Category name:Commentary

I don’t care what study says otherwise, women can defend themselves

Original article: Gun ownership does not make women safer from the Boston Globe

This is an example of showing that a study will prove exactly what you set out to prove.

First they attack the statement that a woman with a firearm can defend herself. In fact, they even go as far as to say that they have discredited its possibility by citing a particular study.

However, the study doesn’t have anything to do with women owning a firearm!
Instead the study actually says that women, who are around more people with firearms are more likely to get harmed by a firearm. hmm…no  mention of the rates of firearm ownership by women though.

Is that like the study that concluded that if you own a firearm, that you are more likely to get shot with your own firearm?

“The presence of a gun is the biggest risk factor for domestic violence deaths among women.”
Really? The “biggest” risk factor? So, if a woman knows someone with multiple firearms (gasp!) is she exponentially more in danger? Right. It’s the gun(s), not the person – got it.

The article also strikes me as sexist in its implications that a woman cannot handle a firearm. In me experience, that is simply not true.

Bloomberg group attacks VA Governor for daring to…compromise?


Anti-gun groups are quick to say that pro-gun people are unreasonable and unwilling to compromise.
But apparently, they are quick to attack any pro-gun control supporter who might be willing to make a compromise. Hypocritical much?

Their complaints are very weak. Each side got something, and to use the anti-gunners’ mantra:
“If it saves just one life!”

They wanted people with protective orders against them to not be able to give/sell their firearms away, but rather be required to give them to law enforcement. Why?

And the universal background checks requirement for gun shows is voluntary with a stationed police officer at gun shows didn’t go far enough. But “if it saves just one life”? Right?

It essentially restores status quo of CCW reciprocity that existed before the AG’s “re-examination” and to quote the article: “…in exchange for tighter restrictions on gun ownership by domestic abusers and voluntary background checks at gun shows.”

Sounds good, right? Apparently not! I guess unless it is completely draconian or has the word “ban” in it, it is no good.

Let’s also not forget the fact that there were a couple of bills introduced that would have reversed the CCW reciprocity AG ruling anyway. One attempted to make VA a CCW license-less state which would honor any state’s CCW license!

In the end (and being from the Commonwealth myself) I like Gov. McAuliffe’s response:

McAuliffe dismissed the criticism during an appearance in Northern Virginia, saying “everybody supports [the gun deal] except one gun-safety group out of New York City.”

Appellate court sends back Maryland’s “because they’re scary” assault weapons ban

This is a refreshing ruling from the 4th Circuit Appellate Court. The 3 judge panel ruled that the “because they are scary” justification to ban assault weapons is too vague and that it could effectively used to ban anything, sending the case back to district court.

This is actually a fairly decent article on the topic:

What is frightening is what the dissenting judge said. He said that people would die because of this ruling. Wow, what rhetoric. I find that judge to be too scary to be a sitting judge.

VA Gov & Republicans reach compromise on firearm reciprocity

Well, this is an interesting twist. I am kind of impressed that a bipartisan agreement was reached in the Commonwealth of Virginia, however, I am alarmed that the Governor’s Office (and Attorney General) have the ability to enforce/interpret the law.

Regardless, it looks like states will be added back in. I know that there are also several bills being floated that would make Virginia a permit-less state and one that would require them to honor any other state’s CCW license.




Original article that VA was removing 25 states from their reciprocity list:


When you don’t have public support parade Hollywood actors

I guess when you don’t have public support for your gun control schemes Obama Fails To Sway Public on Gun Control, Poll Finds:

Just 42% of the public thinks stricter gun control laws will help keep guns out of the hands of criminals, while 52% think increased gun ownership increases public safety.

You need to pull out the celebrity card. Because celebrities are smarter than the voting public. If you read their statement, which is devoid of anything except rhetoric, I think you will agree that they are not. Actually, considering that a lot of these folks make a living depicting people who use guns to save their own and others’ lives I think we have to wonder how they sleep at night. Double-standard much?

