Two days ago I blogged about a a Congressional bill passed to prevent gunmakers from being sued by silly people looking to make a buck or lay blame on someone other then those truly responsible for the crime.
Today, we have news that is almost as good.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/04/30/america/NA-GEN-US-Gun-Lawsuits-New-York.php
"A federal appeals court Wednesday tossed out New York City's lawsuit claiming the gun industry markets weapons with the knowledge that they could be used illegally.
The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that U.S. law provides the gun industry with broad immunity from lawsuits brought by crime victims and violence-plagued cities."
The lawsuit was actually started by Rudy Giuliani back in 2000...so much for his statements during his presidential campaign that he was a supporter of 2nd Amendment rights. Political lying bullshit... grrrrr. Is it possible to liable yourself? This is the same freakin crap that Clinton and Obama are doing.
In any case, this case sets a fine precedent against dumbassed politicians, stupid people, and idiotic people.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Pipsqeaks
I am so tired of all the gun rags going on and one about the minimum caliber for self defense. One maxim states that "All calibers for self defense should start with a 4 or higher." So a 40 S&W, 44 Mag, or 45 ACP are ok, but a 357 Mag or 357 Sig just aren't enough.... huh? The worlds most popular caliber for handguns, excepting 22 LR's, is the 9 mm Parabellum. Some hot versions of this round are fairly close to 40 S&W and 45 ACP is power.
There is nothing wrong with a 32 ACP, 380 ACP, and certainly nothing wrong with the 38 Special. They have been used in police and military forces around the world for tears and years and years with good results. Until the last few decades, the 32 ACP was THE common law enforcement round for many Western European police agencies. It wasn't until modern terrorists came around that law enforcement in Europe was forces to upgrade.
For personal defense, just carry! It doesn't matter what caliber you have unavailable to you directly... it matters what you have at arms length. A 22 LR in hand is worth far more then a 45 ACP that's too big to carry.
Yes, the 22 LR and 25 ACP are anemic in power. Hell, I am sure many BB rifles have more power then a 25 ACP handgun, but when in doubt...pull the trigger a few times.
There is nothing wrong with a 32 ACP, 380 ACP, and certainly nothing wrong with the 38 Special. They have been used in police and military forces around the world for tears and years and years with good results. Until the last few decades, the 32 ACP was THE common law enforcement round for many Western European police agencies. It wasn't until modern terrorists came around that law enforcement in Europe was forces to upgrade.
For personal defense, just carry! It doesn't matter what caliber you have unavailable to you directly... it matters what you have at arms length. A 22 LR in hand is worth far more then a 45 ACP that's too big to carry.
Yes, the 22 LR and 25 ACP are anemic in power. Hell, I am sure many BB rifles have more power then a 25 ACP handgun, but when in doubt...pull the trigger a few times.
Monday, April 28, 2008
Manufacturers are protected
The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was signed into law by Pres. Bush on October 26, 2005. The idea here is that gun manufacturers should not be responsible for the actions that individuals take with those firearms. Well, umm, duh. Sounds common sense, huh?
The Anti's have been talking people into suing gun makers and distributors for years with the idea of huge payouts and putting the gun makers out of business. It's a ludicrous idea, but some people have tried to do exactly that... sue the gun makers.
That's like suing Ford because your son drove drunk and smashed into a tree. It's not Ford's fault your son drove drunk and killed himself. It's not Glocks fault someone bought their product and committed a crime with it. It's like a druggie suing Merck because the needle he has been using for weeks infects him with MRSA (Methicillin Resistant Staph. Aureus). Or wait... like suing McDonalds for selling you coffee, which you put between your legs, and you get burnt.
How about we use some common sense? Don't touch the chain on the chainsaw while it's moving. Don't stick your fingers in light sockets. Don't sue because you or a loved one is just plain stupid and you are grieving.
The Anti's have been talking people into suing gun makers and distributors for years with the idea of huge payouts and putting the gun makers out of business. It's a ludicrous idea, but some people have tried to do exactly that... sue the gun makers.
That's like suing Ford because your son drove drunk and smashed into a tree. It's not Ford's fault your son drove drunk and killed himself. It's not Glocks fault someone bought their product and committed a crime with it. It's like a druggie suing Merck because the needle he has been using for weeks infects him with MRSA (Methicillin Resistant Staph. Aureus). Or wait... like suing McDonalds for selling you coffee, which you put between your legs, and you get burnt.
How about we use some common sense? Don't touch the chain on the chainsaw while it's moving. Don't stick your fingers in light sockets. Don't sue because you or a loved one is just plain stupid and you are grieving.
