How to spot a phony.

From A Gunsmith's view on Gun Control:

Regarding Mayor Adams' proposals for gun control, I must add my perspective. As a former Army officer, gunsmith, member of the NRA and a competitive marksman,

A common tactic of gun-controllers/banners who decide to "fake the funk" is the listing of all sorts of "qualifications". Usually some combination of hunting, military service, and law enforcement. This is done to win the respect of the uninformed and uneducated and lend credibility to any following lies and misinformation.

I see no reason why citizens, other than law enforcement, should have free access to armor-piercing rounds, military or automatic weapons, extended clips or undocumented purchases at gun shows.

And there you have it. The lies and misinformation. True armor piercing rounds are already banned. Under current restrictions, there is no "free access" to automatic weapons. "Military weapons" include anything considering most civilian weapons have either been used by the military or are patterned after military weapons, so that's just a baseless scare phrase. "Extended clips" is another anti-gun buzzword and not one commonly used by real gunsmiths.

When the U.S. faced the most egregious assault on our constitutional rights in its modern history, the NRA sat silently while George W. Bush emasculated the rights of us all

Then of course there is a healthy dose Bush Derangement Syndrome that only a leftist gun-controller/banner can conjure up. Of course it completely leaves out the fact that the NRA is a gun rights organization, not an "all rights" organization. His argument should be taken up with the ACLU, not the NRA. But then again, facts have never been important to gun-controllers/banners.

Will the real Barack Obama stand up?

Tonight is the State of the Union Address. When it comes to guns, Barack Obama has two choices: He can continue down his current path of hiding from and avoiding his pre-POTUS roots as a big-city gun banner OR we will witness the resurgence of the real Barack Obama. The anti concealed-carry, anti "assault weapon", Fudd-pandering elitist this blog was created to examine.

Watch this space.

UPDATE: In terms of gun control, the SOTU Address was a non-event. President Obama said nothing about guns and the only people who noticed were the members of gun banner brigade and George Stephanopoulos.

What does this mean? Nothing really. Obama's position hasn't changed since he has taken office.

From the Today Show:

MATT LAUER: And real quickly, if you will, in the wake of those tragic shootings out in Tucson, there have been calls by some for tougher gun laws in this country. The mayor of New York City, at an event yesterday called on the President to use this opportunity to get tough on gun laws and to change the way background checks are done for gun purchasers. Will the President directly address gun control in tonight's speech?

VALERIE JARRETT: I'm not gonna preview for tonight what he is going to say in the speech, specifically, but what I will say is obviously we're gonna have an empty seat in the chamber. Congresswoman Giffords, although she is recovering, she has a long way to go. It is a reminder of how we have to work to bring down crime, how we have to work to build an environment of civility where we can disagree without leading to violence. And the President clearly has always stated that he supports the assault weapons ban. So I don't want to get to much into the details of tonight. But certainly an empty seat in the House is a reminder for everyone, not just there this evening, but around the country.

It's obvious that President Obama has realized that gun control (especially the assault weapon ban) is bad politics pushed by a small, yet vocal minority and he is not willing to risk the rest of his political agenda on the hunches of few anti-gun busybodies.

Answering Joan Peterson and her friends.

More than likely my reply to her post will go down the hole of Reasoned Discourse, so I repost it here in verbatim:

"A brave man, Meacham, to dare to mention that he is a gun owner and a hunter and yet favors reasonable gun laws."

Meacham is not a gun owner. He is what is colloquially known among gun enthusiasts as a "Fudd". He only owns guns as a consequence of hunting. He is under the delusion that the 2nd Amendment protects hunting and sport shooting. He shares this delusion with your quoted friends, Barack Obama, Jimmy Carter, the Brady Campaign, and our two recently appointed Supreme Court justices. Thankfully, Fudds make up less than 15% of people who own guns

Personally, I am unconcerned with the opinions of Fudds when it comes to the issue of the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment is not about shooting Bambi and Thumper twice a year with your great grandpappy's muzzle loader. It's not about fine rifles and shotguns. It's not about sporting arms or collecting antiques.

The 2nd Amendment is the Appleseed Project. It is the ugly, black plastic covered, semi-automatic guns with the 30 round magazines. The 2nd Amendment protects the non-sporting arms and usable, modern guns. Specifically the ones that you shoot people with, not furry woodland critters.

