Tom Ricks writing at Foreign Policy:

I’ve been reading a lot of early American history lately. The more I read, the more I think that the gun is central to our history. So yes, controlling guns is literally “un-American,” in that it runs against the grain of our past.

Even so, I think we need to do something about guns, especially in the hands of the insane. Part of the problem is that everyone is partly nuts sometime. And some people are bigtime nuts much of the time. Other countries have crazy people too, but they don’t make it so easy for them to get weapons in their crazed hands.

Tom is a former journalist with the Washington Post, and long time military writer who has corresponded with me only once, and then just briefly.  Like everyone else at Washington Post (and Foreign Policy), he is a progressive.

So there you have it, the progressive mind on gun control.  “Everyone is partly nuts sometime.”  Never mind that Tom doesn’t give a clinical definition of nuts, and never mind that he hasn’t demonstrated that anything related to what the mental health professionals consider to be mental dysfunction has anything whatsoever to do with violent behavior.  It does not, as we’ve seen again, and again, and again.

He goes even farther, saying that some people are “bigtime nuts,” and we are left to wonder again what is the clinical definition of bigtime nuts.  Then he self-identifies as a rube and a dimwit.  The recent attacks in Paris demonstrate how easy it is to perpetrate evil if the perpetrator is motivated.  No country can compete with France for onerous gun control.  But more to the point, Tom may not be saying it, but he knows that the real problem with gun crime in America is crime in the black community, gun or not.  He is willing to make it tougher to get those awful guns for everyone in order to solve a problem that is primarily associated with the inner city black community.

I wonder if Tom is concerned enough about the black community to cause an American civil war over gun confiscations, or to see a government that has lost any semblance of control because no one observes its laws?  Does he really think we’re going to go along with more gun control?  Finally, I am left wondering if Tom wrote this piece when he was partly nuts or bigtime nuts?  For the record, I’m not nuts.

David Codrea:

All that does is highlight the glaring truth that criminals break the law. It’s what they do. Astoundingly, at least, apparently, to some, prohibition of those prized commodities invites bootlegging, and the violent crime that goes along with it. Thank goodness we have “the newspaper of record” to clear that up for us!

And Australia sees a spike in gun crime despite an outright gun ban.  You mean gun control laws don’t work on criminals?  You mean that all of those prohibition laws made up by those morally preening Northern women didn’t actually cause people to stop seeking corn liquor?

Mike Vanderboegh: A crock of excrement, this is.  I agree.  I’m ashamed to be a North Carolinian.

“Grim relief” over Jihadi John strike.  Grim relief?  Seriously?  How about a glass or three of good wine, a thankful prayer to God for His kind providence towards, and a a little celebratory dancing?  I’m glad we could speed John’s entry to the lake of fire.  What the hell is wrong with the media?

Police seizure of guns.  Hmm … it doesn’t really matter to me that this guy is a celebrity of sorts (I don’t know who he is).  The moral of the story is don’t give the police permission to enter your home or take anything.  In fact, don’t talk to the police at all.

Here is the French government meeting after the recent terror attacks in Paris, where at current rendering almost 160 souls have perished.

Look at the bastards, with their fresh water, iPhones and iPads, looking all shocked at the carnage their open borders policy has created.

As one might expect, Obama has sped up the process of relocating Syrians to the U.S., and has declared that we have ISIS contained.

Obama may as well wear big shoes and a rubber nose, and beclown himself before the world.  He does so on a regular basis.  But the problem is that he is at the moment a clown with power, doing the bidding of Valerie Jarrett and a gaggle of globalist, international power brokers.

Those power brokers apparently want to see the dissolution and the disintegration of civilization, perhaps being bored with things as they are.  I was recently watching news reports where French men went to the scene(s) of the shooting to beg for the lives of their wives.  Why exactly their wives were there and they weren’t is a mystery that must require understanding the French in order to sort out.

Don’t be them.  Understand that there is a real threat inside the U.S., whether from ATF or EPA or police or [fill in the blank] SWAT teams, or MS13, or Islamists.  Their goal is all the same – to enslave and ultimately to kill you and your loved ones.  There will be no mercy, there will be no way out, no matter how much you beg.

