#GunSense: Ban #BumpStocks Discussion

After the Mandalay Bay Shooting in Las Vegas, I became slightly disturbed upon learning what bump-stocks were. They left me feeling really uneasy. The idea of something so simple can turn a semiautomatic into an automatic just didn’t sit well with me.

Like me, friend Jazz Shaw also never heard of these bump-stocks and he too doesn’t like them very much. While you should read the full thing, here is the main thrust of the article:

…I think we need to consider a ban on both bump stocks and these automatic fire conversion kits. (…)

Assuming you’ll allow me to get in a word edgewise after making that statement, permit me to expand on my reasoning here. The fact is that if conservatives truly want to maintain the brand of being supporters of the rule of law in a society guarded by constitutional law and order, we must recognize (even if you disagree) that fully automatic weapons are illegal in almost every instance. (We have a few exceptions which all require the highest level of background checks and federal scrutiny.) We can have a separate debate on whether such a ban is acceptable if you wish, but as things currently stand, that’s the law.

These conversion kits and bump stocks only exist for one reason, and that’s to allow a semiautomatic rifle to fire as a fully automatic model. You can pull out your amateur lawyer thesaurus (or professional copy for you actual lawyers) and try to talk your way around this subject, but there is no other purpose for these products to exist. If you accept that the law forbids the possession of fully automatic weapons in all but the most limited cases, then these products should also be illegal unless the purchaser already qualifies for ownership of a fully automatic weapons. For everyone else they should be banned.

Right on! Jazz made some really good points there.

However I did learn more about the subject at hand. As it turns out, bump-stocks (or sometimes called bump-fire-stocks) don’t turn semiautomatics into fully automatics. All bump-stocks do is simulate automatic fire. And yet I did not fully understand HOW bump-stocks simulated automatic fire, so my mind still wasn’t made up at this point.

Still very conflicted, I wanted to talk this out with someone. Nothing against Jazz Shaw, but I want to get a couple more opinions from other people.

Anthony Brian Logan hosts a show on YouTube and I wanted to get his take and this is how it went down:

Alright, you can stop laughing now. The line “A Bad Taste In My Mouth” was the only thing I could think of at the time.

Anthony gave me a lot to chew on. Then Jacob Wohl’s tweet sealed the deal for me:

This was the missing piece of info I needed to make up my mind. The bump-stock has NO mechanical parts or springs and is wholly dependent on the shooter to appear to be firing an automatic. While I must have read this explanation a dozen or so times, it took a document from President Barack Obama’s ATF to make me see the light of day. Thanks Obama!

Before I close-up, I do want to apologize to Jazz Shaw a little here. I was on the fence about bump-stocks when I first heard about them and his article push me on the “Ban Them” side (and I told him as much). After learning more about them and deep prayers, I can firmly say that I am on the “Don’t Ban Them” side (for now). I will hold no ill will against gun-rights conservatives who supports banning them, for now, because we are all still trying to wrap our heads around these things.

Should we ban bump-stocks? No. From what I’m told, they aren’t very popular to begin with anyway. You can’t aim for shit with a bump-stock and so you break the fourth gun safety rule* with them attached. For self-defense and hunting purposes, they suck. It is also not a mechanical conversion and still makes you do all the work. Personally, I honestly don’t see the value in them**.

The debate is just beginning. I, for one, look forward to having it.

Well, see ya’ later!


#JaneGotAGun/@janegotagunfilm Trailer #Reaction And Discussion

I hate to get political when discussing or reacting to movies. Doesn’t mean I will shy away from it. Take for example, this upcoming movie Jane Got A Gun:

I first want to get the non-politics talk first, just because. My first reaction, is that of the cast list. On my goodness, this is a Star Wars prequel reunion (more or less)! Natalie Portman, Joel Edgerton, and Ewan McGregor were all in the prequels at one point or another. If you don’t know exactly what Joel Edgerton did, he played the young Owen Lars. Also of note, Ewan McGregor is replacing Bradley Cooper, who replaced Jude Law, who replaced Joel Edgerton, who replaced Michael Fassbender.

