David Codrea:

Bottom line: It wasn’t for moral reasons, like it might inspire more violence, terror and misery. The simple truth is, they got punked. The author of the article wasn’t a real leftist spouting the requisite subversive and hateful inanities. It was a setup, an intentionally outrageous submission from a fake contributor who succeeded in appealing to HuffPo’s elitist strain of privileged “progressivism” and getting the piece published in a forum that would reach the world.

Like Neil Young got owned by Lynyrd Skynyrd in “Sweet Home Alabama,” which was an answer to his “Southern Man,” the Huffington Post got owned by a fake commentary.

But Neil Young was actually sorry he ever published Southern Man and admitted that Lynyrd Skynyrd had a point (despite laughable claims that somehow they really agreed on things – I remember the details).  Huffington Post wanted all of this to be true and sincere, but frankly got embarrassed, not by the subject, but the fakery.

So read part of the commentary for yourself and decide whether Huffington Post appreciates white men: “If white men no longer had the vote, the progressive cause would be strengthened. It would not be necessary to deny white men indefinitely — the denial of the vote to white men for 20 years (just less than a generation) would go some way to seeing a decline in the influence of reactionary and neo-liberal ideology in the world,” it continued, adding that although “it may be unfair . . . a moratorium on the franchise for white males for a period of between 20 and 30 years is a small price to pay for the pain inflicted by white males on others.”

Greenville News:

Law enforcement officials and anti-violence activists are blasting a state proposal that would allow South Carolinians to carry guns — concealed or openly — without a permit or any training, saying it would endanger police and the general public.

“It would create opportunities for additional violence to occur,” said Greenville Police Chief Ken Miller.

Greenville County Sheriff Will Lewis said in an email that he supports a resolution by the South Carolina Sheriff’s Association endorsing training for anyone who wants to carry a concealed weapon and opposing changes in current law.

Supporters of the bill, meanwhile, are returning fire, claiming that so-called constitutional carry, or open carry, would cut down on crime.

“States that have put open carry into place have seen a reduction in crime,” said state Rep. Phyllis Henderson, R-Greenville. “They’ve not seen an escalation in gun violence.”

[ … ]

Miller, the Greenville police chief, noted that the measure is opposed by both the S.C. Police Chiefs Association and the S.C. Sheriff’s Association.

He said the proposal could lead to more police confrontations with people carrying guns.

“So now everybody is authorized to carry a gun, and guns tend to draw out other guns,” Miller said. “It will create opportunities for police shootings or for police officers or deputies to get hurt more.”

When guns are right at hand, simple arguments can easily escalate, resulting in tragedy, Miller said.

As for Miller’s argument, he’s lying.  He doesn’t really believe that or he would take weapons away from his own officers because their interactions escalate and guns draw more guns.

No, here is why Miller and the other LEOs don’t want this.  As we’ve seen before, it’s all about the money.  They’ve even said so for us all to see.  Follow the money.  It’s money and control, but this is redundant.

It’s about brand new Dodge Chargers, fancy comms gear, new AR-15s, body armor, and jobs for people who would otherwise have to go find gainful employment in the real workplace.

Fortunately, the current Governor, Henry McMaster, supports constitutional carry.

S.C. Gov. Henry McMaster Friday endorsed a bill that would allow South Carolinians to carry a concealed firearm without a permit.

“Governor McMaster appreciates the House’s hard work on this bill, believes it is constitutional and will sign it if it reaches his desk,” said McMaster spokesman Brian Symmes.

Signing the pro-gun bill would appeal to gun advocates who vote in the 2018 Republican primary for the governor, when McMaster will be seeking a four-year term.

The proposal, sponsored by state Rep. Mike Pitts, R-Laurens, calls for what often is referred to as “constitutional carry.” The bill would allow those who legally can own a firearm to carry it concealed without a government-issued permit.

It also allows for open carry, which means weapons holders could carry their firearms on their person for everyone to see. The law still would bar carrying a firearm to prohibited locations and while committing a crime.

The S.C. House passed the plan last week, despite objections from some representatives that that House Republicans pushed the proposal through without debate or public input.

