Gun Control

January 21, 2018

A wannabe ‘assault rifle’ speaks out

My article as originally published in American Thinker:

I came into this world circa 1990 via Sturm, Ruger & Co. – a strapping young Mini-14 Ranch Rifle.  Soon thereafter, I was sent to California and eventually was adopted by a very kind gun-loving family.  I was fortunate enough to spend a good number of hours at the shooting range over the years, but after carefully observing the performance of some of the more popular centerfire rifles – the military-looking ones – I realized I wanted to be more than just an ordinary “Ranch Rifle.”

I’ve always felt inadequate bench-resting next to my like-caliber AR-15-style friends because of their awesome military-style looks.  But don’t let my somewhat innocuous appearance fool you – regardless of my own insecurities, I’m able to do nearly everything they can do.  I chamber the very same .223 (5.56mm NATO) rounds, accept high-capacity magazines and sport the same semi-automatic action (pull my trigger once, and I fire one round, eject the casing, and chamber a new round to lie in wait for a second trigger pull) as do my AR-15 type friends.

The bottom line: pesky varmints (I don’t have enough power to lawfully take deer in most states) and armed criminals intending to do harm would be unable to tell the difference between myself and one of my more ferocious-looking military-style counterparts.

I understand I’ll always be a Ruger Mini-14 at heart; it’s in my DNA.  And I know I should be proud of who I am.  After all, I’m styled in the likeness of the combat-proven M-14.  But I still want a modern upgrade so I’ll look more like one of the cool guns that get all the attention at gun ranges.  Even some of my younger Mini-14 siblings now have an amazing “tactical” look.  Fortunately, there does exist a massive aftermarket dedicated to making it easy for guns like me to facilitate this type of transformation.

My owner did some research, and as it turns out, transforming me from a boring “Ranch Rifle” into a military-looking weapon would be a fairly easy endeavor.  But due to California’s discriminatory gun laws, making such changes would cause me to then be labeled an “assault rifle.”  My AR-15-style buddies already have to endure this discrimination (wrong-headedly, since actual military rifles are either full-auto or semi/tri-burst).  So suddenly, based purely upon my looks, it would be illegal for me to continue residing in the state I currently call home.

Some people think my friends and I are evil, but let’s be honest here: I am just a tool.  It is humans who are either willing, or not, to commit an act of evil against their fellow man.  And considering that a common car was the weapon of choice used recently in Las Vegas to deliberately ram into a crowd, killing one and injuring thirty-seven more, it’s clear that there are any number of tools that can be used to cause mass carnage at the hands of what I would call “assault humans.”  And indiscriminately outlawing certain unpopular paint colors for automobiles would do nothing to prevent this from being repeated in the future.

I may merely be a wannabe “assault rifle,” but if I had some advice for you humans, it would be to stop electing useless tools like Lieutenant Governor (and governor wannabe) Gavin Newsom, who, like many politicians and members of the media, has little understanding of how I and other guns actually function.  He and others continue to promote more useless laws to restrict guns that are rarely used in crimes and in the end only hamper the rights of law-abiding humans.

Worse yet, while Newsom attempts to make it more difficult for the law-abiding to protect themselves and their families using firearms such as myself, he supports sanctuary cities, which provide shelter for law-breaking humans who occasionally end up committing horrific crimes such as rape and even murder.


Buffalo Barack strikes in Roseburg

5191066383_95854ecabf_qMy article as originally published in American Thinker:       

Without being armed with all the facts, President Obama shamelessly rushed out and used the victims of the horrific Umpqua Community College massacre for political gain, just as he had with Sandy Hook and other carefully chosen shootings that have occurred during his tenure.  He then skipped right over the heavily gun-regulated war zone of Chicago to fly to Roseburg, Oregon and further exploit the grieving community.  This president is clearly uncomfortable with America’s skin, which is why he is hell-bent on transforming every aspect of it.

In the movie The Silence of the Lambs, Buffalo Bill was also unable to achieve the fundamental change he desired (a sex-change in his particular case), so his “solution” was to sew together sections of skin from the carefully selected young ladies he murdered to construct a “woman suit” and ultimately complete his desired transformation.  In other words, he was a total nutcase.

In an eerily similar fashion, the thin-skinned Buffalo Barack carefully selects and exploits the lifeless victims of certain crimes involving firearms in order to further his desire to “fundamentally transform” the United States into something it was never born to be.  He, along with his tailors in the media, carefully stitch together anti-gun narratives using their chosen victims along with various red herrings, straw men, and outright lies concocted (like the unwarranted media attention so-called “assault weapons” receive) to further the ultimate goal of overturning the Second Amendment.

