The Minuteman » Tag » Firearms

Tag Archives: Firearms

I’m sure someone’s fuming

By | | , , , ,
2 Comments

So I’m sure our opponents will go into PSH over the following:

The four hour course, which will be held this Saturday, January 12th, is recommended for children who received a new BB gun, shotgun or hunting rifle for Christmas or for those who may already have a gun.

Sheriff Steve Prator told Shreveport Times, “Children who will receive a gun for Christmas can try it for the first time in front of certified law enforcement academy firearms instructors.

That’s right folks, a Sheriff’s department is offering free firearms training to kids.  But it gets better, to cover the costs of the training some different sources have stepped up to the plate.

The course is free and is sponsored by donations from local citizens, Walmart, and local wholesalers.  Children without a gun can use a gun that will be supplied by the academy, according to Shreveport Times.

I’m sure our opponents are screaming how Walmart and other businesses should be buying back the guns from the kids.  How that if we keep them hidden and out of sight children will never find them or be curious about them.  At the same time though these individuals are more than happy to have them go through sex education, because you “know kids are curious and not talking about it won’t do anything to solve the problem.”

I’m sure someone else will scream how it’s insensitive given the recent school shootings, blah de blah blah blah.  At which point their hood and veil come off.  We see right through their lies into the bell of the beast.  This isn’t about making kids safer, this isn’t about stopping criminals, it is about banning firearms and control. Period.  They use the tragedy merely as an emotional crutch to support their agenda because they cannot support it with facts and logic.

Don’t believe me?  Let’s look at a conversation that happened over at Sebastian’s place.  I’m going to post it here because honestly, I don’t want it lost down in some thread in the comments, I want it front and center.  Especially with how it ended.  This is pretty long so I’m shoving it below the fold.  Here is a link to skip to the conclusion below the fold.

Continue reading →

Quote of the Day – Michael Z. Williamson (1/9/2013)

By | | , , ,
2 Comments

Eventually, we need to move away from the notion that owning and operating a vehicle is a right and entitlement, and limit it to people with a proven, bona fide professional need.  There are plenty of trains and buses for normal people.  This is how most civilized nations are moving and is not a violation of your right to travel.

Michael Z. Williamson – WE NEED TO REGULATE CARS THE WAY WE REGULATE GUNS
January 9th, 2013

[I’m amazed at the number of people I’ve seen screaming about the fact we regulate cars and not guns.  Mr. Williamson does a fantastic job ripping that misconception down piece by piece.  Seriously, go read the whole thing.

In the back of my head I wanted to laugh but couldn’t because I knew of the exact regulations he was referring to, every last one of them.  The other side of this debate though will insist over and over that none of those things actually exist, even if you cite the exact law.  That end quote though I find a perfect closure.  If you think we need to get rid of guns in the name of public safety, motorized vehicles need to go too. -B ]

h/t Robb.

Quote of the Day – Tamara (01/06/2013)

By | | ,
Comments Off on Quote of the Day – Tamara (01/06/2013)

Putting aside the pie in the sky impracticality of this, I like to point out to these people that we already had a world without guns; it was called the Middle Ages. It was a peaceful utopia where the lion lay down with the lamb… any time it wanted to, and the lamb just shut up and took it, if the lamb knew what was good for it.

Tamara – Imagine there’s no stupid; it’s easy if you try…
January 4th, 2013

[Yup, that’s about right, but remember for some reason we’re exempt from the laws of nature now days.  Lets not forget the gun is civilization.  Tim over at GunNuts also did a nice post on this same topic.

Currently I don’t have much else to add. -B]

Jeremy Clarkson you’re my hero…

By | | , , ,
1 Comment

First, when you read the title it should sound something like this:

Now why is Jeremy Clarkson my hero?

I always knew there was a reason I rooted for him on Top Gear.  Now given all the commentary around Piers as of late my distaste for the sniveling ass-hat should be obvious.  However if you look at the reason he was originally fired from the Daily Mirror his lack of ethics and morals becomes obvious.

Morgan was fired as Editor of the Daily Mirror on 14 May 2004 after authorising the newspaper’s publication of photographs allegedly showing Iraqi prisoners being abused by British Army soldiers from the Queen’s Lancashire Regiment.[17] Within days the photographs were shown to be crude fakes. Under the headline “SORRY.. WE WERE HOAXED”, the Mirror responded that it had fallen victim to a “calculated and malicious hoax” and apologised for the publication of the photographs.[18][19]

He will do anything and sell out anyone if it will improve his ratings or make him a buck.

h/t to Kevin on this one.

Quote of the Day–Dan Muhlbauer (01/03/2013)

By | | , , ,
2 Comments

“We cannot have big guns out here as far as the big guns that are out here, the semi-automatics and all of them,” Muhlbauer said. “Those are not hunting weapons.

