Mike Vanderboegh:

… what I didn’t notice until after a discussion with a long-time friend is what a gift Winkler has made us with this confession in the same article:

The fastest-growing minority group in America is Latinos. Between 2000 and 2010, the nation’s Latino population grew by 43 percent. Hispanics, which make up 17 percent of the population today, are expected to grow to 30 percent of the population in the coming decades. Gun control is extremely popular among Hispanics, with 75 percent favoring gun safety over gun rights.

It is impossible to overstate the favor that Winkler has done us by this triumphalist bragging about the “demographics gonna get yo momma” message to the NRA. This collectivist’s inadvertent confession not only confirms their evil, confiscationist intentions but it absolutely condemns the NRA’s “single-issue” avoidance of the illegal invasion threat. My partner in thought crime David Codrea has been banging this drum for some time now, only to be ignored or ridiculed by the NRA partisans on the Internet.

Yes, David has indeed (although I’m hesitant to link them because of my new policy of not linking Examiner), and so have I, here, here, here and here.  It’s important to understand, as I have explained, that this isn’t some cooked up, half-ass theory.  There is a very specific reason for their political proclivities.

“For historical reasons to do with the nationalisation of the land under Lázaro Cárdenas and the predominant form of peasant land tenure, which was “village cooperative” rather than based on individual plots, the demand for “land to the tiller” in Mexico does not imply an individual plot for every peasant or rural worker or family. In Mexico, collectivism among the peasantry is a strong tradition … one consequence of these factors is that the radical political forces among the rural population are on the whole explicitly anti-capitalist and socialist in their ideology. Sometimes this outlook is expressed in support for guerilla organisations; but struggle movements of the rural population are widespread, and they spontaneously ally with the most militant city-based leftist organisations.”

One of the reasons for this reflexive alignment with leftism has to do with the the mid-twentieth century and what the Sovient Union and allied ideologies accomplished.  South and Central America was the recipient or receptacle for socialism draped in religious clothing, or in other words, liberation theology.  Its purveyors were Roman Catholic priests who had been trained in Marxism, and they were very successful in giving the leftists a moral platform upon which to build.  This ideology spread North from South and Central America into Mexico, and thus the common folk in Mexico are quite steeped in collectivist ideology from battles that were fought decades ago.

Hispanics and Latinos are collectivists from way back.  Their priests have trained them in statist thinking, and this to their own demise.  In other words, they can no longer see how their cultural and political choices harm them, if they ever could.

Sadly, the NRA is today good for nothing more than a fairly good magazine once a month.  As for Winkler, he has made a fatal error in judgment.  Like other leftists, he thinks that gun owners are monolithic and controlled by the NRA.  To them, we are reactionary and able to be turned by the winds of wording, able to be controlled like the hive controls its own.  They think this way because it’s impossible to imagine a world view without central command issuing orders.  This is good news.  It’s always better when the enemy underestimates your power and resolve, and misjudges your character.

David Codrea:

Are You Sleeping, Bourgeoisie (Traditional American song, sung in rounds to the tune of “Frere Jacques”). Are you sleeping, Are you sleeping, Bourgeoisie, Bourgeoisie, And when the revolution comes, We’ll kill you all with knives and guns, Bourgeoisie, Bourgeoisie …

I think he doesn’t understand what that word means – i.e., revolution.  He uses it, but I think he is seriously out of touch with reality.  You bring it bad boy.  Let’s see how long your “revolution” lasts.

Here is a Boston jerk.  And I didn’t say thanks to you for anything, especially the idea that your boot-licking attitude would have served you well during the revolution.  You haven’t earned the right to clean the toilets of the men who led the separation from King George, much less to take credit for their actions.  Jerk.  I’ll never go within two hundred miles of Boston.  As far as I’m concerned, they live in a different country than me.

Topo maps for free.  This could come in very handy.

Austrian town drowns in migrant trash and feces.  But they must endure it for the children.  Er … there are no children.  They must endure it because of … something.

Muslim migrants in Germany take selfies with stolen goods.  This is coming to our shores.  You understand that, right?

