Indian Gun Trainer not a Fan of Females

In India there’s no right to keep and bear arms, although some citizens manage to get guns legally. It worries me that Anand CK Shashidhar, a gun trainer, would say he’s not a fan of female shooters:

“People who possess a gun should know how to handle a gun. But what I actually see is women acquiring self confidence after the month long training. After this, it is not easy for them to own a gun as one has to go through four levels of police approvals to get a licence which is a tedious job.”
Source: http://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/bangalore/Trainer-Not-a-Fan-of-Ladies%E2%80%99-Gun/2014/02/05/article2038973.ece#.UvGfc_k2ymY

Let’s be realistic, most self-defense situations are not going to involve shooting a burglar from 50-yards away, or winning a gun fight against 4 home invaders (although some of us do practice for that). You don’t need to be an expert marksman to shoot someone from 3-yards away. So anyone who buys a gun and practices should feel a healthy amount of self-confidence, why would a gun trainer preach the opposite message is beyond me, if he wants people to sign up for more classes he can say that, but trashing gun owners because not all of us can shoot like Annie Oakley isn’t helpful.

 

2A Tuesday in Annapolis

Pro-gun patriots had a rally this morning in Annapolis, or “2A Tuesday” as they call it. The plan was to meet with lawmakers, a good thing since there are 24 gun bills that have been proposed this year including one that would repeal the draconian gun control legislation approved last year.

“Right now, gun control did not save the lives of the people in the Columbia mall, but a responsible and educated firearm owner would have,” Sarah Merkle of the Maryland Rifle and Gun Club told the crowd.

Officials of one of the gun owner groups believe that lawmakers will consider further restrictions on gun ownership in the wake of the event, including a bill to raise the purchase age for a shot gun from 18 to 21. The gunman in the mall incident was 19.

….

Last week, Vinny DeMarco, the lobbyist who led the effort to get the gun control bill passed last year, said that the new law limiting magazine clips to no more than 10 rounds prevented the mall tragedy from being any worse.
Source: http://www.wbal.com/article/105238/2/gun-owners-converge-on-annapolis-for-2a-tuesday

Really Vinny? Or could it be that the shooter was such a poor marksman he couldn’t do more damage? Could it be he was too impatient to get an illegal gun? Could it be that his intention wasn’t to shoot everybody but his ex-girlfriend and things got out of hand?  Anyone can do the shoulda, woulda, coulda, but I’d rather take my chances with a gun than with a law.

Today’s rally was also a campaign opportunity for candidates who are Pro-Second Amendment, including Harford County Executive David Craig, a Republican candidate for governor.

A number of people in the crowd at today’s rally wore buttons that read “David Craig Supports Concealed Carry.”

….

Craig said that he believes a concealed carry law might have prevented the Mall in Columbia murder-suicide and other deadly shootings.

Best of luck, Mr. Craig. I have linked his name in case you want to learn more about him.

 

Why R.J. Winans left the NRA

 

There are some people we don’t need in the NRA, GOA, SAF, or NAFGR, R.J. Winans is one of them:

Over the last decade, we have been reminded of the terror firearms become in the hands of the wrong person. These tragedies heighten our indignation toward groups like the NRA because they are the foremost advocates of the Second Amendment. The NRA and its executive vice president Wayne LaPierre’s response to this animosity has been heartless, unclear and detrimental to the organization.
Source: http://chimes.biola.edu/story/2014/feb/03/why-i-let-my-nra-membership-expire/

What part of “armed guards in school” and enforcing our laws against the mentally ill is unclear to you? As for the response after Sandy Hook, the NRA exercised a self-imposed media blakout while they were searching for answers. That’s not heartless, that’s way too heart full. I was pissed off at the time because our enemies were trashing us and the NRA responded with silence.

The reason I let my membership expire — a difficult decision to make — was because LaPierre’s tenure as face of the NRA had become too harmful.

