The Truth About Guns

I’ve been there done that: gone up against gun control advocates on live TV. It’s like herding cats. Nasty demented cats. Keith Morgan, president of the West Virginia Citizens Defense League, did a fantastic job of it last year, defending Americans’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. More than that, he shot down the interviewer’s rhetorical tricks. I’m not sure that this kind of interchange convinces fence-straddlers of the righteousness of the gun rights cause. But this one sure gave me some major league warm fuzzies, and for that I am truly thankful. Kudos, Mr. Morgan. You kept your cool and nailed it.

One of the best things about watching Kirsten Joy Weiss’ videos: clocking the Pennsylvania marksman’s mastery of shooting basics. I never get tired of that moment when KJW goes bone-on-bone with her support arm’s elbow, exhales and hunkers down. Aside from her obvious physical charms, there’s something endlessly fascinating about watching Kirsten focus her mind on the shot – to the complete an utter exclusion of everything else – and then, when the time’s right, send the lead. When the deed is done, I get the feeling KJW’s more surprised by the result than any of her fans. Surprised and pleased. Really pleased. Delighted. Which is why watching these ever-improving precision shooting videos makes me feel both really old and really young. Go figure.

“Gun registration, let alone confiscation has, always and everywhere, fallen into that “unenforceable” category. We saw the same phenomenon with Prohibition, and we’ve also seen it with drugs. To insist, now, that Connecticut authorities try to chase down “scores of thousands” of gun owners (using background check records that don’t actually prove they still own the forbidden firearms) displays wild ignorance of the limits of government power. It also expresses disgusting deference to authority at the expense of any respect for liberty—an immature morality that sees no good beyond obedience to rules. And, it’s sheer lunacy.” – J.D. Tucille, reason.com

“We sometimes think our duty is to make everyone safe. It’s to preserve liberty. It’s not to make a society that’s absolutely safe.” That from Idaho state Sen. Jim Rice (above), speaking on the passage of a bill that would allow concealed weapons on college campuses in Idaho. The bill was voted out of the Senate Tuesday 25-10. The bill now goes to the House, where a similar bill passed in 2011, only to fail in the Senate. The current bill is expected to pass, and Gov. Butch Otter has pledged to sign the bill when it reaches his desk. The previous bill failed. . .

in the Senate due to concerns about a lack of training and access by students who had been drinking. The new bill addresses those concerns by limiting carry to only retired law enforcement [natch!] and holders of Idaho’s enha

Immediately after the the historic Ninth Circuit ruling that the second amendment right to bear arms extended outside of the home, it was reported that an appeal to an en banc panel of all 11 justices might be in the works. Securityinfowatch.com quotes Bob Egelko of  the San Francisco Chronicle as reporting, “James Chapin, the San Diego deputy county counsel who defended the permit system, said the county will ask the full appeals court for a rehearing before an 11-judge panel.” It appears that Mr. Egelko either misunderstood Mr. Chapin, or that Mr. Chapin changed his mind . . .

The LA Times reported that:

Officials in San Diego County said they may seek a rehearing before a larger 9th Circuit panel,

A

Normally, I’d have served up this tidbit as a Quote of the Day. But the first sentence of the LA Times editorial Gun control made harder in California is so full o’ fail I couldn’t leave to our Armed Intelligentsia to pull it to pieces. I wanted in like a shivering Schnauzer pawing at the door of a warm house. Here’s the lead in question: “Even if you accept the notion that the 2nd Amendment confers an individual right to bear arms — a proposition we wish the Supreme Court had rejected — states should be able to place reasonable restrictions on that right in the interests of public safety.” I promise I’l

By Steve Sacco

I have a friend. Not just any friend, but an “internet friend.” We met on a stock market message board about 15 years ago, and he (I presume he’s not lying, and is, in fact, male) and I have discussed stocks, technology, and all kinds of topics ever since. I’ve enjoyed our chats immensely, and one of the things I’ve learned is that, unlike my friend, I’m terrible at trading stocks. I’ve also learned that I’m pretty good at nosing out technology trends – as is he. For many years now, the subject of 3-D printing technology has come up in our conversations . . .

Long ago, we both agreed that it would be amazing and, if you’ll pardon the expression, game-changing. Sadly, I never took action on that, and actually bought any 3-D company stocks, but that’s another story.

Don’t worry, this turns “gun” right about now.

The

“TWO ‘petite’ women police officers [not shown] failed a firearms test because the guns they were given were too big for them to fire with their small hands,” dailyexpress.co.uk reports. And so Victoria Wheatley and Rachael Giles filed a discrimination suit against the Civil Nuclear Constabulary. And won. And why not? “They have such ‘small hands’ they could not reach the trigger of the Glock 17 pistols they were asked to fire to pass an annual check. They also complained that . . .

protective helmets and kneepads were too large and a wooden barricade they had