Vox:

Realistically, a gun control plan that has any hope of getting us down to European levels of violence is going to mean taking a huge number of guns away from a huge number of gun owners.

Other countries have done exactly that. Australia, for example, enacted a mandatory gun buyback that achieved that goal, and saw firearm suicides fall as a result. But the reforms those countries enacted are far more dramatic than anything US politicians are calling for — and even they wouldn’t get us to where many other developed countries are.

Always remember that.  The progressives who really understand what’s going on know that in order to disarm the American public would require taking a “huge number of guns away from a huge number of gun owners.”

But here his understanding stops, because he thinks the American people will acquiesce to a buyback.  Either this is a red herring or he’s stupid.

It may be a red herring and he knows there will be untold bloodshed and doesn’t care, or he’s stupid and thinks that something that worked in Australia will work here, where armed resistance is the amelioration for tyranny, always has been, and always will be.  Or said another way, being armed is the amelioration for tyranny if and only if it is exercised, and apparently the Australian people didn’t want to go down that road, being “subjects of the crown” and all of that.

We won’t give up our guns.  If Dylan knows that, then he also knows that the notion that confiscating guns wouldn’t end bloodshed – it would cause it to crescendo into a river of red.  But be careful, Dylan.  If you’re not armed, you won’t fare well in a period of armed resistance.  Fair winds and following seas isn’t the way your life will be described.

FRC:

If there aren’t atheists in foxholes, why should we put them in the Chaplain Corps? Senator Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) can’t imagine. Like most leaders, he’s astounded that the Navy is even considering letting someone who doesn’t believe in God join the chaplaincy. Three years ago, the idea was so absurd that even Obama’s military attorneys went to court to stop it. Now, with Secretary Jim Mattis at the helm, no one can quite understand why the topic is even up for discussion.

The bizarre storyline started in 2015 when Jason Heap tried to sue his way into the chaplaincy. Not surprisingly, the Navy rejected him because he planned to associate with two humanist groups instead of an actual religious denomination. Ultimately, the military ended up in court defending the notion that religious leaders should serve a religious purpose. They won. But this year, Heap is trying again — and, according to Senator Wicker — the Chaplain Appointment and Retention Eligibility Advisory Group is actually recommending the Navy accept him.

This is your U.S. Navy.  Leading the way in freakish trashiness.  Like always.  My former Marine had to interact with the Navy during a MEU to the Middle East after his deployment to Iraq.  I don’t think I’ve ever told you what he thinks about the Navy.  Except for Navy Corpsmen, of course, who aren’t really Navy.

David Codrea:

If there is “clear, convincing, admissible evidence” that a supposedly “restrained” party is a danger, how is it responsible to allow such a menace access to the rest of us until such time as it can be established that he is no longer a threat? Does anyone think he couldn’t kill with something else? Or, noting routine headlines from places like Chicago and Baltimore, that he couldn’t get a gun? Why wouldn’t he be separated from society, after being afforded real “due process,” with all appropriate protections of course?

Hey, it’s what Trump wants.  It’s what the NRA wants.  It’s what the progressives want.  Cradle to grave security courtesy of the department of pre-crime. Hmm … I was wondering if he’s now prohibited from buying fertilizer at Lowe’s, Home Depot and Tractor Supply?

Scientific American:

Since the 2008 election of President Obama, the number of firearms manufactured in the U.S. has tripled, while imports have doubled. This doesn’t mean more households have guns than ever before—that percentage has stayed fairly steady for decades. Rather, more guns are being stockpiled by a small number of individuals. Three percent of the population now owns half of the country’s firearms, says a recent, definitive study from the Injury Control Research Center at Harvard University.

So, who is buying all these guns—and why?

The short, broad-brush answer to the first part of that question is this: men, who on average possess almost twice the number of guns female owners do. But not all men. Some groups of men are much more avid gun consumers than others. The American citizen most likely to own a gun is a white male—but not just any white guy. According to a growing number of scientific studies, the kind of man who stockpiles weapons or applies for a concealed-carry license meets a very specific profile.

These are men who are anxious about their ability to protect their families, insecure about their place in the job market, and beset by racial fears. They tend to be less educated. For the most part, they don’t appear to be religious—and, suggests one study, faith seems to reduce their attachment to guns. In fact, stockpiling guns seems to be a symptom of a much deeper crisis in meaning and purpose in their lives. Taken together, these studies describe a population that is struggling to find a new story—one in which they are once again the heroes.

Ooo … a “definitive study!”  That makes it sound oh so scientific and all.  Seriously, do these pinheads think people are going to be honest with them or anyone else on whether they have guns and how many they have?  Really?

