Well, the eagle has landed, folks.
The illogical and capricious nature of gun laws (I’m still waiting to hear what the problem with barrel shrouds is) renders them vulnerable to circumvention by engineering changes, or even cosmetic changes. Where there is a will, there is a way.
The development of bizarre AR-15 features like thumbhole stocks, fixed-magazines fed by stripper clips, bullet-buttons, single-shot operation, lever-action and pump action were driven by the need to circumvent specifically-worded gun laws.
In the wake of the SAFE Act in NY, Black Rain Ordnance created a snake-like stock to render their otherwise-stock AR15 NY-legal. Goofy-looking, but functional.
And now Ares Defense has redesigned the AR15 lower receiver to allow a traditional Monte Carlo stock to be attached (alas this particular shoulder thing will not go up), rendering the final product legal to own in CT without registering it as an assault weapon. They promised it back in April, but it is in stores right now.
Everybody likes new things. And the advertising practices of the past 50 years have deepened and solidified our hunger for new things beyond the limits of common sense.
How else to explain the mad dash to ditch a perfectly good smartphone when a new model (that is functionally 97% identical to the old model, and light-years better than the phones of 5 years ago) is released? IT managers were not hallucinating when they observed an increase in broken phones when a new iPhone was released. You can’t have bread & circuses without the bread.
Guns are not immune to this trend. When something bigger/smaller/faster/shinier comes out, we all salivate a little. Senator Phil Gramm once described the size of his arsenal as “more than I need, but not as many as I want”. A smart consumer should mitigate his/her urge to acquire new hardware with the knowledge of: budget priorities, how easy it will be to get ammo/parts/accessories, reliability of warranty coverage, and whether or not the gun is chambered for a caliber that he/she already supports. No one is saying that those are rules to adhere to at all times. But you need to weigh all the factors against your personal situation before deciding. Bullets without a gun to shoot them are as useless as a gun with no bullets.
Andrew Branca posted this at Legal Insurrection.
It is an important issue, and one that is not addressed adequately in the training that a person receives when they get their gun permit.
It is also not a scenario that most people prepare themselves for, and that lack of preparation can cause hesitation or indecision at a crucial moment.
Well worth your time to read.
In the aftermath of another black-on-white racial gang attack (this time at a Kroger market in Memphis TN), Andrew Branca published a follow-up article on the use of deadly force against unarmed assailants.
Once again, Mr. Branca reiterates the 5 elements of self-defense:
And he relates them to the facts of this case (as they are currently known).
Connecticut held its Republican primary for the upcoming election for Governor, to see who would face the embattled Democrat Dannel Malloy in the fall.
It goes without saying that Dan Malloy, the anti-gun, tax-happy, stuttering father of a drug-dealer armed robber has to get booted. He ran Stamford into the ground as mayor, and then did his best to steer the entire state into a fiscal ditch.
But who to choose to oppose Malloy? Businessman (and former Ambassador to Ireland) Tom Foley narrowly lost to Malloy 4 years ago, and was running for the nomination again. His chances are said to be better this time, as Malloy’s reputation has fallen even lower.
No matter how many times the pouty Open Carry zealots lose a battle or make the gun-owning public look bad, they never seem to connect the dots between their stubborn attention-whoring behavior and the clear negative consequences that they cause.
Did they learn after they pushed Starbucks into the arms of the gun control lobby?
No, they did not:
“Chipotle is asking customers not to bring firearms into its stores after it says gun rights advocates brought military-style assault rifles into one of its restaurants in Texas.”
Way to go, idiots.
Now, I cannot seem to locate my Magic 8-Ball, but I will go out on a limb and make a prediction anyway: this clear and uniformly negative result from their behavior will not stop Open Carry Zealots from being idiots yet again and playing into the hands of the Brady Bunch.
It’s almost like they are doing it on purpose. Maybe they need to be investigated to see if they are taking money from Bloomberg to act this way. It’s hard to believe that a rational human being could screw up so often and not realize that they are screwing up.
After the latest shooting at Fort Hood, which was committed by a mentally-ill soldier with a spotty performance record, who was on numerous psychotropic medications, who never saw any combat (and thus the anti-military liberals cannot chalk up the crime to PTSD), the cry has once again gone out to leave law-abiding gun owners alone and go after crazy people to keep them from getting guns.
And as I said before, this is a dangerous position for a gun owner to take.
We have all seen how the justice system has twisted itself into a pretzel to ignore due process for gun owners when there is an unproven allegation of domestic violence. Gun owners used to be safe in their second amendment rights until they had been convicted of a violent felony. No longer. An unproven allegation of a misdemeanor is all that it takes to lose your second amendment rights.
And when gun owners mindless declare that the government should “take guns away from crazy people”, they forget that the people who would decide what constitutes “crazy” are the same people who have openly declared themselves to be irrationally anti-gun. Medicine is notorious for pursuing fads and junk science; to expect them to respect the second amendment is dangerously naive. And most of them cannot reach a scientifically-valid consensus on the definitions of most mental illnesses. They just publish laundry lists of symptoms to define an illness, many of which are redundant with the descriptions of other mental illnesses.
Blaming the psychotropic drugs is a risky path as well. I think that the drugs themselves are dangerous. And the conditions for which they are described can be hazardous as well. But can any of us guarantee that the AMA won’t advise the government to ban anyone who has ever taken an anti-depressant, anti-anxiety or mood stabilizer medication from gun ownership forever? How many troubled people would deny their problems and avoid treatment to preserve their rights?
What has not happened is any serious evaluation of the foolish prohibition on gun ownership in military facilities. The military gun-free zones have proven to be deadly to law-abiding service personnel, and the military has proven to be criminally inept in keeping illegal guns out as well as tardy and inadequate in their responses to violent acts on their property. The base commander at Fort Hood should be in the stockade for his failure to protect those people under his authority.
But be careful in calling for action against crazy people owning guns. You might just find yourself labeled “crazy”.