Archive for the ‘Guns’ Category

Colorado has made news in recent weeks for pretty much decriminalizing marijuana, and they’ve made news in the last year for working to criminalize and infringe upon citizens’ right to keep and bear arms.

But federal law may have already done those forces wanting to disarm Coloradans a big favor, as anyone who’s filled out a Form 4473 to buy a gun already knows from question 11.e.:

4473 marijuana

18 USC 922(g)(3) is the law that provides the basis for that question, and defines a person prohibited from owning a firearm thusly:

(g) It shall be unlawful for any person—
(1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
(2) who is a fugitive from justice;
(3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));

to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

18 USC 922(g) is a bit long, especially in contrast to “shall not be infringed”, so it isn’t all that surprising that it would be overlooked.

21 USC 802 still lists marijuana as a controlled substance and illegal narcotic, thus every user in Colorado is an unlawful user under federal law – and thus their right to own a firearm is abrogated.

The penalty for toking up and owning a gun?  10 years and a $250,000 fine.

-

You can claim the right to put what you want in your body, but it now comes at the expense of the fedgov denying you your right to protect yourself from harm.  And unlike drug laws, which the Obama administration has chosen to slack off on their duty to enforce, they choose to enforce gun laws though creation of crime, and with Fast and Furious went out of their way to murder people in other nations just so they could go after citizens’ rights in the US.

Judging their actions, this administration is certainly not a fan of pot rights, though it may find it convenient to hop on the bandwagon and have a large section of the population of the state thankful for being able to blaze away their troubles and worries created by this adminstration’s other decisions.

The current administration has made it abundantly clear that they don’t care for citizens with guns and plan on using backdoor “executive actions”, and doubtless they’ll use Colorado’s new decriminalization of marijuana as a means to use federal laws against stoners with guns.

Stoner guns especially.

eugene stoner

-

-

*Just to be totally accurate, there are about four people in the US who could both smoke pot in Colorado and still own a gun, because it’s contingent on federally legal use.  But Irvin Rosenfeld lives on the east coast, not Colorado.

Magpul Announces Their Move

Posted: January 3, 2014 by ShortTimer in free markets, Guns, Second Amendment, Texas, Wyoming
Tags:

From Magpul:

Magpul Industries announced today that it is relocating its operations to Wyoming and Texas.

The company is relocating manufacturing, distribution and shipping operations to Cheyenne, Wyoming. Magpul is leasing a 58,000 square foot manufacturing and distribution facility during the construction of a 100,000 square foot build-to-suit facility in the Cheyenne Business Parkway. The Wyoming relocation is being completed with support from Governor Matt Mead, the Wyoming Business Council and Cheyenne LEADS.

Magpul is moving its corporate headquarters to Texas. Three North Central Texas sites are under final consideration, and the transition to the Texas headquarters will begin as soon as the facility is selected. The Texas relocation is being accomplished with support from Governor Rick Perry and the Texas Economic Development Corporation.

Wyoming Governor Matt Mead welcomed them:

“Wyoming and Magpul are a great match. The state is looking to expand and diversify its economy. Bringing an innovative and growing manufacturing operation to Wyoming is a significant step for the state. We offer Magpul an attractive tax environment, stable and reasonable regulations, not to mention a firm commitment to uphold the Second Amendment,” Governor Mead said.

As did Texas Governor Rick Perry:

“In Texas, we understand that freedom breeds prosperity, which is why we’ve built our economy around principles that allow employers to innovate, keep more of what they earn, and create jobs,” Gov. Perry said. “I’m proud that Magpul is the latest employer to join the ranks of companies that call Texas home.”

Colorado just lost a business that does somewhere around $80 million in yearly revenue.

David Gregory and Toys For Totalitarians

Posted: December 31, 2013 by ShortTimer in Crime, Elitism, Guns, Media
Tags: ,

It’s been a little over a year since the most popular post to date here at The Patriot Perspective.  David Gregory waved a 30-round magazine that’s illegal in DC on TV in clear violation of the law.  NBC staff went to the DC police beforehand and asked permission but was denied, so they willingly and knowingly violated DC law, and yet no one faced charges, in a clear case where if you’re rich and powerful and politically connected, the laws don’t apply to you.

david gregory if I were you

Now this year, Mike Vanderboegh over at Sipsey Street Irregulars (famously one of the blogs that broke Fast and Furious) has started a little Christmas season campaign called “Toys for Totalitarians”, wherein he sends standard capacity rifle magazines to governors of anti-gun states and a few media figures who’ve championed for anti-gun causes – often where their receipt and possession of a magazine is in violation of their own laws, just to yank their chains and invite them to arrest themselves and enforce their own laws.

And he sent one to David Gregory:

24 December 2013

David Gregory

NBC News Washington Bureau

4001 Nebraska Ave NW

Washington, DC 20016

Re: Your award in the Sipsey Street Irregulars Toys for Totalitarians Campaign.

Congratulations! Enclosed you will find my Christmas gift to you, one twenty-eight-round standard capacity AR-15 magazine in 7.62×39 caliber, manufactured by C Products Defense, Inc. of Bradenton, Florida. You have been awarded this gift as part of what my friend David Codrea calls my “Toys for Totalitarians Campaign.” We had a few magazines left over after sending them to the governors of Colorado, Connecticut, Maryland and New York so we decided to select collectivist media purveyors who likewise deserved our scorn and your name was among five at the top our list! You earned that thanks to your previous run-in with the District of Columbia’s draconian law when you flashed an AR-15 magazine to make a gun control point and suffered not at all thanks to the usual collectivist hypocrisy that is characteristic of the anointed of the DC Mandarin class to which you and your wife, former federal prosecutor and former Fannie Mae executive vice president, general counsel and corporate secretary, Beth Wilkinson, belong. (We could chat about her role in the cover-up of the Oklahoma City bombing, but then I really don’t have the inclination at the moment — so many smuggling challenges, so little time.)