And did they think to ascribe this alleged result to the notion that the second amendment is there for amelioration of tyranny rather than wanting to be John Wayne?  God, these people must live in a movie.

Funny, this.  I would have thought Scientific American would focus on STEM, like calculus, trajectory, failure modes and effects, computational fluid dynamics (CFD), and Monte Carlo analysis.  Does anyone at Scientific American still know how to do calculus?  Can anyone there solve an integral equation?

Nope, they want to cite definitive studies done at … [ahem] … Harvard.  They want to study white men, or maybe white male privilege, or maybe male patriarchy, or male confusion, or something.

My how things have devolved with time.  I’m not a Darwinist and don’t believe in macro-evolution, but if I was, I’d be hard pressed to explain things like this.

The Baltimore Sun:

A third of Baltimore Police recruits set to leave the academy and hit the streets lack a basic understanding of the laws governing constitutional policing and are being pushed through by the department nonetheless, according to the academy’s head of legal instruction.

“We’re giving them a badge and a gun tomorrow, the right to take someone’s liberty, ultimately the right to take someone’s life if it calls for it, and they have not demonstrated they can meet [basic] constitutional and legal standards,” said Sgt. Josh Rosenblatt Friday.

After a gun and badge ceremony at the academy Saturday, the recruits will receive eight weeks of training on the street before formally becoming Baltimore police officers, department officials noted.

But Rosenblatt, an attorney by training, said in an interview with The Baltimore Sun that 17 of those 50 recruits failed to pass scenario-based practical tests on legal standards related to basic police work, such as the need for probable cause before making arrests.

He said all did pass eventually, but only after he and other legal instructors were removed from administering the tests.

Some of the recruits, he said, have not been able to master basic material. Four have been in the academy for 18 months, having been recycled back from previous classes to continue their training, and still haven’t grasped the legal concepts, he said.

“With 18 months of training, they’re still failing to meet very basic legal standards,” he said. “Don’t illegally arrest people. Don’t illegally search people. These are not high standards.”

So we learn a number of things from this interesting report.  First of all, the legal instructor is an idiot.  He says, “We’re giving them a badge and a gun tomorrow, the right to take someone’s liberty, ultimately the right to take someone’s life if it calls for it.”

But if we’ve covered anything over these past years, it’s that rights and liberty come from God, not the state.  A constitution is a covenant, or solemn and sacred agreement between parties.  That covenant stipulates how the state will treat citizens.  No one can take rights.

For example, the right of due process must not be violated, period.  There is no excuse for violating the right of due process, and the Patriot Act is just such a violation.  In fact, with regards to taking a life, the Supreme Court decided in Tennessee versus Garner that a cop cannot shoot an escapee who is running from the police.  Cops can only discharge their weapons under the same circumstances I can, i.e., if a life is in danger.  In this case, a right isn’t being taken, it’s being protected.

And the very reason that the Supreme Court decided that a cop cannot shoot an escapee?  Because it bypasses the right of due process and places the cop in the position of removing a right, the very thing the legal instructor is saying cops can do under certain circumstances.  Do I need to drop what I’m doing and come up there to teach the course?

Second, the recruits cannot even come up the level of this idiot’s understanding of the law.  They’re going to make them all cops regardless of the fact that they cannot pass basic competency tests.  And why do we know this?  Why are they going to make them cops anyway?

Well, because of the third thing we learn.  This department is full of liars.  They did all pass the tests in spite of the fact that they hadn’t learned the material, they just had to do it without being proctored by the legal instructor.  Wink, wink.

But remember boys and girls.  The police are there to serve and protect, and they are the only ones qualified to handle firearms.

Dear Marty,

I see that you weighed in with support for the “fix-NICS” bill.  I was sad to see this, so I wrote you a note that went something like this (in abbreviated form).

Sir,

I feel that this will be a huge mistake and I wish there was a way to undo this.  Unfortunately, there isn’t.  My readers have already sent me this information, and I was wondering if there was anything I could say to them about this?

I haven’t received a reply from you Marty, but I assume you’ve been busy, sir.  I also assume you’ve heard an earful about this, because you’ve withdrawn your support.

Very well.  I’m a forgiving sort of person and it’s the same position I took on Rock River Arms when they flirted with gun control in their own state, intentionally or not.  I’ve made many mistakes in my life, and my aim is to learn from them all and become a better person.

But this episode requires a little bit of unpacking.  You clearly demonstrated bad judgment in the initial endorsement of this bill.  I know that you are a Christian and a defender of the gospel of Jesus Christ.  This means a lot to me, and more than anything else will earn my trust and patronage.  This is also why I recently purchased a CMMG gun – they are a Christian company too.