With four weeks left in the regular legislative session, the bill still has to make its way through the S.C. Senate before it can go to McMaster’s desk.

However, Democrats in the Senate — where individual members have more power — still could block the bill.

It’s difficult to know if his support is temporary, knowing that he will get elected and then be able to jettison the very gun rights advocates who helped him get elected, or genuine and legitimate heartfelt support.  But at the moment these are his words.  Of course democrats can try to block this legislation, and republicans might use that as a stalling tactic.

Either way, if republicans and the governor really want this bill, they can get it, and we all know that.  We’re privy to their games.  The governor can refuse to sign anything else until this bill is brought to his desk, and the republicans can shut down debate just like the House did.

But be careful.  If this turns out to be yet another false flag event to appease gun owners like in the past, we will know.  And we never forget.  Just ask Larry Martin about that.  Remember that while the debate about whether this increases or reduces crime might be an interesting sidebar – I can tell you since I live in a “gold star” open carry state that LEOs will be embarrassed and humiliated by their opposition to this just like they were in Texas when they see the statistics – this isn’t about statistics.

This is about God-given rights.  Choose wisely, gentlemen.

Via Uncle, the NRA On British Gun Laws.

[Knives] are mostly out, especially by present-day U.S. standards. Almost anything foldable and over three inches is a no-no to have on your person, to say nothing of using them defensively …

[As for tactical batons] forget it: These are prohibited by name/type where we traveled, and as “law enforcement only” gear in many other locales …

OC spray is out too: “We found a relatively stupid substitute for sale in Britain, and if some clown is incoming with a bladed or striking weapon, you might have a trivially better chance at evading him. That is assuming, of course, that you can hit your target, and that he isn’t moving too fast for you to escape his momentum—a more injurious problem than many suppose, by the way. At least these dye your assailant for several days and aid apprehension. How this ameliorates a life-changing, closed-head injury, we don’t quite see.”

Basically, as British soldier Lee Rigby found out, the British are left defenseless against the onslaught of the Islamists or anyone else, and that’s the way the elitists in the U.K. want the commoners to be.  Defenseless.

And for that reason, you understand, my British readers, why eventually you will move from England or be swept up into the Islamist’s circle.  You will be converted or killed, your women will wear hijabs or be raped, and your sons will visit Mosques for prayer.

And it’s why we here in America aren’t subjects of the Queen.  Gun control was the catalyst for the American war of independence.  Never forget that.  If anyone forgets it, that scene may be repeated, i.e., where gun control becomes the catalyst for another war.

Some evil thug shot a poor old man named Robert Godwin in Cleveland who was innocently walking along the sidewalk.  I won’t link or embed the video.  It’s a shame this happened, and I’m very sorry for him and his family.

I watched the video so you don’t have to.  I consider the thug who did this to have been a threat long before he pulled a gun and shot the elderly man.  He was a threat when be first got out of the automobile because of his irrational behavior.

In another world, elderly men have guns, they are trained to use them, there are no-retreat laws, and men can act to ameliorate threats like this.  We need to press for that world.  It’s a shame that Mr. Godwin didn’t have a weapon on him, unholster it when the thug got out of the car, and shoot the thug before he raised his weapon.

In The Army Wants A New Rifle, we discussed my view of the Army’s searching for a larger caliber rifle to replace the M4.  Experience in Afghanistan is the pretext for this need, and while as I show below I support a copious choice of weapons, selection of a different caliber won’t make marksmen out of Soldiers.  In fact, perhaps just the opposite.  You can go read the discussion for yourself.  I hope I’ve adequately dispelled the ridiculous notion that The Battle of Wanat is justification for anything at all except being smarter in the future in your COIN strategy.

Soon after this commentary, a active duty friend who has been with me for nearly ten years (basically ever since I was doing military blogging and commentary) and who can tell you more about these things in an hour than I will ever know in a lifetime, wrote to continue the conversation with me.  I am always richer when he does so, and honestly, this is one big reason for writing.  I always learn more from my readers than they learn from me.

