BornLib's Blog

Life, Liberty, and the Firearms that protect them both

Archive for March 2013

The ‘Colorado Model’

leave a comment »

BayouRenaissanceMan: The ‘Colorado Model’: the danger spreads?

I daresay readers have heard mention of the ‘Colorado model‘, the techniques used by activists in the Democratic Party to take control of the state government of Colorado.  They’ve just used that control to ram through draconian gun control legislation, in the face of enormous opposition from their constituents – opposition that they deliberately, contemptuously and defiantly ignored.  The Examiner, true to its name, examined the situation in a recent article.

I had not actually heard of this before.  People need to be made aware of the danger.

Written by BornLib

March 26, 2013 at 4:36 pm

Posted in Liberalism

Dishonest Solutions

leave a comment »

That’s the title of Colion Noir’s newest and most excellent piece for NRA News:

Written by BornLib

March 26, 2013 at 4:13 pm

Mike Bloomberg: “I do think there are certain times we should infringe on your freedom”

leave a comment »

Yes Mikey, we’ve noticed.

Courtesy of Ben Howe:

Mike Bloomberg: “I do think there are certain times we should infringe on your freedom”

Now he wasn’t talking about guns when he said this, but he might have well have been doing so.  For him, and people like him, this philosophy extends to everything.

Also, as Howe pointed out: “Make special note of Bloomberg’s use of “we” and “you.” “We” is he and the other elites, unencumbered by such infringements since they are the ones that make the rules, not the ones that live by them.”

But apparently my attitude is anti-Semitic, according to Mike Barnicle and Al Sharpton.

Written by BornLib

March 25, 2013 at 6:55 pm

Posted in Liberalism

It’s all one big crooked mess

leave a comment »

NRO: End Medicaid’s Crony Federalism

The GOP governors engaged in these direct negotiations with the White House are playing a loser’s game, and throwing away a historic opportunity to secure fundamental and lasting reform of the Medicaid program. Even if individual states are able to secure concessions from HHS and the White House, the “deals” they strike will be in the form of temporary and inconsequential “waivers” (the terms of which will always be subject to administration amendment and revision, too). What’s worse, these deals are no way to run a national program. Why should one state receive more favorable treatment than others? And why should the administration be allowed to “buy off” states with federal taxpayer funds in the first place?

Written by BornLib

March 25, 2013 at 6:14 pm

Posted in Liberalism

Color Them Blind by Heather Mac Donald – City Journal

leave a comment »

Color Them Blind by Heather Mac Donald – City Journal.

That statement is deceptive in a number of ways. Goldstein underplays the fact that McCormack was talking about a specific robbery pattern with specific suspect descriptions from victims and witnesses; it is absurd to suggest that race be omitted from crime information given to officers about actual perpetrators. If whites had been committing the crimes, being white would have been in the suspect description that McCormack used at roll call. Further, when victims report the skin color of suspects, that’s just one factor in the determination of whom to stop for a reported crime pattern; suspicious behavior, location, and time of day are equally important, as McCormack made patently clear. Goldstein has no basis for alleging that McCormack is making it the “deciding factor.” He leans on the fact that McCormack did not spell out the behaviors that suggest that a suspect may be casing a robbery victim during his exchange with Serrano, but the inspector had already made it clear that stops were not to be indiscriminate. This was a hypothetical example, in any case, raised during the broader discussion of whether Serrano was putting enough effort into his job. The Times’s position comes down to this: If blacks are committing particular crimes, the police cannot even mention race in their suspect descriptions.

That argument means that if police target their enforcement activity at high-crime areas, they will necessarily be accused by the Times of racial profiling. The 40th Precinct is 26 percent black, but in 2011, blacks committed over 52 percent of all violent crime there, according to victims and witnesses of those crimes. Neither the Times nor the advocates have ever said what they think police stop ratios should look like in light of such crime figures. In fact, blacks made up 53 percent of all stops, 43 percent of which were made on suspicion of weapons possession. The Times’s front-page article went beyond even what the plaintiffs’ attorneys in Floyd asserted. Though attorney Jonathan Moore questioned Serrano on the stand about his heated exchange with McCormack, the focus of his questioning was to establish the existence of quotas; the race issue was at best a secondary concern.

I’ve been told that similar claims of racism are what doomed Over-the-Rhine to being abandoned by the police.  As terrible an AG as I think Holder is, I don’t think his legacy is going to be half as destructive as Janet Reno’s.