Guns, ammunition, and practice, family, clan and tribe.  Do it.  Prepare now.  Time is short.  Your loved ones are counting on you.

UPDATE:

John Jay has thoughts here and here.

UPDATE #2:

WRSA has coverage here.  Mark Steyn’s comments are always worth reading.

“So I say again: What’s the happy ending here? Because if M Hollande isn’t prepared to end mass Muslim immigration to France and Europe, then his “pitiless war” isn’t serious. And, if they’re still willing to tolerate Mutti Merkel’s mad plan to reverse Germany’s demographic death spiral through fast-track Islamization, then Europeans aren’t serious. In the end, the decadence of Merkel, Hollande, Cameron and the rest of the fin de civilisation western leadership will cost you your world and everything you love.

So screw the candlelight vigil.”

UPDATE #3:

FBI has nearly 1000 active ISIS probes ongoing.

PolitickerNJ:

At a Tuesday candidate forum in LD24, Assemblyman Parker Space, who is up for reelection this year, declared: “There is nothing better than an unregistered gun, believe me.”

Westword.com:

Earlier this week, we shared new reports about the investigation into Noah Harpham, who police say shot and killed three people before dying in a gun battle with officers. A neighbor, Naomi Bettis, said she’d called 911 after seeing Harpham with a gun but was told there was nothing police could do owing to open carry laws; see our previous coverage below.

Now, the Colorado Springs Police Department has responded with a detailed account of what took place during the ten-minute period between the first 911 call and a second, during which Bettis revealed that a man, later ID’d as bicyclist Andrew Myers, was dead, and also released audio of the conversations in question. We’ve shared the links here.

The CSPD insists that the first report wasn’t shrugged off. However, it was initially given a lower priority because lives weren’t thought to be at risk.

Bettis’s first call came in at 8:45:40 a.m., with the department noting that it “reported a suspicious male walking into a building carrying gasoline cans and a rifle” on the 200 block of North Prospect Street in the Springs.

The emergency response technician, or ERT, speaking with Bettis initially classified the report as a “priority 3” — near the middle of its six-point prioritization system. (Priority 6 is the least threatening designation, priority 1 the most serious.) However, about one minute into the two-minute call, the ERT upgraded the circumstance to a priority 2 under the theory that Harpham might be planning to commit a burglary.

Regarding the open-carry mention, here’s the transcription: “Well, it is an open carry state, so he can have a weapon with him or walking around with it. But, of course, having those gas cans does seem pretty suspicious, so we’re going to keep the call going for that.”

To listen to the first 911 call in its entirety, click here.

And commenter John P. Koury blames open carry laws.

Was walking into Walmart on 8th, two guys right ahead of me strapped with handguns. Mentioned it to the clerk, who started quoting open carry laws and said that it was their God given right. I walked out.

How does anybody know if these guys were robbers, thugs, angry punks or just bad-looking so called “good guys”? Open carry is nuts. If you are so paranoid that you think you have to carry a gun wherever you go, you probably are too unstable to have one.

And if open carry had been illegal, the shooter, if he had in fact decided to perpetrate evil, would have used a pistol, or several pistols, or an SBR hidden under a coat.  The caller wouldn’t have called in because there would have been nothing to call about, and hence no one could have blamed open carry.  Said another way, if open carry had been illegal, the shooter wouldn’t have carried openly else he would have been caught before perpetrating his evil action.  Evil men aren’t mentally deficient and unable to reason – they are just evil

Do you see the point?  Let’s use Aristotle’s categories in metaphysics and ontology to help us.  Open carry is an accident of this event, not essential to it.  It was essential to the shooter to be evil and to have shot.  The mode of transportation for himself or his weapon was not essential.  Understand?

As for Johnny boy, he doesn’t get to decide whether my carrying a gun disqualifies me from carrying a gun (Johnny needs to study tautology a little better, no?).  Because … I have guns and can stop Johnny.  Understand?

Central Maine:

I agree that gunfire is a loud noise. What is curious is what is the actual benefit of making that noise less audible?

Is it to avoid hurting the shooter’s ears? Is it to not scare off nearby wildlife? Is it so people don’t know a gun is being fired in their immediate area?

