Printable 30 Round Magazines for AR15s

Cody Wilson, founder of "Defense Distributed fired a total of 342 rounds using the magazine with no issues...“The mag won’t fail in limited engagements,” he added.""



The story is here. It includes a partially printed AR as well.

More on the LA Police Shooting Two Latina Women They Thought was a Big Black Man

The LA Times follows up on the LA Police shooting two LA Times employees/contractors.

Police were on the lookout for Christopher Jordan Dorner,...The radio call indicated that the truck matched the description of Dorner's gray Nissan Titan.

...As the vehicle approached the house, officers opened fire, unloading a barrage of bullets into the back of the truck. When the shooting stopped, they quickly realized their mistake. The truck was not a Nissan Titan, but a Toyota Tacoma. The color wasn't gray, but aqua blue. And it wasn't Dorner inside the truck, but a woman and her mother delivering copies of the Los Angeles Times.

There used to be a saying along the lines of "Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel." I guess it's OK in some quarters to open fire on their employees or contractors, though.

Law enforcement sources told The Times that at least seven officers opened fire. On Friday, the street was pockmarked with bullet holes in cars, trees, garage doors and roofs. Residents said they wanted to know what happened.

"How do you mistake two Hispanic women, one who is 71, for a large black male?" said Richard Goo, 62, who counted five bullet holes in the entryway to his house.

Sounds like there may have been a lot more than the at least 46 rounds I thought were fired.

Whether fairly or not, a lot of people commenting on the story are wondering if the LA Police were more interested in executing their suspect than in capturing him.

My original post here.

My Noble Readers

Gotta love 'em! Commentor Number Two does mention putting lithium in the water supply. Might be a good idea.

Concealed Carry on College Campus?

The problem still boils down to the fact that prohibitions on guns in the classroom will be observed only by those who we don't need to worry about. The people we do need to worry about will not be deterred. That has been proven by every killer who has shot people in supposedly gun-free zones. Only the victims were disarmed by the prohibition.

I am baffled by obviously intelligent people who are unable to grasp that concept. It is remarkably common though.

Designating a college campus as a gun-free zone will not make it one. It will, however, turn it into target-rich disarmed victim zone.

The column which inspired that minor comment is here.

Hawaii State Senator on the 1st Amendment

Gotta love the people we elect to serve in the Hawaii state legislature.

Sen. J. Kalani English (D, Molokai-Lanai-Upcountry Maui-Hana)...told reporters...that the First Amendment protects the right to report the news, not to gather the news.

They have a fine grasp of the Constitution up at the Hawaii State Senate. One might almost call it subtle.

This was in response to a genuine problem faced by celebrities whose privacy is being invaded by paparazzi. Aerosmith singer Steven Tyler told the state senators:

"But when I'm in my own home and I'm taking a shower, or changing clothes, or eating, or spending Christmas with my children, and I see paparazzi a mile away at La Perouse (Bay) shooting at me with lenses this long, and then seeing that very picture in People magazine — you know, it hurts."

Tyler and Mick Fleetwood, the drummer of Fleetwood Mac, who has a home in Kula, asked senators to give celebrities and other public figures the legal right to file civil lawsuits against photographers who violate their privacy.

In other non-surprising non-news, Hawaii pols and judges understand that the state and federal constitutions, both of which specify that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, of course empowers them to make bearing arms a felony.

Sophistication, thy name is Politician.

False Flag Operation Against the Tea Party?

The San Francisco Division of the FBI has a news release about the arrest of a would be bomber who hoped blame for the blast would be directed toward anti-government types.

According to the affidavit filed in support of the criminal complaint, on November 30, 2012, Llaneza met with a man who led him to believe he was connected with the Taliban and the mujahidin in Afghanistan. In reality, this man was an undercover FBI agent. At this initial meeting, Llaneza proposed conducting a car-bomb attack against a bank in the San Francisco Bay Area. He proposed structuring the attack to make it appear that the responsible party was an umbrella organization for a loose collection of anti-government militias and their sympathizers. Llaneza’s stated goal was to trigger a governmental crackdown, which he expected would trigger a right-wing counter-response against the government followed by, he hoped, civil war.

There is nothing in the release to suggest his motive.

Bob Hope on Zombies

I see the LA cops fired at least 46 rounds at...

...two innocent Latina women in a pick up truck which was the wrong color, wrong model, with the wrong number of occupants, of the wrong size, wrong sex, and wrong skin color, and still didn't kill either one of them.

Someone should have a little chat with their shooting instructor.