“This guy doesn’t have what the human resources gurus call ‘people skills,’” is how retired gun lobbyist Richard Feldman described LaPierre. While I do not always agree with Feldman, his observation of LaPierre summarizes my biggest issue with him and his leadership of the NRA: He does not know how to relate in a non-combative manner.

Richard Feldman is a sellout who wrote an anti-gun book designed to please Oprah and the other gun haters. LaPierre has a PhD, is a brilliant writer, has had many successes in his career, and if it wasn’t for him, America’s gun laws would be similar to those of Australia or England.

The NRA has a public relations problem. LaPierre has managed to drive the organization into an endless schoolyard-yelling match with leading gun control advocates and, really, all of America.

If it was not learned at recess, it will not ever be learned: Yelling does not get you anywhere, especially when you are at the helm of one of the most hated groups in America.

It seems when LaPierre is put on the defensive — which has been the case of late — he flails hopelessly and creates a negative perception of an otherwise thriving, helpful organization.

Yes RJ, it’s called the mainstream media, they have always hated the NRA, they will always hate the NRA. Yet if you haven’t noticed, the NRA membership has double in New York, what does that tell you? Maybe if you watched a little more Fox News and a little less MSNBC you’d realize that the only people that hate the NRA are liberals, our future lies with the center and independents. As for yelling, we’re the ones being yelled at!

 If the NRA spent more time showing the good they do in educating America about gun safety and combating gun violence, they would be better received. Unfortunately, this is not how LaPierre has run the NRA.

The NRA has made the Eddie Eagle program available to every school in America, you’d know that if you read America’s First Freedom.

As for compromise, which is the thing all Quislings desire, show me any other group compromising at this point? Only RINO’s and cowards compromise, real men fight for what they want, not matter what it is.

 

Banning imitation firearms won’t save lives

13-year old Andy Lopez was walking around with an Airsoft rifle that looks like a real AK-47, a sheriff decided to shoot first, ask questions later, although it is true that the boy pointed his gun at the officer.

Now SB199 is advancing: “Senators approved the Imitation Firearm Safety Act on a party-line 22-8 vote, although several senators from each party did not vote. It now goes to the Assembly.”
Source: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/29/california-lawmakers-advance-proposed-ban-on-imitation-firearms/

Just because Sen. Noreen Evans (Democrat) said that “A toy should look like a toy” doesn’t mean the Government should get involved in the toy-designing business.

As you can see from this 1962 Matel commercial, a real looking toy gun does not usually result in cops shooting kids.

This bill is nothing more than the continuing wussification of our kids, we live in an upside down world where a transgendered teen has right to pee in the wrong bathroom while our All-American boys and girls are told to play tug-o-peace instead of tug-o-war.

This bill also violates the First Amendment, if burning the flag can be protected as free speech, the same argument could be made about toy guns.

The death of Andy Lopez was tragic, but our kids should not lose their freedom over an isolated incident. When a kid drowns, we don’t ban pools, when a kid scares an officer with a toy gun, we shouldn’t ban toy guns. Parents simply have to tell their kids how to behave themselves with others, and if they don’t do their job, so be it. I’d rather live in a free society where a kid dies occasionally than in a slave society where nobody dies. I am being facetious of course, in any society kids and adults will die because it’s impossible to prevent 100% of the deaths no matter what you do.

 

 

 

Guest Blog by Abolitionist Arms

A friend of mine send me this:

As a pro-2nd Amendment novelist, NAGR activist, and editor for the Armed Citizen Project; I have come to view the gun rights debate from a unique perspective that has made me conclude that a new tactic in the fight to restore the 2nd Amendment is needed.
You see gun control activist have very masterfully crafted and used the term “Assault Weapons” to describe what are more aptly referred to by actual gun owners as “Tactical Weapons”. By ruthlessly associating the term “Assault Weapons”  with any kind of mass shooting where the shooter had semi-automatic weapons, and even going so far as to make up new ones when the shooter did not, such as the infamous AR-15 Shotgun. They have marketed gun control to the masses with their absurd question “Why does anyone need an Assault Weapon?“; with Glocks and AR-15s being their favorite guns to hate. So common is this tacit of using the term “Assault Weapon”. That many gun control activists actually know not to say “Assault Rifle”, and fall into the trap of proving they are clueless about guns; even if they proclaim that we need to ban Glock 10s in their next sentence (A.K.A Steven King). Since using the same term over and over in a speech is bad form that can dilute a message, gun control activist commonly use “Military Style” as a replacement synonym for “Assault Weapon” to change things up.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not against political marketing as I recognize that unless gun rights activist expect everyone they encounter to have first read John R. Lott, JR’s More Guns, Less Crime. Then convincing people that non-infringed gun ownership is an important right requires that the message of the 2nd Amendment be simplified and direct it to a specific audience; which is the quintessential definition of marketing.

I therefore don’t have any problem when groups like NAGR calls the “UN Small Arms Treaty”, the “The UN Gun Ban Treaty” in order to market why gun owners should sign a petition to stop the treaty, in 3 seconds or less. Given that NAGR, and alike, first and foremost have an extensively researched and historically proven case for why a treaty that calls for international gun registration would lead to international gun confiscation.

That said what I do very much have a problem when gun control advocates use the term “Assault Weapon” to market their message; because quite simply the term fails to be backed up by any academic merit. For to quote Gregory Smith author of Selling the Second Amendment

Anything can be used to assault anyone, a hammer, a screwdriver, even a pencil can be wielded with deadly purpose (stick it in someone’s eye). Thus assault really is a behavior, not a device”. Likewise with the term “military-style” he notes “every weapon is military-style since they have all been used in the military at some point”.

However, instead of criticizing gun control advocates for so extensively using the intellectually dishonest term “Assault Weapon” over the past few decades; my unique perspective is that we should instead be thanking them as they have inadvertently made possible the largest opportunity to promote the right of citizens to keep and bear arms since the signing of the 2nd Amendment itself.

As I see it, even though “Assault Weapon” is a term so vague as to technically include any weapon; thanks to constant media exposure by gun control advocates, the term has become definitively defined as:

  1. Firearms that are black and semi-auto
  2. Firearms that have removable magazines and can thus accept “High Capacity Magazines”
  3. Firearms that have pistol grips, barrel shrouds or other “Scary” cosmetic features
  4. Single shot Glocks and blot action AR-15s (A Joke)  

So not only have gun control advocates given a vague term definite meaning. In so extensively focusing the gun rights debate on the question “Why does anyone need an Assault Weapon?“; they have to use some military terminology, thereby left the flanks of said debate open to a massive offensive for restoring the second amendment.

Because rather then coming out and being intellectually honest that they don’t support the 2nd Amendment at all. Gun control advocates, politicians in particular, have said that they only want to ban “Assault Weapons” and/or “High Capacity Magazines”; while at the same time claiming they “support the 2nd Amendment”, least they be instantly booted out of office since the majority of Americans support the right to keep and bear arms to at least some extent.
Now I assume that most gun control advocates keep the double standard of claiming to support the 2nd Amendment while wanting to also ban “Assault Weapons” & “High Capacity Magazines”; tend to do so assuming that the only time when the 2nd Amendment was not contested was when everyone had muzzle loading muskets. However, this assumption overlooks a time in American history right before and during the civil war when the 2nd Amendment was not contested, unless of course you were Negro, and firearms technology made some major advancements.

This particular time period is important because during it the Republican Party, and the abolitionists who created it, came to see arms as the way to end slavery to the extent that…

When the time came, many joined the struggle bearing arms. Many abolitionists joined Northern armies, leading soldiers into battle against the South, when it became obvious it had become a war of liberation. Many fought bravely and sacrificed their lives and for that, they are immortalized in our heart of hearts.