I will not supply his name, but as you can see below, we build on our notes to each other like Lego blocks, and always have.  Each subsequent note presupposes that I recall what he told me before, which is usually a lot.  There are notes that preceded this one, on shooting uphill, mountain training of soldiers (which he knows a lot about), and various and sundry things.  But even in the absence of those notes, you may be able to benefit from his knowledge.

One “Lego block” that I didn’t add yet was that while he heaps praises on the Marine Corps shooting program, I think the MC could take a page from the army on a few things.  The MC still has in its stable of DM and sniper rifles the 5.56mm, 7.62mm, and Sasser .50.  When Carlos Hathcock did his work in Vietnam, he used the Winchester 30-06 (not the .308), which has a slightly higher muzzle velocity, and when that wasn’t sufficient he used the .50.  He was the first to do so.

When something works, it’s difficult to get the MC to change.  But their shooting program might benefit from inclusion of the .300 Win Mag and the .338 into their stable of weapons.  I know one Marine Corps Scout Sniper, in impeccable condition, his physique a literal specimen, who told me that in not too many rounds shooting the .50, he had headaches.  Why do this if it isn’t necessary?

Again as you can see, I support the inclusion of many weapons and weapons systems in the stable of tools for both the Army and Marine Corps, but I will never jettison my trusty AR-15 for CQB and medium range shooting.  With that said, here is our exchange of notes.

As ever, my congratulations to you for your tireless efforts on your Blog. You are still slamming them!

I read your “Army wants a new rifle” post with interest. I have a little different perspective. Nothing you say is wrong or incorrect. How could it be? You are more emphatic of late in general and no less here. I’ll explain myself, but I do need to admit that I think that the Army is full of shit on this issue, in general and will do something or nothing in this case, for all the wrong reasons.

I’ve tested a lot of gear for the U.S. Army over the years. The Army has a civilian in charge of boots and boot development. He’s a huge, overweight man who wears worn loafers on his own feet. But he has a Doctorate in “footoligy” or some such thing and a very keen understanding of the politic’s of procurement.  Our relationship with this idiot got so shady that he would bring bullet headed body guards with him to attempt to shut I and my peers up. So the Army has garbage boots because that is what they want.

I’ve tested and trained and conducted training on lots of weapons too; long arms, sniper rifles and the full suite of Warsaw Pact weaponry.  My favorite is the SVD with the wacky Soviet scope; it’s quick, easy to shoot, accurate and people are scared of it. The RPD is an LMG that is greatly underrated. That is because the “PiKa”, Pkm, PK, is so dominant. I cannot say enough good things about getting hosed down by this bad boy. It is  a real attention getter!  Even beyond it’s 600m sweet spot, its plunging fire is stunning. The 240B is a honey but the Pkm has it beat for down and dirty warfighting.

5.56 v/s 7.62; ask a man who has taken 7.62 rounds into the chest or back plates, who also has the experience of dumping 5 or 6 rounds of issue 5.56 into an enemy to stop him. He will tell you that one 7.62 round in the plates will knock you down now and that the 5.56 will not return the favor. A few of the high-speed-low-drag elements get special 5.56 rounds that are one-shot-one kill specials. Our General Purpose forces don’t get this round though.

The Marines have established in their 24-72 hour protracted, static, fire fights in Southern Afghanistan, that three 30 round magazines will do the job, if you have NCO directed, well aimed and properly spoted fire. Shoot from cover, control your security and do not allow an element to maneuver unobserved on your position. Maintain indirect fire back-up for surprises and to exploit enemy error’s. It sounds basic but we do not routinely practice this doctrine. So we kill and maim our troops because of and regardless of, the grain count of our issue rounds. As you point out.

I’ve trained lots of guys to shoot both 5.56 and 7.62 in all sorts of long arms out to 1000m and lots of it on a high angle range; aim low, practice shooter spotter and get your point of aim and point of impact details worked out ahead of time. I can teach an experienced and confident soldier to shoot an Acog equipped M4 out to 600m with an hour of class room time and with 30 rounds on the range.  He will of course have to practice these new shooting skills to develop their value.

