The Washington Post:

The Oregon State Sheriffs’ Association, which has publicly supported Ward, said Thursday that it did not stand by people who it described as arming themselves, breaking into publicly owned buildings and intimidating and harassing local residents and officials.

“These men and women are asking for change, and we support their right to challenge our government to make change,” the association said in a statement. “However, we do not agree with or support any citizen or elected official who would advocate for change in a manner that includes illegal action, threats of violence, or violence against any citizen of the United States.”

You can read it all for yourself, but I don’t need to know any more than this in order to form an opinion and make a judgment.  This is a terrible position statement, and it would have been better for them never to have spoken of the matter than to say something like that.

Take that statement as it is, because it doesn’t need context in order to understand it.  ” … we do not agree with or support any citizen or elected official who would advocate for change in a manner that includes illegal action, threats of violence, or violence against any citizen of the United States.”

Ever, under any circumstances, for any reason.  Or so we may conclude, since they provided no qualifiers, stipulations, conditions or caveats.  Unfortunately, we live in a democracy rather than a constitutional republic, where 51% of the people can vote to impoverish the other 49% for their own benefit.

So what if it was worse than mere wealth redistribution (which is theft)?  Suppose America voted to sacrifice every fourth male child born on the final day of each month in a bloody sacrifice to the gods of football?  And what if it was commonly accepted practice to appease the sports heroes in our broken society?  Would it be okay with these Sheriffs to opposes such actions with violence, or should it be only with protests?  What would the Sheriffs do?  Would they actively engaged in baby confiscation, or protection of the baby confiscators because that was the law?

But we would never do something like that in America, you say.  Or would we?  Do we?

Hot Air:

While it’s not a done deal yet, there’s a good chance that we may finally be receiving a final decision from the Supreme Court on the question of so called “assault weapons” bans. Back in December, gun rights activists were largely disappointed when SCOTUS decided they would not hear an appeal to Illinois’ assault weapons ban, allowing a lower court ruling in favor of the law to stand. At the time, I speculated that they were waiting for more lower courts to weigh in on similar challenges around the country to see if there was some sort of consensus or if the states were divided and in need of clarification from above.

This week that question may have been answered. The 4th Circuit, hearing a Maryland case, went the other way, overturning a ban on AR-15 style rifles and expanded capacity magazines. (Baltimore Sun)

In a 2-1 decision applauded by gun rights advocates, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit concluded that the semiautomatic weapons and high-capacity magazines banned by Maryland’s Firearm Safety Act “are in common use by law-abiding citizens.” As a result, they don’t fall under the exception to the right to bear arms that applies to “unusual” weapons such as machine guns and hand grenades, the court said.

This apparent contradiction between the 7th Circuit Court’s ruling in Friedman v. City of Highland Park and the 4th’s ruling in Maryland has likely provided enough contrast for the Supremes to take up the question.

If they take it up, I predict they will sustain the constitutionality of such a ban.  First of all, look at the makeup of the court.  It has five outright communists (including Kennedy), a collectivist in conservative dress (Roberts), two more fairly unreliable “conservatives” (Scalia and Alito), and only one true conservative (Clarence Thomas).

Second, they won’t even have to turn to their own proclivities to find their decision.  It’s embedded in Heller itself.

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts rou­tinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon , in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For exam­ ple, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws impos­ing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. 26 We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradi­tion of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indict­ able Misdemeanors 271–272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford , 10 N. C. 381, 383–384 (1824); O’Neill v. State, 16 Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35 Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874). It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause …

You can read the rest for yourself.  Scalia isn’t here arguing for the constitutionality of owning M-16s.  He is attempting to answer an objection before it is cast.  He is implicitly accepting the legitimacy of banning M-16s.

I’ve said it before.  While many in the gun community celebrated Heller, I say it was perhaps in the top two sinful abominations leaving the pens of the supreme court, second only to Roe v. Wade.

The seeds of acceptance of an “assault weapons” ban are right there in Heller.  They will support the legitimacy of said bans.  And of course, we won’t listen to them because they jettisoned their own legitimacy long ago.

