A little humor in the midst of chaos

[KMaurer]

(1)
Illinois governor Blagojevich is pushing for a ban on .50 caliber rifles and a state AW ban. Here's a quote from the Brady Bunch Spokesfool in support of the Blagojevich:

"We are grateful for their efforts to keep us safe from the threat posed by weapons with a high capacity magazine, silencer, automatic trigger with a pistol grip and the other dangerous features of such insidious weapons,” said Jennifer Bishop of the Brady Campaign To Prevent Handgun Violence."

WTF?!? I don't know who comes off as more clueless, little Jennifer (who seems to be the best and most knowledgeable spokesfool the Brady bunch could find) or Blagojevich (who quotes her in his press release, but at least has the excuse of being a career whore/politician).

(2)
The Million Moms March and Brady Campaign had to cancel a protest in New Jersey due to cold weather, or at least that was their excuse. It also seems that their organizer for the event is a convicted sex offender.

[Thanks to David Hardy's blog, Arms and the Law for both bits.]

Ken

 

[C-pher]

What?? How do those make something any more dangerous than a checkered stock or a houge grip.

 

[MikeD]

Quote:
"We are grateful for their efforts to keep us safe from the threat posed by weapons with a high capacity magazine, silencer, automatic trigger with a pistol grip and the other dangerous features of such insidious weapons,” said Jennifer Bishop of the Brady Campaign To Prevent Handgun Violence."

One would think that after all the years that these clowns have been around they could at least learn something about what they're against! [roll] An "automatic trigger with a pistol grip" Sure sounds dangerous to me.

 

[sdavid]

This isn’t being clueless, this is deliberate. These people, Brady that is, know firearm language, they also know that the people who will listen to them don’t know firearm language, or the laws that are already in place.

This piece did it’s job, it associated any magazine that holds more than 10 rounds and pistol grips with two firearm related objects that are already heavily regulated: mufflers and full auto firearms. The counter argument to this brings up that some things are already regulated so why not just complete the whole thing and start regulating all firearms.

Educating the public is the best defense against this tactic, IMHO.

 

[hminsky]

Here's a question about silencers -- if they were really effective, why wouldn't more criminals use them? It seems like if you are going to commit a shooting, you would want to not alert others that shots were being fired?


If they were easily available, I wonder if they would be a standard feature in gun crimes.

Aside from the potential for criminal use, I think it would be great if silencers were used for sport shooting, since the hazards to people's hearing are great without them. On the other hand, having the gun make a very loud bang alerts other people to the presence of live fire, which is a good safety mechanism.

 

[Weerd Beard]

I don't know about the facts of this, but I'd assume that most gun crimes are done with revolvers (because of thier availabilty, effectivness, simplicity, idiot-proof-ness, and reliablitly) or just standard mundane semi-auto pistols (without an extended barrell for threading) so fitting a gun with supressor would be next to impossible without more hastle than the average thug wants to go through with.

And of course so goes the joy of the gun-grabbers, since an "Assault weapon" just isn't a convinient weapon for common crime.

But then again if they wanted to make sence, they'd be preaching a Polite society so even the criminals with guns wouldn't dare pull them for fear that Gran'ma Ethel waiting for the bus would feed them some .38 Justice.

-Weer'd Beard

 

[BigWarden]

Gotta beat them at their own game ...

Assault Rifle = Sport Utility Rifle

Silencer = Noise Reduction Muffler

High Capacity Magazine = Venti Magazines

Large Caliber Weapons = Cruelty Free

Pistol Grip = Safety Handle

 

[BigWarden]

Here's a question about silencers -- if they were really effective, why wouldn't more criminals use them? It seems like if you are going to commit a shooting, you would want to not alert others that shots were being fired?


If they were easily available, I wonder if they would be a standard feature in gun crimes.

Aside from the potential for criminal use, I think it would be great if silencers were used for sport shooting, since the hazards to people's hearing are great without them. On the other hand, having the gun make a very loud bang alerts other people to the presence of live fire, which is a good safety mechanism.