I cannot train an inexperienced and unconfident shooter in this ridiculously brief time span and round count. In fact I’ll make him a worse shooter because he will do so poorly and understand zero of what I’m telling him. Even shooter/spotter will blow his mind. The exception here is with young Marine’s. They can often hang enough to get in their heads what is going on.

If you give me a 7.62 round weapon, even the M14 variants kicking around, and a little more time; I can get the confident guy consistently out to 850m. He’ll be able to read bullet trace, call his shots and walk a less experienced shooter quickly on to a target.

Good for me, so what. Hopefully the details are instructive. Again, as you point out, unless there is a solid grounding in the fundamentals of marksmanship, and or well trained NCO leadership in all our maneuver units; we may be better equipped to kill if we carry spears. We can conduct the training. But our Army does not currently know how to train, so maybe new magic rifles with new magic rounds are the answer.

Thank you,

[Name Redacted]

I respond.

Very good to hear from you.  I like the MC idea of a number of DMs who have something a little different.  My own son was trained as a DM even though he was a SAW gunner. [But] The notion the new 7.62 guns will make all soldiers marksmen is overreach versus what big army management wants.  Too many poorly educated kids from homes with no fathers who look to the *.gov for a meal and education.

He responds.

You are correct; the DM is the way to go. The Army took this seriously from about 2005 to 2010. The POI was really the 1st week of Sniper school; grouping, range E, calling your own shots and wind, point of aim/point of impact. And they issued a lot of “black rifle rigged ” EBR’s. A good shooter, but without a LaRue tactical mounting system for the optic, it would not hold a zero.  The iron sights are fine but that is another training challenge.

So if we could get a Marine or a Ranger Regiment soldier, he got the EBR and a chance to step up!

Lets face facts though; the Marine Corps base of marksmanship training is superior in every way and the U.S. Army’s base of rifle training is a hand wave. This disparity puts a lot of pressure on Army units gaining Basic Trainee’s. If the US Army has a trained DM in every Infantry Squad, then we have an opportunity to make up for this ridiculous institutional disparity.

In fact, as a First Sergeant, I’d get soldiers back from their Basic Training and Infantry AIT who had never qualified with the M4!  One young man was so bereft of basic skills that I issued him a black plastic, “rubber duck” rifle, until his platoon was able to prove he could safely carry the real thing. We did turn him into an Infantryman. But as you point, we were fighting 17 years of neglect.

Nothing gave me as much confidence, in a platoon, as a shit-hot SAW gunner.  Imagine one man who can fill in for a two man machine gun team. Would not believe it unless I was a witness! The enemy does not like the SAW either!  It takes a huge amount of skill and dedication though. Its worth the effort but it puts a lot on one mans shoulders.

You are most welcome to print what you choose Mr Smith! All I can say is; don’t quit! We need what you are doing.

As you can guess, I am actually much more concerned about how we incorporate these lessons in our work than with whether Big Army incorporates anything I have to say.  Let’s make it more personal.  I’m much more concerned about whether I incorporate these lessons than anything else.

US News & World Report:

A bill that would overturn most local gun ordinances that are more stringent than Nebraska state law cleared a key hurdle Wednesday despite protests from some Omaha and Lincoln area senators who raised public safety concerns.

Lawmakers gave initial approval to a gun-rights pre-emption bill 32-12, after supporters overcame a filibuster by opponents who want to preserve existing local rules.

Supporters said the bill would eliminate a confusing patchwork of local gun ordinances, particularly in Omaha and Lincoln. Critics in the Legislature argued the bill would allow gun-rights groups to sue cities which refuse to repeal their rules even if aren’t directly harmed.

Cities, counties, towns and municipalities who infringe on God-given and constitutionally recognized rights should be exposed to liability and they should be sued.

As we’ve seen in our own discussions on this topic, no one can ever show that a local government attempts to loosen gun laws.  The only thing they ever do is attempt to infringe to an even greater degree than the state on gun rights.  Therefore, it makes good sense for states to do this in order to stop the collectivists and controllers who want to dictate every little detail of life within their borders.