So your anti-firearm hypocrisy is legendary and it goes without saying that you have a distinct bias when it comes to citizen disarmament. So I selected a magazine for you in the caliber of 7.62×39, for that is the round originally designed for Mikhail Kalashnikov‘s AK-47. Given your collectivist politics, I thought it was an appropriate choice, since Kalashnikov was an unrepentant Soviet to the end of his days. (Kalashnikov, of course, just crossed over to meet his Maker. I’m sure his conversation with God about Stalin was an interesting one.) From one collectivist to another, I thought. Dulce et decorum est.

Anyway, now that you’ve accepted another piece of technology that is illegal within the confines of the District of Columbia, you are once again in violation of the law. Why don’t you go down and turn yourself in for arrest? I mean, if you are intellectually honest you would, right? Oh, wait, the terms “intellectually honest” and NBC cannot be used in the same sentence, now can they?

As for myself I will continue my campaign of armed civil disobedience — including smuggling — against this latest spate of unconstitutional state laws. You may choose to twist that news in service to the collectivist meme however you like. You always do.

Sincerely, and hoping you have a happy socialist Kwanzaa (a holiday invented by an FBI COINTELPRO stooge),

Mike Vanderboegh, Smuggler

The alleged leader of a merry band of Three Percenters

Reprinted in full so as not to lose any of the heavily acerbic punch.

If more people were to do this, it might work like those old “mail a brick” protests.  Hmm…

Mikhail Kalashnikov Dead at 94

Posted: December 24, 2013 by ShortTimer in Guns, History
Tags:

mikhail kalashnikov

Mikhail Kalashnikov, inventor of the Avtomat Kalashnikov rifle, dead at 94 on Dec 23, 2013.

The former Soviet tanker was quoted at one point as saying:

“Blame the Nazi Germans for making me become a gun designer.  I always wanted to construct agricultural machinery.”

He was also often quoted for saying that he didn’t mind having designed the world’s most prolific rifle as he did it to keep his homeland safe.

Theirs are cruel and tragic.  In addition to being offensive, stupid, destructive to communities, exploitative of the mentally handicapped, and entrapment when they hire felons to work in their phony gun stores.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports that in addition to Fearlessly Distributing guns to criminals, the ATF has plenty more violently stupid operations going on:

Agents pressed suspects for specific firearms that could fetch tougher penalties in court. They allowed felons to walk out of the stores armed with guns. In Wichita, agents suggested a felon take a shotgun, saw it off and bring it back — and provided instructions on how to do it. The sawed-off gun allowed them to charge the man with a more serious crime.

In Pensacola, the ATF hired a felon to run its pawnshop. The move widened the pool of potential targets, boosting arrest numbers.Even those trying to sell guns legally could be charged if they knowingly sold to a felon. The ATF’s pawnshop partner was later convicted of pointing a loaded gun at someone outside a bar. Instead of a stiff sentence typically handed down to repeat offenders in federal court, he got six months in jail — and a pat on the back from the prosecutor.

There are all kinds of these storefront operations set up around the country, where the ATF goes in, rents a storefront, sells goods for below cost, then offers to buy stolen items and guns.  It ends up creating crime.

An undercover operation in Atlanta, a smoke shop called ATL Blaze, experienced similar problems. Some defendants came to the store as many as 20 times after stealing weapons and other goods.

Some guns were stolen from police squad cars. ATF agents said in court documents they tried to deter such thefts by paying less for police guns.

The burglaries associated with ATL Blaze caused other problems for local law enforcement. Sheriff’s deputies and local police — unaware the weapons had already been recovered by federal agents — scrambled around to solve the burglaries, spending untold resources interviewing witnesses.

At times, they never solved the case. And the weapons never made it back to the owners.

A Hi-Point pistol stolen from a car just after Christmas in 2010, for example, was still listed as stolen by the Fulton County Police Department when the Journal Sentinel contacted the department last month. ATF agents bought the gun at their secret storefront a week after it was taken.

“If the ATF recovered this weapon, it should be in our system.” said Lt. G.T. Johnson, of the department. “We have not received any notification that it was recovered.”

The lack of communication not only affects the clearance rate for the police department but also is a problem for whoever has the gun now, Johnson said.

Molchan, the state prosecutor in Pensacola, said there were worries at the outset that the sting might encourage more burglaries, but agents in charge concluded the risk was worth it.

“That is one of the concerns that you have going into something like this,” he said. “That is certainly worrisome.”

And it’s not just residents that got hit by the thieves. Anything for a Buck itself was ripped off, just like the agency’s Fearless storefront in Milwaukee. The Pensacola sting was burglarized at least twice, records show.

“I remember hearing that and kind of laughing about it, ‘We got burglarized,’” Molchan said.

Despite those problems, Molchan said he thinks the operation was successful.

“We did accomplish getting the bad guys off the street and incarcerated them,” he said. “Certainly no operation is perfect, but overall we view it as a major success.”

