In which I answer an "Anonymous" comment.

This morning I found this comment to a post I made a week ago about U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette (D) not knowing that a magazine could be reloaded and thinking that once they were used that they were no longer “available”  for use.

Normally I don’t allow anonymous comments, but this one needs to be addressed. Put aside that I did not express anything but amazement that the person (Rep. Diana DeGette (D)) who is the lead sponsor of a bill presented to the House would/could be so ignorant of the item she wishes to ban, nowhere in my post did I make any of the statements alluded to in the reply. Upon reflection, this may be a response to a discussion I've been having with a former colleague on Facebook, or it could simply be a troll. I don't know because they didn't sign their name or leave a link through which I could identify them.

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Congress and Idiots...but I repeat myself":

I disagree with you and I think that banning high capcity [sic] magazines would be effective...it won't solve the problem but it will help. Yes, magazines can be reloaded, but how much time does that take? Also doesn't every security/police/military expert agree that reaction time to a situation is essential? i.e [sic] if you can slow them down then isn't that a good thing? 

Reloading a magazine in a fire fight does take time. Reloading one at leisure, not so much. Reloading a weapon when you have multiple magazines takes virtually no time at all. Watch some competition shooting by people who know how to use a pistol or rifle and you’d see that it takes less than a second or two to drop an empty magazine and slap a full one in place. The shooter in Newtown carried 10 magazines and switched out partially empty ones several times as he moved from classroom to classroom even when those magazines weren't empty. Three of the ten were still full when he took his own life but many of the other seven still held live rounds.

As to reaction time being essential, yes it is. Call 911 in an emergency and see how long it takes for armed police officers to arrive. An armed citizen on the spot could be holding the perpetrator at bay while the responders are still answering the phone.

But the bigger question I have is what practical use (I also adress [sic] gun rights below, this is simply a practical question) do you have for a high capacity magazine? I get that people want to hunt, but if you need high capacity then you're a bad hunter. You want to protect your home? Then learn to shoot without a high capacity mag. In the relatively recent Empire States Building shooting all the bystanders where [sic] shot by highly trained police officers. 

“What practical use do you have for a high capacity magazine?” If a home invasion is made by two or more thugs, wouldn’t it be better to have as much if not more firepower than they do? High capacity magazines (also known as “standard magazines” since most modern pistols come equipped with magazines that would make Mayor Bloomberg and Senator Schumer cringe) are not so much for hunting. Many states already limit the number of rounds you may have in a shotgun or the type of rifle you may carry when hunting in their game laws. My bolt action .270 is more powerful than most AR-15s. I've been fortunate enough to take several deer with it in recent years. It took me just one shot for each, but I still carried over a dozen rounds of ammunition with me into the woods. It's magazine (built-in, non-detachable) holds five shells. I carry 8 more rounds in a belt pouch. Why? Because one never knows what will happen in the woods even a few hundred yards from the house.

The .223 round used by the Newtown shooter in his Bushmaster are excellent for small game like groundhog, fox or coyote. The 5.56 used by the military and NATO are less powerful still, but they (the military) can often select fire bursts at a time--although that's considered a wast of ammo. Civilian rifles can, at best be semi-automatic which requires one trigger pul for each shot.

Also, in your example of the Empire States Building shooting, I would suggest that your “highly trained police officers” weren’t. Be sure of your target and beyond is one of the prime directives of any firearm safety course.

You're telling me that a weekend conceal and carry course [sic] is going to make us safer? To use your argument, crime is going happen regardless, what scares me more than a single deranged gunman is a hoard of semi trained, unpracticed, scared civilians firing off rounds. Unless you spend the same amount of time on a range as our active duty paid armed police and military forces do (at a minimum) then Johnny Q Public is my biggest safety fear. And if you qualified on a rifle in previous armed conflicts with no combat re-cert then it does not make you a highly trained shooter today. 

