Ukrainian pro-Russian separatist militants test body armor.  I … just … don’t know what to say.  Readers can complete this post in the comments.

NYT:

SYDNEY, Australia — Armed police officers surrounded a cafe in Sydney’s central business district Monday morning after one or more gunmen took hostages and displayed a black flag with Arabic script in white in the cafe window.

A police spokesman confirmed officers were called to the Lindt Chocolate Cafe, in Martin Place, a major shopping and pedestrian thoroughfare, at around 10 a.m.

A commercial television network, Channel Seven, which has a studio near the cafe, showed footage of people, wearing Lindt uniforms, pressed against the cafe windows, displaying the flag.

Reports say anything from 20 to 40 or 50 people are being held.  You mean that the police weren’t able to anticipate it and stop it before it happened?  You mean the police being armed isn’t enough to keep people safe?  You mean that there are 40-50 people now in Sydney, Australia who wish they were concealed handgun carriers?

BBC:

Things were just starting to improve when the firm was hit by Western sanctions.

With Russian military stores full of the famously durable Kalashnikovs, and dwindling orders from abroad, the company had turned its attention to civilian firearms markets.

In January it finally secured a foothold in the biggest of them, sealing a lucrative deal to supply up to 200,000 rifles a year in the US.

But in July, Kalashnikov was placed on a US list of eight arms manufacturers sanctioned for Russia’s role in fomenting the crisis in Ukraine. The deal was halted with under half the initial order delivered. It was added to an EU list in September.

“Of course I was upset, because I didn’t understand why we’d been sanctioned,” Kalashnikov director Alexei Krivoruchko told the BBC, arguing that the firm was no longer wholly state-owned since he and another Russian businessman had invested in a 49% stake.

Also, he points out, it primarily produces firearms for the civilian market.

“The US was a key market for us, one that we planned to develop,” Mr Krivoruchko says. “It’s a big loss, there’s no point saying otherwise.”

There are now some 200 models of Kalashnikov, still produced at the original factory in Izhevsk, two hours’ flight east of Moscow.

So let me explain it to you Mr. Krivoruchko.  Your government did indeed foment big trouble in the Ukraine, but that has nothing to do with the sanctions.  You see, you’re a Russian capitalist businessman, while our President, Mr. Obama, is an American communist and doesn’t want his people to have guns.  Do you understand now?

Readers have known for a long time that I am no fan of the Kalashnikov design.  I hate to hear and feel the clank … clank … clank … rattle … rattle … rattle … when I shoot an AK.  And I don’t like to miss.  But it’s much more reliable than the Eugene Stoner design, you say.  Wrong.  I know all about the presumed failures of the M4 at Wanat and Kamdesh, and I still claim (like I did at the time) that the failure there had to do with ensconcing too small a force without good force protection, control over the terrain, good air support, and a clear mission.

I have never had a single failure with my AR-15, and for those of you still unconvinced, Uncle sends us to Gun Nuts Media, who gives us this.

KAC SR-15 MOD2 Sand Dump Test AFTER 15,000 rounds without cleaning… from Ballistic Radio on Vimeo.

And thus we speak the name of Eugene Stoner with hushed reverence around these parts.  And if you own an AR-15, it’s likely that you’re much happier with your rifle than German Soldiers are with the H&K G36.  Then again, you know how I feel about H&K.

Gaston Gazette:

Sixty-eight-year-old Joseph Sapienza suspects the men who attempted to break into his Gastonia home Thursday night thought he would be an easy target because he’s disabled and uses a walker.

But after scaring away the would-be thieves, Sapienza taped a note to his door, in which he attempted to make it clear that his trigger finger works just fine.

“(If) you try to break in my house again, I will be waiting on you,” reads the note, which was still there Friday afternoon. “Enter at your own risk.”

Sapienza, a Marine Corps veteran who served four years in Vietnam, was watching television in his bed at 7:42 p.m. at his home on Davis Avenue. He heard someone prying off the lock and pulling the nails to the latch out of his front door.

