All the best to my readers and happy Thanksgiving from me and mine to you and yours.  It is a truly Christian holiday.  Enjoy it.  Jerry Miculek shows us how to carve a turkey.  Since I don’t have a .460 Magnum Weatherby rifle, I’ll have to live vicariously through Jerry’s demonstration.

The impossible has happened.  The ROE in Afghanistan will get even worse.

The new U.S.-Afghanistan security agreement adds restrictions on already bureaucratic rules of engagement for American troops by making Afghan dwellings virtual safe havens for the enemy, combat veterans say.

The rules of engagement place the burden on U.S. air and ground troops to confirm with certainty that a Taliban fighter is armed before they can fire — even if they are 100 percent sure the target is the enemy. In some cases, aerial gunships have been denied permission to fire even though they reported that targets on the move were armed.

The proposed Bilateral Security Agreement announced Wednesday by Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Secretary of State John F. Kerry all but prohibits U.S. troops from entering dwellings during combat. President Obama made the vow directly to Mr. Karzai.

“U.S. forces shall not enter Afghan homes for the purposes of military operations, except under extraordinary circumstances involving urgent risk to life and limb of U.S. nationals,” Mr. Obama pledged in a letter to the Afghan leader.

Ryan Zinke, who commanded an assault team within SEAL Team 6, said of the security deal: “The first people who are going to look at it and review it are the enemy we’re trying to fight. It’s going to be a document that can be used effectively against us. This is where we either fight or go home. What’s happening is we’re losing our ability to fight overseas.”

As I’ve covered, we never really had the ability in the first place.  Why are we still in Afghanistan anyway?  I’ve covered this almost two years ago.  We should have already withdrawn.

Tim Lynch, who has spent more time in Afghanistan than any English-speaking man alive, has told me that we’re “finished” in Afghanistan, and he concurred with my counsel to withdraw.

It was a campaign of state-building waged by the social planners.  We should have already pulled all troops out of that God-forsaken part of the world and send in all the social planners who played god with the lives of Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines.  Let them deal with the mess they created.

To Hamid Karzai, prepare for your own demise.  Your administration will soon collapse.  But not another drop of American blood.

David Codrea:

The State of Connecticut’s Office of the State’s Attorney for the Judicial District of Danbury released its long-awaited report Monday on the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School. While representative mainstream press accounts seem focused on the killer taking his motives with him to his grave and other aspects of the report, a paragraph on page two in the Executive Summary contains the most important revelation applicable to future mass murder attempts …

Read the rest of David’s report.  This is why the notion that the police can be the amelioration for crime and all of its affects is mistaken and dangerous.  Self defense is the most reactive and quickest way to change the boundary conditions for the system.

David Codrea:

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the firearms industry’s trade association, has written letters to Congress urging both houses to reauthorize the Undetectable Firearms Act before it expires on Dec. 9 …

Oh, and I’m sure that the NSSF doesn’t have any skin in the game, do they?

But according to Kurt Hofmann, there may be a champion in the hall.

In other words, Schumer had hoped to pass the bill without any debate, and without any of the other procedural “speed bumps” intended to prevent legislation from being forced through before anyone has an opportunity to object … Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) thwarted Schumer’s plot.

Good for him.  Actually, according to Emily Miller, there is a nuance of this legislation I hadn’t thought of.

His scam was to have the bill expire again during the Senate’s lame duck session in 2014.  At that point, Mr. Schumer and his compadres could tack on the gun-control expansions that their vulnerable Democrats in rural and western states would not support in an election year.

Mr. Schumer and some Democrats on the Judiciary Committee had been trying recently to expand the scope of the ban to include millions of existing and non-threatening polymer magazines.

This is easy folks.  If someone brings this up in conversation with you, tell them that you cannot so much as take a penny through the detectors at the airport.  The notion that they are undetectable firearms is a lie.  Case closed.

Concerning off-duty cops and NFL games:

Yet when we contacted the business manager for the St. Louis Police Officers Association, he told us, he’d been given assurances by the Rams Security Director that this was only a recommendation and the Rams intended to continue to allow off-duty police to carry their service weapons into the Dome.