I didn’t address this in the post, but yes, a weekend concealed carry course would make everyone safer. Those who carry on a regular basis are extremely law abiding. (More so than Mayor Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns it seems.
"The important take-away from all those numbers? After 23 years of licensing those who wish to carry handguns, Florida has only had to revoke, at most, 0.277% of those licenses for cause.
As a somewhat random reminder, I would point out that Mayors Against Illegal Guns has had 2.2% of its members arrested, charged, and convicted of criminal activities (assuming 500 mayors – a number that is fiercely debated and probably artificially inflated).

Comparatively speaking, Mayors Against Illegal Guns members are almost eight times more likely to be convicted of crimes than Florida concealed firearm license holders – but that number is based off 23 years of licenses versus four years of MAIG. Assuming the mayors had as much history as the licenses, and assuming the same trend (11 mayors convicted in four years – a sizeable assumption, but it is all the data we have to operate on), you are looking at MAIG members being over 45 times more likely to be convicted of crimes than Florida concealed firearm license holders.")
They (concealed carry permit holders) have to be if they don’t want to lose the right to carry concealed. They also spend more time at the range—when they can get ammunition—than your average police officer or even military personnel. You’d be surprised how little range time is required of those paid professionals. Talk to a police officer sometime. Ask how much time on the range is required of him/her. Even your serious hunter spends more time at the range or in the backyard with his rifle honing his shooting skills than all but the most dedicated paid professional. And if you think a police officer doesn’t get flustered or scared in a shooting situation, how do you explain the situation you brought up about the Empire State Building shooting?

To adress [sic] Rights, they also come with responsibility, I'm willing to bet, and also willing to listen if someone can give me opposing facts (real facts, not fox [sic] news, MSNBC news or any other slant/paid/sponsored research by any side; I only want true unbiased research and facts) that there are more deaths from accidental shootings, suicides and crimes of passion from registered gun users than there are against innocents/crime victims/bystandards [sic]. So if, as a society, we can't stop the real issue or show the responsibility as a society to stop a negative action (again, where are most guns accidents?) then don't we also have the right or even responsibility to regulate that action? 

Yes. Rights do come with responsibilities. Perhaps that is why so many are willing to give them up.

I’ll not do your research for you but the FBI (See Table 1 of their Crime in the U.S. Report.  ) and others have many of the numbers for which you are looking. Although they do not break things down into registered and non-registered gun users, there is a table that shows the type of weapon used in 2011: Table 20. Of note is that while the number of lawfully purchased guns has skyrocketed (millions background checks performed in recent years Total NICS Background Checks Monthly 1998-2013 (It's a PDF file)) the rate of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter has declined considerably. In 1992 the rate was 9.3 per 100,000 while in 2011 (the last year reported) it was 4.7. That's from Table 1.)

No one is taking away guns rights, the only proposition is to regulate them. Which they are already regulated and unless you think every fam [sic] should own a nuke like N Korean then you would agree. 

Wow! Quite a strawman you’ve erected there! Who said anything about nukes? Also, what part of "infringed" are you having difficulty with?

 I'm sure this will draw some incoherent ire but I am willing to listen and consider true facts. As a hint, anything that can be disproved with a simple google search should not be use [sic] in a civil discussion.

Posted by Anonymous to Compass Points at 4/10/2013 12:40 AM

Allow me to define "incoherent" for you: anyone who disagrees with me. As for your hint, I agree. Show me how any one of the proposed bans on magazines and “assault weapons” or enhanced background checks would have prevented any of the mass shootings we have suffered in the last few years without harming the ability of law abiding citizens to obtain the firearms they want (not what you deem they need) and don’t lead me to any of the biased reporting of the Brady bunch, the UN or a Soros instrument.

Congress and Idiots...but I repeat myself

All too often it appears that our elected representatives are good at only one thing: getting elected. Outside that area they are awfully stupid. For example: U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette (D) out of Colorado is the lead sponsor in the House on a gun control measure that would ban high capacity magazines--in the future. She thinks such a ban would soon remove all high capacity magazines from the country because, as the Denver Post reports:

“I will tell you these are ammunition, they’re bullets, so the people who have those now they’re going to shoot them, so if you ban them in the future, the number of these high capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot and there won’t be any more available.”