Understandably, when James Bond wants to do away with an evil villain, it’s to his benefit to do so with a bit of stealth.

The state of Maine just passed a law that allows people with possibly no conceivable training in firearms to carry one among unknowing people. Before this law, people who wanted a concealed weapons permit had to be totally vetted by a number of state agencies, including the state police and/or their local police chief. Now it’s go to a gun shop, pick up a 9mm and a shiny concealed holster, and off they go.

The insanity continues with lessening the sounds of a firearm being used nearby. That means game wardens would have less opportunity to arrest night hunters, neighbors wouldn’t be sure how far away they are from guns being fired, and careless hunters would have more opportunity to fire closer to neighborhoods than legally allowed.

As a past hunter and active skeet shooter, I wear ear protection, practice safety to the highest degree and am well-versed in the safe handling of firearms. I wish I could say the same for the masses that tramp through the woods and walk into public places with a seriously dangerous machine that they may not know how operate, thus causing potential danger to themselves and an unknowing public.

A quiet gun. No one seems to have a viable answer for why we need one, except that it might mean more sales for gun sellers.

Well thank you Mr. Fudd.  With friends like you, who needs enemies?  Actually, I jest.  I consider you the enemy.  In fact, come to think of it, I think you’re lying.  I don’t think you’re really a past hunter and active skeet shooter.  You sound just like a collectivist, statist windbag who’s making things up for the sake of drama.

But if you are, you got yours, didn’t you?  And you don’t trust anyone with guns except you, your Fudd buddies, and the cops, even if we all lose our hearing, outside or inside at the shooting range.  Do you?  And don’t give me that crap about wearing hearing protection.  We both know better.

We both know that even with ear plugs and muffs, it’s better for us all to have suppressed weapons.  It’s better for our quality of life as we grow old, and it’s better for long term health costs for our progeny who must watch over us.  But that doesn’t matter to you, does it?  You’d rather sacrifice our hearing, preferring that Mr. Fudd pal around with other Mr. Fudds in the woods once a season, and go shoot clays a couple of times a year.  Are you a member of an an exclusive country club too, Mr. Fudd?

Does the encroachment of technology scare you, Mr. Fudd?  Does freedom offend you?  Good.  I hope you’re appalled at the likes of me.  As I said, I consider you the enemy, just like the collectivist windbags.  So don’t bring up anything else about being a hunter and clay shooter.  I’m not interested.

WTKR.com:

Camden County, NC – A Virginia Beach Police lieutenant was accidentally shot by a VBPD captain on Wednesday evening during firearms training, according to the Camden County Sheriff’s Office.

The officers were conducting firearms training at Academi, located at 850 Pudding Ridge Road in Camden County.

At the conclusion of the training, Captain Michael Ronan was cleaning his weapon and it discharged, striking Lieutenant Johnny Gandy in the arm.

The victim was taken to Chesapeake Regional Medical Center with non-life threatening injuries. He was treated and released and is recovering at home.

No criminal charges are expected. However, the Virginia Beach Police Department will complete an internal investigation and review training and safety protocols.

Gosh, I hate it when that happens to me.  I remember the last time I shot somebody while cleaning my gun around other people, gun loaded and everything.  It sucked because they did a “safety protocol investigation” and all that crap.  No charges though.  I’m glad the dude I shot understood that shit happens.

News from Pennsylvania:

A small-town police officer on trial for fatally shooting an unarmed motorist in the back testified Wednesday in her murder trial that she believed the man had a gun and she feared for her safety as he lay on the ground.

Hummelstown Officer Lisa Mearkle told jurors she believed David Kassick was still a threat even after she shocked him repeatedly with a stun gun.

“I wish he was here right now. I wish he didn’t do this,” Mearkle said, sobbing. “I didn’t want to have to shoot him, but he made me.”

The encounter was captured on video by a camera attached to Mearkle’s stun gun. The footage, which was played to jurors, showed the 37-year-old officer shocking Kassick before shooting him twice in the back as he lay face down in the snow in February.

In the video, Kassick’s hands repeatedly disappeared underneath his body as Mearkle screamed at him to keep them where she could see them and then fired the fatal shots. The trial judge has ordered that the video not be released to the public until there is a verdict.