"Maybe banning those magazines will reduce the demand from many that pistols and military style semi-auto assault weapons actually be banned. (This just might be a doable compromise)."

Baloney. After the last Assault Weapons ban was passed, the very next thing the gun banners did was draft Brady Bill II which included a ban on even more firearms.

I don't think you really know the meaning of compromise. Compromise doesn't mean you can take something from me and I should be glad to have what little you left me with. That's called "theft". Compromise is when both parties give and receive. If you want a magazine ban, you have to give us something in exchange.

Unsurprisingly, none of the gun control bloggers can name a single gun law they'd repeal in exchange for a gun law they want passed. So there won't be any support for a ban from me.

My response to John Mecham, Head Fudd In Charge.

The bringing-about of order is the first and fundamental task of government. We accept limits on our rights for the sake of a larger social compact all the time. This pistol with this high-capacity clip is a tool of destruction. I say this as someone who does not want to give up my own guns — but who believes that with rights come responsibilities.


Yeah. We know you don't want to give up your own guns. Fudds never do. They are more than happy to throw other gun owners under the bus to protect their own guns.

Sorry Mr. Meacham, but I and lots of "assault weapon" owners are not going to be thrown under the bus again because of the actions of a few. If you don't believe me, just ask Bill Clinton. He tried to throw us under the bus and it cost Al Gore the presidency and handed the House over to Newt Gingrich. And there are more of us now than there were then. We're also better informed, better connected, and younger than our predecessors.

Typical Elitest Fudd Rant...

Long winded and predictable in content, Jim Coyne channels a bit of Zumbo and Darnell with just enough whining thrown in to make you pity the fool rather than be angry with him:


The pertinent parts:

For the past 24 years I've been a classic man in the middle, and I've seen close-up how effective the NRA is with its propaganda espousing "liberty" and "freedom." Since President Obama's election, the NRA response has been nearly hysterical, and obviously it has had a large role in the growth of the Tea Party movement. The gun dealers loved it, however; rifles, ammo, and every primer for reloading was swept off the dealers shelves within days of the election, and stayed off until late last year.

The NRA had little to nothing to do with the growth of the Tea Party movement. In reality, the Tea Parties have little to no NRA presence. As for rifles, ammo, and reloading equipment being sold out, it's only because people took Barack Obama for his word. He campaigned as a gun banner. Naturally, people will stock up on the guns he wants to ban and the ammo to feed them.

A Lesson from Canada: They will never respect you.

There are some gun owners who think that if they "compromise" with the gun controllers, they'll somehow earn their respect and no longer be a target of the gun controllers. This is especially true of the "Fudd" types who are more than eager to sell handgun owners and "assault weapon" owners up the river to protect their hunting arms.

Well, handgun owners in Canada have compromised quite a bit. More so than most Americans. And what have they earned for their efforts?

You handgun owners, more than any group of people in Canada, have done everything possible
to earn the respect of your fellow citizens and the federal government.
You have registered your handguns.
You have taken the federal firearms safety course.
You have applied for, and received, a firearms license.
You have answered personal questions about your school and business relations.
You have revealed the intimate details about your mental health.
You have asked your spouse or ‘significant other’ to assent to your ownership of firearms.
You belong to a shooting club.
You applied for, and use, an Authorization to Transport when taking your handgun to your club to shoot.
Your name and address is entered into a permanent RCMP data base.
You must notify the police when your move.

No other group of people in Canada save criminals out on parole is subject to deeper scrutiny.

But still you get no respect.
Your meek, willing, subservient compliance has gained you nothing.

Read the rest of it.

Looking at the state of gun owners in Canada is like looking into a potential future for American gun owners. Thus we have the unique opportunity to examine firsthand many "what if" scenarios. What if we allow them to register handguns? What if we allow them to register long guns? We can learn the outcome of many gun control schemes by simply looking at our neighbors to the north.

Jim Darnell: Zumbo II

The original article has been nuked, but its ghost remains in the Google cache..

I’m a strong Second Amendment rights person. I stand against fire arms registration and government control and confiscation of our guns. But I strongly feel that the firearm manufacturers of our country are making a big mistake in producing the AR-15 sporting rifles.

And he goes on to describe how the AR-15 is such a scary looking weapon.