That's right, she thinks that when you shoot all the bullets held in the magazine that the magazine is then useless. She doesn't realize that a magazine can be reloaded over and over again. And she's been the lead sponsor of this bill for two sessions of Congress! The country is in the very best of hands.

Gun Control Tomfoolery

In which I give vent to a rant...

If, as the saying goes, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results, then perhaps Senators Feinstein and Schumer are certifiable.

Each has crafted a gun control bill that is unlikely to 1) be passed by both Senate and House and 2) be upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court.

Senator Feinstein is the authoress of the “Assault” Weapons Ban of 2013.

From PowerlineBlog.com:

Feinstein has proposed a ban on 157 different models of assault weapons. Many of them are commonly used, which means that, under the Supreme Court’s decision in Heller, banning them is problematic in terms of the Second Amendment.

She threw a hissy fit when asked by fellow Judiciary Committee member Senator Cruz whether this might cause the law to run afoul of the Supreme Court’s decisions. *sigh*

Chuck Schumer added several amendments to his push for stricter background checks, S.372. Some of them would make it a felony should you 1) leave your guns at home with a roommate or anyone other than your legally recognized spouse if you, the registered user, were to be gone for seven days or more, 2) loan your hunting rifle to a friend while you are out in the field, 3) dare to take more than 24 hours to report the theft of a gun from your home. It leaves the definition of “temporary transfer” and “gift” to be determined.

(See "Amendment to background check legislation reveals Chuck Schumer’s America" and "Schumer's Transfer Tyranny")

Of course, these and other bills being considered are “common sense” laws designed to “protect the average citizen” and, of course, just like the last “Assault” Weapons Ban—passed in 1993, in force for 10 years and did nothing to reduce the criminal use of guns—they will do nothing of the kind. Criminals do not obey gun control laws that are already on the books. What makes these idiots think more laws will bring about any compliance from the criminal community?

The one thing--the ONLY thing--these laws are designed to do is the ONE thing the 2nd Amendment says the government should NOT do and that is to "infringe" upon the right of the average, law abiding American to keep and bear arms.

It's not truly about guns. It's all about control. And it must be halted.

Thoughts/News From the Aerie

It's been a while since I posted here. I've been doing a lot of Facebooking, however. Reading, writing and commenting over there has taken time away from my composing anything for these pages. In an attempt to play catch up I have a few comments/observations.

On a personal level:

Daughter Jessica has made The Big Move. She left Grandma's house in New Jersey and, with a packed little Yaris and her cat Jake, drove out to Anaheim, California to begin a new chapter in her life. She has friends out there that she met in college and others she met on line. She and Jake are sharing an apartment with three of the latter that is a short distance from Disneyland and has access to several Apple stores. She has job applications at both.

Relative to that move, Terry and I have been packing up much of what Jessica left behind and hauling it to the Aerie for sorting and storage. The trips back and forth to New Jersey (three so far) have been exhausting but productive. They have also been a bit of a challenge to schedule around possible snowfalls and rush hours, and to navigate when we miscalculate and get caught in a snow squall. I-80 the other day was a bear when there were several accidents including one that shut the west-bound lanes down completely. Luckily that was j-u-s-t passed our exit to turn north. Unluckily, it meant everyone had to take our exit which lead to one hellacious back up.

If nothing else, I've got a lot of books to read and music to listen to.

******

It's D-day minus three for Terry and my trip down south. Monday we set off in the Winnebago Access for Mardi Gras time! One of the couples we met on our trip to Alaska lives in the Lafayette, LA area and they are hosting a get together for the crew. Looks like there will be ten or so groups from that Alaskan Caradventure in attendance. We'll hit a number of small town parades while avoiding the Big Easy like the plague. Especially since the Super Bowl crowd will be there. (One of the couples has a son-in-law who works for the San Francisco 49ers and they have a chance to attend The Game. Lucky them!)

On the final day of our visit (February 12th) we'll have our own float in one of the parades. I'm looking forward to the people, the parades and the cajun food.