Saturday, April 26, 2008
50 cal
Since I was a little kid, I wanted a .50 Cal rifle, specifically a M2 or any of the Barrett's. I always thought it would be cool as hell to blast away at over a mile. Stories are abound about snipers using these things at 1500 yards or more. I know .50 cals have found a place a warmth in Afghanistan where there are used to "take out" enemy forces across peaks of hills. There are more then a few videos of 800 yard shots or more taking out people hiding behind rocks (and the rocks too).
In skimming through a CheaperThenDirt catalog today I about popped my eyeballs out of their sockets (a la old cartoons) then I saw the price. I never really paid attention to their price as I cannot really afford to spend 3 to 5 K on a gun. I mean, why worry about the cost of ammo on a gun I don't have, right? $5 bucks a round for "cheap" surplus and $7 bucks for new imported stuff. It gets worse when you add in the cost of links, if you need them.
For the price of 10 rounds of .50 cal Browning, I can get 2000 to 2500 22LR's, just over 300 9 mm's, 200 40S$W, or almost 200 45 ACP's. It's a tossup what would be more fun, 10 rounds of .50 or 440 for my Mosin rifle... 10 rounds of .50 Cal or 220+ rounds of .223.
Reloading components are not cheap either. By my estimate, it will still cost up to two and a half bucks a round if you roll your own; a box of 20 750 gr bullets will run about 45 bucks.
I am starting to rethink my dream of having one. I might need a second job just to shoot.
In skimming through a CheaperThenDirt catalog today I about popped my eyeballs out of their sockets (a la old cartoons) then I saw the price. I never really paid attention to their price as I cannot really afford to spend 3 to 5 K on a gun. I mean, why worry about the cost of ammo on a gun I don't have, right? $5 bucks a round for "cheap" surplus and $7 bucks for new imported stuff. It gets worse when you add in the cost of links, if you need them.
For the price of 10 rounds of .50 cal Browning, I can get 2000 to 2500 22LR's, just over 300 9 mm's, 200 40S$W, or almost 200 45 ACP's. It's a tossup what would be more fun, 10 rounds of .50 or 440 for my Mosin rifle... 10 rounds of .50 Cal or 220+ rounds of .223.
Reloading components are not cheap either. By my estimate, it will still cost up to two and a half bucks a round if you roll your own; a box of 20 750 gr bullets will run about 45 bucks.
I am starting to rethink my dream of having one. I might need a second job just to shoot.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Democratic Debate
This is shamelessly copied from the NRA's website and shows the crap politicians spew to garner votes.
Debating Their Position On Guns
Friday, April 18, 2008
Speaking of “the most anti-gun candidate,” lately it’s becoming more and more difficult to keep track of which candidate is most deserving of that title.
As Democratic Presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama squared off at the Democratic debate in Philadelphia this week, moderator Charlie Gibson, from ABC News, opened debate on the gun issue by stating, “Both of you, in the past, have supported strong gun control measures. But now when I listen to you on the campaign, I hear you emphasizing that you believe in an individual's right to bear arms. Both of you were strong advocates for licensing of guns. Both of you were strong advocates for the registration of guns.” (Sound familiar?) “Why don’t you emphasize that now, Senator Clinton?”
Hillary answered with a stream of generalizations, but was specific on at least one thing, “I will [also] work to reinstate the assault weapons ban,” she said, also noting that, “the Republicans will not reinstate it.”
Obama was asked about the Heller case now before the United States Supreme Court, and specifically whether the D.C. gun ban is “consistent with an individual’s right to bear arms.” His response was, “Well, Charlie, I confess I obviously haven’t listened to the briefs and looked at all the evidence. As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right…”
When pressed further by the moderator (“But do you still favor the registration of guns? Do you still favor the licensing of guns?”), Obama was evasive, never really giving a straight answer and causing the moderator to quip, “I’m not sure I got an answer from Senator Obama.”
Senator Clinton was then asked, “you have a home in D.C., do you support the D.C. ban?” She, too, was evasive but said that she wants, “to give local communities the opportunity to have some authority over determining…” firearms law. She was further pressed “But what do you think? Do you support it or not?”
“Well, what I support is sensible regulation that is consistent with the constitutional right to own and bear arms,” she said.
“Is the D.C. ban consistent with that right?” asked the moderator.
“Well, I think a total ban, with no exceptions under any circumstances, might be found by the court not to be. But I don't know the facts,” Clinton concluded. At least she was right about that.
What we do know is that neither candidate joined more than 300 of their congressional colleagues in signing a brief in the Heller case in support of the Second Amendment, and both candidates’ records are well documented and show, unquestionably, that they’re both anti-gun. For either to now try to convince us otherwise is absurd. If one can’t plainly state that a ban on guns in the home for self-defense runs afoul of the Second Amendment, one has to wonder if either candidate believes any gun law would.
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=3847&issue=
Nothing else needs to be said.