These modern sporting rifles are inflammatory in looks — they don’t look like modern hunting rifles. They are military in looks. They look like they were produced to kill men, not deer.

And my reply to him is, "And?" A lot of the Fudd-types forget that one of the many uses of a firearm is to kill people. As a "strong Second Amendment rights person", he should realize that the Second Amendment is not about hunting.

Granted, the new AR-15’s are compact, light, rugged and accurate. They make excellent hunting rifles. The problem is their inflammatory looks.

And? If someone is inflammed by the looks of someone else's property, that's a personal problem.

I don’t think the argument is valid. After WW II, crazy terrorists weren’t running through the streets firing 1903 bolt action Springfields into the air.

No Arab terrorists were on the daily newscasts blasting people with the semi-automatic Garand after WW II.

It’s the AK-47 and its long history with revolution, riots and terrorism that’s the problem.

Well, it looks like the terrorists won in Jim Darnell's world. They have sufficiently terrorized him into fearing inanimate objects. And why pick on Arab terrorists? What about those American terrorists who blasted people with their Garands?

So why endanger our Second Amendment rights by manufacturing and defending a modern hunting rifle that has such an inflammatory design? It plays right into the hands of the anti-gun movement. They love the looks of the AR-15. It’s easy to enrage the average American against such an “assault rifle.”

Because the Second Amendment is a right, not a privilege. There is no obligation to appease those who would deny you any portion of that right. Just as we do not kowtow to the insecurities of racist bigots to avoid endangering our Fourteenth Amendment rights, neither should we kowtow to the antigun bigots to avoid endangering our Second Amendment rights.

And here is a picture, just for you Jim Darnell:

Looks like it's time to give up your inflammatory looking terrorist deer rifle.

Creating the new Normal.

This is a video that's long overdue if you ask me:



Sadly, one of the many enemies of the 2nd Amendment is a subset of gun owners. Some people call them "Fudds" or "Zumbos". These are people who claim they own guns, but will always make sure to rail against "assault weapons" and the people who own them.

Some of their more popular refrains:

• "You don't need a machine gun to hunt."
• "Those weapons belong on the battle field."
• "It takes more skill to hunt with my 1903 Remchester."
• "A good hunter only needs one shot."
• Etc.

Well, the NSSF has a new program aimed at those people, highlighting the sporting qualities of "assault weapons". In essence, creating a new Normal where the AR and other "black rifles" take their place in history next to the Remington 700s, M1 Carbines, Mauser K98s, Winchester 1894s, and other great rifles that have put food on tables, saved lives, and given countless hours of entertainment

I wonder what Jimmy Carter is going to say now?

"I'm not racist. I have black friends. They just can't date my daughter."

I've heard that phrase and permutations of it come out of the mouth of every bigot i've met. My guess is that they are trying to morally justify their racism.


In American history, gun control and racism have always dovetailed. So it's no surprise when anti-gun bigots like Jimmy Carter make similar claims, albeit about guns:

I have used weapons since I was big enough to carry one, and now own two handguns, four shotguns and three rifles, two with scopes.
...
But none of us wants to own an assault weapon, because we have no desire to kill policemen or go to a school or workplace to see how many victims we can accumulate before we are finally shot or take our own lives.

And this type of bigotry is common among what are now called "Fudds" in the gun enthusiast community; "Fudds" being those who believe their weapons and themselves to be "morally superior" to "assault weapons" and those who own them, despite the fact the "assault weapons" are the least likely to be criminally used.

Jimmy Carter reminds me of the Shoeshine Boy in the Sundown Towns of the segregated South. The Shoeshine Boy was the only black person allowed to stay in town after the sun went down, as he was needed to be there early in the morning to shine shoes before the work day started. As a result of this allowance, the Shoeshine Boy held a false sense of superiority towards other blacks. He thought himself to be a chosen one, morally superior to the other blacks. He would often nod in agreement when the racists claimed that blacks were inferior to whites, as he often assumed they were talking about those "other blacks". However, the Shoeshine Boy was in for a rude awakening when he tried to court the daughters of the men whose shoes he shined. He quickly learned that he wasn't superior to those "other blacks". And he often learned this lesson at the end of a rope on the bridge out of town.

One day Jimmy Carter will have a similar rude awakening when learns that the gun banners dislike his two, "morally superior", scoped rifles guns just as much as they dislike the "assault weapons".