As a Christian, you must be wiser and more circumspect than those around you.  You cannot be thrown about by the shifting tides and the changing winds.  You must understand that the results of the fall in Adam and his federal headship over all mankind causes sin, and sin causes the very things that the progressives use to foist their schemes of control over others.

You must understand that firearms were ubiquitous in early schools, so much so that gun clubs were a thing.  The changes wrought by society are entirely due to rejection of the very gospel that you claim to support.  And no rejection of the gospel can be repaired or ameliorated by a law or new scheme of control.

Gun control is evil in all of its forms.  It was Dr. Greg Bahnsen who pointed out the utter wickedness of gun control schemes.

The Bible does contain a few direct references to weapons control. There were many times throughout Israel’s history that it rebelled against God (in fact, it happened all the time). To mock His people back into submission to His Law, the Lord would often use wicked neighbors to punish Israel’s rebellion. Most notable were the Philistines and the Babylonians. 1 Samuel 13:19-22 relates the story: “Not a blacksmith could be found in the whole land of Israel, because the Philistines had said, “Otherwise the Hebrews will make swords or spears!” So all Israel went down to the Philistines to have their plowshares, mattocks, axes, and sickles sharpened…So on the day of battle not a soldier with Saul and Jonathan had a sword or spear in this hand; only Saul and his son Jonathan had them.” Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon also removed all of the craftsmen from Israel during the Babylonian captivity (2 Kings 24:14). Both of these administrations were considered exceedingly wicked including their acts of weapons control.

Furthermore, you must understand that the progressives are incrementalists and have been at this a very long time.  They are patient in achieving their goals.  Here is a perfect example.

The only way we can truly be safe and prevent further gun violence is to ban civilian ownership of all guns. That means everything. No pistols, no revolvers, no semiautomatic or automatic rifles. No bolt action. No breaking actions or falling blocks. Nothing. This is the only thing that we can possibly do to keep our children safe from both mass murder and common street violence.

Unfortunately, right now we can’t. The political will is there, but the institutions are not. Honestly, this is a good thing. If we passed a law tomorrow banning all firearms, we would have massive noncompliance. What we need to do is establish the regulatory and informational institutions first. This is how we do it.  The very first thing we need is national registry. We need to know where the guns are, and who has them.

This is why a registry is the Holy Grail for the progressive.  They won’t stop with their initial victories.  Oh no.  In fact, they’ve told you so.  As for this so called “fix-NICS” bill, you must understand what while you might intend something like that for good, the state will never work it that way.

Any increase in the registry of people who cannot own guns will sweep into its chasm veterans who were diagnosed with PTSD, didn’t know they were on a prohibited list (because Obama’s VA reported them as prohibited), try to buy a gun, and then find out they have committed a felony and end up being arrested under this new bill.

Any increase in the registry will sweep into its chasm men and women who someone wanted to be on the list and [falsely] reported them as mentally defective, with the village witch doctors – or psychiatrists – employed by the state now an integral part of the process.

All of that bypasses the right of due process.  One of my readers observed this about court appointed mental health professionals.

Control freaks love psychiatry, a means of social control with no Due Process protections. It is a system of personal opinion masquerading as science. See, e.g., Boston University Psychology Professor Margaret Hagan’s book, Whores of the Court, to see how arbitrary psychiatric illnesses are. Peter Breggin, Fred Baughman and Thomas Szasz wrote extensively about abuses of psychiatry. Liberals blame guns for violence. Conservatives blame mental illness. Neither have any causal connection to violence. The issue is criminal conduct, crime. Suggesting that persons with legal disabilities are criminals shows the nonsensical argument of this politician and his fellow control freaks. Shame on them.

And just today, another astute reader made this observation.

Just as a gun registry is a precursor to gun confiscation, a mental illness registry is a precursor to the “confiscation” of the mentally ill.

The denial of second amendment rights for a certain category of people is a precedent for the denial of any and all other rights held by people in that category.

All men have certain inalienable rights. U.S. citizens have those rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.

Denial or abridgement of those rights for any portion of the population, absent act or crime by each individual, is premised on a determination of one or the other of two things: 1) No human or citizen has any rights that may not be abridged or denied by government at will; or, 2) A certain segment of the population may be deemed to be neither citizens, nor fully human.

Our founders correctly believed that it’s never a good idea to give the state more power, or to centralize what power does exist in the state.  If America is suffering from a lapse in moral constitution, it has nothing to do with the laws or lack thereof.  As a Christian, you know the corrective for that problem.

Again, you must be wiser than your opponents, if indeed the controllers are your opponents.  Even the so-called National Association of Evangelicals, which is anything but national or evangelical, has flirted with gun control because they want to be cool, hip, modern and progressive.  You need to be better and smarter than that.