I sent a note to the NFL inquiring as to the accuracy of this report, i.e., that it is only a recommendation and not policy.  To the chagrin of the LEOs at reddit/guns, I supported the ban on high capacity magazines for LEOs in California if citizens weren’t allowed to have them either.  If citizens must be defenseless, then LEOs should be as well.  What’s fair is fair.  And I won’t likely hear back from the NFL.

Terry McAuliffe is already making moves on gun control in Virginia.  Because when you elect communists to office, they enact totalitarian measures – it’s who they are and what they do.

Uncle gives us a blast from the past on the Hughes Amendment when the honorable Ronald Reagan sold us out.  It might be a little more complex than that, but still, he shouldn’t have signed such an unconstitutional abomination.  And we still labor under that awful piece of legislation today.

Evanston Patch:

I came to realize that my child is a part of a world that can and always will contain guns. He idolized police officers. Stared from the living room window at the older neighborhood boys having squirt gun fights. Listed neon-colored nerf guns at the top of most wish lists. I didn’t want a gun to be the impossible itch under a confining plaster cast – more important in its inaccessibility than it really was. I wanted him to understand that real guns are dangerous and never to be used by anyone other than people trained to use them.

There was no denying it: good guys and bad guys existed everywhere in my young son’s world. Power Rangers fought bad guys with laser blasters. During the annual stroll through Evanston’s Custer St. Fair, we’d linger as he watched the “lucky” kids who took home the wooden rubber-band “shooters”. I realized that saying “no” to guns made him want them even more.

I still remember the first time I bought him a toy gun. We were at Target, and I had all three kids with me. My older son was seven and my youngest boy was two. None of my kids at that time got along. I was at the end of my rope. The younger son pointed to a Power Rangers laser blaster and I put two in our cart — one for each boy. I was elated that they’d play together but horrified that I’d caved.

I taught them that toy guns had a time and a place. Never pointed directly at anyone, never used to scare anyone. There were many moments when my rules were broken, and the guns were taken away. The concept of “play” and guns was never easy for me to justify…until I noticed how many meaningful conversations we’d have about them. Why do you think your brother got scared when you pointed that gun at him? What if that had been a real one and you’d shot him? What if you couldn’t bring your brother back? How does it feel when someone points a gun at you? What would you say if you saw someone pointing a toy gun at someone else’s head?  What else would you want for Christmas that doesn’t include a Nerf gun or bullets?

We have an arsenal of toy guns in our basement, but they come out less and less as the boys have grown (they’re now 16 and 10). These days, they’re rarely used unless the younger male cousins or the neighborhood boys are looking to play outdoors. Once, as a noisy Nerf war raged in front of the house with sponge bullets and boys hiding in bushes, my neighbor’s wife called and asked if I’d bring the boys in; her husband couldn’t bear to see young children engaged in gun-play after the recent Sandy Hook shootings. I could hear the neighbor’s husband sobbing in the background. I brought the boys in and talked to them about how upset our neighbor was. “You didn’t do anything wrong,” I said. “I’m the one that allowed toy guns. But,” I’d said, “you need to know how dangerous real guns are. Children were killed when someone used a real gun for a bad reason.” The boys were confused at first, then grew very quiet. They processed the situation and ask questions about gun violence in their 9-year-old words. I knew that their play had led to meaningful discussion.

There’s no sobbing around the Smith household when the guns are brought out.  The use of a machine to initiate discussions is ridiculous and unnecessary.  People do bad things, and they can do them with knives, hammers, guns, and all manner of tools.

Likewise, people do good things with all of the above.  Guns are what the theologians call adiaphorous.  They are neither good nor bad.  They just are.

As for the right time to converse about gun safety, we don’t need play time or toy guns.  Any time is the right time to discuss gun safety with children.  If you have guns around the house and you haven’t secured your weapons and trained your children on who handles them and who doesn’t, you’re irresponsible.  But then we don’t need a school teacher and play time to tell us that.