So here is a note to these little dictators.  Your borders aren’t sovereign.  You aren’t allowed to control guns or anything else the state doesn’t allow you to control.  Why don’t you stop worrying about this and figure out how to meet your obligations on all of those unfunded liabilities you have because of those ridiculous city worker pensions you agreed to.

Nebraska should proceed apace to make this the law of the state.

Shooting Illustrated normally does fairly well with their articles.  This time they bombed.  In The Right Way To Shoot An AR-15, there is this picture.

He’s standing with a modified Weaver stance, much like he’s hunting deer with a bolt action rifle.  That’s okay for hunting deer with a bolt action rifle, but it’s not okay when so large a solid angle has been rendered unmonitored and inaccessible by you.

That area is threat-sensitive in an assault, and that’s one reason why Marines are taught to shoot with the “plates-forward aggressive” stance.  We discussed it in John Lovell On Mounting The Carbine.  John also gives some practical advice on how to counter shoulder exhaustion when using the “thumb-over-bore” grip, otherwise called “C-Clamp” grip.

Someone named Bob Cesca wrote as idiotic an article at Salon as you will ever read.  That’s not what interests me.  What does interest me is the comment thread, in which Jason Koskey says this.

Because we empower them to take lives. They are one of the few professions entrusted with such an awesome responsibility.

It’s simply a matter of fact that guns are offensive. Yes, you may successful shoot someone before they shoot you. That’s still offence, not defence. Guns have no defensive properties.

He’s referring to LEOs here with regards to his comment.  We “empower them to take lives!”  Forget for a moment that if guns have no defensive properties (?), LEOs would have no business carrying them to begin with.

Or perhaps that presupposes the consequent, or begs the question.  Perhaps Jason believes that cops need guns not for self defense, but only in order to do society’s bidding to take lives.  Forget due process, forget equal protection.  LEOs take lives.  That’s their purpose according to Jason.

This is a stark reminder concerning what collectivists think, and how far they’ve gone down the road to statism and serfdom.  That in Tennessee versus Garner the Supreme Court said that LEOs can only use firearms in self defense (and not to fire on someone like an escaping prisoner) is irrelevant.  That the SCOTUS said that cops have weapons for the very same reason civilians have them, i.e., personal protection, doesn’t matter to Jason.

Cops are empowered to take lives according to Jason.  Pity the fool who turns to the state for his well being.  The state cares nothing for him or his life.

CATO:

California law generally bans the possession of a gun within a school zone. For many years, however, both retired peace officers and those with a license to carry concealed weapons were exempted from this ban. Then in 2015, a bill was proposed that would have eliminated both of these exceptions. But after extensive lobbying by interest groups aligned with federal workers and police officers, the bill was amended to remove only the exception for concealed-carry licensees.

Dr. Ulises Garcia is one such license holder, who obtained his license after receiving threats against himself from a former patient. After the change in the law, Garcia can no longer carry his weapon for protection when attending school events with his family. Garcia and a group of other plaintiffs have sued, arguing that the differing treatment afforded to retired peace officers and concealed-carry license holders violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of the equal protection of the laws. The federal district court rejected their claims, and they have now appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Cato has filed an amicus brief supporting Garcia and urging that the district court be reversed.

The guffaws normally get roared when one has the temerity to suggest that LEOs and gun owners get treated the same way.  I recall a discussion I had with retired California LEOs over reddit/r/guns where they couldn’t believe I didn’t support the idea of changes to laws to allow former or retired California LEOs to purchase their weapons – including AR-15s – for personal use once they no longer work for law enforcement.

Not only that, I don’t even support the notion of LEOs having those weapons at all even in the line of duty unless civilians can also have them.  What’s good for one is good for the other.  Wearing a blue costume and wearing a badge doesn’t bestow rights not already recognized in the constitution.

As for the fact that LEOs has sworn an oath, so have I.  I swore an oath to protect, defend and provide for my family when I said “I do.”