I run a break-in procedure on my rifles.  This involves (1) a round, (2) brush/solvent/patch full stroke down the barrel, (3) dry patch or mop, next round, and so on. This process continues for several dozen rounds, then you skip to three rounds before the same procedure, and so on until the process is completed at 50 or more rounds.  You’ll wear out at least two bore brushes this way.  I’ve done it.  A bore guide is handy, and a day at the range is necessary.  You can’t complete the process in under a day.

This is a question I have wondered about myself, and I’m glad that the video author found several high powered barrel manufacturers to discuss it.  The first two representatives essentially reiterated what I thought and what I’ve been told, except that they focus on the machining marks in the throat and chamber, while I always thought it had to do with machining marks on the throat, chamber and barrel (inconsistencies in the throat, chamber and barrel such as microscopic burs, ridges and chatter marks left by the machining process).

The third barrel manufacturer was slightly more nonchalant about the process.  You be the judge.  I think I’ll continue to run the break-in procedure when I buy a new rifle.  Any gunsmiths or tool and die / jig engineers are welcome to weigh in on this issue.

The Cavalier Daily:

Anti-rape activist and National President of One in Four John D. Foubert told Slate, “If you have a rape situation, usually it starts with some sort of consensual behavior, and by the time it switches to non-consensual, it would be nearly impossible to run for a gun.”

Or in other words, it’s the victim’s fault.  I don’t believe I’ve ever seen a more prejudiced and bigoted comment in print.  From reddit/firearms, “You’re going to get raped, hopefully by an NRA member, just take it so we get better statistics.”

Obama visited an American Mosque.  Here is a video of his speech.  He said all sorts of things that were lies.  In fact, most or all of what he said was false.  For instance, Islam cannot coexist at peace with any other ideology.  It is an invasive parasite bent on the destruction of the host.  We’ve discussed this at length before.

But there is one lie in particular that deserves discussion so that you understand just how misleading his speech was.  It is this.

“Now, a lot of Americans have never visited a mosque, and to the folks watching this today who haven’t, think of your own church or synagogue or temple and a mosque like this will be very familiar. This is where families come to worship and express their love for God and for each other,” he said. “…So the first thing I want to say is two words that Muslim-Americans don’t hear often enough, and that is thank you. Thank you for serving your community.”

In my many articles on rules of engagement in Iraq, I dealt with the issue of lack of permission to fire on Mosques even when they knew of sniper hides in Minarets, fighters who ensconced there, and heavy weapons cached there.  Our ROE has always had a Western bent.  We see things through Western eyes, and often from a Christianized perspective.

Thus, the building where the church meets (the church is the people) is a place of “worship.”  Without knowing anything about Islam, we assume that a Mosque is a place of worship.  But to the Muslim, it is much, much more than that.  It is the literal means for the spread of Islam through all means governed by the Mosque, and the “all means” to which I refer means everything.

The Mosque is the center of community, the weapons armory, the place for distribution of wealth, the location to meet other Muslims, the place where politics is taught – in short, the be all and end all of the Islamic strategy for conquest.  Let someone who knows more than I do explain it better, John Guandolo.

Many Americans believe a mosque or Islamic Center is simply a “Muslim church.”  This could not be further from the truth.

In Islam, Mohammad is considered the al Insan al Kamil – the perfect example of a man.  Anything he did is considered the example for all Muslims to follow for all time.  Muslim men can marry girls as young as six years old because Mohammad did.  Mohammad beheaded Jews at the Battle of the Trench, so this is an “excellent example” for Muslims to follow.  And Mohammad built mosques.

Islam defines itself as a “complete way of life (social, cultural, political, military, religious)” governed by sharia (Islamic Law).  There is no separation of politics, religion, or military operations.  Mohammad was a political, religious, and military leader.  The mosque was and is a place where politics, religion, community, and military affairs are all combined.

Mohammad used mosques as a place for the community to gather and learn about Islam.  It was a place to store food, water, weapons, and ammunition.  It was a place where jihadis lived and trained.  It was also the place where battles were planned and the place from which battles were launched.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s (MB) strategic plan for North America entitled “An Explanatory Memorandum” was discovered during an FBI raid in Annandale, Virginia in 2004 at the home of a senior Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood leader.  This document was entered into evidence in the largest terrorism financing and Hamas trial ever successfully prosecuted in American history – US v Holy Land Foundation (HLF), Dallas, 2008.