There is deafening silence from Buffalo Barack with regard to the countless shooting victims in areas such as Chicago, where highly restrictive gun laws are the norm because those victims fail to further his cause.  And he conveniently ignores mass shootings in “civilized” nations that take place despite “sensible” gun laws such as in Oslo, Norway, where a gunman was able to effortlessly slaughter 77 people using semi-auto firearms and explosives (afterward, Norway’s “sensible” sentencing laws put that psycho away for a mere 21 years).  And even the existence of total gun control within the totalitarian regime known as China hasn’t stopped mass killings with knives, as can be seen here, here, and here.  Evil will always find a way.

The truth of the matter is that Obama and his media sycophants have about as much chance of ending gun violence through the exploitation of gun victims and the further expansion of gun control as Buffalo Bill had of becoming an actual woman by wearing his suit made out of the skins of the young women he murdered.  Buffalo Bill was at war with Mother Nature, while Buffalo Barack and his ilk are clearly at war with natural law.

Given that this is really a war over liberty, Andrew C. McCarthy makes a great point:

Why are we debating policy? After all, gun rights are explicit in the Second Amendment. In general, there is not supposed to be much policy debate where our fundamental rights are concerned. We would not, for example, abide a suggestion that we reconsider whether the government may break into your home and poke around for evidence without a warrant. That is not to say there may not be logical reasons to allow a police officer to act unilaterally on a strong hunch; it is to say that a constitutional right is supposed to be a guarantee – something the government has to respect, not something the citizen has to justify.

Of course progressives will never give up.  And looking forward, if elected president, Hillary Clinton has made it pretty clear she plans on cannibalizing our Second Amendment rights – perhaps with some fava beans and a nice Chianti.



Ban all human-shaped targets?

TargetMy article as originally published in American Thinker:    

Pennsylvania representative Thaddeus Kirkland (Democrat) has a brilliant plan to finally put an end to violence and will introduce legislation that bans human-shaped targets on civilian shooting ranges within the state.

His memorandum in part states:

Rather than perpetuate violence by continuing to allow individuals to practice their target shooting by shooting at human silhouette targets at shooting ranges, my legislation will prohibit the use of targets that depict human silhouettes at shooting ranges across the Commonwealth.

While I doubt you’ll find many violent criminals at public shooting ranges practicing their craft on paper humans, law-abiding citizens do depend on these targets to practice their right of defense (something France could learn from) from those who intend to do them harm.

Fortunately, the use of animal targets such as bear, deer, turkey, and elk will still be within the law (at least until PETA gets wind of this), but I do have one question.  Would this ban on human-shaped targets include all humans, or just the ones that happen to be older than the age of legal abortion?

Just sayin’.


A Model Town for ‘Gun Safety’

Chicago photoMy article as originally published in American Thinker:   

Michael Bloomberg’s group “Everytown for Gun Safety” recently released a map claiming there have been 74 school shootings in the U.S. since the horrifying Sandy Hook shooting in 2012.  The map was widely (and without hesitation) displayed by newsrooms all across America.  The only problem is the map turns out to be a fraud and has been thoroughly debunked:

The saga of the fraudulent map of “school shootings” pumped out by Michael Bloomberg’s “Everytown for Gun Safety” group is fascinating, especially given how quickly the fraud was exposed and destroyed.  This group was caught in a lie, pure and simple… and the lie went down so hard that CNN got in on the act.

Let’s forget about “Everytown” for a moment and instead focus on just one town – Chicago.  Chicago has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation, yet in 2012 it had the distinct honor of being named the murder capital of the United States.  In Chicago, one needn’t ask, If a gun spontaneously goes off in a forest, is within five miles of a school and no one is around to get shot, can the data still be used in an Everytown map?  There’s just no need go back two years and torture data to make it look like there were 74 school shootings – that same number can be achieved by going back less than two months (April 19th through June 15th), where there were 74 actual homicides (not just manufactured school shootings) using a gun within the city, as chronicled by a Chicago Tribune-owned website that keeps track of such data.

