*blink*  Not to mention the other post hiding behind a login calling Gottlieb a traitor.  Seriously folks, are you that retarded and gullible.

First the primary source for your branding him a traitor is the Seattle Times which is notoriously anti-gun.  So your reactions have served to help cripple funding to one of the biggest legal branches we have to defeat legislation.  This is the principal man behind winning Heller and McDonald and you’re going to call him a traitor over what some liberal rag says.  Are you stupid?

This man thinks in terms of a long chess game. He doesn’t just think one or two moves ahead, he thinks well beyond what most of us can even readily comprehend.

There’s a couple of things everyone needs to realize.  First, our win is not guaranteed  look at New York.  Yeah they were blue, but look at how they accomplished it.  If the Peoples Republic of Puget Sound wants to push something through, we can try to hold them off but I will refer you back to the King Dome/Safeco Field incident.

Second given that a win is not assured, we must take actions and measures to either kill a bill or force an actual compromise.  The act of doing the latter can force the former.

It has become obvious though that the actions of our enemies has forced a wedge in-between us.  Many instead of using our heads instead brand our allies as traitors for no real good or solid reason.  Instead they believe false lies and misrepresented truths as well as labeling others as something they are blatantly not.

Tell me, what happens when you attack a friendly, especially a friendly who is out in front leading a charge?  You destroy his ability to continue to fight for you.  You destroy his ability to trust you for support.  You destroy his morale.

Going and publicly bad mouthing our supporters is nothing more than destroying those who support and fight for our cause.  You do so without actually knowing what’s going on and on the word of someone who wants to destroy you.

Here’s Alan’s statement:

First you should know that I do not support Washington House Bill 1588 as it is currently written.

My support for a state universal background check bill must include a substantial victory for gun owners that includes, but is not limited to repealing, prohibiting and destroying the current state handgun registration system and the data base of several million records of gun owners and their firearms that include the type of handguns and the serial numbers.

This would be a huge victory for our gun rights. We would be the first state to repeal a gun registration system. Think about that and what it means for your privacy as a gun owner and the fact that we all know historically that registration leads to confiscation.

In addition, if you have a carry permit you will be exempt from additional background checks. No checks would be required for transfers between family members. If you are a member of an organization like the Washington Arms Collectors that does a background check for membership, you would be exempt from additional checks to buy a firearm at their gun shows.

There are other inclusions that must be made as well that are good for our rights and freedom that need to be in a final bill to have my support.

My guess is that the gun grabbers will not go along with these provisions and kill the bill. If they do the “blood” so to speak is on their hands, not ours.

There are other smart, tactical, political and morally justified reasons why I have taken this position that I do not want to make public at this time. We do have enemies and I am not going to telegraph our strategy to them by spelling out our battle plans.

I enjoy winning our freedoms more than the fight. I wish I can say that about some of my critics who have pre-judged without knowledge what it is that I am doing.

Anyone who knows me knows that for the past forty years my efforts have expanded and protected our right to keep and bear arms from local city councils all the way to the United States Supreme Court.

Alan Gottlieb

As I said, this man is thinking not just tactically but strategically.

So tell me, who is the bigger enemy to freedom?

  • The guy thinking this through and has the ability to force a real compromise, one big enough the supporters may very well kill the bill?
  • The bunch of gullible idiots who believe half-truths and attack their own on the word of an enemy that wants to see them destroyed?

By all means contact Alan and voice your concerns, but I suggest you think long and hard about who you’re labeling a traitor.  Especially if your goal is to either kill the bill or get an actual compromise.  I’m here to tell you if I get something crammed down my throat, I want them to at least pay with something.

Our enemies want something for nothing.  That’s not happening anymore but if you just sit there in the corner and keep screaming and attacking those on your side, they may very well still get it.

h/t Phil

On Robb’s Lack Of Sunshine

By | | ,
3 Comments

So Robb made an interesting observation, one that I don’t entirely agree with.

Me? I see a lot of free guns from the hands of people who starved to death when they realized they can’t eat an AR15.

I don’t see that exactly coming to pass and Scott Adams puts it perfectly.

126195.strip.sunday

That’s the thing, just because you have food doesn’t guarantee your survival   Just because you have guns doesn’t guarantee your survival.  A will to survive and the necessary tools and training to do so on the other hand will be very hard to stop you.