They accomplished creating crime where there was less before they arrived.  They don’t live in those neighborhoods, and yet they worked to destroy local communities, hurt residents with crime, generate more crime, burden local authorities with having to fight the crime they create, and then leave victims of theft still violated by the loss of their property.

One of the larger thefts linked to the operation was that of engagement and wedding rings, worth $15,000, that were stolen four months after the store opened.

“It requires no great thinking to know if you accept stolen goods in a pawnshop … people are going to sell you stolen goods,” said Harris, the professor from Pittsburgh. “You’re asking people who frequent that place to rob and burglarize their neighbors.”

It’s unclear how many of the stolen items were returned to their rightful owners. The Escambia County Sheriff’s Office put thousands of items on display at an open house after the bust and invited the public to come in to claim their belongings. Laptops, GPS devices, tools and jewelry filled the room.

According to local news accounts at the time, just 23 items — not including guns — were returned to 10 people. The sheriff’s office refused to answer Journal Sentinel questions.

But wait, there’s more – ATF agents encouraged local kids who hung out at the Squid’s pawn shop next to a school (for added school zone crime penalties) to play video games to get tattoos:

Glover and Key, both 19 at the time, were regulars at Squid’s. Glover lived right around the corner and spent hours at a time playing video games with Squid and people he thought were store workers.

One day the idea of getting a tattoo came up, Glover told the Journal Sentinel.  Glover said he was reluctant, but that he was persuaded by the guys at Squid’s, who he thought were his friends.

“It was like, ‘Now you guys are honorary members of the club,’” Glover said. “We was young at the time … I was so naive.”

After they got the tattoos, he said agents took pictures and posted them on the phony storefront’s Facebook page and website.

“They humiliated us,” he said. “They were making a mockery of us.”

Glover was ultimately charged with trading an ounce of marijuana for clothing at the store. The charge included selling drugs within 1,000 feet of a school.

Little, who spent eight years as a federal prosecutor in California and a year as associate deputy attorney general in Washington, D.C., said he had never heard of such out-of-bounds behavior by federal agents.

“That’s about as far over the line as you can imagine,” Little said. “The government shouldn’t be encouraging people to permanently disfigure their bodies.”

Little was apparently unaware of Fast and Furious, where the ATF ran guns to the Mexican narcoterrorist cartels with the intent of finding them at crime scenes.

Charles Cooke at NRO did a piece on the Journal-Sentinel story and even got Fast and Furious wrong:

The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) is probably best known these days for the failure of its disastrous Fast and Furious scheme — a botched initiative that aimed to give American guns to Mexican cartels first and to ask questions later. Under pressure, the administration was quick to imply that the mistake was an aberration.

There was nothing “botched” about it.  The ATF set out to send guns to the cartels and did so.  They intended to send guns to the cartels, and they did so.  The administration made up their own story, but proceeded to hide behind executive privilege when pressed for details and information about who was responsible.

If something is an “aberration” or a “botched sting”, then there’s nothing to hide.  There’s only accepting responsibility for mistakes.  Fast and Furious was no mistake.

Fearless Distributing and Squids and Anything for a Buck were not mistakes – they were all deliberate strategies by the ATF.  The ATF agents above even said they believe they’re doing the right thing by creating crime because then they take “bad guys off the street” – bad guys they enabled, supported, and helped to facilitate.

They hired felons in their stores to entrap people.  They contributed and encouraged thefts and crime.  They kept local law enforcement in the dark while spurring criminal enterprises in their communities.  They took advantage of the mentally handicapped.  They gave guns to felons walking out of their own stores – people they knew were criminals – and did nothing.

The JPFO is right – it’s time to boot the ATF.

Let’s start with one of the most recent, as it’s one that’s changed in the last week.  I have some commentary on these, but screenshots and links are provided so you can see these statements of his in their original location.

Brandon Webb wrote a forward to a piece called “America and the Gun Civilization” here, wherein he lamented the unwillingness of people to engage in “intelligent conversation”.  The link can still be found via webarchive.  Why is it gone from his blog?  Good question.

webb b1

Brandon Webb wrote a piece on his “The Loadout Room” where he stated his opinion of the NRA quite clearly in the first paragraph – unless it’s out supporting MIL/LEOs, he views it with utter contempt:

webb nra sucks

The rest of the post is a grudging “the NRA doesn’t totally suck, because they do things for military and law enforcement”… who seem to be the only people that Webb and his SOFREP pals think should own firearms.

Webb and MikeS1X, a contributor to Webb’s SOFREP website, engaged in a discussion on twitter with a firearms enthusiast UtesByFive who made a record of the conversation here.  It can be read fairly easily at the link, but in case that disappears (like Webb’s post up above that no longer appears on his website), screenshots for posterity.

webb b2webb b3webb b4webb b5 webb b6webb b7webb b8

MikeS1X is a friend of Webb’s and a contributor to Webb’s SOFREP website.

MikeS1X 1

Webb called MikeS1X in to continue the discussion.  It shows what kind of company he keeps, and who he’d invite to address a discussion.  Someone who views civilian firearms ownership as a privilege to be regulated by government, and someone who views modern arms in leftist terms as “weapons of war” and demands restrictions.

mike six cIt gets worse from there (I do recommend reading the whole thing) as MikeS1X views anyone who’s not part of his elite club of as worthy of contempt, then laughs about stringing someone along and being an asshole, but this is about Webb, not his asshole buddies – though it is important to note the company he keeps.  (And he does keep some very anti-gun company.)