I’ve taken the liberty of creating a similar map utilizing this appalling data from Chicago (do take the time to zoom-in and read the names of the victims): 


By blatantly fabricating data and making false promises of safety while attempting to restrict the rights of those who obey the law, all the while ignoring the root cause of violence from those who fail to obey any laws, Bloomberg’s “Everytown for Gun Safety” does a tremendous disservice to the families of the 74 names highlighted on the above map, as well as to all freedom-loving Americans. 

Chicago’s gun woes are no surprise to anyone who has taken the time to read the work of John Lott, including his excellent book More Guns, Less Crime.  And speaking of less crime, as bad as things still are, after recently being forced to issue concealed carry permits, Chicago saw its murder rate drop significantly, according to first-quarter statistics.

Like Detroit, Chicago has lived under Democrat rule for many decades and as such is a wonderful Petri dish for all things progressive.  Detroit is the end-stage result of such progressive policy, and Chicago is clearly on a similar path.  This highly toxic mix of strict gun control laws combined with long-term Democrat control of the city has turned out to be a very deadly combination.

Bloomberg naming his group “Everytown” may be truly fitting, because if the group does reach its goals, every town may eventually look strikingly similar to Chicago and Detroit.

World’s First Nanoassault Rifle (Updated)

ar15My article as originally published in American Thinker:

The crafting of imaginary weaponry by children out of various objects is a phenomenon that has been occurring worldwide for many centuries. The traditional stick or finger has always been one of the more popular “weapons” of choice, but today’s high-tech child is much more imaginative, bringing about such dangerous treats as the Pop-Tart assault weapon. Unfortunately though, in today’s PC world, it appears to no longer be acceptable for kids to have a little fun and act like — you know — kids.

I’ve always had a love for science and an extreme dislike (to be politically correct) for political correctness, so my son’s latest science project presented an opportunity to have a little bit of fun tinkering within both arenas.

I still remember back more than twenty years ago when IBM scientist Don Eigler became the first person to manipulate individual atoms and create Big Blue’s logo, using thirty-five Xenon atoms. His work was the inspiration for my son’s latest school science project — the nanoassault rifle.

Due to the sensitive nature of the inanimate object we chose to replicate, the AR-15, I thought it safest to construct it out of a recently discovered, highly toxic and difficult to contain element known as Obamium (doing so only partially caves to political correctness). Thus far, nothing seems to stick to Obamium and no matter what form it takes, it has the miraculous ability to remain stable within the press.

Our AR-15 replica (as highlighted below) was meticulously constructed from 56 individual Obamium atoms and the addition of a spare thirty-round magazine took a total of 18 Obamium atoms to complete. In support of a close friend of my son’s who recently found himself in a little hot water after using the phrase “pocket knife” at school (you would be wise believe this portion of the story), we also decided to construct an open pocket knife, which only set us back an additional 13 Obamium atoms.

Unfortunately we don’t possess the technology to provide a magnified image of the actual final products, so it’s difficult to prove the “deadly” nature of what we actually constructed. But if my son does end up getting in trouble over this, his punishment will hopefully adhere to the proper scale of the project. If so, he should only be looking at a suspension of no more than two or three nanoseconds for his “crimes.”


For those who noticed a lack of bullets in this project, the original plan was to use a rapidly decaying element, Bidenium, for the ammunition but it proved to be much too dense and unstable.  The velocity and direction at which it would just start poppin’ off wasn’t predictable enough for use in this project. 

Feds Finally Make Profitable Investment

hollow-pointMy article as originally published in American Thinker:       

Many people are concerned about the two-billion plus rounds of ammo purchased by non-military Federal agencies as of late. Considering some of the radical people Obama has surrounded himself with, and his goal of “fundamentally transforming” the United States, is it any wonder conspiracy theories abound?

But what if the Obama administration isn’t quite as economically illiterate as it appears to be on the surface? What if these purchases are really just about getting a great return on investment for the taxpayer?

By hoarding billions of rounds of ammo and bashing the Second Amendment at the same time, the Administration is both reducing supply and increasing demand. This perfect storm has ammunition prices skyrocketing.

If the Obama Administration keeps up this gun-bashing-bullet-buying spree, within a few years, the profits from selling off all these ammo stockpiles may be enough to pay off a significant portion of our national debt.

Actually, I’m sure this Administration would still find a way to turn this ‘easy money’ into a loss for the taxpayer.

Million Magazine March

DGMy article as originally published in American Thinker:

As noted by Rick Moran, NBC’s David Gregory was given a “get-out-of-jail-free” card by Washington, D.C. Attorney General Irvin Nathan, for his display of an illegal high-capacity magazine on “Meet the Press.” It obviously pays to be a super-rich liberal.