Prior: Hey Kids, Guns Are Cool!

Concerning the shooting of a thirteen year old boy carrying a toy by Police in Sonoma County, I said:

… tell me if a single cop tells the truth or holds anyone accountable.  Tell me if a judge or jury finds these men guilty of anything?  No, the strongest response will be from totalitarian lawmakers who want to make it illegal to have or sell toy guns.

From NBC Bay Area:

The death of a Bay Area boy and the paralysis of a Los Angeles teen — both shot by law enforcement while carrying replica rifles — are the human faces behind state legislation being introduced on Friday that would crack down on the classification and color-coding of toy guns.

California State Senators Noreen Evans (D-Santa Rosa) and Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles) introduced their “Imitation Firearm Safety Act,” which they hope will prevent any heat-of-the-moment confusion over fake guns by reclassifying BB guns and force manufacturers to paint them a bright color.

“If officers would have seen a gun painted in pink, purple or orange, Andy might still be alive,” Evans said. “This was a huge tragedy for our entire community.”

[ … ]

Critics have long argued that regulating “look-alike” guns do little to protect the public and that bad guys will simply paint their guns in a rainbow of hues to fake cops out.

“That is just a red herring,” she said. New York, Chicago and Los Angeles all have similar toy gun color rules and there is no evidence to support that theory, she said.

I can see how the idea of painting a gun to fool the cops wouldn’t occur to a criminal.  That idea is too obtuse.

It’s all proceeding just as I had foreseen.  But here is a better idea.  Cops stop people carrying toys and inquire as to their intentions and the nature of the item they’re carrying while they maintain at least a modicum of self control .  Or better yet, make California an open carry state and the cops don’t have to stop any one at all unless it’s a valid “Terry Stop.”

David Codrea:

If passed and signed into law, his bill would effectively negate the ability of concealed carry permit holders, or gun owners in states that recognize “Constitutional carry,” to lawfully carry their firearm when dropping off or picking passengers up, rendering them defenseless for the duration of the trip to and from an airport. And importantly, it “would take precedence over any city or state laws that allow weapons in any airports nationwide.”

Go read David’s piece and see what he’s talking about.  If something involves federal preemption of state laws, you know I’m going to be against it.  The federal government, in my view, has a right to raise armies for the common defense and build roads to enable interstate commerce.  Beyond that we’re in unconstitutional territory.

David:

… absolute hypocrisy of a billionaire who can afford an around-the-clock armed presence devoting a substantial amount of his time and untold millions of dollars with the goal of disarming everyone of more modest means.

That’s always the way it is with the people of means and fame.  Gun control for thee but not for me.

Kurt Hofmann:

… it becomes difficult to decide what is the most appalling–the unbridled savagery of the attacks: “One victim shown in the footage is a 46-year-old man from Hoboken, N.J., who was found dead with his neck broken and head lodged between iron fence posts, according to NJ.com,” or the chilling callousness of the descriptions of the “game” …

Kurt makes an excellent point about the size of the mobs doing this savagery and the need for more rounds than most of the gun control states allow in your weapon.

Michael Bane cites Charlie Rangel:

“No one makes a big deal of it, but if you’re a fly on the wall in any of their homes — I’ll tell you what: If you track the Confederate Army to the Dixiecrats, to the conversation of the Republicans, to the districts that were affected, you may be dealing with different labels, but if they were ever able to track down their ancestors, there’s a Confederate general in every damn living room.”

Michael then makes his way through his living room looking for a Confederate general and can’t find one.  Charlie doesn’t have to be a fly on the wall.  My picture is very prominent.

Finally, a New Yorker’s view of guns from Adam Gopnik.  After admitting that gun violence mostly doesn’t happen outside of minority neighborhoods, he nonetheless wants to ameliorate a medical problem you have.

But it’s good, at least, to hear someone arguing the details and filling out the fact-picture, good to be reminded that the cultures and rituals of the gun, however irrational in nature, are still felt to be essential by the people who engage in them. Curing the irrationalities of human culture later depends on understanding them now.

