Armed Self-Defense is Essential in a Free Society

The recent string of multiple-victim incidents of gun violence and police shootings of black Americans has once again resulted in renewed calls for restrictions on gun ownership. President Biden has said that executive instructions to various branches of the Federal government will attempt to reduce the frequency and possibility of such violence.

Source: Armed Self-Defense is Essential in a Free Society

BUT SCHOOL SHOOTINGS WERE UNKNOWN: Flashback: When toting guns in high school was cool. New Yor…

BUT SCHOOL SHOOTINGS WERE UNKNOWN: Flashback: When toting guns in high school was cool.

New York City high schoolers used to pack heat as often as they packed lunch.

This month, more than 100,000 city public school kids walked out to protest gun violence — but last century some students attended class armed with their rifles and practiced shooting on school grounds.

Many of the city’s public high schools had shooting clubs and a few even had gun ranges on their premises, according to accounts from the Department of Education and others.

Source: BUT SCHOOL SHOOTINGS WERE UNKNOWN: Flashback: When toting guns in high school was cool. New Yor…

Progressive Myths About Mass Shootings and Weapons of War

By James D. Agresti and William T. Reynolds March 31, 2021

Beyond the duplicity of highlighting race only when the killer is white and the victims are not, progressive lawmakers, activists, and journalists are using a litany of falsehoods in an attempt to ban common semi-automatic guns used for home defense and hunting.

….

Summary

In the wake of the Boulder supermarket massacre and other mass shootings, progressive activists, politicians, and journalists have misled the public about major aspects of these tragedies. In contrast to their claims:

  • Less than 1% of all murders in the U.S. occur in mass shootings, defined as shootings where four or more people are killed.

  • The defining feature of firearms commonly used in war is that they are automatic and have the capacity to fire multiple bullets with the single pull of a trigger.

  • AR-15s and other guns that progressives call “weapons of war” are actually semi-automatic guns that can fire only one bullet with each pull of a trigger.

  • Federal law has generally banned civilians from possessing military firearms— including machine guns and assault rifles—since 1986.

  • The 1986 ban is not associated with a decline in deaths from mass shootings.

  • Two years after automatic firearms were banned, progressives moved to ban certain semi-automatic guns by calling them “assault weapons,” a phrase that sounds like “assault rifles”—the most common type of military firearm.

  • A leading gun control activist wrote that their strategy to achieve a ban would take advantage of the “public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic” guns.

  • The guns that progressives are now seeking to ban are popular firearms used for home-defense and hunting.

  • Federal law banned such guns along with magazines that hold more than 10 rounds from September 1994 to 2004.

  • Magazine capacity restrictions give a strategic edge to the killers who plot mass shootings over law-abiding citizens who carry a gun to protect themselves and others.

  • Bearing in mind that association does not prove causation, the portion of the U.S. population killed in mass shootings in the decade after the ban expired rose by 12% compared to the decade while the ban was in effect.

  • The weapons banned in 1994 became more accessible in the early years of the ban.

  • Some infamous mass shooters have stated they were motivated to kill for the fame that the media bestows on the perpetrators of such massacres.

  • Perpetrators of indiscriminate mass shootings are far more likely to suffer from serious mental illness than the general public.

  • Bearing in mind that association does not prove causation, the average annual rate of indiscriminate mass shootings rose by more than five times along with the mass psychiatric deinstitutionalization that occurred in the U.S. from 1955 to 2010.

  • The U.S. has one of lowest rates of psychiatric institutionalization in the developed world, and Japan’s rate is about 10 times greater.

Source: Progressive Myths About Mass Shootings and Weapons of War

This Gun Shop Says It Won’t Do Business With Biden Voters

A Michigan-based ammunition shop is refusing to sell to any customer who voted for President Joe Biden in the 2020 election. ” We’ve had a few potential customers call this morning to ask why they have to check a box stating they did not vote for Joe Biden in order to purchase our ammunition,” Fenix Ammunition tweeted yesterday morning.

….

So which is it when private companies get political—a brave and respectable act, or something that should be totally disallowed and result in anyone who tries it getting destroyed?

Conservatives can’t have it both ways.

Source: This Gun Shop Says It Won’t Do Business With Biden Voters

Neither can Leftists. If the rule is, “private businesses can refuse to do business because they don’t feel like it”, they should not be too surprised when conservatives decide to play by the same rule.

Troubling That This Even Needs Considering

What happens if Democrats decide rioting is fine when done by non-Deplorables and citizens have to deal with riots:

When word is received that a flash mob is forming at one of their pre-reconnoitered intersections or highway interchanges, the SAV team will assemble. Sometimes cooperating police will pass tactical intel to their civilian friends on the outside. Some clever individuals will have exploited their technical know-how and military experience to build real-time intel collection tools, such as private UAVs. Police will have access to urban security camera footage showing MUYs moving barricade materials into position—a normal prerequisite to a flash mob riot intended to stop traffic. Tip-offs to the vigilantes will be common, and where the networks are still functioning, citizens may still be able to access some video feeds. Sometimes, police will even join the SAV teams, incognito and off-duty, blurring the teams into so-called “death squads.”

The operation I will describe (and it’s only one of dozens that will be tried) uses two ordinary pickup trucks and eight fighters. Two riflemen are lying prone in the back of each truck, facing rearward, with removable canvas covers concealing their presence. Their semi-automatic, scoped rifles are supported at their front ends on bipods for very accurate shooting. A row of protective sandbags a foot high is between them and the raised tailgate.

In the cab are a driver and a spotter in the passenger seat who also serves as the vehicle’s 360-degree security. The two trucks don’t ever appear on the same stretch of road, but coordinate their movements using one-word brevity codes over small FRS walkie-talkie radios. Each truck has a series of predetermined elevated locations where the intersection in question will lie between 200 and 500 yards away. Each truck is totally nondescript and forgettable, the only detail perhaps being the non-MUY ethnicity of the suburbanite driver and spotter driving relatively near to a riot in progress.