The encounter began when Mearkle attempted to pull over Kassick after noticing an expired inspection sticker on his sedan. She pursued him to Kassick’s sister’s home, where he had been living, and he ran to the backyard.

Mearkle caught up to him in the yard. She said she was convinced he had a gun in his jacket and was reaching for it.

“There was no other reason for him to reach in his freaking jacket,” Mearkle said. “What else was I supposed to think he’s reaching for?”

She described an intense scene in which dispatchers were talking to her by radio and Kassick’s brother was yelling at her to stop shocking the 59-year-old with the stun gun.

The two gunshots were a few seconds apart. Mearkle administered CPR as others arrived.

In tears, Mearkle said: “This is horrible for me. I’m sorry. I’m sorry. I’m sorry. I’m sorry.”

It’s not clear why Kassick fled, but investigators recovered a syringe by his body and prosecutors have said alcohol and unspecified drugs were in his system.

Mearkle has been on unpaid suspension since her arrest and is currently out on bail. In addition to third-degree murder, she is charged with voluntary and involuntary manslaughter.

She testified she hopes to return to police work.

“I’m a good police officer,” she told jurors. “This should not have happened to me.”

Does anyone who isn’t a law enforcement officer believe that this defense – “There was no other reason for him to reach in his freaking jacket” … “What else was I supposed to think he’s reaching for?” – would or should be successful for himself if he shot a man in the back?  And what goes for you goes for the police, so says the Supreme Court ruling in Tennessee Versus Garner.

Leaving aside my disagreement with the so-called war on drugs, let’s discuss for a moment acceptable outcomes of this exchange.  If would have been acceptable for her to have shot him if he had turned and assaulted her or threatened too, weapon or not.  It might have been acceptable for her to have shot him had he stopped, turned, and quickly reached into his pants or coat and pulled out a pencil or pen (I’d have to see the video).  It would have been acceptable for her to have hosed him down with OC spray.

It certainly would have been acceptable for her to have let him escape, thus avoiding taking his life.  After all, she knew at that point she had access to a relative, and police investigators just love to do their jobs and find people wanted by the police.  He would eventually have been apprehended.  In fact, not only would this outcome have been acceptable, it would have been the most peaceful and wisest course of action.

But it is not acceptable for a cop to shoot a man in the back who is running away.  And thus do we have yet another sad, disgusting installment of losing the mandate of heaven.  And cops wonder why people mistrust them?

Journal of the American Revolution:

While it can be said that the British commanders, both Howe and Clinton, were certainly aware of the massive counterfeiting offensive, it seems that the actual execution of the plan was carried out on a “street” level. Using various methods of disseminating that counterfeit currency, some subtle, some very bold, they were able to put massive amounts of it into circulation. Once in circulation it had the effect of destabilizing what was already an unstable currency, leaving the American economy teetering and the people’s faith in Congress shaken. In most every way the planned economic offensive very nearly achieved its purpose of bringing an end to the rebellion.

This is an outstanding essay, and I highly commend it to your studies.  If you think there is no modern relevance, ask yourself why the federal government monitors all banking transactions greater than $5000?  Or why they want a cashless society?  Or why any of the sundry government controls (e.g., EPA ban on most wood-burning stoves) are in place?

Some of this is related to currency, some not, but it’s all related to the need to stay on the government tit and the inability to disconnect from her controls.

The Guardian:

When President Maduro launched a disarmament plan in 2014, and security forces were also ordered to destroy weapons seized during the police operations, the government’s intention was to reduce violence by making it harder for people to obtain guns. His predecessor had already made private gun ownership illegal in 2012.

But these actions have only increased interest in the people allowed to carry weapons. “There are now fewer deals in black market arms but that has made anyone in uniform a more popular target for criminals than before,” says Eliseo Guzmán, the general commissioner of the Miranda state police force. “They will identify a police officer and take away his life just to take his gun.”

A sad case study in the law of unintended consequences, yes?  Do government control freaks really think that laws against guns will ensure the guns are only in the hands of government enforcers?  Really?  Could they be that naive?