I can see why the LAPD doesn't want mere citizens to carry guns. In some parts of LA the ladies would have shot back.

Interesting picture, though.

Wisconsin Gun Bans

A couple weeks ago I got an email survey from a former state representative of mine in Wisconsin who has kept me on his email list. Judging from his previous messages, he is pretty much opposed to anything I would interpret as a reasonable reading of the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution, especially so if one reads some of the surviving records of the state ratification debates.

Since he is no longer my rep I didn't complete the survey, but did send him an email in return.

Dear Representative XXXX,

Thanks for sending your legislative survey.

I noticed that Question 2, Public Safety, includes "Prohibit gun straw purchases". It is my understanding that this is already a federal felony, and that the federal government sees fit to prosecute roughly 70 out of about 70,000 violators each year.

If there was some reason to believe that the State of Wisconsin would have a better record of prosecutions than the federal government, I could support increased penalties at the state level, but just enforcing state law as it stands today seems to be too much to ask of the state. Increasing penalties is pointless if you refuse to prosecute anyone now. I think it would be much more effective to aggressively prosecute under existing law rather than increase penalties but refuse to prosecute.

As for banning assault rifles and high capacity magazines, I oppose banning them for several reasons.

1) According to FBI statistics, rifles of all kinds accounted for 323 homicides nationally in 2011. In the general scheme of US homicides, this is a very small number, and the number which might be accounted for by assault rifles in Wisconsin is smaller still. (source: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11 ) That is important for reason 2:

2) A ban on either assault rifles or high capacity magazines will clearly be highly divisive. Given that there is little reason to think that a ban would significantly reduce killings, would a ban be worth the hostility toward government which would clearly result?

3) A ban on either would be almost certainly held unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has already held that the 2nd Amendment protects the right to arms, and the "militia" part of the 2nd Amendment makes it clear that the Framers were most concerned with military weapons, not sporting weapons. I have to believe that, whether we like it or not, the greatest constitutional protection is given contemporary military style weapons and their magazines.

4) Given point 3), a non-trivial number of people might engage in armed resistance, and that would be far worse for our country than the deaths of some fraction of 323 people (many probably themselves criminals) per year.

I have heard some people liken resisting bans of military-style weapons and magazines to the situation of a hitchhiker picked up by a van driver who tries to persuade him/her to allow the driver to handcuff the hitchhiker to a ring bolt in the floor. "Just let me handcuff you and everything will be fine. Really. Don't force me get violent. Just let me make you helpless and you will be all right. I'm OK, and you will be too. Let me handcuff you to the ring bolt." They ask "Is that the time to let oneself be handcuffed, or is that the time to fight to the death?"

Once you have allowed yourself to be handcuffed, you are 100% dependent on the continued good will of the driver and of whoever the driver may turn you over to. You have no options because you surrendered them to the driver who assured you that surrender was better than fighting.

In the case of government, you are 100% dependent on the continued good will of not only today's government but of whatever that government might evolve into over decades. So are your children and your grandchildren, and so on. In the 19th century Germany was a great Western industrial country with a major intellectual tradition. In 1913 would anyone sane have believed that within a middle aged adult's remaining lifetime the government would build death factories and murder 6 million people? Of course not. They would have risked being locked up as nuts.

But that didn't stop the Holocaust.

My point is two-fold: Some believe that because we cannot control the future, the benign intent of today's legislators is irrelevant to the long-term consequences of a ban. There are gun owners who, rightly or wrongly, believe they have a constitutionally protected right to military weapons. Some small fraction of them may well use their weapons to defend that right. It does not matter that current efforts are benign, nor if gun owners are correct or not, all that matters to their behavior is their belief.

I hope that you will work to prosecute straw purchasers under existing law, and that you will resist a divisive, probably unconstitutional, ban.

Sincerely yours,

Tom Bosworth

If you are interested in what the Framers and those who ratified the 2nd Amendment are recorded as saying, try "The Founders' Second Amendment: Origins of the Right to Bear Arms" by Stephen P. Halbrook.

Dinner

Poached salmon
Brown rice
Tomato salad
Dinner

Hors d'oeuvres

Three avocados
First brown mush
Second like a board
Last just right
Guacamole tonight

World's Shortest Horror Movie

I'm pretty sure I embedded this one before, but it bears repeat coverage.



The technical description for this gentleman's actions is "He committed an Ooopsie, Man!"

Sandy Hook Father's Testimony on Gun Control

"...from my cold, dead hands." Bill Stevens.



One might ask the politicians: "How many of us are you willing to kill in order to disarm the rest?" Demand a straight answer.