Webb offers his “A Navy SEAL Sniper’s Perspective on Firearms Ownership and the NRA in America” on his SOFREP blog complete with contempt for people who’ve called him out:

webb fanatic

He starts off by saying that he only joined the NRA in 2005 because he wanted to go to a Range Development Course to open up his own range.  In short, he had the opportunity to get something from the NRA, and he did so.  Now he views the NRA and NRA members with utter contempt for questioning him – he being someone who was unfamiliar with firearms, who was only trained in a regimented, structured, ordered institution; and who eventually led that regimented, structured, ordered institution and now he wants to push that on everyone in the name of compromise.

Webb’s piece on school shootings can still be found here… but screenshots in case it vanishes:

webb gun problem 1

The US vs Japan thing a common leftist talking point, but one that fails when one ignores the massive differences between ethnically and culturally homogenous Japan and the melting pot that is the US and the respective histories of the two countries.  It’s a failure of an argument that’s been taken apart many times before.

webb gun problem 2

The NRA did something productive.  It’s called the School Shield program.

Webb for one is pulling a leftist talking tactic, where he ignores what’s really going on, ignores the actions the NRA did, then sets up his own argument accuses the people he wishes to defeat (in this case the NRA proper) of actions or inaction in order to benefit from it.  He’s making up a story and then writing himself as the hero.

And the comparison of RKBA and slavery is still baffling.

In the last few days, Navy SEAL and SOFREP guy Brandon Webb announced that he was going to run for a seat on the NRA Board.  He decided to not outline his positions because he was too busy, he told people nothing, and insulted people who disagreed with him who were questioning his talk of compromise and citing his past statements.

His talk of compromise, common sense, mandatory training, and “idiots shouldn’t have guns” sounds like the stuff we hear from the left – they’re always willing to compromise by just putting in the tip, baby.  Compromise, license, regulate, control, destroy.

This is going to be a pretty substantial post composed of screenshots of his own statements and conversations.  For screenshots that are too small to read clearly, click for full view.

I’ve already stated a few harsh and critical opinions on the guy and his candidacy, but I’ll refrain from any further commentary here so people can simply read what he’s said.  Just read his statements, responses, and lack of responses in contrast to each other.

The first selection of screenshots are from his NRA board announcement on Facebook.

1: “what didn’t you understand about me explaining my position in detail once I start my run in 2015?

webb a1

2: “If my professional accomplishments and expertise as a sniper don’t qualify me to some degree then I don’t know what to tell you.”  / “I’ve never advocated for ‘new legislation’.”

webb a2

3. ” I don’t think that idiots should be allowed to purchase or own firearms” / “Over 50% of my range visits in Nevada I’ve encountered unsafe handling of firearms

webb a3 idiots4. “When I throw my hat in the ring you’ll know exactly where I stand, and either you’ll vote or not vote. / it’s not something I can address in detail in five minutes. I have a family, a business, and a book I’m on deadline to finish. Out here.

webb a4 too busy to answer

5.  ” Not participating in the process is a mistake. The NRA has taken the position of the Sierra club…not willing to compromise and create gun legislation that makes sense. If you refuse to participate then you end up with silly laws that end up hurting responsible gun owners.

webb a5 willing to compromise and create legislation

6. “If my professional accomplishments and expertise as a sniper don’t qualify me to some degree then I don’t know what to tell you. / Thanks for the name calling, very mature way to have a conversation. 

webb a6 professional accomplishments and name calling

7. ” I’m not advocating more gun laws, and compromise comes in many forms.

webb a7 not advocating more laws compromise

8. ” I believe in responsible firearms ownership, and that Americans should be able to responsibly enjoy the sport. -BW

webb a8 second amendment is a sport

9.  “I’m running in 2015 and will detail my position when I run.

webb a9 we need to pass it to see whats in it ill tell you in 2015

10. ” I’m not a fan of new laws that restrict ownership or make ownership hard on gun owners. I live right on the CA state line in NV. I have high capacity mags but drive a mile and am breaking the law with my mags and open carry in CA. / I’ll make my position crystal clear when I ask for your vote in 2015.

webb a10 not a fan of new laws breaks the law with magazines

11. ” ungrounded statements

webb a11 ungrounded statements ill tell you later

12. ” Not advocating new laws that restrict ownership.

webb a12 not advocating new laws

13.  ” There you go again / Did I say compromise on the Second Amendment? / You’re an idiot

webb a13 there you go again i run gun sites so im pro gun and youre an idiot

14. ” You can’t fix stupid, Davidwebb a14 youre stupid for disagreeing with me

15. ” You can’t fix stupid, Aaronwebb a15 youre stupid vs webbs school shooting post

16. ” when I run I’ll state my position in detail, and let the chips fall where they may. Appreciate the intelligent engagement on your end

webb a16 ill tell you my position later

17.  ” Universal firearms initial safety training

webb a17 universal training

18. ” I think I answered every question or comment, even the disrespectful ones. Thank you for all the feedback and participation. When I get on the 2015 ballot I will outline my position in detail. Some of you will agree with my position, and some will not. I only ask that you show me the same respect I will show you as we participate in the voting process

webb a18 thanks ill tell you later

Okay, one comment: I think I’d rather see Christina Hernandez run.

The states I like are mostly Fs.  F- is too much to hope for.