…

“Even if you have them, I think we need to start taking them,” Muhlbauer said. “Because if they’re out there, they’re just going to get circulated around to the wrong people. Those guns should not be in the public’s hands. There are just too many guns.”

Iowa State Representative Dan Muhlbauer

December 26, 2012

[First, let me be perfectly clear.  μολὼν λαβέ or molon labe Representative Muhlbauer.  I didn’t go shoot anyone with my firearms and neither did the majority of gun owning Americans so leave my property alone.

If you desperately want my property, I request that you lead the confiscation teams so that those you would attempt to use force of government to steal from can more easily deal with the tyrannical bureaucrat who sent the jack booted thugs to their door.  However like most petty tyrants you won’t actually bleed for your cause, instead you will send others to do your dirty work for you.

I will restate this for those who may have never seen my tripwire post, more specifically the lessons of the 20th century:

Lesson No. 2: If a bureaucrat, or a soldier sent by a bureaucrat, comes to knock down your door and confiscate your firearms– kill him. The disarmament of law-abiding citizens is the required precursor to genocide.

A word of warning though Mr. Muhlbauer, if any of those you attempt to kill succeed in surviving and escape, my assumption is they are coming for YOU.  A man like that will be on the run already and ultimately have nothing left to lose.  In the process of attempting to steal his property, you threatened his family, invaded his house, and even attempted to kill him.  Think about that sir, you may not be pulling the trigger yourself, but you’re creating the laws to tell others to kill people for you.  You are responsible!

I didn’t put a gun in anyone’s hand, I didn’t pull the trigger, I had absolutely nothing to do with a mentally deranged individual, yet you want to hold me and others like me responsible.  You would disarm us to leave us as defenseless as those children, praying that the police show up in time.  Tell me, did the police show up in time?  Because it took 20 minutes and it was a blood bath that any responsible gun owner could have stopped if they were there, but you sir would disarm them.  You would take their property or imprison or kill them.

That sir is sick and down right despicable.  You claim to be about protecting the children, yet you would have masked men invade homes in the middle of the night heavily armed killing anyone inside who merely looked like they might resist.  Think I’m exaggerating?  Look at your war on drugs and the number of innocent people killed in the wake of that mess.  You would use the force of government to kill otherwise law-abiding citizens for the victim-less crime of merely owning property.

Who is the mass murderer here Mr. Muhlbauer?  Who is attempting to use force to coerce others into behavior you, Mr. Muhlbauer, deem acceptable?

One group wants to merely be left alone, another group blames the first for tragedies the first group had no part in.  Tread wisely Mr. Muhlbauer.  We are not bloodthirsty and we aren’t out to kill or hurt people like you would claim.  We will however defend ourselves and our natural rights, rights that you have no say in.

To the people of Iowa, find a way to run that tyrant out of his job.  Sadly your state doesn’t support recalls like mine does, and yes I’m already looking into what needs to be done to recall a politician.  Anyone who votes yes from the State of Washington for an Assault Weapons Ban or Magazine ban, I will lead the charge to remove from office.  Some officials may think their reelection would be at least 2 years away, not true in some states.

There’s the Soap Box, Ballot Box, and Cartridge Box.  An attempt to remove anyone of the three options for defending ourselves and ensuring the governed can revoke their consent results in the third box being the only option. –B]

Quote of the Day – A Girl and Her Gun (01/02/2013)

By | | , , , , ,
3 Comments

Unless you are planning on using your gun to kill or giving it/selling it to someone who is, your buy back is nothing more than another thing to make you feel good. Listen closely to what has been said a million times by a million smart folks…your feel good move WILL NOT make a flying flipping bit of difference in terms of keeping your kid, my kid, any kid safe in schools, movie theaters, banks, parks…

(Emphasis mine)
A Girl and Her Gun – I Got Your Buy Back…
January 1st, 2013

[Most of the clamoring I’ve heard recently, including the BS being introduced in congress is the same old song and dance we’ve always heard.  It’s the classic, “Do it again but only harder.”

What’s the definition of insanity again?  It happens to be the same as futility.

 The act of doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result.

As Joe has so rightly pointed out though we need an orthogonal solution.  The problem is, they are unwilling to accept any solution but that which they want.  To them that is the only answer to the problem, their problem as defined by them.  Both sides of the debate admit there is a problem and want to find a solution.  One side of this debate doesn’t want to debate though, they want to lecture and do what they want.

Currently I’m sick of the BS being spouted by that particular group and as far as I’m concerned can be run out of the discussion.  We had the discussion on their talking points and they lost.  If they don’t want to grow up and actually discuss things like a reasonable and rational person, difficult given the prevalence for Peterson Syndrome, they can go sit at the kids table and eat while the grownups talk.

Ultimately A Girl’s conclusion is right:

So when another attack happens because no effective change took place I hope you are still feeling good about yourself. As for me, I prefer to do what at least has a chance of working. You will not be getting my gun. Not for 200 bucks or for $500 or for $1000 or…you get the picture.