Finally, there is this.  But ask you self honestly, is this any worse than the MS13 gang members El Salvador is shipping North across our border?  Pay close attention to the English subtitles.

Courthouse News Service:

(CN) – The Eighth Circuit revived a wrongful death claim against the Remington Arms Company stemming from a 2008 hunting accident in which a South Dakota man died.

The man’s wife, Carol O’Neal, sued Remington in December 2011, claiming a defect in a bolt action rifle the company manufactured caused it to misfire, killing her husband.

On November 9, 2008, O’Neal’s husband, Lanny, loaned a Remington Model 700 .243 caliber bolt action rifle to his friend, Mark Ritter.

Ritter later told investors that after spotting a deer, he moved the safety lever to the fire position and without his pulling the trigger, the rifle discharged. The bullet hit Lanny O’Neal, traveling through his stomach, spleen and left lung.

Despite their immediately calling 911 and getting O’Neal taken to a hospital, he died later that afternoon.

His widow claimed that Remington was aware a defect in that particular model rifle would cause it to fire without pulling the trigger once the safety lever was released.

She cited that minutes from a 1979 Remington safety subcommittee meeting, at which the defect in certain guns manufactured before 1975 was discussed and a possible recall considered. However, that meeting ended with attendees deciding against a recall because it would have required Remington to gather some 2 million guns ,when only 20,000 were known to be susceptible to the condition.

Remington argued that O’Neal couldn’t prove that the defect that caused the rifle to misfire was present at the time of it being manufactured. According to the gun maker, an alteration to the gun after purchase could have caused the misfire.

Complicating matters was that O’Neal, after being denied by two lawyers in her quest to pursue a wrongful death claim, had the gun destroyed because it reminded her of the tragedy. It wasn’t until several months later that she learned of the possible defect.

A federal court granted Remington’s motion for summary judgment, but the Eighth Circuit on Wednesday overturned that ruling, sending the case back to federal court.

In a 2-1 decision, the three-judge panel found that since South Dakota law allows a plaintiff to prove a defect through circumstantial evidence, O’Neal had presented enough circumstantial evidence to prove the defect was present at the time of manufacture.

“The fact that the subject rifle was used many times without incident from the mid-1980s through November 2008, and then suddenly inadvertently discharged, is consistent with the unpredictable manifestation of the inherent design defect in the Walker trigger,” U.S. Circuit Judge Kermit Bye wrote for the majority.

“In sharp contrast, if the subject rifle had been modified or altered prior to the mid-1980s in a way which would cause it to discharge when the safety lever was moved from the safe position to the fire position without the trigger being pulled, it is highly unlikely the rifle could have been used as many times as it was over the span of the next twenty-plus years without incident,” Bye said.

Oh dear.  This just gets worse and worse.  I’m not commenting on the gunsmithing accuracy of the court’s decision.  The problem is that Remington didn’t come clean on the Walker Fire Control System when they knew about it, they hid it, denied it, and sent their lawyers to argue with victims.

This was their destiny, and they chose it when they decided to be lawyers rather than engineers and gun manufacturers.  It was their destiny.

Other Resources:

Belk_Certification

Belk_Objection

Belk_Supplemental_Report

Prior:

Poking The Dragon

Update On The Remington 700 Settlement

Things You May Not Have Known About The Remington Walker Fire Control System

Salon:

As a teen I watched Chris Rock brilliantly address America’s gun problem during his Bigger and Blacker stand up. “We don’t need gun control,” Rock pleaded to a packed house, “We need bullet control––if bullets were $5000, people would think before they shot some one! You gotta really piss someone off for them to dump $50,000 worth of bullets in to you!” And just like the crowd, my brother, some friends and I erupted in laughter.

Rock was definitely on point, $5000 bullets would be great but I’d take it a step further––I believe that being shot should be requirement for gun ownership in America. It’s very simple. You need to have gun, like taking selfies with pistols, can’t live with out it? Then take a bullet and you will be granted the right to purchase the firearm of your choice.