The trailer really doesn’t do the movie’s plot justice. It makes it seem like Jane (Natalie Portman) is an outlaw fighting the good guys and she needs help defending her home. That seems, interesting, to say the least. However that is not the case. Here is the synopses I got from the Wikipedia page:

Jane Hammond (Natalie Portman) has built a new life with her husband Bill “Ham” Hammond (Noah Emmerich) after being tormented by the Bishop Boys gang. She finds herself in the gang’s crosshairs once again when Ham stumbles home riddled with bullets after dueling with the Boys and their relentless leader, Colin (Ewan McGregor). With the vengeful crew hot on Ham’s trail, Jane has nowhere to turn but to her former fiancé Dan Frost (Joel Edgerton) for help in defending her family against certain death. Haunted by old memories, Jane’s past meets the present in a heart-stopping battle for survival.

The trailer is setting us up for one thing and the movie is going in a different direction. Maybe the truth lies somewhere in between. This is why people don’t like trailers. The movie presented in the trailer seems a lot more interesting than the synopses. Just saying.

However my interest in the movie is more academic than anything. With “Gun Control” all the rage right now, I have to ask a couple questions to the left:

Would progressive/liberals take away Jane’s right to self defense and strip her of her gun? Does “Stand Your Ground” not apply here? Would they tell Jane to piss on herself when the bad guys comes to take her? Do you think a “Gun Free Zone” sign outside Jane’s house turn back the Bishop Boys?

I would really like to hear your answers.

Well, see ya’ later!


#KosKids: We Often Repeat Ourselves

I like to start a feature where I take a look at the distorted views of the clinically insane. Or more commonly known to us on the right-side of the blogosphere, as the KosKids. They are the dedicated and brain-dead followers of Markos Moulitsas, and they have bought some prime real estate at the bottom of the rabbit hole. This feature will take a look at how far down they have gone. I am going to link them, but I beg you don’t click on them.

Today’s theme is going over stuff I have already gone over here on my blog. Off we go!

If Islam Is To Be Reformed, This Has Got To Stop

In this article by a, leftprogressive, we find that this person …actually agrees with me? Wait, what?!

I recently came across an article by Rana Elmir, the president of the Michigan chapter of the ACLU, in which she explains why, as a Muslim, she refuses to condemn Islamic terrorism. It is, without a doubt, the most disappointing and frustrating thing I’ve ever read by a moderate Muslim. Replete with mealy-mouthed excuses, false victimhood and mind-boggling denial of one’s moral and civic responsibilities, it is the epitome of the attitude that non-Muslims fear the most in the Islamic response to Islamic terrorism.

I am breaking one of my own rules to blockquote that section for prosperity. This person basically gets were I get using Liberal SJW Logic. However he/she is getting savage in the comments section. The person included a poll and the choice of “Muslims have no obligation to condemn, and the diary is bigoted.” has 54% of the vote, so you know they do not share leftprogressive‘s opinion. I would not recommend reading the comments, because it is just a bunch of mental farting.

One woman’s journey to cure Alzheimer’s ends with Hillary

This is Hillary Clinton’s “Halt The Rise Of The Oceans” moment that is developing as we speak. KBowe is holding Hillary Clinton to an impossible promise. Alzheimer’s a form of dementia and not really “curable” unless we can reverse aging. I already covered this, but Ben Shapiro throws cold water any “cure” coming out of the government:

It’s unclear whether government funding helps come up with treatments for disease. The government’s treatments, at best, amounted to somewhere between 9.3 percent and 21.2 percent of all new drugs approved from 1990 through 2007, according to a study by the New England Journal of Medicine. That means the vast majority of pharmaceutical treatments come from the private sector – and those private sector companies have to challenge the state-run hierarchy at the Food and Drug Administration, which is extraordinarily costly. Public-sector research institutions (PSRIs) come up with great solutions – but it’s private companies that then utilize those solutions to come up with far more effective drugs.

One more thing I forgot to mention on my last post on the subject: Will KBowe hold Hillary Clinton personally responsible if a “cure” is not found?

White House Unveils Common Sense Executive Actions on Guns

This post, by ericlewis0, is not really a blog entry as it is just copying wholesale the Obama Admin talking points on the new executive order/executive action on restricting your self defense rights. It is an uncritical look and just sums up with “This Is Good! Guns Bad! Down With NRA!” nonsense. This person doesn’t even go into the fact that every one of the GOP candidates said they will undo this executive order/executive action on day one.