Regarding mosques/Islamic Centers, An Explanatory Memorandum states:

“Understanding the role and the nature of work of “The Islamic Center” in every city with what achieves the goal of the process of settlement (Civilization Jihad):  The center we seek is the one which constitutes the “axis” of our Movement, the “perimeter” of the circle of our work, our “balance center”, the “base” for our rise and our “Dar al-Arqam” to educate us, prepare us and supply our battalions in addition to being the “niche” of our prayers. (emphasis added)

“This is in order for the Islamic center to turn – in action not in words – into a seed ‘for a small
Islamic society’…Thus, the Islamic center would turn into a place for study, family, battalion, course, seminar, visit, sport, school, social club, women gathering, kindergarten for male and female youngsters, the office of the domestic political resolution, and the center for distributing our newspapers, magazines, books and our audio and visual tapes…Meaning that the “center’s” role should be the same as the “mosque’s” role during the time of God’s prophet…when he marched to “settle” the Dawa’ in its first generation in Madina…From the mosque, he drew the Islamic life and provided to the world the most magnificent and fabulous civilization humanity knew. This mandates that, eventually, the region, the branch and the Usra turn into “operations rooms” for planning, direction, monitoring and leadership for the Islamic center in order to be a role model to be followed.”

[ … ]

… the Islamic Law of Sacred Space makes clear that when Muslims build mosques they are claiming ground for Islam.  Specifically, a radius of up to three (3) miles from the mosque belongs to Islam.  This explains why the Muslim Brotherhood, with funding from Saudi Arabia and others, are building huge mosques in the middle of nowhere in America.  They are claiming ground for Islam.  Now all they have to do is occupy that ground.

You can think of Muslim homes as patrol bases and observation posts, and their Mosques as Forward Operating Bases (FOBs) in a worldwide conquest for your politics, your wealth, your children, and ultimately your soul.  Mr. Obama is lying to you.  Mr. Obama isn’t stupid – he knows that he is lying.  It’s important for you to know it too.

ABC News:

The Rev. Franklin Graham has spoken with the remaining armed occupiers of a national wildlife refuge in Oregon.

The Oregonian reports ( http://bit.ly/1PTCRw2 ) that a spokesman for Graham confirmed that he communicated by phone with the four occupiers and federal officials.

Todd Shearer told the newspaper that Graham had no comment beyond that statement.

The last four occupiers of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge had asked Graham to help them negotiate their departure. They have said they want assurances they won’t be arrested.

Well, Franklin Graham is a very good man.  I know folks who work for him, I have immense respect for him, and the remaining holdouts at Malheur did well to select him.  Go ahead.  I’d like to see the Oregon State Police lie to him and give safe passage to the remaining boys at the building, only to arrest them later.  Go ahead, you worms.  Lie to Rev. Franklin Graham.  Actually, they won’t.  They’ll tell the truth.  There is no good outcome for these boys now.  The fedgov won’t let this go, they will drive this through to a conclusion, they want the land, they don’t want any more trouble from advocates for freedom, they want the unwashed masses to shut up.  Even Rev. Graham won’t be able to stop what the fedgov intends to do.

Leaders of the Oregon county where an armed group has been occupying a national wildlife refuge are rejecting calls that they resign.

In a statement Tuesday, Harney County said it was responding to demands from the Pacific Patriots Network, which has organized rallies in support of the occupation at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.

The statement said Judge Steve Grasty, Sheriff David Ward and two county commissioners would not step down.

Too bad.  I hope they lose everything, personally and professionally.  I consider them morally unfit to suck swine.

An Arizona man arrested in the occupation of the Oregon wildlife refuge remains in federal custody after a judge held off ruling on prosecutors’ request to keep him detained as he awaits trial.

Jon Eric Ritzheimer of Peoria, Arizona, was a vocal presence in the occupation in Oregon before leaving to visit his family on Jan. 25. The FBI arrested him the next day in Arizona.