In preparation for our trip, we made arrangements to have a cat sitter come in to the Aerie to feed the ferocious four and empty their litter boxes. Mallory has done this before when we went to Portland, Oregon and American Canyon, California. A junior in high school, her Grandpa was our general contractor on the Aerie. Should the weather at the Aerie turn snowy, either Grandpa or Grandma has four wheel drive vehicles and will get her to the house on The Hill. The whole family is Good People.

We also made arrangements with a fella down the hill to plow us out should need be. He's the uncle of our local auto mechanic (who also volunteered to take care of our cats) and plows the neighbors' driveways/yards. I told him that if they need plowing to come over and do ours too. I'll need a place to put the RV when we get back.

 ******

The weather, after being unseasonably warm in early January, dove right past "normal" to abnormally cold. It was minus 2.2 degrees yesterday morning ON THE PORCH and never got above 6 degrees. The wind, when it was blowing hard, brought some snow squalls down from the Great Lakes and Finger Lakes. Now that it (the wind) has died down, we're jsut getting the occasional flurry.

Terry has a solo trip into New Jersey scheduled for Friday into Saturday to attend a baby shower. Forecast is for some snow along the way but the amounts keep dropping. She and I will keep an eye on those forecasts and, if necessary, will cancel that particular excursion.

******

The largest outdoor show on the East Coast is the Eastern Sports & Outdoor Show in Harrisburg, PA. It's a show that thousands and thousands of folks flock to every year. This year the organizers, Reed Exebitions, made a last minute decision to ban all things tactical because of the shooting that took place in NewTown, Connecitcut. This forced some vendors and non-profit groups to pull their product and their support from the show. It also set off a firestorm of protest. Hundreds of vendors large and small have pulled out of the show. Almost all of the celebrity speakers/demonstrators have cancelled. Virtually all the sponsors have pulled out. (I believe Progressive Insurance is the only sponsor yet to make a decision.) Thousands of potential attendees have decided that they would rather visit the vendors on their own sites rather than fork over the $10 entry fee.

The show is geared toward hunting, fishing, boating and shooting. Taking a stand against the 2nd Amendment by banning tactical firearms did not sit well with either the vendors, speakers, or the public. Also, the show typically has guides and outfitters from around the world. Many of them are in a bind because they are not local and Reed has not told them of what's happening and they haven't heard the news of the protest in progress yet.

Reed Exhibitions really misjudged this one. You might say they really screwed the pooch in giving the finger to their customers.

Yep!

Click to read: 13 Politically Incorrect Gun Rules for Conservatives

All riiigght!

"If anybody comes into my home and tries to hurt my kids, I've no problem shooting them,"

Angelina Jolie

She and Brad (Pitt--the lucky SOB) aren’t afraid to have guns in the house and she at least knows how to use them—and when.

I’m liking her more and more.

"I can handle myself," she said. "There's a side to me that people know is humanitarian, and there's a side to me that's a mommy. But there's also the side that likes to get down and dirty and run and jump around and fire guns."

Yowsa!

(h/t to Jungle Trader.)

This makes me angry

And if this doesn’t get your blood pressure up, then you are a fool.

NRA: The Untold Story of Gun Confiscation After Katrina



(Seen over at Right Wing Nation )

Yeah, that'll work!

(Seen at Maggie's Farm)

You want to license guns like we do drivers? You sure?

Earlier this week the LawDog said:

I see that the gun grabbers have resurrected the old "We license cars, so why can't we license guns?" meme.

I tell you what -- every time you hear a gun grabber snivel about licensing guns like cars, call him a liar to his face.

Go on over to his place to read the reason why they are lying. It’s worth the time.
We license cars ... yackyackyack

"why the gun is civilization."

Marko of the munchkin wrangler. has posted a compelling argument for the Second Amendment and the RKBA.

Go on over and read it: why the gun is civilization.


h/t: LawDog for pointing the way.

Breaking News: 2nd Amendment Ruled Individual Right

The D.C. gun control laws violate individuals’ Second Amendment rights. That’s according to a three judge panel of the D.C. Circuit in a ruling made today.

Lots more on the ruling with plenty of links here.