Notes From HPS
BY Herschel Smith
8 years, 11 months ago
David is in a throw-down with Gavin Newsom, who is a worm. It might be interesting to watch this one play out. I don’t do Facebook because I hate Mark Zuckerberg so much. But for those of us who can stomach an account, I admit it can be used for good from time to time.
Bottom line: Just because current or former members of the armed forces support “gun control,” it would be naive and dangerous to conclude that has made them weak or otherwise impaired their capabilities.
Oh, absolutely. I pointed out that I doubted this Marines credentials, whether he was a grunt. Nonetheless, that doesn’t mean he isn’t dangerous. No grunt would misapply the phrase “military grade assault rifle” so badly. But being a grunt and being a control freak don’t necessarily intersect.
Hognose disabuses you of the oft-repeated notion that a lone defender with a handgun cannot possibly be effective against terrorists. Of course he can.
Via Uncle, this is a good idea.
If a Tennessee grocery store bans guns on its property and a black bear or wild hog kills or injures a person who otherwise would be carrying his or her gun, the gun owner would be allowed to sue the property owner if a newly introduced bill became law. To accomplish that goal, the legislation allows any Tennessean with a valid gun permit to sue a property owner in the event of injury or death provided the incident occurred while in a gun-free zone.
Via Mike Vanderboegh, EOTech comes clean, or so we’re told. But I’m still not sure what to do about mine.
|
|
On January 25, 2016 at 12:01 am, Daniel Barger said:
‘If a Tennessee grocery store bans guns on its property and a black bear or wild hog kills or injures a person who otherwise would be carrying his or her gun, the gun owner would be allowed to sue the property owner if a newly introduced bill became law. To accomplish that goal, the legislation allows any Tennessean with a valid gun permit to sue a property owner in the event of injury or death provided the incident occurred while in a gun-free zone.’
Of course it’s a good idea…..and of course such legislation will NEVER HAPPEN. Large businesses and more importantly the companies that insure those businesses DO NOT WANT ANYONE to carry a weapon on the premises. The rational is that death and destruction caused by
a criminal or someone ‘going postal’ is an ‘act of god’ and therefore they aren’t financially liable. If a business openly allows the presence of guns they might possibly be found liable for damages if someone who is allowed by policy to carry actually ‘goes postal’. In short saving money comes WAY before saving lives.
On January 25, 2016 at 7:32 pm, Fred said:
It passed introduction and made it into committee (judiciary). It’s a start.
On January 26, 2016 at 1:15 am, Daniel Barger said:
Don’t hold your breath…..a lot of bills make it a long way into the process to die along the way. And even AFTER passage the courts still get a crack at overturning them.
On January 25, 2016 at 6:57 am, Lina Inverse said:
EOTech’s director of Marketing: “We are doing repairs, we are doing replacements to people that aren’t happy and we are doing refunds,” he said.”
They ignored the email I sent when these problems first got publicity (and turns out there are at least two more), but I see they now have refund process starting with your filling out http://www.eotechinc.com/return-authorization-request-form So I’ll see if they’ve stopped lying.
On January 27, 2016 at 4:33 pm, Lina Inverse said:
Lo and behold, this time they responded, 2 days email turn around, and will in theory issue me a refund + $15 for shipping when I return my sight. We’ll see.
On March 23, 2016 at 5:17 am, Lina Inverse said:
Lo and behold, the refund check arrived in the mail Monday the 21st, an acceptable period after they received the sight on Feb 2nd.