[ … ]

Bullets are extremely hot and they hurt. I saw them paralyze, cut through faces, pierce children and take life. I have friends, relatives and loved ones be gunned down. Guns break apart families and ruin lives. Other than giving a coward the heart to stand tall, what’s the positive part of gun ownership? Other than the people in rural areas who use them to hunt for food, I have only seen them destroy, both in the suburbs and in our inner cities.

[ … ]

Gun praisers are just like the people who were in favor of slavery back in the day–– the elite, lazy and ignorant who weren’t being beaten, raped or in the field doing the work, so they were perfectly okay with involuntary servitude, which is a problem and why I think gun owners need to feel more––they need a taste of the other side.

So if you love guns, if they make you feel safe, if you hold and cuddle with them at night, then you need to be shot. You need to feel a bullet rip through your flesh, and if you survive and enjoy the feeling­­––then the right to bear arms will be all yours.

Listen here, young’ un.  You’re just projecting the ugly, black-on-black violence onto others in a refusal to take responsibility for the social, theological and familial problems in the black community.  As we all know, criminal violence with guns in America today is primarily a black-on-black problem.  You know it, I know it, and everyone knows it.

And you don’t get to set the rules for when I can use weapons for self defense or what weapons I choose.  Rights are granted by God, not horrible writers who craft their dung in effete, metrosexual rages fit only for rap concerts.  You want to be a man?  You want to show how tough you are?

Good.  Go to the black community and tell them to stop taking handouts and having welfare babies by fathers who will never be there.  Tell them to stop blaming other people for their problems.  Tell them to shut the gangs down and go home to their families.  Tell them to shut down that hideous rap “music” with its lyrics about rape, violence and hedonism.  Tell them to return to God and put away the things of the world.

I doubt you will, because you are the real coward – a coward too scared to face down his own problems.  As for me, I’ll keep my guns.  You can try to take them any time you feel froggy.

HNGN.com:

Legal firearm owners in Maine are now allowed to carry concealed handguns without a permit in the state thanks to a new law effective Thursday.

The statute, referred to by Second Amendment rights advocates as a “constitutional concealed carry,” applies to both residents and non-residents who are 21 or older, or military members age 18 or older, reported the Associated Press. That means that anyone who is not otherwise banned from possessing a firearm can now carry a concealed handgun in the state without a permit.

The law also authorizes a person to possess a loaded pistol or revolver while in a motor vehicle, trailer or other vehicle being hauled by a motor vehicle.

[ … ]

The police chief of Portland, the state’s largest city, issued a warning Thursday, saying that police officers and the community are now much less safe due to the law.

“This is a poor piece of legislation that we’re all about to suffer through,” Portland Police Chief Mike Sauschuck said, according to local news station CSH6 Portland.

Alaska, Arizona, Wyoming and Kansas have passed similar laws, while Vermont has never required a concealed carry permit. New Hampshire also passed a similar law to the one enacted in Maine, but it was vetoed by Gov. Maggie Hassan.

Butt-hurt, the police chief is.  It’s simply appalling in his mind that “the only ones” might not be the only ones recognized to carry a weapon, and they get no control over it, except insofar as the state issues permits to purchase.  But small steps are better than no steps at all.

Here’s a prediction (and the wonderful thing about predictions is that people remember them and those making the predictions can be held to account).  There is no suffering about to happen.  The Portland police chief is telling fairy tales and make-believe.  And he should be the one held to task when I’m proven to be right.

Ema O’Connor has done a poor job of answering the questions, so I thought I would help her.

Q: Every time there is a mass shooting, President Obama makes a passionate speech about the need for gun control. And yet it never happens. Why? Does he not have the power to drive through change?

A: That’s easy.  We aren’t subjects of the crown.  That problem was handled more than 200 years ago by men who, not coincidentally, had guns.

Q: Would you say the majority of Americans want stricter gun control laws? If so, how come it hasn’t happened yet?

A: That’s easy.  It’s a lie promulgated by the elitist media who want America to be like obedient insects living in a collectivist hive.  The majority of Americans don’t really want more gun control.

Q: How did the gun lobby become so powerful?

A: We have guns.

Q: Gun rights advocates: What is their explanation for why the U.S. has a much higher rate of gun deaths than comparable countries? Or do they just not talk about it?