Source: http://www.worldfreeinternet.us/cbboard/bb1.htm

In fact if you have read Chris Kyle’s book American Gun you will know that the greatest abolitionist in world history Abraham Lincoln, test fired the revolutionary lever action Sharps Rifle on the White House lawns, and immediately wanted to order 20,000 of them for the Union Army.

 

Realizing that none of the arms used by the overwhelming majority of abolitionists to eliminate slavery in the civil war were semi-automatic, featured detachable magazines, or even painted black. I recently had the inspiration to come up with the term “Abolitionist Arms“, along with the replacement synonym “Lincoln Guns“, as a way to classify all “Non-Assault Weapons” in general and any kind of manual action firearm with non-detachable magazines in specific.

 

Now “Abolitionist Arms” is of course not a historically accurate term, after all I just coined it this year; but unlike the term “Assault Weapon” it has three points of academic merit it can stand on…

  1. In the civil war Abolitionist did indeed use these types of arms in the fight to end slavery even if at the time they did not call them “Abolitionist Arms”
  2. The number of people around the world who would not be living as defacto slaves to modern socialist dictators, if said socialist dictators had not first taken away the peoples “Abolitionist Arms” is in the millions.
  3. At the very least a man who cannot defend himself is a slave to his attackers. 

 

Therefore, the new tactic I that think is needed in the fight to restore the 2nd Amendment. Is for gun rights activists to push for non-comprised laws at the state level that guarantee the right of citizens to own “Abolitionist Arms” at home; while keeping the larger gun rights debate focused on the right to own “Tactical Weapons” and have concealed carry reciprocity.

 

The aim of this tactic is quite simple, because historically speaking gun control activists typically use the following slippery slope method to eventually ban all guns…

  1. Demonize & ban “Assault Weapons”
  2. Demonize & ban Handguns
  3. Demonize & ban Rifles
  4. Demonize & ban Shotguns
  5. Make muskets available by permit only

Though the exact order of how various guns are demonized and them banned varies from country to country (you can get a shotgun with a permit in the UK), the general principal of demonizing particular types of guns one at a time is the same. Therefore if gun rights activists can successfully make the argument that all “Non-Assault Weapons” should be called “Abolitionist Arms”. Gun control proponents would then have to try and do the following if they wanted to ban all guns…

  1. Demonize & ban “Assault Weapons”
  2. Demonize & ban “Abolitionist Arms”

Suffice to say it would be highly unlikely that gun control activist could ever make the argument that “Abolitionist Arms” should be demonized; especially when you consider that some of this nations first gun control laws were Jim Crow laws that were written to specifically keep Negros from owning guns, least they revolt against their slave masters.

While this means that more states will inevitably implement an all out ban on “Assault Weapons” as gun control activists are forced to use their over played political marketing scheme even more. I it will be near impossible for said gun control activists to be able to accomplish anything more than that, if gun right activist can successfully pass non-comprised “Abolitionist Arms” laws. Furthermore when you consider that citizens living in DC, Chicago and alike will be able to buy shotguns and revolvers as they wish for home defense, thus building the number of gun owners. Over time this increase in gun ownership will translate into increased efforts for citizens to legally own semi-automatic “Tactical Weapons” and be able to carry them concealed.

However, Key to the success of state level “Abolitionist Arms” laws is that they must be non-comprised, and when I say non-comprised I mean…

  1. No waiting periods
  2. No mandatory training required
  3. Only driver license based background check required to buy
  4. Absolutely no registration required EVER!!
  5. Points 1-4 must also apply for buying ammo too.

While I will elaborate on those points in future articles on the topic of “Abolitionist Arms” it is important for gun rights activists to note that according to NAGR activists classes. It is far better for long term gun rights to have non-comprised gun rights legislation loose in a roll call vote; then it is to have it be passed after some of your key demands are left out for the sake of compromise. Even if its the NRA that is suggesting you comprise!

Email: for questions comments and suggestions