Written by BornLib

March 25, 2013 at 5:41 pm

Posted in Cops, Liberalism

I don’t watch TV, yet liberals always assume I’ve been brainwashed by Fox News

leave a comment »

Via Why Liberals Still Detest Fox News.

If Kakutani and the legions of liberals who blast Fox reporters for not reporting the news from a liberal perspective think there is something wrong about that it is because they are so used to dominating the news media, both print and broadcast, that they still think Ailes has done something wrong in providing viewers with another way of looking at the world.

Of course, the real difference between Fox and its competitors is not so much its divergence from liberalism as Ailes’s honesty about the fact that his network has a different frame of reference.

Written by BornLib

March 25, 2013 at 5:29 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

Is this good news? It sounds like good news…

leave a comment »

… until you get into the nitty-gritty.

Michael J. Totten: Lebanon’s Pro-Hezbollah Government Collapses

The Lebanese political situation was more complicated than I had realized.  Totten paints a grim picture as well.  The situation sounds very unstable, with a real chance of serious violence.

Written by BornLib

March 25, 2013 at 5:17 pm

Posted in Arab Spring

“Smart guns” and dumb journalists

leave a comment »

Bob Owens: NY Times editorialist Joe Nocera deceives readers about ‘smart gun’ technology

There have been, for decades, attempts to create devices to keep unauthorized users from firing firearms. The overwhelming majority of these devices have been developed with the law enforcement market in mind, because of the relatively high percentage of police officers murdered with their own firearms. There have been attempts to use magnets, electronics, radio signals, micro-processors, biometrics and other devices to restrict the access of firearms to authorized users only.

They’ve been tested by manufacturers. They’ve been examined by the military, as well as deep-pocketed law enforcement agencies on the local, state, and federal level, and yet, not a single military or law enforcement agency in the United States OR THE REST OF THE WORLD uses smart gun technology to equip their rank and file.

Not any department, agency, or division.



Read the whole thing; it is a truly epic takedown.

Written by BornLib

March 25, 2013 at 3:40 pm

If they were smart they wouldn’t be supporting gun control

leave a comment »

The Daily Beast: Did the Assault-Weapons Ban Kill Gun Control?

Banning the sale of assault weapons was a bad idea from the start. These guns may be scary looking, but they are rarely used in criminal activity. While involved in a handful of high-profile mass shootings, including in Newtown, Connecticut, and Aurora, Colorado, these weapons aren’t a significant contributor to gun violence overall. Only a fraction of gun-related homicides every year are attributed to rifles of any kind; assault rifles make up a fraction of a fraction. And anyone looking to do maximum damage, like a deranged mass killer, can easily find other guns just as deadly. So even if the assault-weapons ban were enacted, it would not have a major impact on America’s daily death toll from guns.

Of course, we’ve known this since even before the last ban.  Here is how a Washington Post Editorial explained it back on Sept., 15, 1994:

“No one should have any illusions about what was accomplished (by the ban).  Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime.  The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control.”

The simple fact of the matter is, gun control advocates didn’t care then and don’t care now.

Assault weapons are often misunderstood. Although many people mistakenly believe that these guns have automatic fire, that’s wrong. They aren’t machine guns, which are already heavily restricted and illegal to sell in most cases. The weapons primarily covered by Feinstein’s proposal, largely variants of the AR-15, fire only one round for each pull of the trigger.

Not mentioned in the article is that this is not a mistake:

“In a September 1988 report on “assault weapons” that he prepared for the Education Fund to End Handgun Violence, gun control advocate Josh Sugarmann candidly observed: “The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these guns.”

This is an act of intentional deception.

One reason these guns are misunderstood is that there’s no set definition of “assault weapon.”

In other words, it’s a term invented for political purposes that means whatever the gun control advocate wants it to mean at that particular moment.  Or as Bruce H. Kobayashi and Joseph E. Olson put it:

“Prior to 1989, the term “assault weapon” did not exist in the lexicon of firearms. It is a political term, developed by anti-gun publicists to expand the category of “assault rifles” so as to allow an attack on as many additional firearms as possible on the basis of undefined “evil” appearance.”

The guns targeted by Feinstein’s proposal were mainly semiautomatic rifles with detachable magazines and one or more military-style characteristics, like a pistol grip or a folding butt stock. This wasn’t the same definition used by the prior federal law enacted in the Clinton years. That ban required two or more military-style features. One thing the two laws would have had in common, though, is the ability to be easily skirted by gun manufacturers. Just as with the old ban, gun makers would just make the exact same guns, only without the military characteristics. And sell them by the millions.