When the teachers of religion go their own way, you need to remember the Bible.  When the state sings its siren song of more peace for more power, you need to remember that, as Dr. Bahnsen pointed out, all gun control is based in wickedness, and the state is always lying to you.

Please, please, please do not ever let this happen again.  It will take time and hard work to rebuild trust with the gun community.  Please invest the time and work to do just that.

TMZ:

The host of “America’s Most Wanted,” who also helped create a national registry for sex offenders, says the same system is needed for mentally ill people looking to buy guns.

We got John Walsh Saturday at LAX and asked what he made of Florida’s new gun law — in which the age limit to purchase guns was raised to 21 … and teachers can now be armed.

He says it’s a step in the right direction, but also thinks arming teachers is the wrong way to protect schools from potential shooters — he wants trained pros on the ground instead.

Here’s the most interesting tidbit … John apparently believes a national registry logging people with serious mental illness needs to be implemented for would-be gun owners.

I don’t watch television so I don’t see him on TV.  But you see where this is going, right?  The progs want a registry of everyone with notes about what the village witch doctor thinks about him.  We’ve seen this advocated before.

If you think the second amendment is all about amelioration of tyranny, then maybe you will be on that list too.  After all, who decides what mental illness is and who suffers from it?  Remember what commenter Menckenlite observed concerning guns and mental health?

Control freaks love psychiatry, a means of social control with no Due Process protections. It is a system of personal opinion masquerading as science. See, e.g., Boston University Psychology Professor Margaret Hagan’s book, Whores of the Court, to see how arbitrary psychiatric illnesses are. Peter Breggin, Fred Baughman and Thomas Szasz wrote extensively about abuses of psychiatry. Liberals blame guns for violence. Conservatives blame mental illness. Neither have any causal connection to violence. The issue is criminal conduct, crime. Suggesting that persons with legal disabilities are criminals shows the nonsensical argument of this politician and his fellow control freaks. Shame on them.

Never forget that such a system bypasses due process.  That’s why the progressives love it.

Newsweek:

The Trump administration took its first steps to ban bump stocks on guns through regulatory action Saturday morning.

The Department of Justice submitted notice of proposed regulation to clarify the meaning of “machinegun” in the National Firearms Act and Gun Control Act includes bump stock devices, and that federal law, therefore, prohibits their possession, sale, or manufacture.

“President Trump is absolutely committed to ensuring the safety and security of every American and he has directed us to propose a regulation addressing bump stocks,” said Attorney General Jeff Sessions in a statement.

Well I guess it does matter after all what Trump thinks about gun rights, and I guess he isn’t exactly the man he made himself out to be, is he?

Also noteworthy is that Trump praised Florida’s new gun control law, including the banning of bump stocks and the prohibition against persons under 21 from purchasing guns.

Yes, I know.  Trump is better than Hillary.  No, Trump isn’t pro-gun.  Yes, Trump is who he made himself out to be.  He never intimated that he was a strong second amendment supporter, at least as we understand the second amendment.  His words were always limited to concealed carry and how it could help with crime.  His son was always a Fudd, concerned more about hunters.

It’s the way it is folks.  Trump gave us a little more time.  He isn’t playing 3-D chess.

The Texas Tribune:

U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, has enough support to pass his “Fix NICS” gun control bill without the possibility of a filibuster, his office said Friday morning.

It’s not yet clear when the bill might get a vote, but a staff member said there are now 62 sponsors of the bill — a significant milestone. The bill would hold government agencies accountable for failing to properly document individuals’ criminal histories in the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

Cornyn and U.S. Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., first launched that bill in November after the Sutherland Springs shooting that killed more than two dozen people. But it has stalled in the Senate since then, despite having dozens of senators sign on as co-sponsors recent weeks.

The bill has bipartisan support, though Texas’ other U.S. senator, Republican Ted Cruz, is not among the co-sponsors.

We could go into detail on what this bill does and doesn’t do, but I think there are dangers lurking in this bill.  I also want to make clear that my objection to it is that the entire concept of the NICS is an unconstitutional infringement.

In the interest of following up George’s question on rifle scopes, I currently use a Vortex Strike Eagle (although I don’t currently shoot 3-Gun).  It’s a second focal plane scope, and it’s price point is very reasonable.  I am interested in the newer Vortex Viper, but it’s price point is higher.

Here is a video that is a little dated, but still has some interesting information and perspective.

Also, Vortex explains first and second focal plane for us.

Please feel free to weigh in with comments explaining your choice of scope and why you chose it, along with price point.