Popular Mechanics:

On the heels of the Marine Corps’ desire for a new rifle for its infantrymen, the U.S. Army now says it is contemplating a dramatic switch in rifles. The service is considering going back to battle rifles—heavier rifles that can hit targets at longer ranges. The last time the Army fielded such a rifle was in the 1960s.

The story, broke by Soldier Systems Daily, says that U.S. Army troops feel they’re “in a street fight with a guy with longer arms.” That longer arm is the 7.62x54R cartridge, the cartridge used by the PK machine gun and Dragunov SVD sniper rifle. The PK squad machine gun is extremely common; it’s in use by the Taliban, the Islamic State, and most insurgent and terrorist groups worldwide. Longer and heavier than the 7.62×39-millimeter round used in the AK series of assault rifles, a PK with the 7.62x54R round has an effective range of 800 to 1,000 yards, versus only about 350 yards for an AK-47.

On the Army side, the maximum effective range of an M4 carbine against man-sized targets is about 500 yards, depending on the skill of the rifleman, and 700 yards for the M249 squad automatic weapon. Both fire the same cartridge. That leaves a dead zone of roughly 500 to 1,000 yards where the bulk of a nine person infantry squad can’t engage individual enemies. In a platoon of 40 soldiers, on average only about six soldiers armed with M249s, marksman rifles, and M240 machine guns have the range to engage an enemy in the dead zone.

U.S. Army troops may have an edge on paper, but guerrilla groups don’t adhere to a bureaucratic equipment roster that says each unit can have a certain number of weapons. Taliban and IS groups routinely have a large number of heavier machine guns, and what they lack in skill they often try to make up in firepower.

While there are a number of readers who would applaud this move in favor of a 30-06 (the old Garand) or .308 (7.62mm), a “real battle rifle,” I think it will go nowhere and lacks traction.  It certainly lack traction with me for reasons I’ll explain.

The excuse that the Taliban shoot machine guns and longer range weapons is disingenuous.  As I documented in my coverage of the battle of Wanat, the issue with fighting the Taliban had nothing to do with the M4, and everything to do with deployment of Soldiers in bad locations, slowly enough that the Taliban had time to mass troops on a roughly ten to one ratio.  They had a near Battalion size group fighting a platoon size group of Soldiers on low terrain.

There were other problems with Soldiers in the Hindu Kush such as the lack of training in shooting uphill (as well as not owning the high ground).  One problem that could be corrected is that the M4s the Army fields have been shot so many times and the parts so worn that they malfunction easily.  Many Soldiers don’t know enough to modify their own weapons, wouldn’t be allowed to if they could, and lack the funds to do it.  But there are ways to assist your rifle in its accuracy, reliability and longevity.

But take a closer look at what they’re asking for.  They want to field the 7.62mm, with its weight additional weight and the weight of the ammunition, and they expect their men (and women, unfortunately) to be able to shoot accurately beyond 500 yards and up to 1000 yards.  This will require the use of good optics, not an ACOG or the Army equivalent, but scoped shooting.

Consider The Firearm Blog and one writer’s position that the Marine Corp Scout Sniper training is the best combined precision and marksmanship observation packages in the United States.  It has a high failure rate, and takes months to complete.  No unit can go without Marines for long enough to send hundreds or thousands of Marines to this training.  And there aren’t enough classes or instructors to go around even if they could.

My son, Daniel, has been through all of the shooting instruction in these classes, albeit not the observation and tracking.  It does indeed take months of training to understand and use high power scopes for precision shooting.  For the Army to pretend that they’re are going to send thousands of brand new Soldiers at Fort Jackson into classes to learn parallax, windage adjustments, elevation and humidity effects on shooting, and so on, is a pipe dream.

I’m not suggesting, by the way, that you or your family not have your own higher caliber and bolt action precision chassis weapons as well as your CQB and shorter range weapons, or that you forego the time and accoutrements to use them properly.  Every gun has its purpose, and you need all the right tools for the job ahead.  I’m suggesting that America isn’t going to make snipers out of their Soldiers by switching from 5.56mm to 7.62mm.