A: Gun violence is primarily a black-on-black issue.  Were it not for many of the entitled, inner city blacks who have been taught through the fourth, fifth and sixth generations now to expect handouts and never take responsibility, you wouldn’t have even asked the question.  This question is more properly posed to the elitist, collectivist, urban chattering class.  Let them explain to you why they chose to create a class of inner city criminals.

Q: What do gun rights advocates say the “well regulated” bit in “well regulated militia” means?

A: Capable of shooting and engaging other field combat tactics well.

Q: How easy is it to get a gun license in America? What’s the process?

A: Not easy enough.

Q: In a number of cases, the gunmen responsible for mass shootings have had criminal records and documented mental health problems, and yet they were able to purchase firearms legally. How does that happen?

A: Mental health issues don’t predispose one to violence.  You must mean how does an evil man obtain weapons.  With money.  Although not asked, why does an evil man obtain weapons?  To perpetrate acts of evil, as it has been from Genesis 2 onward.

I’m glad I could be of assistance.

Huffington Post:

In 2012, 986 mass shootings ago, I wrote these words: “”In the wake of another horrific national tragedy, it’s easy to talk about guns. But it’s time to talk about mental illness.”

Now it’s time to talk about guns.

In the wake of the Umpqua Community College shooting, I had the unenviable task of appearing on CNN to defend the shooter’s mother, Laurel Harper, for sharing an entirely legal interest in firearms with her son.

Legal, but stupid.

Should Harper be blamed for her son’s actions? Of course not. Millions of parents share an interest in guns with their children. Harper did not have a crystal ball that could predict her son would become a mass shooter; in fact, it could be argued that mothers are the worst people to ask about their children’s weaknesses, because we prefer to focus, like Harper did, on our children’s strengths. Harper, who is grieving the loss of her son, the tenth victim of the shooting, couldn’t predict a mass shooting any better than anyone else can.

But was Harper irresponsible in how she owned and stored her guns? The clear answer is yes. Not because her son had a mental illness. Because all parents who own and store guns in their homes are irresponsible, regardless of whether anyone in the family has a mental illness.

What causes mass shootings? The same thing that causes 61% of all deaths by gun violence (suicides): easy access to guns. If no one in your family has suffered the negative effects of gun ownership, it’s not because you are a “responsible gun owner.” You are just lucky.

[ … ]

Our Founding Fathers were reasonable men. They surely never imagined a country where an amendment designed to keep the British from invading, at a time when guns could only fire one shot at a time with questionable accuracy, would lead to almost weekly mass shootings of innocent citizens.

I hope that Laurel Harper will join moms across America in demanding action from Congress on gun control. I’m one of those moms. Please don’t shoot me.

Our founding fathers were criminals and seditionists in the eyes of the British government.  And if they had the chance, they would have used any weapon at their disposal to shorten the war and ensure victory.  Your propositions are ridiculous.

Furthermore, storing guns isn’t any more dangerous than, say, storing typical household cleaning supplies, which can also kill you.  You just have to be responsible.  And no, I don’t believe in federal laws concerning the storage of household chemicals.  There is no inalienable right to wise parents.  Your propositions are ridiculous.

As for “please don’t shoot me,” I’m certainly okay with that, as long as you don’t come into my home and attempt to confiscate my guns.  Do we agree?

The Remington dragon, that is.  Jack Belk, whom I have discussed before, sends this note concerning his most recent interactions with Remington.

Remington served a subpoena on me Tuesday night that demands I show up for a video taped deposition in Twin Falls on Oct 21st.  My Supplemental Report tuned them up really bad and now they’re striking back in a big way.  The Dragon is fully awake now.  I’ve attached all my filings to the Court.

I bought six triggers so I’d have foundation parts to design and build a new trigger on plentifully available parts.   Of the six triggers, one  was found  defective and dangerous in a heretofore unknown way and the another is suspect. I saved those and tore  the other four apart for the pieces and have made two new triggers that I’m not ready to show anybody.

My lawyer friend-advisor in Wis. says  BS!! the subpoena  is harassment, a fishing expedition for Remington and unnecessary and un-needed and un-called for and is meant to intimidate a simple member of the ‘class’.