Quote of the Day – RobertaX (2/25/2013)

By | | , , , ,
2 Comments

Defending yourself is not a matter of “punishment.”  You’re not out to correct your assailant’s behavior, you’re wanting to stop it, as quickly and effectively as possible, with the least collateral damage.  Whatever does that is what you should do.

RobertaX – Pizza Robber Update
February 25, 2013

[I’ve never quite understood the method of thinking that ties self-defense into punishment.  Can I not kill someone until after they’ve killed me?  Is that the new standard now?  When it comes to rape then, can a woman only rape her assailant back after she’s been violated?  Why is she not allowed to stop the threat.  Yes some times stopping the threat does involve the assailant’s body reaching room temperature but that’s the risk of their profession.

You know how the assailant would still be alive?  By not attacking his intended victim.  Why is this so hard for some people to understand?

In the words of Malcolm Reynolds:

“I didn’t kill him, he killed himself. I just carried the bullet for a while.”

The criminal made his choice and in the middle of the crime the victim can, and should, do all that he can to protect himself and family.  Someone is threatening force against them and they are not and should not be required to be mind readers to determine if the threat is real or just words.  If you use something that looks like a gun in a threatening manner, it’s a gun, and I will not fault the individual who defends himself from you.

The criminal takes a risk that someone might defend himself, and if the criminal continues to fight even when presented with force being applied back from the victim,  the onus for the outcome lies squarely with the aggressor.  Stop blaming victims for the outcome of actions and choices made by criminals. -B]

 

Quote of the Day – Kathy Jackson (2/22/2013)

By | | , , , , ,
1 Comment

Like you, I want safer families and safer communities. Like you, I think it is appalling when bad people use firearms to do bad things. And like you, I want to see lower rates of violent crime and higher rates of good people staying safe. That is why I am a strong supporter of liberal laws in the area of concealed carry, and it’s why I am in favor of laws that improve the ability of ordinary people to protect themselves wherever they go. It’s also why I support the freedom to purchase and own firearms without a lot of bureaucratic tangles. Because I want good people to be safer, I support laws that make it easy for good people to protect themselves from violent crime.

Kathy Jackson – “Reasonable” Restrictions

February 22, 2013

[Like Kathy, I don’t see anything “reasonable” about restricting a human right.  Heck, I’ve described it previously.  My care and concern is for the law-abiding.  More specifically the innocent who would be victimized. There is nothing “reasonable” about trying prevent these people from obtaining arms.

Many look at 1588 and consider it reasonable.  The more I think about that bill, the more I become very concerned and very afraid.  The burden of proof will be on the seller that he complied with the law.  It will be nothing more than a gotcha used when they want to hang you but cannot find something else.  There are some serious problems with it and on the surface it sounds like a good law.  No law-abiding person wants to just hand a firearm over to someone who is prohibited.

My problem is instead of creating a tool to help those people perform that function, they have created a method to hang that citizen should the government ever feel like doing so.

They could easily indicate on people’s drivers licenses, which are renewed every 5 years, whether someone is a prohibited person.  Do it on EVERY license.  Make this valid instead of the NICS check as well, which would be much like the Idaho CPL in Idaho.  You have now alleviated federal burden and created a tool to help every citizen in keeping guns out of the hands of prohibited people.

Now what happens if the persons status changes?  The state confiscates the old license and issues a new one.  What about those without license, Washington has state issued ID as well, not to mention most owners would become weary of those who refuse.  Could bad guys still forge a license or the endorsement?  Yeah, but it’s merely a tool to help and you’re not going to hang someone who honestly intends no harm in the process.

It’s a crime to knowingly transfer a firearm to a prohibited person.  You have given an extra tool to the citizen to verify that person isn’t prohibited   The fact it is on everyone’s license prevents a registry.  The biggest issue is those who don’t have a license or state ID, it honestly shouldn’t be required to exercise a human right.  I view this mainly as a tool to help honest people and most people can easily exercise good judgement and currently they do for the most part.  No legal requirement to check, this prevents the catch-22 of placing bureaucratic onus on the seller, but having it there most people will do the right thing.  Heck, honest buyers will pull it out just to prove they’re good to go.  No need to record anything, no need to write it down.  It’s merely a tool to aid an honest transaction.  Yup, you have the stamp of approval and you’re old enough and you’re in state.  We’re set.

Instead our elected representatives our creating a bureaucratic mess that we will have to maintain to prove our innocence.  They aren’t interested in improving safety or helping the law-abiding do the right thing.  No, all they want is another law they can use to hang a gun owner with when they feel like it. -B ]