Debating Their Position On Guns
Friday, April 18, 2008
Speaking of “the most anti-gun candidate,” lately it’s becoming more and more difficult to keep track of which candidate is most deserving of that title.
As Democratic Presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama squared off at the Democratic debate in Philadelphia this week, moderator Charlie Gibson, from ABC News, opened debate on the gun issue by stating, “Both of you, in the past, have supported strong gun control measures. But now when I listen to you on the campaign, I hear you emphasizing that you believe in an individual's right to bear arms. Both of you were strong advocates for licensing of guns. Both of you were strong advocates for the registration of guns.” (Sound familiar?) “Why don’t you emphasize that now, Senator Clinton?”
Hillary answered with a stream of generalizations, but was specific on at least one thing, “I will [also] work to reinstate the assault weapons ban,” she said, also noting that, “the Republicans will not reinstate it.”
Obama was asked about the Heller case now before the United States Supreme Court, and specifically whether the D.C. gun ban is “consistent with an individual’s right to bear arms.” His response was, “Well, Charlie, I confess I obviously haven’t listened to the briefs and looked at all the evidence. As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right…”
When pressed further by the moderator (“But do you still favor the registration of guns? Do you still favor the licensing of guns?”), Obama was evasive, never really giving a straight answer and causing the moderator to quip, “I’m not sure I got an answer from Senator Obama.”
Senator Clinton was then asked, “you have a home in D.C., do you support the D.C. ban?” She, too, was evasive but said that she wants, “to give local communities the opportunity to have some authority over determining…” firearms law. She was further pressed “But what do you think? Do you support it or not?”
“Well, what I support is sensible regulation that is consistent with the constitutional right to own and bear arms,” she said.
“Is the D.C. ban consistent with that right?” asked the moderator.
“Well, I think a total ban, with no exceptions under any circumstances, might be found by the court not to be. But I don't know the facts,” Clinton concluded. At least she was right about that.
What we do know is that neither candidate joined more than 300 of their congressional colleagues in signing a brief in the Heller case in support of the Second Amendment, and both candidates’ records are well documented and show, unquestionably, that they’re both anti-gun. For either to now try to convince us otherwise is absurd. If one can’t plainly state that a ban on guns in the home for self-defense runs afoul of the Second Amendment, one has to wonder if either candidate believes any gun law would.
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=3847&issue=
Nothing else needs to be said.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Empty your holster
"I don't like guns, to be honest with you," said student Ed Pardue, 33, of Charlotte. "But if they have a concealed-carry permit, they should be able to carry anywhere."
That's a common statement that the news media doesn't report. The vast majority of people support the 2nd Amendment, even if they do not own or like guns.
Anywho...on campuses across the U.S. students with CCW's are carrying empty holsters in a sigh of support for the CCW on Campus legislation currently being reviewed by Congress. "We're not necessarily talking about stopping mass shootings," Blatt said. "We're not saying (having concealed weapons on campus) would have prevented it, but it would have leveled the playing field."
Of course, the schools are vehemently against the bill. The philosophy is that more guns is bad and will cause more campus shootings. Well.. these are the same schools that decided that chaining the doors shut would be a good thing and all it did was create more mayhem.
http://www.charlotte.com/local/story/592598.html
That's a common statement that the news media doesn't report. The vast majority of people support the 2nd Amendment, even if they do not own or like guns.
Anywho...on campuses across the U.S. students with CCW's are carrying empty holsters in a sigh of support for the CCW on Campus legislation currently being reviewed by Congress. "We're not necessarily talking about stopping mass shootings," Blatt said. "We're not saying (having concealed weapons on campus) would have prevented it, but it would have leveled the playing field."
Of course, the schools are vehemently against the bill. The philosophy is that more guns is bad and will cause more campus shootings. Well.. these are the same schools that decided that chaining the doors shut would be a good thing and all it did was create more mayhem.
http://www.charlotte.com/local/story/592598.html
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
"Non-toxic" ammo
I was in Sportsman's Warehouse today and I about pissed myself laughing. I saw handgun loads with the term "non-toxic" on its label. This is about the stupidest thing I have ever seen..right up there with warnings on chain saws that say, "Do not touch chain when chain saw is on." or the labels on coffee cups that say, "Caution Hot Liquid."
This ammo, and others like it are "lead free" but I venture to say that anyone shot with these rounds would probably state they are most definitely not "non-toxic." Sure, being lead free or totally encapsulated in copper may be safer for the enviorment, but labeling them non-toxic is a bit of a stretch.
This ammo, and others like it are "lead free" but I venture to say that anyone shot with these rounds would probably state they are most definitely not "non-toxic." Sure, being lead free or totally encapsulated in copper may be safer for the enviorment, but labeling them non-toxic is a bit of a stretch.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)