My position is this— I found a fault with the Walker in 1969 and told Remington about it then.  They did nothing.   Am I supposed to ignore a recently mass produced trigger that doesn’t work now?   No way.  I made damn sure they knew about it and can’t hide it.  Of course I’m willing to let them see the two triggers that I found fault with anytime they like.  Write me a nice letter and send me a plane ticket and I’ll be right there…..with a lawyer, but when they push me in a corner I have no choice but to fight back out of it.

The subpoena is a REAL problem.   The ‘plaintiff’s attorneys’ are charged with representing the entire class of people victimized by having a Walker trigger.  That includes me.   I’ve approached the Court as a member of the class, not as a lawyer, engineer, expert or hired gun for anybody.  I was also the expert for the plaintiffs that refused to tell a lie on their behalf so they fired me.   The lawyers that should be present as my legal advisors in the deposition are the same ones that fired me.  That would leave me to have to hire a lawyer to be my ‘second’ in the sword fight that would be that deposition.  That is burdensome to one just pointing out a mistake and the judge is not likely to be happy about it.  I think Remington has over-stepped enough the judge has no reason not to knock them down big-time.  I’ve taken on the mantle of ‘whistle-blower’ to the Court….I hope.

In the mean time, I found a stash of Remington triggers and bought 37 of them last night.  There’s another 500 or so for sale and I’m likely to buy them all but I think I have the one that will finally show that Remington has more trouble than what they have been caught at.

Background— Last April 14th everybody in the gun world was blindsided by a voluntary RECALL (unheard of!!) of the new X-Mark Pro trigger.    The problem was said to be excess sealant that could cause the gun to fire at a certain low temperature when the safe was pushed to OFF.  It was hard to deny,  a guy posted a youtube video of his rifle doing it several times.  It made waves in the gun world and was widely publicized, but the word on the ‘internet street’ is that rifles sent to New York months ago are still there and hunting season is coming.  Most that know of the ‘recall’ just have an aftermarket trigger installed.  Thats where I get the ones I find.

THIS CLASS ACTION CASE is totally different and covers 7.83 million Walker triggers, not 380,000 XPM triggers of the recall,  but people that hear of the class action suit assume it’s the same one.   Remington has told the judge they have heard of no opposition to the deal so that means its a good one.   Then I showed up and Pennington came in late with good legal arguments that supports my position.   Now, the  Remington team is on the defensive and so are the plaintiffs.  The two objections threaten a $12 million payday for one and the relief (and total confusion) of over seven million bad triggers for Remington and Dupont.

The  “F Trigger” exhibits a fault at room temperature and has nothing to do with the safety and it’s also made out of a different material.  How many of those were made?  Nobody has said anything about such a model of XMP, who specified that material?  Was it tested? Where are the findings, they’re under court order to be produced?  If it works so well, why not use that material now? (too expensive? By how much?)  When was this trigger made?  How many of them were bought?  Where are the rest of them?  Do they work or are they as broken as this one?

It’s strange to think a trigger I paid $25 for will be responsible for many millions of dollars changing hands….and I have no way of grabbing any of it except to rent it out to lawyers!   ….UPDATE—those triggers!!.  I’ve been going through the sack full of ‘new’ triggers and have found two more defective ones.   This explains why Remington refused to let me see their returns.   I think this case is about to be blown wide open.  Remington has been keeping a LOT of secrets since 2006 and it’s catching up with them in a big way in the largest Court they’re subject to.

I got a call from my lawyer on vacation.  I told him I used his money to buy these triggers so how much did he want to defend what I found?  He’s hiring a lawyer to write a motion to bar the deposition.  He  (name witheld)  has  my back and he’s a good guy that I can trust.  He’s just catching up to speed on ‘The Remington mess’ and is in awe of the misbehavior over the years.   He has downloaded the entire case file for this class action because it has so much background information in it (300,000 pages).

I think the Dragon is not feeling well, but he’s still dangerous.

There is no safe direction to point an unsafe gun.

I’ll have more to say about this later, and I also have court documents (in PDF) I simply don’t have time to attach now.  This isn’t over yet.