You can read the non-statement here:
Dozens of Hollywood A-Listers Sign Letter Backing Obama on Gun Control


More importantly here is the list of “A list” signers:

Jessica Alba, Judd Apatow, Alan Arkin, Dylan Baker, André Balazs, Talia Balsam, Elizabeth Banks, Jason Bateman, Tony Bennet, Aloe Blacc, Dustin Lance Black, T Bone Burnett, Steve Buscemi, Sophia Bush, Nick Cannon, Graydon Carter, Maverick Carter, Rosanne Cash, Liza Chasin, Andy Cohen, Bruce Cohen, Marc Cohn, Kenneth Cole, Maria Cuomo Cole, Bradley Cooper, Victor Cruz, Rosemarie DeWitt, Griffin Dunne, Jay Duplass, Mark Duplass, Steve Earle, Rich Eisen, Noah Emmerich, Carolyn Everson, Edie Falco, Marshall Faulk, Will Ferrell, Viveca Paulin-Ferrell, Jenna Fischer, Rupert Friend, Scott Fujita, Nely Galán, Alex Gansa, Victor Garber, Tony Goldwyn, Clark Gregg, Jennifer Grey, Ted Griffin, Dan Gross, Paul Haggis, Jon Hamm, John Benjamin Hickey, David and Joan Hill, Rondae Hollis-Jefferson, Arianna Huffington, Timothy Hutton, In-Q, Brad Jakeman, Richard Jenkins, Beverly Johnson, Rashida Jones, Michael Keaton, Michael J Kelly, Neil LaBute, Donna Langley, Kristin Lemkau, Nanette Lepore, Ben Lerer, Tracy Letts, Ron Livingston, Justin Long, Carey Lowell, Josh Lucas, Tobey Maguire, Julianna Margulies, Tom McCarthy, Adam McKay, Kelly Meyer, Ron Meyer, Julianne Moore, Mandy Moore, Elisabeth Moss, Olivia Munn, Liam Neeson, Edward Norton, Sarah Jessica Parker, Mandy Patinkin, Sarah Paulson, Amanda Peet, Jeremy Piven, Josh Radnor, Paul Rivera, Shauna Robertson, Holly Robinson Peete, Paul Rudd, Mark Ruffalo, Richard Schiff, Taylor Schilling, James Schwab, David Schwimmer, Adam Scott, Naomi Scott, Suzy Shuster, John Slattery, Sir Martin Sorrell, Nicholas Stoller, Steve Stoute, Ed Templeton, David Wain, Robyn Wholey, Kristen Wiig, Olivia Wilde, Debra Winger


Sue happy gun company “Smith & Wesson” (registered trademark) threatens again…but then apologizes

Many of you will remember that I received a letter from the company known as “Smith & Wesson” (registered trademark), who I have no affiliation with, a while ago that caused me not to mention their name ever again (unless qualified with legal disclaimers). They required me to remove all items from this website that might POSSIBLY be claimed as copyright infringement- the letter even specifically mentioned promotional items that I actually own personally. So remove pics of my coffee mug that their own employee gave me? Got it. 

I am not posting anything directly on their latest sue threat against a number of companies including Brownells, but here are a couple of links:


When you buy, I urge to consider what type of company you are buying from – I will again this year be posting a picture only from outside their SHOT Show booth.

12/23/2015 ADDENDUM: The president of the company in question has released a statement that they did not intend on the ‘cease and desist’ to say that owners could not modify their own pistols without infringing on their intellectual property but they were merely trying to protect their copyrights and not confuse the consumers who might think that they endorsed said products/modifications (sound familiar?) It adds that they are “enthusiastic” about such products. As long as you don’t use their name, name of the product, or pictures of your work.

Back peddling link:


ADDENDUM2: The president of the company has called the parties involved personally to apologize and has also publicly.

Link from their Facebook page to BearingArms article:

ADDENDUM3: Some have suggested that I remove this and “let it go” because it is “negative” towards the “industry.” The company “Smith & Wesson” (registered trademark which I have no affiliation) is NOT the industry and are the only company actively pursuing its own support base.


I choose not to support them. There a lot of gun manufacturers that have not threatened to sue me. 

And the other big one (Ruger) has been removing their “internal locks” not requiring that you buy a much more expensive “Performance Center” (registered trademark) model not to have one.  

All trademarks are held by their respective holders – I am not affiliated with any of them. 

CA State Lt Gov preparing initiative on BAN on “tactical” firearms and magazines & Federal HR4269

Despite the fact that recent polls show that support for an “assault weapons” ban is at an all-time low

the anti-gun supporters have been pushing new bans on what they either don’t understand (or don’t care). We know that in the end that the target is ALL semi-autos. The anti-gunners are not shy about listing Australia as one of their models.

Here’s is what is going on —

HR4269 was filed in the U.S. House:
Details are sketchy since there is no summary or text of the bill yet, but rumors say that it is targets any semi-auto that can take a >10rd mag and has one “tactical” feature.
No word if wearing cargo pants counts as a tactical feature.