They give their map and their arbitrary factors here in PDF, and it’s important to note that they are, as expected, arbitrary and based on what states enact laws they like.

brady 2013 scorecard

Now, this is a really interesting map, because it plays with two different types of statistics.  One is the Brady’s arbitrary scoring system for laws (which I’ll get to later) and the other is playing with gun death rates.  The rate requires both death and a percentage of population.  Note how this map by Slate (who are just as far left as Brady) looks very different:

slate gun death map

Judging by the Brady scorecard, with their adjustment for gun death rate, Montana and Wyoming are lawless, out of control places that need martial law, while Illinois is a solid B with a stable gun death rate, and Washington DC is simply ignored, which is something that the Brady Campaign/Handgun Control Inc/National Council to Control Handguns has been doing for a while.

It should be noted that as expected, anti-gun forces are more concerned with addressing taking guns from everyone without addressing problems that exist in urban areas that lead to greater crime and mayhem.  The Slate map does the favor of showing where the greatest deaths are actually taking place – for the most part in heavily populated areas.  No real surprise there – people kill people, after all.

As a brief aside, the Slate map also contains errors.  There’s a small dot near the Big Bend area of Texas that’s listed as five murders in Terrell in Texas.  The actual Terrell, Texas where the murders took place is a city of 15,000 people east of Dallas.  The murders are listed on Slate’s map as having taken place in Terrell County, Texas, which has a population of 984 across the entire 2358 square mile county.  For comparison, the state of Delaware is 2490 square miles.  Point being, there are 5 murders listed in the “No Country For Old Men” part of Texas that gives the impression of lawless countryside, when in fact, it’s really fairly peaceful.

Now, were the Brady Campaign to assess county scores, 5 hypothetical murders in Terrell County would be a murder rate of 508.6 per 100,000.  Likewise, states like Montana, Wyoming, and Nevada, show skewed statistics based on low population.  A triple-murder spree by teenagers (who violated laws against murder to begin with) did so in a state with 576,000 people.  That single action itself bumped the entire state’s murder rate up by over a half a point per 100,000.

To give another example of how this works, take a look at this map of change in gun homocides from the UK Guardian:

uk guardian gun stats 2011 2012

States with smaller populations, like Montana and Wyoming, are shown to undergo massive transformations.  Montana’s gun homocide rate went up from 40 to 300 percent, and Wyoming’s dropped from -20 to -60.

Within that, there is also the question of how gun deaths are recorded.  For example, accidents and suicides, while deaths, are often included to make the threat of violence and crime look higher; accidents are skewed by accessibility of EMS in rural vs urban areas, and suicide methods by gender.

Defensive gun uses where no one in harmed vastly outnumber the number where anyone is harmed, and defensive gun uses where a violent criminal is justifiably dispatched (by either citizens or police) are sometimes recorded in overall gun deaths, which makes self-defense look like a crime.

Of course, to the Brady Campaign, self defense is a negative:

brady hates self defense 2013Most of the rest of their criteria are similar, where they dock points for not having medical professionals question you about firearms ownership, give points for allowing cities to establish their own arbitrary patchwork laws, give points for making unsafe firearms (those with magazine disconnects, non-existent “smart gun” fantasy designs, and of course the mandatory patent scam of microstamping).

In short, it’s pretty much everything we’ve come to expect from people who are all about citizen disarmament, short of these ads outright:

brady campaign rape lasts 30 seconds

brady campaign those people

It should be noted that Nebraska gets a D from the Brady Campaign in no small part because of draconian gun laws in the city of Omaha, which is primarily directed at the black/urban population of the city.  But that’s nothing new for gun control.

brady campaign women have men

The Deer With No Fear

Posted: December 11, 2013 by ShortTimer in Guns, Humor

Video is filled with a whole lot of amazed WTFs by the guys in it, so language warning.

The deer was a rescue from a car accident that just happened to walk through the area these guys were shooting.

No, it’s not Army Lt. Col. Robert “We Will Pry The Gun From Your Cold Dead Hands And Then Round You Up Into Camps” Bateman… but it is a military guy.

Here are some choice quotes from this guy’s announcement, maybe they’ll help you guess:

I believe in responsible firearms ownership, and that Americans should be able to responsibly enjoy the sport.

Thinks the Natural Law right of self-defense that is the Right to Keep and Bear Arms recognized as a restriction on government to stop infringments and thus written down as the Second Amendment is a “sport”.  Got it.

We can’t bury our heads in the sand when it comes to firearms legislation. The NRA needs to actively participate in the legislative process not dodge it.

But the NRA-ILA already does that.  Well, let’s see what else he has to say…

I don’t think idiots should be allowed to purchase or own firearms…more to come later.

Responsible gun ownership is taking an NRA or equivalent firearms safety course to learn how to handle a firearm safely. Over 50% of my range visits in Nevada I’ve encountered unsafe handling of firearms.

Universal firearms initial safety training and all state CCW should be a no brainer. Just like LEOs need to standardize training methodology.

Maybe a friend of Harry Reid’s from Nevada?

If my professional accomplishments and expertise … don’t qualify me to some degree then I don’t know what to tell you.

Well, he has professional accomplishments… maybe some military experience.  Y’know, McCain has military experience, and he supports compromise and being a “maverick” by supporting the other side a lot.  Good thing this guy isn’t all about pissing off people who he claims to want to represent.

If you’re not pissing some people off then you don’t stand for anything.

Oh.  I guess not.

Much of the problem is that he won’t tell readers where he stands, instead making an announcement to run and following it with things like this when asked to outline his positions:

I’ll do that once I’m ready and have my package.