Baptist News Global:

Of course, the problem with “the devil made them do it,” is that personal and social responsibility are minimized to the point that we are off the hook. There is no way to prevent every tragedy, but why the push-back against laws that might minimize tragedy?

Can you imagine if that was the Church’s response to other tragic and violent situations?

…like Human Trafficking and Sex Slavery – “The devil made that man kidnap those girls, so there’s no reason to pass laws that might prevent human trafficking, and certainly no need to talk about it.”

Such an approach is not only irresponsible from a biblical perspective, but from a social and moral one.

Another pastor wrote in a forum:

“We cannot stop this stuff from going down. The world is going to hell in two handbaskets.”

Actually, part of what makes these tragedies so infuriating (and painfully sad) is that in other developed countries, mass killings do not happen with anywhere close to the same regularity we have in the States.

Can you imagine if the response of Christians to every moral dilemma was like the one above?

…like Racial Segregation – “We cannot stop segregation because the world is going to hell. The Bible says it will get worse before it gets better!”

Preposterous. Such a view is escapist, and denies Christ’s call to help usher in the Kingdom of Heaven in our present reality. Unfortunately the escapist view is rampant among American Christians, and common sense gun legislation isn’t the only issue held captive to such faulty thinking.

I even heard a pastor say:

“As Christians we shouldn’t expect politicians, judges and other leaders to make moral choices that usher in God’s Kingdom.”

Then as Christians, why do we elect them? I’m all for separation of church and state, but just because the state should not favor a particular religion or denomination doesn’t mean we should expect the worst from our government, or not care when violence (that can arguably be minimized) runs rampant.

What if the above view was taken in other situations?

…like Payday and Predatory Lending – “Why should Christians expect society to limit predatory financial practices that prey on the poor and vulnerable? If the Church was just salt and light then maybe these companies would go away.”

Don’t count on it. On many issues the church works to affect change for the better in our culture including human rights, economic initiatives, racial reconciliation, and environmental stewardship. If the church is salt and light in the world, wouldn’t legislative change materialize as fruit of our collective witness?

The non-answers, the posturing, the moral avoidance and theological escapism have got to stop – especially among Christian leaders. It’s time for a reality check.

In my opinion, the reason this debate is seemingly intractable is nothing short of idolatry masquerading as weak rhetoric, tired arguments, and a refusal to face the truth – We have an idolatry problem in America.

• Idolatry of the individual self
• Idolatry of guns
• Idolatry of “personal security and protection”

“The idolatry of security.”  This is a remarkable quote (and perspective) from a man who would be a boy, perhaps not old enough to have children or a wife who is precious to him and who depend upon him for protection.  He is old enough to be a Doctor of Ministry candidate, but not wise enough to study the Scriptures rather than the political scene for his world view.

Remember what we’ve seen concerning what the Holy Writ says about our responsibilities.

God’s law requires [us] to be able to defend the children and helpless.  “Relying on Matthew Henry, John Calvin and the Westminster standards, we’ve observed that all Biblical law forbids the contrary of what it enjoins, and enjoins the contrary of what it forbids.”  I’ve tried to put this in the most visceral terms I can find.

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 yet in spite of God’s expectations for us, the man-child actually recommends that we subjugate our personal security – and that of our family – for the greater social good, whatever that means!  We don’t know what form it would take – universal background checks, which wouldn’t do what he wants, bans on certain kinds of weapons, which wouldn’t do what he wants, or what.  But something must be done, because remember the children.

I am remembering the children, son, and perhaps you will one day too.  That’s why I won’t subjugate my right to own whatever weapons I deem appropriate for the defense of my family to any perceived social good.  And if your seminary is teaching that you should, I suggest you discuss with your wife, or future wife, the notion that you want her to sacrifice some of the security of your children for the greater social good.  You can have a long, perhaps contentious conversation on how much that “some” should be as your children lay in their beds at night.

Mike Vanderboegh:

This makes about as much sense as someone reacting to rape committed by a stranger in another town by cutting off his own penis.

Yep.  That’s how much sense gun control makes.