You would not believe the amount of contempt I have for these brain-dead liberals/progressives on the Daily KOS. With the possible exception of leftprogressive, not a single one can think critically or make a coherent argument. However I am of the opinion that you should often read what the other side has to say. You can not live 24/7 in the echo chamber.

Well, see ya’ later!


#GunSense: New #GunControl #ExecutiveOrder/#ExecutiveAction …Does Nothing!

The President has been mulling issuing an Executive Order/Executive Action to a myth of a loop-hole for some time now. We have been holding our breathe waiting for this order to come down in order to force everyday people into a background check if this is a person-to-person sell of a gun. While the details have yet to emerge, we are now getting a good idea of what we are in for in the near future. After some time thinking about this, the brain trust is going to-

-make a clear distinction between gun collectors and gun sellers. Under current law, background checks are required for anyone buying a firearm from someone “engaged in the business” of selling guns (like a federally-permitted gun store or dealer). Sales made out of a person’s private collection, many of which are done online, are not subject to background checks.

The president could order a threshold be established such that anyone selling a certain number of guns annually would no longer qualify as a collector but also as someone “in the business” of firearm sales. Those buyers would then be subject to background checks.

Adopting this proposal would not eliminate the so-called “gun show loophole”…

Okay, there is a lot to unpack here. Let’s start with the obvious fact CBS debunks the “gun show loophole” myth. They first admit most private citizens who want to sell their guns, do it online and not at gun shows. While I do not know much about gun collecting, I do know a little about collecting in general. The whole point of collecting, is to COLLECT! They are not in the business of whatever the opposite of collecting would be. Most collectors I know would be hard pressed to trade or even sell their collection. There are only a few reasons why someone would give up their collection:

1) Hard press for money. Whether they need the money for food, bills, or a valued prized. They could also sell their collection for charity work.

2) Loss interest. Collecting is a hobby and someone could lose interest in their hobby. This has happened to me.

3) Dies. They could pass on their collection, which in turn should be allowed to be liquidated by the new owner.

There are problems with setting thresholds and we painfully learned them in ObamaCare. This Executive Order/Executive Action reeks of the 30-hour week requirement in ObamaCare, which had employers turn around and just cut everyone’s hours.

If you set it to high, then it does nothing. Most normal people I know, have one to five (max) guns. If you set the threshold at 25 for example, then most people can sell half a dozen guns without blinking an eye.

If you set it too low, people will just skirt around it by just selling their guns at a slower pace. You might also have the awful consequence of making criminals out of normally law-abiding citizens by accident. If the Obama Administration is making this whole “threshold” thing out of whole cloth, then the first person who gets snagged by this can likely get this thing toss as being unconstitutional or even overturned by the next president. And how, pray tell me, are you going to find out someone sold over their threshold before something happens?

See, I can go on-and-on with the amount of holes I can poke in this executive order/executive action. The important note in all of this, is that it solves nothing. I dare you to explain to me how this would have stop any of the shootings. All this will do, is possibly make otherwise law abiding citizens fearful of the federal government. For my law enforcement friends who would love to enforce this awful executive order/executive action, please do not break into the wrong goddamn rec room.

Well, see ya’ later!


The #ExecutiveOrder/#ExecutiveAction Double-Edge Sword

Gov. Matt Bevin is giving The Left a lesson in the double-edge nature of executive orders and the rule-of-law:

Kentucky’s newly sworn-in Gov. Matt Bevin has issued a series of executive orders undoing much of his Democratic predecessor’s work in one fell swoop.

Not only did Bevin strip the voting rights of some 140,000 former felons, he also reduced the minimum wage for some state employees from $10.10 per hour back to $7.25, Think Progress reported. …

Though Bevin’s predecessor, Steve Beshear, didn’t restore the voting rights to violent felons, Bevin said he doesn’t support Beshear’s use of an executive order to achieve that end. “While I have been a vocal supporter of the restoration of rights,” Bevin said in a prepared statement to the Lexington Herald Leader. “it is an issue that must be addressed through the legislature and by the will of the people.”

Of course, liberals are losing their minds over Gov. Matt Bevin upholding the rule of law. They’re basically jumping up and down saying that you can not undo an executive order. You can read all of that here, because I am too lazy to link them all.