He’s a collectivist and loyal hive member, and he wants to “cure your irrationalities.”  On a related note, sometimes I feel that I have nothing in common with New Yorkers except a language, and I’m beginning to wonder about that.

Baptist Standard:

ABILENE—Christians who advocate gun rights on grounds of self-defense have lost sight of the radical nature of Jesus’ message, a Hardin-Simmons University professor told a student-initiated forum on gun violence.

“Americans have a deep love of salvific violence, the idea that with the use of force—the use of deadly force—against the right kind of people, we can make things turn out OK,” said Rodney Taylor, assistant professor of theology at HSU. “I think the cross, however, says something very different. What we see in the cross is the overcoming of violence, not through resistance, but rather through trust in God.”

Speaking on “God and Guns: The Way of Jesus in a Violent World,” Taylor critiqued the argument of self-defense as a natural right by comparing and contrasting it to Christian beliefs about premarital sex. To non-Christians, a prohibition against sex outside marriage seems like a “strange command,” he noted.

“But there are a lot of other strange commands there that Jesus gives us that seem counterintuitive,” he said. “I think the problem with the natural right of self-defense is that it loses sight of the kind of radical message that we see in the gospel—this radical approach that Jesus gives us that is counterintuitive, that doesn’t really seem to fit.”

The reason it doesn’t fit is because it is nonsense fabricated entirely out of their minds rather than being found in the Bible.

We’ve covered this before in Christians, The Second Amendment And The Duty Of Self Defense.  There are at least a couple of problems with this forum and its pronouncements on guns.  First, professors in anything, those who have spent vast quantities of money and time in so-called “higher education,” want to believe that they’ve discovered something new, something exciting, something breathtaking, something no one has ever seen.

To get a little pointy headed here and diverge into a sidebar comment that few of my readers will know about (but these professors will), this is one of the features of the so-called new perspectives in Paul and N. T. Wright.  No one before him, he must necessarily believe, not Augustine, not Anselm, not Calvin, not Beza, not W.G.T. Shedd, not Hodge, not Dabney, and on the list could go, has gotten it right.  God left it to him to really explain what the apostle Paul was saying.  Everyone else in history was wrong.

Likewise for this forum, every other theologian was wrong about the justification (and even necessity and duty) of self defense.  This is quite an arrogant way to live and think, but academia is shot through with it.  The second problem is that this forum is comprised of progressive, contemporary theologians who believe in nothing much except the social gospel.  Thus, they want to correct or ameliorate broad, sweeping social ills not by preaching salvation by grace through faith to individuals, but by statist control over the collective.

This is easy, folks.  The sixth commandment controls us in this matter.  God forbids the opposite of what he enjoins, and He enjoins the opposite of what He forbids.  Thou shalt not kill means thou shalt save life.  These forum members would sooner allow their wives to be raped and murdered by home invaders than lift a hand to save the one God gave them to protect.  Or, they would fight to save their wives, making them to be liars, and worse, profoundly stupid liars because they chose to use one of the least effective weapons to defend the loved ones under their charge.

Take your pick.  Silently stand by and watch their wives be raped, or they become liars; not even they believe a word of what they have to say, and so you shouldn’t either.  And for the record, God has made no promise to save their wives in home invasions while they silently stand and watch.  Let’s make this even more visceral by quoting what I said earlier.

God has laid the expectations at the feet of heads of families that they protect, provide for and defend their families and protect and defend their countries.  Little ones cannot do so, and rely solely on those who bore them.  God no more loves the willing neglect of their safety than He loves child abuse.  He no more appreciates the willingness to ignore the sanctity of our own lives than He approves of the abuse of our own bodies and souls.

God hasn’t called us to save the society by sacrificing our children or ourselves to robbers, home invaders, rapists or murderers. Self defense – and defense of the little ones – goes well beyond a right.  It is a duty based on the idea that man is made in God’s image.  It is His expectation that we do the utmost to preserve and defend ourselves when in danger, for it is He who is sovereign and who gives life, and He doesn’t expect us to be dismissive or cavalier about its loss.