More frighteningly the California Lt. Governor is finishing up work on a State-wide initiative that does even worse – a total outright ban without any grand fathering. No due process? How progressive.


I can only think of all the people who have been calling gun owners “paranoid” and saying that “nobody wants to take your guns away.”
Yeah, right.


We know what they mean by “assault weapons”…semi-autos of course, and some pants

A surprising number of people (mostly non-gun owners) have been rallying around the term “assault weapon.” I have seen numerous articles and social media posts/memes saying “Nobody needs an assault weapon! That’s not for hunting! Ban assault weapons now!” etc. They seem to have missed the big problem that they can’t even define what an “assault weapon” is! Ah, but they do know, at least some of them…read on.

The anti-gun crowd like to describe “assault weapons” with broad vague strokes saying that they are “designed for killing,” they have “mass capacity feeding devices,” “they use too powerful bullets” etc.

However, try to write legislation based on that! Well, the U.S. Congress did in 1994 and passed a 10 year “assault weapons ban” (AWB). How did that go?

Well, manufacturers and people looked at the definitions and modified the firearms so that they met the requirements. Even after 2004, when the AWB expired 10 years later, CA continued with its own restrictions. People cried afoul that the firearms were still available with a few cosmetic changes – which is because that is the way that the bill’s authors wrote it- based on cosmetic features that had little to do with a firearm’s lethality. They said that it violated the “spirit of the law.” Ah, but what is that? (keep reading)

And as for CA, people are crying afoul because the firearms recently used were ILLEGALLY modified. These changes didn’t violate the spirit of the law. They outright violated the law.

So, with so many articles, editorials and comments about “assault weapons,” what are they exactly again?

I don’t know, but will know when I see one.

Yep, that’s the comment that I am seeing more and more. What the hell does that mean???? And less importantly we have seen the rise of a new term: “assault-style” as in “assault-style clothes.” I see a pocket capacity limitation coming for cargo pants, but I digress.

It is not very hard to boil down the what anti-gunners view as the “spirit of the law” and the firearm features that they object to:

  1. semi-automatic
  2. magazine fed (not even necessarily a detachable magazine, as I believe that they object to clips, tubes, etc. as “mass feeding”)

Yes, I seriously believe when they say “assault weapons” they mean semi-auto. Sounds more menacing doesn’t it? Especially when you consider that the most prevalent rifle in the U.S. for ownership and new purchases is the AR-15 and that the majority of hand gun purchases are semi-auto (I would be surprised if it wasn’t 90%).

Basically, almost every gun owner in the United States owns what could be considered an “assault weapon.”
Think about that the next time you read an article or meme calling for the ban and/or confiscation of “assault weapons.”  Instant criminalization of gun owners.

And the anti-gun crowd is at least being honest about it now.

What a change it has been though. Just in Oct. prevalent thinking was like this article in the Washington Post ( that said:

Few gun control advocates promote the idea of ending individual gun ownership. All of the major gun control organizations have come out in favor of individual gun ownership. All of them are fighting for more effective laws to prevent criminals or the mentally ill from getting their hands on guns.

Remember, it was only a couple of weeks ago that anti-gun people were calling gun owners “paranoid” and saying that “nobody wants to take your guns away?”

While today (Dec 4, 2015) we have this from the New York Times (

It is a moral outrage and a national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed specifically to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency…

and more directly to the point:

Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership. It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.

And despite the fact that the author admits that it will not stop the mass killings:

They point out that determined killers obtained weapons illegally in places like France, England and Norway that have strict gun laws. Yes, they did.

He justifies it because at least they (other countries) did something:

But at least those countries are trying. The United States is not.

There you have it!! In black and white for the entire Nation to read. This is something that I believe that the NYT has ALWAYS believed as I believe the ultimate goal of many (if not all) anti-gun control supporters. This is not the only editorial that has this sentiment. After the recent shooting there was an editorial from UK Guardian calling for the assassination (!) of NRA Members (which I unsurprisingly can’t find now) or this article from Vox (which has been out a while) saying that gun owners should be shot as a requirement of owning a gun:

“Reasonable regulation” or “common sense”? Hardly.


Random Facts:
# of gun confiscated in Australia? There are conflicting reports but estimates are between 700K and 1 milliion.
# of guns in gun restrictive California? Over 10 million.

CA incidentally has a program to confiscate firearms from felons. Read about its high cost here:



  • version 2.1

  • Categories
    • Local (PNW) (16)
    • Media and Entertainment (8)
    • Uncategorized (13)
  • Archives