You are joining the ranks of those on here who’ve made ungrounded statements. I’ve read and defended the US Constitution. When I run I’ll outline my position in detail, members will vote, and that will be that.

Because it’s not something I can address in detail in five minutes. I have a family, a business, and a book I’m on deadline to finish. Out here.

A very sharp commenter named Christina Hernandez responded: “…really? I guess we’ll all have to play the fool, and vote for you to find out what’s in you..”

And the response is thus: “what didn’t you understand about me explaining my position in detail once I start my run in 2015?”  Because it’s sooo hard to explain a position more than just say things like compromise and get common sense gun laws, and cite his credentials that are ultimately unrelated to an understanding of the Constitution.  But I suppose explaining positions is more difficult than getting snippy and saying you’re too busy to talk to the little people.

…being a citizen and a member of the NRA qualify me to run for a board seat. I’ve never advocated for “new legislation” I only said that the NRA needs to take an active role in the national conversation instead of sticking its collective head in the sand. I’m a gun owner and believe in the 2nd amendment.

Never advocated… except in the same string of posts where he says that it’s time to compromise and create gun legislation.

Not participating in the process is a mistake. The NRA has taken the position of the Sierra club…not willing to compromise and create gun legislation that makes sense. If you refuse to participate then you end up with silly laws that end up hurting responsible gun owners.

I’m not advocating more gun laws, and compromise comes in many forms.

He has some interesting comments on that:

Compromise comes in many forms. I fought the Sierra Club for a gun range in CA in 2007. They would not even sit down and here us out. If they did it would have been a “compromise”, I don’t think it’s in any organizations best interests, including the NRA, to be uncompromising when it comes to having an intelligent conversation about major issues, guns included.

Sitting down and hearing someone out if you don’t have to is a waste of compromise.  If the Sierra Club can get their way 100% in that case, why should they sit down and compromise?  All they would be doing would be giving up something they want.  If they didn’t need to sit down and talk because they held all the cards, why should they compromise?  It’s in their best interest, and their specific interest, to get what they set out to do, not to surrender part of what they already have.

Why would you have a conversation with someone in order to compromise if you don’t have to?  That’s voluntary surrender.

His responses to those critical of his “common sense compromise” and “I won’t give details” are mostly a variation of “You’re stupid and you can’t fix stupid.”

Man, I wonder what he thinks of the NRA?  Oh, this:

From my perspective the NRA is great at drumming up hard core right wing support through sensationalizing the “gun issue” with the main incentive of driving membership revenue…. AND they have been great at waving the flag when it suits their purpose.

So you must be wondering who it is… maybe Joe Manchin?  Matt Damon?  Michael Moore?

Who is it?  Why it’s Brandon Webb, Navy SEAL sniper and SOFREP writer, who announced his decision to run for the NRA board of directors.  His first exchange highlights who and what he is, if the quotes above (all in that same FB post) seemed strange, you can read them in context and see how he responded to a very early question about the Second Amendment as a tool against tyranny:

webb 11

But if you question him and his desire for “compromise”, you’re a “crazy”:

webb 6

Navy SEAL, SOFREP guy, frequent guest and on-air buddy of real conservative Andrew Wilkow, what could go wrong?  Except that Webb won’t explain his positions, talks surrender with the other side, gets snippy and angry at people who question him, threatens physical violence against people who question him, and admits virtually no real firearms culture experience before his work for the government.  All of that combined doesn’t look good at all.  (As a side note, I’ll be emailing Wilkow about this, because I suspect he may have some harsh questions for Webb.)

Thing is, when you start saying stuff like the statements above it makes you look like somebody who’s an enemy of rights because you’re speaking the language of the leftist, not a friend of rights, and bandying about “compromise” when compromise invariably means surrender.

Compromise is “just the tip” with a rapist.  No means no.

And of course responding that stating no principles and calling for compromise and saying you should have universal training, “idiots” shouldn’t own guns, and calling the Second Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms a “sport” means that anyone who questions you is a “crazy”.

Which he follows up like this:

webb 7

webb 8

Compromising and making more gun legislation by finding common ground with the enemies of gun rights is compromising on the Second Amendment.  Furthermore, he already states that he is opposed to “idiots” and believes in “universal  firearms initial safety training”.

webb 9webb 10

No idiots… and universal initial safety training.  If you wanted a handgun in Michigan, up until around 2008, you had to have a “safety inspection” of your pistol.  It was simply registration and a chance for the police to inspect you.

He’s upset about idiots, and the 50% of unsafe people at the range in Nevada, and he wants universal safety training.  And he only learned about guns in the military.  No chance for statist leaning there!

He’ll also kick your ass if you disagree with him.

The one thing he makes clear again is his desire for compromise.  Back in January 2013, he made the point as he was discussing Sandy Hook… starting with some favorite things from the left anti-gun playbook:

In 2008 America had over 12,000 deaths at the end of a firearm, compared to 11 in Japan, skew for population ratios and it’s still a massively high number.  …

I don’t have all the solutions on this issue but I do know that I’m personally ready to compromise to limit mass shootings, and I’m ready to have an intelligent conversation on this issue.  If leading gun organizations like the NRA don’t take a leadership role in proposing realistic solutions, then they will have failed to truly represent gun owners.  …

Sometimes change, and healthy debate, as difficult as it can be at first, is a good thing. After all it was once within our constitutional rights to own and enslave other human beings. I believe in the 2nd Amendment and our right to bear arms but, if we continue to do nothing on the issue (mainly a mental health one) of mass shootings then we can expect more of them in the near future. Remember that when you kiss your kids goodbye on their way to school.