While it’s the Second Amendment that is being trampled by the strict DC gun laws, Nathan’s reason for the free pass was due in part to “our recognition that the intent of the temporary possession and short display of the magazine was to promote the First Amendment purpose of informing an ongoing public debate about firearms policy in the United States.”

Does this mean that if a pro-Second Amendment group were to form a “Million Magazine March” on DC with the stated intent to “promote the First Amendment purpose of informing an ongoing public debate about firearms policy in the United States” that these individuals with their illegal inanimate objects would be free from prosecution?

Don’t hold your breath!

Bloomberg Should Demand Hand Control

no handsMy article as originally published in American Thinker:       

Following the second recent fatal subway shoving incident in NYC, this one allegedly involving a hate crime, Mayor Bloomberg was quick to throw up his hands in an effort to halt the public from jumping to any incorrect conclusions, telling them to instead focus on the “overall safety in New York.”

Ironically, it is Bloomberg who is usually quick to leap to wrong conclusions and call for the use of the heavy hand of big government to cure society’s ills. Whether he’s pushing people around with soda bans or trying to shove tougher gun restrictions upon them, his answer, like that of all statists, is to throw liberty onto the tracks in the name of security.

Why, then, should Bloomberg handle these brutal subway murders any differently? To remain consistent and put an end to this senseless slaughter by trains, Bloomberg should call for “sensible” restrictions on trains. Of course, doing so would pose a bit of a dilemma, as trains happen to fit in with the whole green agenda and as such are part of a protected class. Unlike evil guns, trains are inanimate objects incapable of any wrongdoing.

Because trains are off limits, Bloomberg would instead need to shift the blame to some other object. And since holding people responsible for their own actions is usually not an option for the left, it makes as much sense for Bloomberg to implement “reasonable” hand control measures to prevent these shoving deaths as it does to call for new gun control laws to prevent shooting deaths. After all, if these “weapons” weren’t so readily available, these train victims would still be alive today. Wouldn’t saving just one life be worth any minor inconvenience to the public?

While the left may scoff at the idea of concealed carry laws for guns, a similar law may be necessary to prevent all of this senseless hand violence. Eliminating open carry and requiring hand owners to keep their “weapons” concealed in their pockets within a hands-free-zone of at least fifty feet from any set of tracks would be a good start.

Or perhaps some sort of restrictive leash-like device that disallows an “unnecessary” range of motion in order to prevent the discharge of loaded hands (arms cocked and hands palms-forward at chest height) would be more practical?

Obviously having people voluntarily turn in their hands for the greater good of society or starting a government-sponsored hand buy-back program to get more of these dangerous “weapons” off of the streets wouldn’t be practical. This would only give rise to a “greedy” prosthetic industry.

Due to the racial element of this latest tragedy, it may also be a good time to look at reclassifying certain categories of hands as more deadly than others. Lighter-colored hands are clearly more dangerous than the darker ones and as such should be factored into any new hand control measures.

Having strict hand control in place would have helped to prevent even the latest subway incident — a perfect storm where a lethal combination of guns, trains, and hands all came together.

Mayor Bloomberg again quickly grabbed hold of the moment and, in an apparent swipe at the NRA, said: “In recent weeks, we’ve heard some people say that the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. But sometimes the good guys get shot — and sometimes, they are killed.” And then he said this: “Tonight, thank God, three good guys — three New York City police officers, who acted heroically — are going to make it.”

I’ll let the reader contemplate the brilliance of Bloomberg’s statements, as it appears that the only thing that stopped this bad guy with a gun was — a good guy with a gun. One does have to ask, though: why is it okay for these plainclothes armed officers to be placed in trains and not in public schools?

But again, why blame guns when it’s clear that it’s hands that were involved in this carnage as well? These evil hands even appear to have been made for this type of destruction, as they contain what is called a trigger finger. Contrary to popular belief, these guns can’t just fire themselves, and proper hand control would put an end to these senseless tragedies.

Come to think of it, it seems as though hands are involved in nearly every brutal murder or violent act we hear about in the news, so why not demand strict hand control as a way to solve all of society’s violence problems?

Now if we could just figure out what it is that is controlling these evil hands…

Who Needs a Gun?