Ten others also have been arrested in the standoff that began Jan. 2 when an armed group opposed to federal land policy took over the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.

Ritzheimer faces a federal felony charge in Oregon of conspiracy to impede federal officials in their official duties through the use of force, intimidation or threats.

Prosecutors said Tuesday that Ritzheimer’s repeated rejection of federal authority makes him a flight risk and unsuitable for court-ordered supervision.

Let that statement wash over you again.  “Rejection of federal authority.”  Listen to it again.  Rejection of federal authority.  Sort of like rejection of the constitutionality of the Hughes amendment?  Or rejection of the notion that the federal government has a moral or constitutional right to own land?  Or rejection of the constitutionality of the existence of the ATF?  That kind of rejection of federal authority?

You can sign up several million more folks in that category.

Oh, by the way, ponder on this.  During the trial in 2012, the Hammonds had to agree to give the BLM the first right of refusal if they ended up having to sell the ranch or leases (remember that massive $400,000 fine?).  And in a tip of the hat to unconstitutional, unethical practice and bad faith, the government forced them into an agreement NOT to appeal the 2012 decision.  A citizen has a right to appeal, and I’m not referring to discretionary appeal, such as with the Supreme Court.

“Do what we say, and shut up,” said the fedgov.  Good Lord!  How do these people sleep at night.

I really, really like the job that Kyle did on this quick primer on his approach to concealed carry.  I confess that I don’t like concealed hammer revolvers.  I understand why he carries one since the hammer can get snagged on clothing.  Nonetheless, it forces you to make every shot double-action rather than single-action, thus having a slightly deleterious effect on my accuracy.  I have three revolvers, all external hammer.  I may not get the chance to shoot single-action, but I want that option if I need it.  Finally, my semi-automatic pistols are all medium to large frame guns.  With my arthritis and gnarled up knuckles, I don’t do so well with sub-compact guns.  I’m looking to get a compact 1911 for IWB carry.  For ankle carry, I use an airweight S&W .38 revolver.  I’m glad to see that Kyle addresses his ankle carry solutions.  One more point.  I notice that he doesn’t use a garter to hold the ankle holster up, and neither do I.  You don’t have to when you wear boots, and I rarely go anywhere without boots.

Kyle has given us some very practical, very useful tips for concealed carry.  This is must-see TV.  My favorite line: “If you’re going to carry a gun, carry a gun.”  Don’t do it sometimes.

Readers know how I feel about the gun Eugene Stoner built.  Furthermore, readers know that we speak the name Eugene Stoner only in hushed reverence.  But that’s not my article title – it belongs to John Snow at Outdoor Life.

What we’ve seen over that time is the rise of the AR, which has become America’s most popular rifle, as well as the greatest battle rifle of all time.

How did this happen?

Think of the AR as a seed planted in the 1960s, when the military adopted the rifle, known both as the M16 and the XM16E1 initially.

The rifle got off to an inauspicious start in Vietnam. Shoddy construction in the form of barrels and chambers that hadn’t been chrome-lined, poorly made ammo that used the wrong type of powder, and the lack of cleaning equipment and training for the troops who were issued the rifles led to disaster on the battlefield. Rifles malfunctioned, and soldiers and marines died. The grunts and GIs lost faith in the M16, and Colt, which had purchased the manufacturing rights to the rifle from Armalite in 1959, had a public-relations disaster on its hands.

The fallout of that era created a tide of ill will and misinformation—like the myth of the M16’s tumbling bullets—that kept the AR seed dormant for decades while the military slowly modified the platform to address its shortcomings.

We’ve dealt with the issue of bullet flight before, and while the 5.56 mm round doesn’t tumble in flight (that would cause keyholing targets), it does in fact yaw in flight and rock back and forth, even boat tail ammunition.  This occurs at the beginning and close to the end of its flight.  See Small Caliber Lethality: 5.56 mm Performance In Close Quarters Battle, specifically see Figure 4.  This is not a myth.  It’s real, and reproducible.  The bullet also tends to fragment into multiple pieces, causing multiple wound tracks.  For this, see “Terminal Mechanics” on page 5.