President Obama gun control plan from January 16th referred to this process:

“That ban was an important step, but manufacturers were able to circumvent the prohibition with cosmetic modifications to their weapons.”

They removed the cosmetic features which the law banned.  That’s not circumventing the law.  That is complying with the law.

That’s what many gun-control advocates failed to realize about the assault-weapons ban: the same gun, with the same rate of fire, the same bullets, and the same detachable magazine, would be perfectly lawful. It’s as if the problem with “assault weapons” wasn’t their lethality but their pistol grips.

Refering back to Bruce H. Kobayashi and Joseph E. Olson again: “The key elements of this definition are looks or style (“cosmetically similar”), the absence of a rational difference from “good” guns (“functionally identical”), and the availability of non-functional accessories (“detachable box magazine” etc.).” Since determinations of similar appearances or style vary from person to person, the political nature of the concept and its ambiguity were exposed early.”

There was one certain impact of proposing to ban the sale of assault weapons: it was guaranteed to stir gun-rights proponents to action. Ever since Obama was elected, they’ve been claiming that he wanted to ban guns. Gun-control advocates mocked this claim—then proposed to ban a gun. Not only that, the gun they were trying to ban happened to be the most popular rifle in America. It’s one thing to ban machine guns, which few law-abiding people ever wanted or used. It’s another thing entirely to ban a gun that millions of American gun enthusiasts love to shoot.

The Obama camp has been talking about bringing back the Assault Weapon Ban for years.  AG Eric Holder even mentioned the administration’s desire to bring back the AWB in testimony before Congress!  I know politicians lie a lot but how does believing what Holder says about his own boss make me a conspiracy nut?

Ironically, the people who may be saddest to see Feinstein’s proposal go down are the gun-rights hardliners. They knew all along that the ban was riddled with loopholes, was easy to evade, and had little potential to impact crime.

And you know this because the “gun-rights hardliners” have actually been telling everyone that “the ban was riddled with loopholes, was easy to evade, and had little potential to impact crime,” this entire time, unlike gun-control hardliners who have actively tried to suppress this information.

That’s in part why they wanted to focus on this proposal, rather than on background checks…

Which will be easy for criminals to evade and have little potential impact on crime.  Open secret: criminals get most of their guns by stealing them or from straw purchasers.  Background checks affect neither of these things.  Also, both of those things are already illegal.

“Yet it’s harder for them to make a persuasive public case against background checks…”

Take a look at what the proposed law will actually do and tell me with a straight face this is about preventing another Newtown.  Also, there was that little thing you might have heard about where the Obama DOJ says the success of universal background checks would depend in part on “requiring gun registration.”

… or magazine restrictions, which, in allowing people to have 10 rounds plus readily available, already-loaded replacement magazines, didn’t interfere with self-defense.

As this sheriff was kind of enough to demonstrate, you have that that backwards.  Because criminals in general, and mass shooters in particular, are the aggressors, they can prepare as many firearms and magazines in advance as they want for their destructive purposes.  The thirteen 10 round magazines for the Hi-Point 995 used at Columbine  and the nineteen 10 and 15 round magazines used at Virginia Tech are the most immediate historical examples.  In contrast, the lawful citizen engaged in self-defense is limited to what they have readily at hand.  People who carry handguns for self defense often dispense with the inconvenience of carrying spare magazines or carry only one.

Written by BornLib

March 22, 2013 at 8:33 pm

Continuing the fine gun control tradition of just making stuff up

leave a comment »

Yesterday, Senator Rangel was in the safest place in the world for a Democrat, a MSNBC program:

The Washington Times: Rangel: ‘Millions of kids’ being shot down by assault rifles

New York Rep. Charlie Rangel appeared on MSNBC this morning to opine about the assault weapons ban getting dropped from the Senate gun-control bill.

And here’s the money quote:

“We’re talking about millions of kids dying — being shot down by assault weapons,” he continued.

How many was that again?

The FBI’s 2011 data says only 323 people were killed by rifles, compared to 728 people who were killed by hands, fists, feet etc. Handguns are much more likely to be used in a homicide with 6,220 killed nationwide in 2011.

323 people were killed by ALL types of rifles, out of a population of a third of a billion people.

Written by BornLib

March 22, 2013 at 6:10 pm

Posted in Gun Grabbers