Pink FordMy article as originally published in American Thinker:      

After I picked up my son from school the other day we started to drive off but had to stop short of one of the crosswalks. I paused to think of the horrible tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut as the large group of children started to cross the road; many were of the same age as those who were brutally murdered by this deranged killer. While we sat idling in front of the “gun free zone” something struck me. In reality I was sitting inside one of the deadliest potential weapons imaginable; more powerful than any small arm.

I was driving a plain white Ford F-150 4×4 truck with a ‘high capacity’ V8 engine. I guess you could call it a ‘sporting’ truck. Fortunately, myself and the other drivers around me were of sound mind and there was no tragic incident on that particular day. But what if someone of unsound mind were to get hold of one of these deadly weapons? From where I was sitting, the only barrier to a disaster two, maybe three times the size of the one in Newtown was my sound mind maintaining control over my right foot. I shudder to think of the carnage that could have quickly been unleashed upon those dozens of innocent lives if my ‘weapon’ had been in the wrong hands.

Is it time to redirect valuable resources and initiate a national debate on this intolerable threat to humanity? Should all of these vehicular ‘weapons’ just be banned outright? Or should only certain types be banned? What if I were to make some cosmetic changes to my plain white ‘sporting’ truck such as a camouflage paint job with black accents? Should it then be reclassified as an “assault” truck? Should it then be banned as such even though it functions exactly the same as the plain white ‘sporting’ truck? Even if I were to add twenty horsepower to its capacity, would it really make a large difference in any outcome? By the same token, would the addition of Obama bumper stickers and a pink paint job make my ‘sporting’ truck any less lethal?

The more I look around the more I realize that short of abolishing the Constitution and living our lives in padded cells, we will never be totally safe from those who are truly committed to perpetrate mass murder. Perhaps if more of the known insane were actually kept in such a cell, we could worry just a little bit less about the welfare of our children?

It’s About Control, Not Guns

My article as originally published in American Thinker:    

Don’t for one minute think that the Left’s core motive for demanding ever increasing amounts of gun control is the reduction of crime rates in any meaningful fashion. When the Left exploits a tragedy such as the one in Aurora Colorado and then calls for even stricter gun control, it has little to do with removing guns from criminals’ hands or saving lives, and everything to do with the control of law abiding citizens. The Constitution, especially the Second Amendment, is nothing but an obstacle to the Left’s desire for such control. This is why you rarely hear about the countless incidents in which guns are used to prevent crimes or save lives. It simply doesn’t further the Left’s agenda and is therefore ignored.

There is plenty of evidence showing that increased gun control does nothing to lower crime rates. John Lott’s book More Guns Less Crime is one of the best books out there on the subject and provides solid statistics to back up what many consider to be nothing more than common sense. And that’s without even delving into our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. For more on that I recommend The Second Amendment primer.

The truth is that Gun control “works” to reduce crime just like Obama’s economic policies have “worked” (and not in the way Obama claims) to fix the nation’s economy. In the case of Aurora, law abiding citizens appear to have followed the theater’s strict “gun-free” zone rule but predictably, the criminal just ignored the rule (as if those willing to commit mass-murder worry about violating any gun laws). So with the help of gun control, the shooter was given a theater full of easy targets to pick-off at will.

Imagine what one citizen with a concealed carry permit could have done to possibly save lives if allowed to carry a gun inside the theater. Those who blame guns over the individual never stop to think about what a determined insane person would be able to do to a large group of people with a car, can of gasoline or any number of other readilyavailable potentially destructive items. The fact is that crazy will always find a way, so it’s best to be prepared.

So why is the Left so determined to suppress constitutional freedoms that, as a side benefit, actually lower crime rates? Because those on the Left are interested in control first and foremost, even if said control results in more deaths or damage to property. It seems the end always justifies the means with the Left.

Similarly, when President Obama said that he would raise taxes as a matter of “fairness,” even if it resulted in less tax revenue, it showed that he had far more interest in the control of people than in what one would think would have been his goal — maximizing tax revenue.

In truth, the push for gun control is really just about making life safe for certain politicians so they can force their far-left agenda upon the public. And as we’ve been witness to as of late, that agenda goes well beyond the control of merely guns. When will Americans wake up and realize that control is a far too common theme amongst the Left? From the control of sodas, to cheeseburgers, to housing, to automobiles, to healthcare, to light bulbs, to plastic bags, to energy; the Democrats think that they, not the individual, are the ones that know best and should be empowered to control every aspect of Americans’ lives.

Perhaps President Obama should change his campaign slogan from “Forward” to “Control” because that appears to be the one true goal of the President and those who share his ideology.