On top of it, a "Noise Reduction Muffler" adds so much length to a pistol as to make it ridiculous for a Bad Guy to hide in hs pocket when he's going into the Stop n' Rob ... Small and cheap I'd imagine is the preferred mode.

I remember hearing that there are a few european countries (of the ones that are still free) that actually require sporting shooters to equip their guns with suppressors to keep the noise down, and protect from hearing damage. Talk about using the Nanny State mentality for the right reason.

 

[Chris]

Anyone know why "noise abatement" devices are illegal in many places, and are heavily regulated by the feds?

Back when the depression hit, families were using suppresed firearms to poach in an effort to put food on the tables.

Yes, it is a crime issue. Heaven forbid we let impoverished people use their own means to feed themselves - That is what the Massah is for.

So, people speaking out against noise supressors are really supporting the program to keep the poor and hungry dependant on the government. Sort of like supporting modern day slavery.

 

[Weerd Beard]

same idea with making it more and more expensive to apply for a Gun permit.

And I must say, why are the safty classes SO differnt in cost and lenth of time here in the state?

I love the idea of diversity and all. But I paied $75 for 4 hours on the Medford PD Pistol range for my Certificate. Yet GOAL offers an all-day course for $125 (for non members)

And many towns want you to be a memeber of a Rifle club before they'll process your aplication.

I don't want to get into why one course is longer or shorter, or which is better et al.

But after you jump through all those hoops (not counting if you want to have a lawyer look over your app, and lost wages for time spent in class, shoping around for an afordable gun, and test-shooting them, additional courses (say a CCW course if you're fortunet enugh to be given an ALP). we are talking REAL money here. Heck its a lot more than I want to spend, and I'm far from a hand-to-mouth blue collar guy!

All of this and we still haven't talked about guns, ammo, trigger locks, gun safes, holsters, ear/eye protection.......

Seriously, I can't imagine somebody living in a crime-ridden neighborhood, bussing tables EVER being able to afford to protect himself or his family LEGALLY.

-Weer'd Beard

 

[Chris]

A lot of different classes are offered. At Riverside we have two LTC certified classes.

1) NRA Home Firearms Safety - One day 8-2, no life fire, but students do handle and learn how to make a gun safe. Good for people just starting, spouces who don't intend to shoot, but need some knowledge, renewals that need a class, and to bring your entre wedding party to. (yes, I did that) It covers the basics, but we stress that it is not sufficient to use a gun, only to really know how to safety keep a gun in the home.

2) NRA BAsic Pistol. This is what GOAL teaches. However, instead of the One day, Riverside does it as 6 weeks. It's our feeling that allowing a student to shoot each monday night for six weeks, we can really work on the marksmanship skills, allow them to try a wide variety of guns form .22 to .44 Magnum, and dedicate time to discuss subjects in detail.

It really depends on the instructor as to how the class is run. Unfortunately, I've heard some real horror stories of instructors who charge a bundle and then teach very little.

It really does matter where you go.

 

[Weerd Beard]

I was very happy with how my $75 was spent (Plus it'd been almost 6 months since I'd touched-off a firearm, so I was on a pretty bad Jones [lol] ) and it was one-on-one with an LEO who actully knew firearms law. Plus I was an experience shooter (At least to the scope of the course) so I wanted to get my certificat ASAP, and I walked out of the PD with it in my hand, still warm from the machine 8) .


Still the bottom line is how much money even an inexpensive class is (and frankly rightly so for ammo, guns, range-time, and the time of the instructor(s)) And honestly $75 just to be sure that eveybody issued a gun knows basic safe handling isn't a bad thing (though a written test and then a few quick shots down range just for experince shooters to prove as such might be a good idea) but add in all the other crazy fees it just means Ye poor and Unwashed have no right to keep and bare.

Just REALLY upsets me when I hear that...and restrictions on more mundane tools for protection (Chemical agents, batons, stun guns, tazers)

makes me mad enugh to spit!

-Weer'd Beard