The M16A2 made its official debut in 1982 and featured a heavier barrel, a faster twist rate, and a three-round burst mode in lieu of a full-auto setting. Then, in the mid-’90s, models like the M4 and M16A3 were introduced, with flattop receivers with Picatinny rails and adjustable telescoping stocks and shorter barrel lengths.

These evolutions in the platform augmented the AR-15’s excellent ergonomics, and gave the rifles more flexibility and modularity to adapt to different missions. And finally the seed could grow and bloom. What the AR needed for this to happen was a catalyst, and it came from an unlikely source: the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB), which was signed into law by President Bill Clinton.

The AWB was authored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and prohibited the sale of semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines that had more than one of the following features: pistol grips, threaded barrels, bayonet lugs, folding or collapsible stocks, flash suppressors, and grenade-launcher mounts. Similar provisions applied to semi-automatic pistols and shotguns. The ban also limited magazines to a 10-round-maximum capacity.

The goal of this was, of course, to kill off these semi-autos in the name of public safety. The “logic” being that these guns—AKs and ARs, in particular—contributed to crime because of their cosmetic and ergonomic features.

At first it did seem that the AWB had taken the legs out from under the AR platform. Major gunmakers backed away from the category and stopped aggressively marketing the rifles to civilians.

“Before the assault weapons ban, ARs were expensive, hard to find, and didn’t work all that well,” says firearms expert Michael Bane. “When it came on, all the big players got scared off, and this opened the market. For that 10-year period [before the AWB expired in 2004], the little guy got the innovative edge because there was no one there to knock them off.”

Into that vacuum stepped entrepreneurs and innovators like Randy Luth, Karl Lewis, and Jack and Teresa Starnes who saw the potential of the AR and started introducing everything from aftermarket parts and accessories to complete rifles.

It was during this period that the AR realized its potential as a modular platform. The adaptation of the Picatinny rail system created new possibilities for accessories.

[ … ]

As a battle rifle, it can engage opposing forces accurately at distances a fighter with an AK couldn’t dream of. Accurized for precision rifle work, it can shoot tight groups at 1,000 yards. For hunters, it can be lightened up and chambered in hard-hitting cartridges for any type of large game.

But most important, the AR has become a bridge for shooters, connecting what used to be disparate communities of firearms owners and uniting them around its modular platform, encouraging people who used to stand toe-to-toe instead to fight side-by-side to protect our rights.

Any rifle that can boast this series of accomplishments deserves to be called the greatest, no question about it.

The author then gives us the personal perspectives of a number of people, including Kyle Lamb.

Kyle Lamb doesn’t have any patience for the haters. After more than two decades in the Army, most of it spent in special operations with Delta Force, he’s seen enough combat and has headed up enough training to know exactly what the modern-day descendants of the original M16 can do.

“People hate this gun. Even people on our side,” Lamb says. “But it is the most modular and accurate battle rifle we’ve ever had on the planet. The AK? It’s great too—unless you’re actually trying to hit somebody.”

Lamb’s military career, which started in 1986, coincided with the evolutionary refinement of the M16. This isn’t surprising, given that Lamb and his fellow soldiers in the special operations community were key players in perfecting the platform.

After Lamb joined Delta Force and started shooting every day, he learned how to get more out of the M16 and saw where it needed improvement.

In combat Lamb and his colleagues discovered one shortcoming was the sights.

“We showed up in Somalia with Aimpoints with big red dots. The dots were bigger than the dudes we were shooting at,” Lamb says. “So we got into better sights. Guys started adding regular hunting scopes to the rifles and making shots out to 400 yards.”

The tactical evolution of the platform progressed quickly from there. Lamb and other Delta Force soldiers upgraded internal components like extractors for greater reliability. They added free-float handguards to improve accuracy. They slapped on Picatinny rails to mount other accessories. The AR platform became lethal for everything from long-range engagements to close-quarters battle.

And don’t forget the 600 meter shots Travis Haley made in Al Najaf.  I’m sure there are a lot of M1 aficionados who would argue with the conclusions of the article, but the AR-15 platform has proven to be one that has killed hundreds of thousands of enemy fighters in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq, from field shots to CQB.