And even more to the point, “If you believe that it is your Christian duty to allow your children to be harmed by evil-doers (and you actually allow it to happen) because you think Christ was a pacifist, you are no better than a child abuser or pedophile.”  So here is a challenge for the forum members.  Prove to me and my readers that your views don’t really mean that you wouldn’t save a child being harmed or your spouses being raped.  Prove to me that you’re better than a child abuser or pedophile?  And if you would act to save a life in this way, why would you choose a means that ensured your failure?

World Policy Blog:

The U.S.’s lax gun laws are fueling a massive business of illegal arms trade through its southern border into Mexico. According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), two out of every three illegal firearms found in Mexico originate in the U.S. In other words, each year, over 253,000 guns purchased in the U.S. are smuggled south of the border.

Why should we be concerned? For one, there is a direct correlation between gun ownership in cities and gun violence – as one increases, so does the other. But that’s true regardless of location. A paramount issue, specific to the U.S.-Mexico border, is the link between illegal guns and the drug trade. Outside of the one firearm store in Mexico City, there are no other stores to purchase guns in Mexico. And yet, the drug wars have claimed the lives of thousands.

Without firearms, the ability of gangs to acquire and smuggle drugs would be greatly weakened. And given the fact that the U.S. spends $51 billion a year on the war on drugs, reducing the proliferation of illegal guns flowing across our border is a security issue Capitol Hill cannot ignore.

Nonetheless, there is not one federal gun trafficking law in the U.S. …

Not one federal gun trafficking law.  Not a single one.  Except of course, for this:

The GCA does not require export licenses. However, most firearms and ammunition must be exported in accordance with the provisions of the Arms Export Control Act of 1976. Regulations implementing this Act generally require a license to be obtained from the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, Department of State, PM/DDTC, SA-1, Room 1200, 2401 E St., N.W., Washington, DC 20037; (202) 663-1282.

The export of sporting shotguns and ammunition for sporting shotguns is regulated by the U.S. Department of Commerce rather than the State Department. An export license is generally needed to export these shotguns and ammunition. For further information, contact them at their nearest district office or the Bureau of Industry and Security, Outreach and Educational Services Division, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th St. & Pennsylvania Ave. N.W., Washington, DC 20230, (202) 482-4811.

When exporting NFA firearms, ATF Form 9 must be completed and approved by ATF prior to export.

Who do they write for, imbeciles?  It’s like the gun controllers don’t even try to hide the lies any more.

Fort Worth NBC:

Some drivers along a busy Fort Worth street on Friday were stopped at a police roadblock and directed into a parking lot, where they were asked by federal contractors for samples of their breath, saliva and even blood.

It was part of a government research study aimed at determining the number of drunken or drug-impaired drivers.

“It just doesn’t seem right that you can be forced off the road when you’re not doing anything wrong,” said Kim Cope, who said she was on her lunch break when she was forced to pull over at the roadblock on Beach Street in North Fort Worth.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which is spending $7.9 million on the survey over three years, said participation was “100 percent voluntary” and anonymous.

But Cope said it didn’t feel voluntary to her — despite signs saying it was.

“I gestured to the guy in front that I just wanted to go straight, but he wouldn’t let me and forced me into a parking spot,” she said.

Once parked, she couldn’t believe what she was asked next.

“They were asking for cheek swabs,” she said. “They would give $10 for that. Also, if you let them take your blood, they would pay you $50 for that.”

At the very least, she said, they wanted to test her breath for alcohol.

She said she felt trapped.

“I finally did the Breathalyzer test just because I thought that would be the easiest way to leave,” she said, adding she received no money.

Fort Worth police earlier said they could not immediately find any record of officer involvement but police spokesman Sgt. Kelly Peel said Tuesday that the department’s Traffic Division coordinated with the NHTSA on the use of off-duty officers after the agency asked for help with the survey.

“We are reviewing the actions of all police personnel involved to ensure that FWPD policies and procedures were followed,” he said. “We apologize if any of our drivers and citizens were offended or inconvenienced by the NHTSA National Roadside Survey.”