He grabbed his .45-caliber handgun, put it in a holster on his walker and began shuffling toward the sound. He flipped a hallway light on, yelled out to announce he was armed, and yanked open the door to see two men wearing ski masks.

They jumped off his porch and practically tripped over one another trying to flee, Sapienza said.

“It was like a keystone cops scene,” he said. “When they saw the .45, one ran one way up the street, and the other went the other way.”

This is truly a heart-warming story, like sitting on a late evening in front of the fire with a glass of fine liquor beside your dog.  Now let’s hear from the anti-gun nuts.  “A gun in the home is no protection …”

David Codrea:

GOA stood alone among national gun rights groups in November, warning that passing the bill will result in giving Congressional Democrats control of Congress for the next 10 months, as the “so-called ‘long-term CR [continuing resolution]’ … would set policy and spending until the end of the fiscal year (September 30, 2015).” Their solution was to call instead for “a ‘short-term CR’ into January, February, or March. This would allow the newly elected Republican Congress to set spending and policy for the federal government for most of next year.”

And that’s exactly what has happened.  The Democratic party is evil, but the GOP is a cowardly shell of humanity, without even so much as a thread of dignity or character left.  But the reason I lifted this quote from David’s article is that it reminds me of a comment left here at TCJ when we discussed this.

seriously ? they think the lame duck Senate can pass gun control ? so far the GOP House has stopped everything … quit crying wolf … this is just a fundraising stunt …

Yea, not so much, huh?  Read all of David’s piece at Examiner.

If you’re a machinst and live in or near Huntsville, Alabama, Remington wants to offer you a job.  If I was a machinst and lived in Huntsville, Alabama I’d take it.

The Texas Legislature is flooded with proposed gun legislation.  The legalization of open carry is a no-brainer and shouldn’t take any more than a minute or two to pass, after a couple of hours to craft the law.  We’ll see just how smart or stupid the Texas Legislature is.

Nullification works.  Of course it does.  It just requires the heart, character and stomach to stand up to the federal government.

As we’ve discussed before, Pew research recently performed a poll in which they concluded that “62 percent of Hispanics polled by Pew say they support controlling gun ownership, versus 45 percent for the nation.”  Yet another more recent Pew study concludes the same thing, but with worse statistics than before.

Today, about six-in-ten whites (61%) prioritize gun rights over gun control. By contrast, only about a third of blacks say this (34%) while six-in-ten (60%) say it is more important to control gun ownership. And Hispanics prioritize gun control over gun rights by a wide 71% to 25% margin.

And yet these are the people whom the government is allowing to cross the border, even abetting their permanent residency here, with states like Texas and Arizona deeply implicated in Hispanic voter proclivities.

Timothy Carney:

Naturally, Democrats and the Left have tried to pry Southerners away from their guns and religion. Gun control has largely been a culture war effort for Democrats. “Some of the southern areas have cultures that we have to overcome,” was Congressman Charles Rangel’s explanation for why gun control was both needed and difficult.

The Washington Post’s Gene Weingarten cursed the Second Amendment as “the refuge of bumpkins and yeehaws who like to think they are protecting their homes against imagined swarthy marauders desperate to steal their flea-bitten sofas from their rotting front porches.”

So let’s deal with the second amendment yet again.  To be sure, the second amendment was written within a certain cultural context of unorganized militia who used their own weapons, weapons they had to defend themselves and their families against both animals and men, as well as provide for themselves.  So one might argue for the notion that the presupposition necessary for the second amendment to make any sense at all is private ownership and use of guns.  But this requires deductive thought, and progressives aren’t big on that.  So in legal debating terms, I will stipulate, and I won’t press the issue because I want to make another more important point.

Progressives have yet to pick up on the fact that we don’t believe the second amendment gives us rights to defend ourselves or homes.  They would be much more aghast at the truth, but their blindness keeps them from seeing the truth.  God gives us rights, the state only recognizes those rights.