What he’s saying through this stupid sentence is that the Second Amendment is like slavery, because it’s ultimately an obsolete right in these modern times, and that’s why it’s going to go away.  He views it as a “sport” he’d like to keep, so he can train people or something, and if you don’t compromise, well, remember that Japan doesn’t have killings like Sandy Hook, so it’s your fault.

Unless he’s batshit crazy and he’s pro-gun and pro-slavery, and laments the loss of slavery.

Now today he’s come out with this post on his own blog to “clarify”:

I never shot much as a kid, aside from shooting clay pidgeons off the bow of the boat I worked on. I hunted quite a bit, but it was with my spear gun, not a rifle. I learned to shoot in the Navy, and only became an expert with a weapon by the time I finished my first SEAL platoon work up.

Dissecting this, the lack of firearms familiarity as a child wouldn’t necessarily be a strike against him, as there are plenty of compromising Fudds who used guns as kids, but it also means he’s further from having a Western tradition of valuing firearms intrinsically, even if not having examined the beliefs that lead to that tradition.

What we also see is that he was introduced to guns in an institutional setting, with control and order and structure and the state running things.

My first exposure to the firearms hot button came when I spoke out in defense of school shootings and compromise on my personal blog.

Yeah, which means before then he hadn’t even thought about it.  Let’s make this clear – before 2013, he was simply someone who used firearms as a tool for the state, and whose exposure to firearms before then was very limited and in very regimented, controlled military settings.  Or in California, where gun rights are infringed upon, which is why he doesn’t understand that NICS checks do take minutes, not days.

Many people I’ve encountered on social media lately have misinterpreted my position on the 2nd Amendment. Lately, I’ve heard people develop wild and ungrounded conclusions about my position on the 2nd Amendment. Some think that I’m automatically talking about Americans giving up their right to keep and bear arms, and 2nd Amendment compromise. They couldn’t be more wrong.

He couldn’t be more wrong.  Let me borrow from Law Dog to explain how compromise works, Brandon:

gun compromise law dog

Or to put it another way, “just the tip, baby”.

In the dark corners of the Internet they lurk, call names, and make ridiculous emotion-based (not fact-based) assumptions. I’ve heard it all, and I’ll take this on the chin. To be honest, I could have been clearer on my position in the past. However, do keep in mind that the word “compromise,” a term I’ve used before, comes in many forms; sometimes it includes sitting down with your adversaries and having an intelligent conversation and debate on major issues.

Oh, look, an ad hominem argument…

They’re all lurking internet trolls calling me names!  They’re making ridiculous emotion-based arguments!  But I’m the better man, I’ll suck it up.  I’m so magnanimous, I’ll even admit I could’ve explained things better.  They just misunderstood what I was saying, and they misunderstood how I meant compromise.  You see, compromise can mean intelligent conversation because they don’t want to engage in debate.

obama jesus 1

Picture totally unrelated.

That way we can get real, positive, common sense laws enacted.

But Webb digs the hole deeper:

What have I learned since getting out of the Navy in 2006? Few things will stir people up in this country like the 2nd Amendment. It’s right up there with gay marriage and abortion. And I’ve learned that you can’t have a conversation with a fanatic.

He didn’t know that before 2006.  Yet he claims to be a super badass guy who knows everything about guns who served from 1993 onward, and yet didn’t understand the importance of the Constitution and rights.

That last little link there goes to AR15.com calling him out.  If you have the time, read it.  The folks there have seen his type before and call him out for what he is.  Him calling them “fanatics” as a name-calling term is another ad hominem.  His Churchill line also fails… as it comes from a great man who responded to tyranny thusly – with no compromise:

We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.

Webb goes into non-detail details:

I’m Canadian-born American citizen by birth (by a US parent).
I grew up hunting fish (Halibut, Yellowtail, Bass, nothing was safe) and Lobster in the kelp forests of the Channel Islands with my spear gun.

Neither of which means a thing, except that he’s definitely lacking in the Western tradition of instrinsic understanding of firearms ownership.  By itself, wouldn’t be an issue.  He could learn later in life, but all he’s learned since 2006 is that people get upset when you tell them “I’ll just put in the tip, baby”, and 50% of all civilian and therefore non-SEAL gun owners are unsafe idiots who should not have guns.

Then he goes on to introducing himself as a SEAL sniper, in case you forgot.

I bought my first gun when I was a new SEAL at Team 3. I still have it – an HK USP .45.
Favorite gun manufacturer: Rifle-Blaser Handgun-HK
I was an M-60 Gunner in my first platoon (It’s one bad ass area weapon!)
I am a certified SEAL sniper, sniper instructor, and US Army-trained stinger missile gunner.
The snipers in the Teams used to go on Navy-sponsored hunting trips, mostly white tail.
I shot my first buck in 2002 at 443 yards with my issued .300 Win Mag in Washington State.
I served in the Navy from 1993-2006.

So?  What this says: “I didn’t own or use guns until I was already thoroughly ingrained in an institution of government – an institution that is still the crux of my identity – did I mention I was a SEAL?”

A Snap Shot Perspective of My Views on Gun Ownership & The 2nd Amendment

The 2nd Amendment is inherent in America’s cultural DNA

But not his.  And he compares it to slavery.

I believe everyone who owns a gun should attend a basic firearms & range safety qualifications course and that these courses should be standardized

The NRA should be like PADI or NAUI and encourage gun ranges to only accept NRA basic qualified shooters on the range.