I would like to note that yes, yes you can undo an executive order. These are not laws and are subject to the whim of executive branch. As the Wall Street Journal notes, President Obama’s executive orders/executive actions may not last long:

The Obama legacy is built on executive orders, regulations and agency actions that can be overturned using the same authority Mr. Obama employed to put them in place.

An array of President Obama’s policies – changing immigration law, blocking the Keystone XL pipeline, the Iranian nuclear agreement and the normalization of relations with Cuba, among others – were implemented exclusively through executive action. Because any president is free “to revoke, modify or supersede his own orders or those issued by a predecessor,” as the Congressional Research Service puts it, a Republican president could overturn every Obama executive action the moment after taking the oath of office.

Since Donald Trump is the Republican front runner, would he undo those four policies?

It goes without saying that a President Trump would undo President Obama’s executive orders/executive actions on immigration. I do not have to give you examples.

A President Trump would be very supportive of the Keystone XL Pipeline: “If I am elected President I will immediately approve the Keystone XL pipeline. No impact on environment & lots of jobs for U.S.”

From what I have heard, Trump is not a fan of the Iran Deal.

And to top everything off, Trump would take a hardline on Cuba.

There is talk on new executive orders by Obama on Gun Control. Trump is having none of it.

Rule by fiat is fleeting. I, for one, appreciate this life lesson from Gov. Matt Bevin and I hope you do too. This is also a warning to Republican Presidents/Governors as well.

Well, see ya’ later!


#GunSense: The #ACLU’s Outright #Hypocrisy Is Awful

The ACLU’s outright hypocrisy is awful and downright breathtaking. The mental gymnastics going on inside the ACLU brain trust right now is monumental in scope:

The American Civil Liberties Union is taking no position on legislation that would bar people from buying guns if they are on the federal government’s no-fly list – a list that the ACLU has spent the past five years arguing is unconstitutional.

(H/T: Moe Lane) Oh come on. This should have been an easy lay-up for these guys. Stuff like this nonsense is why I never call the ACLU by the full name, because until they fight for all civil liberties, then they are just a left-wing hack group. At least the NRA is consistent.

In fact, the ACLU used to be against using the watch lists to restrict gun purchases:

Notably, in 2010, the ACLU testified against “the use of terror watch lists to screen gun purchases,” writing that the “deeply flawed” terror watch list process led the group to conclude, “Given these problems, we do not believe that anyone should be deprived of the right to purchase a gun, or the right to fly, or any other benefit of membership in civil society based solely on placement on a terror watch list.”

The ACLU has since back-pedaled, because now they have since changed their minds about the No-Fly List at break-neck speed:

There is no constitutional bar to reasonable regulation of guns, and the No Fly List could serve as one tool for (Gun Control), but only with major reform.

Their idea of “reform” includes due process to get off the list, not due process to get on the list. They no longer find the “No-Fly List” unconstitutional for some reason. This is because their living God and Messiah now wants to use the No-Fly List to ban people from buying guns.

And yes, Syed Farook and his wife, Tashfeen Malik, were never on any watch list. If we would have ban people on the No-Fly List from buying guns before this happened, then nothing would have changed.

Philip Bump made a joke that went over some people’s head. I think it is a good joke because there’s truth to it. Philip Bump goes on to think of it as a bad joke, but not enough to actually delete the tweet:

The point of the joke — which I very quickly realized was lost on some, making it a bad joke — was that the no-fly list is a secret list that uses secret criteria to determine who finds a home on it. …

An example of under-reporting was easy to come by: The shooters in San Bernardino. It’s not clear that there was a way to definitively identify the married couple as being a public risk ahead of time, but it is clear that they weren’t identified as such. There will always be people who are not identified in advance, making the list necessarily incomplete.

The San Bernardino attack also demonstrated the risk of over-inclusion. At least one news outlet confused the male shooter — Syed Rizwan Farook — with his brother, Syed Raheel Farook. “They have the same name except for the middle name,” Sparapani pointed out, meaning that including a “Syed Farook” on the list might block either from flying. (The shooter’s brother is a decorated Navy veteran.) There’s also the challenge of converting Arabic names into English writing. Consider the former leader of Libya, Muammar Gaddafi. Or Qaddafi. Or Gadhafi. Do you put all three names on the list? Get the letters wrong, and some people will be banned who shouldn’t be.