But more importantly, the second amendment says nothing about defense of persons or the home during the normal course of life.  It has nothing whatsoever to do with that.  I have a right anyway to defend myself and my family with any weapon I choose, so says God.  The second amendment says something different.  It says that the state recognizes that God gives me the right to shoot people who would take away our guns – like Gene Weingarten – through the skull, even if their taking is approved by the state.

Illinois Policy:

Earlier this year, the Illinois Supreme Court struck down a state eavesdropping law that made it a crime for citizens to record conversations with police or anyone else without the other person’s permission. The court held that the old law “criminalize[d] a wide range of innocent conduct” and violated free-speech rights. In particular, the court noted the state could not criminalize recording activities where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, including citizens’ “public” encounters with police.

Now the old law is back, with just a few changes, in a new bill sent to the governor’s desk by the Illinois Senate on Dec. 4. The bill not only passed, but did so overwhelmingly with votes of 106-7 in the House on and 46-4-1 in the Senate.

The new version is nearly as bad as the old one.

Under the new bill, a citizen could rarely be sure whether recording any given conversation without permission is legal. The bill would make it a felony to surreptitiously record any “private conversation,” which it defines as any “oral communication between 2 or more persons,” where at least one person involved had a “reasonable expectation” of privacy.

[ … ]

citizens can’t be expected to know for sure precisely which situations give rise to an “expectation of privacy” and which don’t. The Illinois Supreme Court said that police don’t have an expectation of privacy in “public” encounters with citizens, but it did not explain what counts as a “public” encounter. So if this bill becomes law, people who want to be sure to avoid jail time will refrain from recording police at all, and the law will therefore still effectively prevent people from recording police.

The bill would also discourage people from recording conversations with police by making unlawfully recording a conversation with police – or an attorney general, assistant attorney general, state’s attorney, assistant state’s attorney or judge – a class 3 felony, which carries a sentence of two to four years in prison. Meanwhile, the bill makes illegal recording of a private citizen a class 4 felony, which carries a lower sentencing range of one to three years in prison.

There’s only one apparent reason for imposing a higher penalty on people who record police in particular: to make people especially afraid to record police.

But I thought that we had a due process right to record police in the performance of their duties?  In fact, I think judges have said so time and time again, and again, and again.

Instead of passing this stupid bill, they should have passed what reader Ned Weatherby calls Herschel’s Law.

Via Overlawyered:

Why am I still hearing about Operation Choke Point?  Why?  Why can’t the GOP-controlled House act, up to and including shutting down the government if the DoJ doesn’t come clean on Fast and Furious, or stop intimidation of gun and ammunition companies?

Why, after all of these years of obscene, immoral criminality by this administration, can’t anyone stop it?

David Codrea:

Noting it was largely due to the gun rights vote that Republicans captured the Senate and widened their lead in the House, what will change as a result, if anything, is unclear. If restrictions remain unchallenged, it will recall the many times rules objectionable to gun owners have quietly been allowed to remain in place. Still, there is one change that could be insisted on now, and if it derailed the spending approval process either in a Harry Reid-controlled Senate, or if Barack Obama rejected it, that decision would fall squarely on the Democrats: Congress could, if it wanted to, restore funding to allow for relief of firearms disabilities — or at least it could after January if it passed a short term resolution and left the long term bill for the incoming majority.

Per the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, “prohibited persons” convicted of state-level offenses can contact their state attorney general to learn their options for civil rights restoration. Federal offenses currently require a presidential pardon, with other lawful options provided for in the Gun Control Act of 1968 closed off due to an appropriations technicality, once implemented due to maneuvering by Sen. Charles Schumer.

Not that they will, but the GOP should push that issue.  But the GOP has proven cowardly on too many occasions for me to count.

Mike Vanderboegh on more Jonathan Gruber absurdity.  Now we learn that he is a eugenicist on top of everything else, in the spirit of Margaret Sanger and other Nazis.

Hiker shot on California hiking trail.  Folks, carry guns in the bush.

NO.  Next question.  Can we end our love affair with guns?