By the time the two SAV pickup trucks arrive at their firing positions on different streets and oriented ninety degrees to one another, the flash mob riot is in full swing. A hundred or more of the rampaging youths are posturing and throwing debris into traffic in order to intimidate some cars into stopping. The riflemen in the backs of the pickups are waiting for this moment and know what to expect, trusting their spotters and drivers to give them a good firing lane. The spotters in each truck issue a code word on their radios when they are in final position. The tailgates are swung down, and the leader among the riflemen initiates the firing. All-around security is provided by the driver and spotter.

Source: Troubling That This Even Needs Considering

A major function of the police is to protect criminals from mob justice. Remove that barrier, and we may not like what results.

Guns And Liberty, 2021: Part 2 — Stately McDaniel Manor

Last week’s installment of this updated series asked a fundamental question: Do human beings have an unalienable right to self-defense? There is no question the founding fathers of our constitutional, representative republic—we are not a democracy, thank God–believed they do–they must–and they acknowledged–not created–that unalienable, individual right in the Second Amendment. This was finally–in 2008 and 2010 […]

Guns And Liberty, 2021: Part 2 — Stately McDaniel Manor

Kenosha, Kyle Rittenhouse: Are People under the age of 18 Forbidden from Open Carry of Rifles in Wisconsin?

One of the questions involving the Kyle Rittenhouse defensive engagements in Kenosha, Wisconsin, just before midnight on the 25th of August, 2020, is if Kyle was forbidden from carrying an AR15 rifle, because Kyle was, at that time, four months short of his 18th birthday.

The explanation of the law at ar15.com is very good. However, I thought it could profitably be elaborated for those who do not read the law extensively.

Wisconsin Statute 948.60 regulates the possession of a dangerous weapon by persons under 18 years old. In paragraph (2) (a) it states:

(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

Paragraph (3) lists exceptions. (3)(c) excludes most people who are under 18, except those in violation of 941.28 or 29.304 and 29.539.

except those in violation of 941.28 or 29.304 and 29.539.

(c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28.

Statute 948.60 only applies to a person under the age of 18 who are in violation of 941.28 or not in compliance with 29.304 and 29.593.

What does it take to be in violation of 941.28? Here is the statute:

(2) No person may sell or offer to sell, transport, purchase, possess or go armed with a short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle.

In the statute, short-barreled shotguns or short-barreled rifles are those which require a special license under the National Firearms Act. In general, those are rifles with a barrel less than 16 inches in length or shotguns with a barrel less than 18 inches in length, or which have an over all length less than 26 inches.

The rifle carried by Kyle Rittenhouse, as an ordinary AR15 type, does not fall into those categories, so Kyle was not violating 941.28.

Was Kyle in violation of Wisconsin statute 29.304 and statute 29.539? These statutes deal with hunting regulation and with people under the age of 16 carrying rifles and shotguns. First, statute 29.304:

29.304 Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age.


(b) Restrictions on possession or control of a firearm. No person 14 years of age or older but under 16 years of age may have in his or her possession or control any firearm unless he or she:

Kyle is reported to be over 16 years old, so he was not violating statute 29.304.

How about statute 29.539?

29.593 Requirement for certificate of accomplishment to obtain hunting approval.

Kyle was not hunting, so statute 29.539 does not apply.

To sum up: Wisconsin statutes 948.60 only forbids people under the age of 18 from possessing or carrying dangerous weapons in very limited cases. If a person is 16 years of age or older, the statute only applies to rifles and shotguns which are covered under the National Firearms Act as short barreled rifles or shotguns. People who are hunting have to comply with the hunting regulations, and there are general restrictions for people under the age of 16.

Source: Kenosha, Kyle Rittenhouse: Are People under the age of 18 Forbidden from Open Carry of Rifles in Wisconsin?

Police Say Suspected Antifa Hit-Man Stalked Pro-Trump Victim Before Portland Murder

Michael Forest Reinoehl, a self-described anti-fascist who said he provided security for Portland racial justice protests, appears to have targeted a participant in a pro-Trump rally, emerging from an alcove of a parking garage before firing two gunshots, one that hit the man’s bear spray can and the other that proved fatal, according to a police affidavit unsealed Friday.

Police found a single Winchester .380-caliber bullet casing on the street, a metal canister of “Bear Attack Detector” that had a “large defect” in it and a collapsible metal baton just north of Aaron “Jay” Danielson’s body, a detective said in the affidavit.

….

Reinoehl is seen hiding in an alcove of the garage and reaching into a pouch or waistband as Danielson and a friend, Chandler Pappas, walk south on Third Avenue.

Homicide Detective Rico Beniga wrote that Reinoehl “conceals himself, waits and watches” as Danielson and Pappas pass him.

After the two men go by, Reinoehl followed them, walking west across the street moments before the gunshots were fired, police said.

Investigators said it appeared as if Reinoehl stood holding his gun with both hands extended when he fired. After the shots, his right hand remained extended and pointed at Danielson before he turned to run away, police said.

Source: Police Say Suspected Antifa Hit-Man Stalked Pro-Trump Victim Before Portland Murder

Shades of Dan Rather in Jeffrey Goldberg’s anti-Trump hit piece

(Paul Mirengoff) Should we believe the story, reported by the Atlantic’s editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg, that President Trump made disparaging comments about American soldiers who died in Normandy? I don’t. Trump has a very nasty side, but I doubt he made the nasty comments Goldberg’s attributes to him.

Source: Shades of Dan Rather in Jeffrey Goldberg’s anti-Trump hit piece