I am going to come out and lay some hard truth for you: Flying is not a civil liberty. I know I have broken your walled in safe space, but you need to hear this right now. You do not have the right to fly. Where in the Constitution is there a clause for a right of transportation, because I have yet to find it. Sure if you want to get anywhere, you can drive or take a boat and generally it will take you longer. Get over it, life is not fair. Cry me a river.

However the right to be armed is a civil liberty. Just saying.

Well, see ya’ later!


#GunSense: #GunControl = #PoliceState …Enough Said

The Left On Gun Control

I want to start off with that I have nothing against individual police officers in general. This is not about them. There may be bad apples within their ranks, but I respect your service.

No, this is about the left talking out their mouths and ass at the same time.

Look at the “Black Lives Matter” protests. Their main gripe is the police have too much power. They hate the police. In fact, one of their main chants “Pigs In A Blanket, Fry ‘Em Like Bacon!” is well known. Once liberals got back in power in NYC, they stopped the Stop-And-Frisk policy over there.

They also hate guns. I do not have to link or quote much in order for you to get the picture. You can not throw a stone at Daily Kos without hitting a gun control article. They want to use the power of the state to take away your guns. In fact, they will need a huge police state to enforce gun control. Ross Douthat paints the picture:

The best analogue is Prohibition, which did have major public health benefits …but which came at a steep cost in terms of police powers, black markets and trampled liberties.

I suspect liberals imagine, at some level, that a Prohibition-style campaign against guns would mostly involve busting up gun shows and disarming Robert Dear-like trailer-park loners. But in practice it would probably look more like Michael Bloomberg’s controversial stop-and-frisk policy, with a counterterrorism component that ended up heavily targeting Muslim Americans. In areas where gun ownership is high but crime rates low, like Bernie Sanders’ Vermont, authorities would mostly turn a blind eye to illegal guns, while poor and minority communities bore the brunt of raids and fines and jail terms.

See, this is what gun control will look like. It will be a police state to enforce gun control. The left wants gun control because then they will then be the ones in control.

Now before you get all high and mighty on me about legalizing of marijuana, I want to point out a that there is a difference between getting high and self-defense. Getting stone is not a constitutional right. We have other non-additive anti-inflammatory and pain-killing drugs. I have seen people’s lives ruined using drugs. When the government gets out of control, I can’t throw marijuana at them in self-defense. I also find it morally repugnant to grow the government with taxes from additive marijuana. To keep and bear Arms, is a right. I have seen countless stories where armed people have saved their, or other people’s lives, with a gun.

Well, see ya’ later!


The Swamp #44

Gun Free Zones Kill

The Swamp #44: #GunControl, #SmartGuns, #GunFreeZones, @bandlersbanter Guest!

Today me and Kat talk about Gun Control. We also talk about mental health issues and, while it is a good debate to have, linking it with gun control is tricky business and warrants more debate. Then we discuss why those “Smart Guns” are really dumb. Then Aaron Bandler joins us and we all talk about those deadly Gun Free Zones. But before you listen, check out my Patreon Page!


Asperger’s Syndrome, The Second Amendment, and The Value of Life. by Kat


Obama Prepares to Unilaterally Take Your Guns by Aaron Bandler

“Gun Free Zones” Cartoon

Project Child Safe

Well, see ya’ later!


#GunSense: Why #SmartGuns Are Dumb

Since the gun debate has heated up, I have seen people posting in the #SmartGuns these days. I want to go over with the Left again, why smart guns are a dumb idea.

Lowell Ponte of Newsmax fires off a couple questions asking the gun control/smart gun advocates to answer:

What if the battery powering your gun’s computer chip has gone bad?

What if your trigger must confirm your fingerprint, but the fight to defend yourself has left your finger dirty or bloody?

What… if you need to use someone else’s “smart gun” in an emergency?

What if in your absence a spouse tries to defend herself, or himself, with your smart handgun programmed so that only you can fire it?

These are uncomfortable questions for the gun control/smart gun advocates, because there are no good answers. Lowell Ponte also points out three other points that I will go over myself.

Ponte notes that the “smart gun” Amatrix iP1 .22 goes for $1,399 and the wrist armband that goes with it is a whopping $399. Just like driverless cars, the average American will be priced out of owning a handgun in order to protect themselves. Only the super rich or the government will be able to afford them.