NBC DFW confirmed that the survey was done by a government contractor, the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, which is based in Calverton, Md.

A company spokeswoman referred questions to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

An agency spokeswoman sent an email confirming the government is conducting the surveys in 30 cities across the country in an effort to reduce impaired-driving accidents.

She did not respond to another email from NBC DFW asking specific questions about the program..

But a Fort Worth attorney who is an expert in civil liberties law questioned whether such stops are constitutional.

“You can’t just be pulled over randomly or for no reason,” said attorney Frank Colosi.

He also noted the fine print on a form given to drivers informs them their breath was tested by “passive alcohol sensor readings before the consent process has been completed.”

“They’re essentially lying to you when they say it’s completely voluntary, because they’re testing you at that moment,” Colosi said.

This is clearly a violation of the Texas Constitution, Article 1, Section 9.  The Governor of Texas should immediately have the perpetrators of this crime arrested and imprisoned, make prosecutors available for the crafting of felony charges, and make it clear to all such federal employees that if they do not cease and desist in said activities there is a place in the state penitentiary for them among the general population.  So where is the Governor of Texas on this?

UPDATE: David Codrea weighs in.

“What’s this “100 percent voluntary”?  What right did you have to pull people over and detain them in the first damn place?

And if someone doesn’t pull over, or indignantly asks you that if he does, will you use that as “probable cause” to escalate the “continuum of force,” up to and including murdering him for resisting being taken hostage, and chalking it all up to “established department protocols” because you wanted to “make it home at the end of your shift” — as if everybody else doesn’t, too?”

Continuing the rumor mill, Uncle reports that Remington may move operations to Tennessee.  We’ve discussed a potential Remington move several times, but I’m not so sure it’s Tennessee.

Gov. Cuomo’s tough new gun law has put a target on the state’s gun makers.

Cities, counties and states from across the country have been making lucrative pitches to New York’s firearms companies, urging them to relocate. Their argument: They have a gun-friendly atmosphere, and New York does not.

“They receive solicitations . . . on almost a daily basis,” said Lawrence Kean, senior vice president and general counsel of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade group.

“CEOs have told me they could basically move their factories for free.”

Cuomo pushed his new gun law through the Legislature a month after the deadly shooting rampage in Newtown, Conn. The law broadened the definition of what is considered a banned assault weapon, and it reduced the size of permissible gun magazines to seven rounds, from 10.

Since then, the state’s remaining firearms companies, including major employers like Remington Arms in upstate Ilion and Kimber Manufacturing in Yonkers, have been wooed by officials from places including South Carolina and Texas.

Anthony Testa, general manager of Just Right Carbines in upstate Canandaigua, southeast of Rochester, said his company received at least a dozen offers from other states.

Just Right, which employs about a dozen workers and produces an assault rifle now banned under the state’s new law, has decided to stay put.

The owners, Testa said, have strong family ties to the region. “That’s the only reason they are not considering these things more seriously,” Testa said.

“You combine the high tax load along with the fairly restrictive and fairly anti-gun stance that the state has, it makes it difficult to do business selling a product that the state doesn’t like.”

Let’s be clear about this.  Cuomo is a Putz, and New York is a totalitarian state.  Furthermore, I haven’t said much about the union at Remington, but the workers simply can’t adopt collectivist practices and policies, forcing New Yorkers into collective bargaining agreements (as opposed to say, South Carolina which is a right to work state), and then gripe and complain because Cuomo institutes collectivist policies of his own.  You must be consistent.

Move South.  Ruger has already produced its first firearm at its new North Carolina plant, months ahead of schedule.  The workers are skilled and loyal, and the people appreciate firearms and their place in America.  What are you waiting for?

Prior:

Freedom Group And Remington

National Review On Remington

Should Ruger Be Planning For Expansion In North Carolina?

Maryland Set To Pass Sweeping Gun Control, Beretta Set To Move

Remington To S.C.?

It’s Time For Gun Industry To Move South