Another attack will happen, it is an inevitability.  The choice of tool by the killer may change, but this tragedy will happen again as long as we keep redoing the same failed solutions.  China has had a string of similar incidents where a knife was used instead of a firearm.

For those of you who think that we can negotiate and retain some of our rights.  What happens when the next attack occurs? Or the one after that?  They will come and nibble again and again, stripping your rights away.  Ultimately to the point where they are trying to outlaw kitchen knives.

We stand to gain nothing by negotiating with the enemy on this front, instead we stand to lose everything.  Now is the time to stand up and fight.

If you haven’t contacted your reps, do so now.  That link will allow you to contact all your reps in one shot.  I spent some time last weekend and wrote individual personalized letters to each of my reps.  If you have the time, do it.  Don’t let the work of the past 19 years undoing the damage sink and fade into the darkness. -B]

The Mass Shooting that Wasn’t

By | | , ,
Comments Off on The Mass Shooting that Wasn’t

Title ripped off from Uncle.

Let me start by saying this was originally a comment to Uncle’s post but eventually I turned it into a post because honestly this needs to be out in front.

Antu says the man headed toward the theater and shot a male in the lot. The age and condition of the victim wasn’t immediately known, but Antu says his injuries did not appear life-threatening.

The gunman entered the theater, Antu says, where he fired a shot but did not hit anyone. An off-duty sheriff’s deputy working security then shot the gunman.

Now why would I make a post out of this?  Because last night on Facebook, god knows where at this point, someone left a comment along the following lines:

That was because it was an off duty officer! They’re tested so such a high standard that no mere citizen could qualify. That’s why this armed individual was able to stop this criminal!

For those who don’t feel like clicking the link, here’s the video shown in that post, which gives more details:

So lets bust this whole thing open shall we?  First up we have statistics showing police vs. civilian response.  14.3 deaths during a police response to 2.3 deaths when armed civilians response.  Admittedly a limited sample pool given you’re more likely to be struck by lightning.  Moving forward though there’s the argument that an armed citizen will more likely hit bystanders than the police.  Lets compare and contrast two videos shall we?

NYPD score, 1 bad guy, 9 innocent civilians.  A block of “highly trained” individuals.

Old guy with a CCW score: 2 injured assailants, no civilian casualties.

Again, why do we want more than 10 rounds in a magazine?  The idea of a one shot stop is a myth.  The idea that police are some how superior is a myth.  The idea that a gun free zone will some how make you safe is a myth.  The idea that an armed citizen cannot take care of themselves is a myth, one easily disproven I might add.

Why is it one side of this debate consistently argues myths instead of facts.  The reason the national news doesn’t cover this is because it doesn’t fit their narrative of myths.

Quote of the Day – Massad Ayoob (12/30/2012)

By | | , ,
7 Comments

For one thing, defensive firearms are meant to be “equalizers,” force multipliers that can allow one good person to defend against multiple evil people.  To allow one good person to defend against a single evil person so much stronger and/or bigger and/or more violent than he or she, that the attacker’s potentially lethal assault can be stopped.  History shows that it often takes many gunshots to stop even a single determined aggressor. Most police officers have seen the famous autopsy photo in the cops-only text book “Street Survival” of the armed robber who soaked up 33 police 9mm bullets before he stopped trying to kill the officers.  Consider Lance Thomas, the Los Angeles area watch shop owner who was in many shootouts with multiple gang bangers who tried to rob and murder him.  He shot several of them, and discovered that it took so many hits to stop them that he placed multiple loaded handguns every few feet along his workbench.  That’s not possible in a home, or when lawfully carrying concealed on the street: a semiautomatic pistol with a substantial cartridge capacity makes much more sense for that defensive application.

(Emphasis mine.)
Massad Ayoob – Why Good People Need Semiautomatic Firearms and “High Capacity” Magazines
December 29th, 2012

[First it’s worth reading the whole thing.  My usual response currently about why do you “need” currently is, “It’s a bill of rights not a bill of needs.”  Massad does a fantastic job of destroying their “need” argument.  As Massad points out: If semiautomatic rifles and pistols with high-capacity magazines are so ineffective for defense, why do police carry them?  If all they can do is aid in criminal activity, why are the police allowed access?

Our opponents will admit a gun in the right hands is a net positive.  They will not argue to disarm representatives of the state.  So how does taking a firearm from an innocent law-abiding citizen, the right hands, fix the negative of criminals gaining possession.

Ultimately gun control has nothing to do with crime and everything to do with control.  Crime has been decreasing even with an increase in firearms ownership in America.  There is no causation despite what they claim.  Never mind that the numbers say this is quite unlikely to occur.   That isn’t to say it isn’t a tragedy, it’s just not worth throwing freedom and liberty away for ineffective measures to try to stop a statistically unlikely event.

So in the end, why would anyone want to limit access to that effective equalizer? -B]