If we switch over to “smart guns” that use computer chips, anyone equipped with EMPs and electronic-neutralizing devices can easily disarm you.

Lowell Ponte’s last great point needs to be address:

A California smart gun start-up named Yardarm… has developed a technology so that “Users can even remotely disable their weapons.” If owners can do this, who else can?

I know, right? Smartphone tech is getting more advanced, but people are still dumb. Liberals also say they are worried about the NSA hacking into their personal lives, yet having a hackable gun is somehow a good idea?

Speaking of criminals, I dare you ask several of them if they would want to use a smart gun. I am sure any criminal worth his salt would not be using a “smart guns” themselves. I bet you anything they would rather equip themselves with the EMPs and electronic-neutralizing devices.

Kenneth W. Royce wrote that “no defensive firearm should ever rely upon any technology more advanced than Newtonian physics. That includes batteries, radio links, encryption, scanning devices and microcomputers.” I agree completely. Basically, smart guns are dumb because they would unreliable. Too many things can go wrong with them. I think gun control advocates knows this and that is why they push it.

Well, see ya’ later!


#GunSense: New #WarOnChristianity Wants To Leave You Defenseless

“Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action.” -Ian Fleming

Nine people are dead after an attacker opened fire in a historically black church in Charleston, S.C. Wednesday night. “This is an unfathomable and unspeakable act by someone filled with hate, and with a deranged mind,” Charleston Mayor Joseph Riley said in a press conference Thursday morning.

Okay, this is clearly happenstance. The Charleston church was a soft target and gun free zone (more on that later). So this could have been a one time deal. The asshole here was racist and this was a black church, so of course they are Christians.

A gunman singled out Christians, telling them they would see God in “one second,” during a rampage at an Oregon college Thursday that left at least nine innocent people dead and several more wounded, survivors and authorities said.

“[He started] asking people one by one what their religion was. ‘Are you a Christian?’ he would ask them, and if you’re a Christian, stand up. And they would stand up and he said, ‘Good, because you’re a Christian, you are going to see God in just about one second.’ And then he shot and killed them,” Stacy Boylen, whose daughter was wounded at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Ore., told CNN.

Is this a coincidence? Another group of Christians murdered? Again, soft target and a gun free zone.

I am sensing a pattern here. Christians are being murdered in deadly “gun free zones” and the best answer that any liberal/progressive has to offer, is to-

vent righteous indignation, then look around for someone to blame for a problem that almost certainly has no legislative remedy. Congresses under control of both parties certainly haven’t found any, and none of the proposals that percolate out in the minutes after a publicized shooting incident turn out to apply when all of the facts finally come out.

The only hint of a policy from anyone came from Obama, who praised Australia for their reaction to a mass shooting, and that solution was a massive firearm confiscation program.

What a surprise. The guy who thinks most law abiding citizen clings to guns and religion, wants to confiscate your gun and leave you completely defenseless. Self-defense or the Second Amendment doesn’t matter to Obama. If it were up to him, Obama would confiscate your means of self-defense right now.

I find it paradoxical that those who want to cancel out the Second Amendment, are the loudest to complain about a police state when talking about our current law enforcement officers. If we confiscate all the guns from law abiding citizens, then we will demand a larger police presence. Or haul you into big cities against your will, for “your protection” of course.

Do we need Ian Fleming’s “enemy action” before we ourselves take action? Christians are now being targeted and others now want us to be easier targets. I am all for forgiveness and turning the other cheek, however I don’t think Christianity was supposed to be a suicide pack. If it is a suicide pack, then the first Christians would have died with Stephen than flee Jerusalem. I reject the idea that just because you are a Christian, you can’t fight back to save your life or another’s life.

Before I close this up, I want my fellow liberal/progressive to answer me this question honestly: You’re a criminal. Laws do not matter to you and have many guns yourself. Two towns lay before you. One town has a “shall issue” CCW permitting, no “gun free zones” anywhere, and at least one gun shop. The other town has a “may issue” CCW permitting, “gun free zones” in a couple places (churches, schools, and a movie theater), and no gun shops in sight. Which town do you moved to?

Well, see ya’ later!

Theme: TheBuckmaker.com WordPress Webdesign
(Note: Website No Longer Works. Removing Link.)