Translation: “I believe in tyranny of the experts.”  Requiring qualifications for a right means that the right is now predicated on meeting criteria which are ultimately arbitrary.  Citizens of New York City can exercise their rights, provided they’re properly licensed.  Oh, so those rights are infringed and functionally eradicated?  Oh, well, at least they’re properly licensed.

Also PADI and NAUI (diving groups) are more about liability for shops, from what diving folks say on the subject.  Quite a different thing.

Background checks are a good idea but should take minutes, not days

Translation: “I don’t understand how NICS works.”  Background checks do take minutes in most states, just not California, where he’s from.

Often gun laws are made by people who don’t use, own, or understand firearms

Translation: “Did I mention I was a SEAL!?!  I know everything about guns and I should teach you!”  Lon Horiuchi knows a lot about sniping, but that doesn’t mean he knows jack about the Constitution.

Mass shootings have to be dealt with head-on or America will face more gun restrictions and erosion of 2nd Amendment rights.

Translation: “This is why I push for compromise and working with people who want restrictions and erosion of rights.  Because when you compromise with them, you get compromise, and compromise means good.  You’re a crazy and a fanatic if you aren’t willing to compromise becasuse they’re going after you.  And you’re crazy if you think compromise means compromise.”

NRA training needs to be brought up to date

Translation: “I really, really, really love organizations and institutions.”

Dogs/handlers at schools and colleges are better than armed guards, in my opinion. Dogs are an incredible resource to use in these situations

This one I’m not even sure I can make fun of.  It’s so baffling in its stupidity outright.  If I were able to ask him a question, I’d say “Brandon, if there was a threat to a school of an armed shooter, would you rather have a dog there or a Navy SEAL sniper as a guard?”  And if he said “I think the dog would be better”, I would just have to walk away, because the man is daft.

I believe we should be able to concealed-carry and open-carry where practical (e.g., not on an elementary school campus or an airplane)

“Dogs will magically protect you on campus!  And we’ll have dog pilots!  They’ll protect the skies!  Dogs everywhere!”

Guns are guns and people should be able to own and obtain a permit to own everything, short of an anti-tank weapon or WMD, if they’re properly trained/certified

Translation: “I do not understand the difference between rights and privileges, between having a right and begging permission.  I have no idea how certification or training is used as a tool of tyranny.  But I’m a SEAL and I love me some government!”

The NRA should take a strong leadership position when it comes to legislation affecting ownership pro and con, not just a “supporter” of legislation. The perception from the left is that the NRA is an uncompromising organization

Translation: “I believe in making friends with the left by compromising and giving them part of what they want.  If they want your rights, I will give them some because it’s not nice to not compromise.  But I will never compromise on the Second Amendment.  I will just allow reasonable restrictions and permits and training and certifications and compromise.”

No means no.  I don’t care if a rapist thinks a woman’s a frigid witch – no means no.  She shouldn’t compromise to make the rapist feel better.

Also, is the man wholly ignorant of the NRA-ILA?

I believe the 2nd Amendment is a right we should keep and hold dear

“But I believe we should compromise in order to give up some of the right so we can keep organized and certified and permitted sports.”

webb 4

-

And in case you wanted even more on this:

MAC/Sturmgewehre over at Military Arms Channel has a very solid post on why Brandon Webb shouldn’t be allowed on the board.

And Soldier Systems posted Webb’s last piece and spurred some interesting conversation:

webb 12

Donating time to your own foundation as a defense against being called out for being somewhat self absorbed?  And then the “get a life or move to a communist country”?

And then there’s this:

webb 13

The threats he made were in response to a PM criticizing him posted in its entirety here.

There’s also already a Facebook page dedicated to stopping him.

And the source for this quote, from his website:

From my perspective the NRA is great at drumming up hard core right wing support through sensationalizing the “gun issue” with the main incentive of driving membership revenue…. AND they have been great at waving the flag when it suits their purpose.

The rest of the quotes above can be found either at the FB post he made announcing his run or in various links provided.

-

Update: Sipsey Street Irregulars linked back to us here.  I will note that the email I sent to MV was bluntly harsher and more critical of Webb (not quite polished for publication), and was simply to provide a quick rough summary of everything that’s gone on so far, and why much of the firearms community, myself included, have come to the decisions we have, and I have.  So it’s a lot more terse and acerbic.

Now, as for some constructive criticism – Webb could actually listen to the people who disagree with him rather than accuse them of not wanting to have “intelligent conversation” merely because they disagree with him.  He could listen to why they say the things they do, rather than get defensive.

webb a13 there you go again i run gun sites so im pro gun and youre an idiot

I wonder if Brandon Webb can see that the Sierra Club got what they wanted – his range being cancelled – by not compromising.  They got what they wanted by not wavering on their principles, and they didn’t need to talk to him.  It would have never benefited them to even talk to him.  The Sierra Club beat out Brandon Webb by never backing down, and yet he can’t see that Dave Webb there is trying to tell him that compromise only lets you lose incrementally.

The best interest of the Sierra Club and what they believe was to keep Brandon Webb’s range from ever coming into being.  They didn’t win by “intelligent conversation” and “compromise” with their ideological enemy.  They won by sticking to their principles.

He might start to understand the vehemence with which his vague, contradictory, mushy statements and gun-grabber-sounding statist authoritarian words are being met if he would allow himself to listen to people who are disagreeing – and why.