Think

Mostly on Rulebase Benchmarks, Politics, Religion and other "stuff" that you can't discuss in the workplace

AZ No-Permit Concealed Gun Carry

Greetings:

This is the dumbest move that I’ve seen yet. No background checks? No protection from totally insane people carrying a concealed weapon. Snopes doesn’t have anything on it. CBS and other news agencies have reported it as being true. The bill has been signed and will be in effect by July or August of 2010.

Everyone knows that I’m kind of right-wing, Second-Amendment-supporting kind of guy. But this is NUTS! Today’s laws in at least 36 states require 12 hours of training in gun safety to be sure that you know how to handle your pistol, they check almost ALL law-enforcement agencies to be sure that you are not some kind of felon or generally nasty guy, and – about 8 weeks later – you get a four year permit. To renew it for another four years you just attend a four-hour course to bring you up-to-date on changes to the laws.

Personally, this will shut down any reciprocity agreements with other states and label AZ as the nuttiest state in the USA. Other nutty states can now say, “Yeah, we’re a little crazy out here BUT have you heard what AZ is doing?”  VT and Alaska are the only states (maybe VA as well) that don’t require a concealed permit for concealed carry.  Honestly, this is just NUTS.  I firmly believe in the Second Amendment, but I also believe that to carry a concealed (or out in the open) weapon of ANY kind you should have been checked out and have passed a minimum course of training of SOME kind!  Alaska is a long way away and VT is a tiny piece of real estate on the northeast – not quite as big as the DFW area.

Well, those are my feelings.  I think we got it right in Texas.  You can’t carry in a bar (where bar is defined as any establishment that gets more than 50% of its income from the sale of alcoholic beverages), government office building, schools (any school), churches / synagogues / temples / mosques, hospitals, drug stores, etc.  AND, a business can put up a sign (in a very specific way and language) that says even permit holders can not carry guns / weapons in their place of business.  (I don’t go to those places and I leave them a note telling they why.)  Personally, I think that if you have a permit, you probably should be allowed to carry IF THE OWNER / PASTOR / PRIEST / WHATEVER gives you permission even in a bar, church or even a school.  Faculty in a university (or even a grade school) should be allowed (required?) to carry.  Naaaahhh – just allow it.  If they don’t want to carry let them be the victim along with the students the next time some nut comes in (without a permit, of course) and shoots up the place.

Back to AZ.  Think about it.  They are right on the border with Mexico and the Mexican drug wars can now spill over across the border and the people of AZ can’t do a bloody thing about it.  Me?  If I ever have to go to AZ it will be to drive through without stopping and carry a much firepower as I can – just in case.  I think I would rather get in the rattlesnake pit during the Rattlesnake Roundup here (Sweetwater) than to spend a night in AZ.  And all of this coming from a right-wing, independent, gun-toting Texan.

SDG

Yaakov

April 17, 2010 Posted by | Guns-n-Ammo, Political | 2 Comments

The NRA Blew It !!

Greetings:

Normally, I read my American Rifleman magazine from the NRA with a bit of enthusiasm about the articles but with a jaundiced eye toward the political rants and raves of the far-right wing of American Conservatism.  So, basic premise: Articles good, political articles bad.  Even so, when they picked the AR Top 10 Infantry Rifles where they picked the Best of Breed, they really blew that one.  

#1 – No discussion, no question.  The venerable M1 Garand, 30-06 is probably the finest infantry rifle built at the time and for many years thereafter.

But consider the ones that they left out:  The M14, .308 calibre (7.62x51mm) that served so gallantly as a replacement to the M1 for many years they left in the armory of time because, as they so un-characteristically put it, “One of our personal favorites, the M14, was dropped because we decided that when two comparable contemporary guns were on the list, like the M14 and the FN FAL, the tie had to go to the gun with the greater historical impact and longer service life, rather than the gun we liked best.”

What claptrap!!  FIRST, this is the “American” Rifleman, not the “Rifles of the World” magazine.  SECOND, it is not a gun you nitwit you.  It is a weapon or rifle.  Apparently they never had to do high-port-double-time for hours because they referred to their weapon as a gun shouting, “This is my weapon and this is my gun!  This is for fighting and this for fun!”  THIRD: The FAL 7.62 is a piece of crap compared to the M14 so they were NOT considering the BEST OF BREED and NOT considering AMERICAN, you were playing international politics and which one has been around the longest. 

If they had taken the time to read Sgt. Carlos Hathcock’s (USMC-ret) books or Sgt. John Culbertson’s (USMC-ret) or Col. M. R. Lanning (US Army-ret) books on American Snipers, they would NEVER have put the M16, .223 / 5.56x51mm in their list and left out the M14.  These guys lived the sniper life and learned quickly what worked and what didn’t work.  Yes, the military replaced a real “grunt” rifle (M14) that would drop the enemy in his tracks with a plastic piece of crap (M16) that jammed time after time after time when in real combat conditions of mud, rain, snow, sleet and crappy conditions that are always there in real combat.  The M14 is another work of art much like the M1 that it replaced.  

And, yes, the military, in its unintelligent, moronic logic, replaced the M14 sniper rifles with a Remington BDL .300 Magnum bolt action.  Another REALLY dumb move.  (A bolt action takes away the option of a quick second shot.)  The M16 and the BDL are NOT sniper nor combat rifles; one is a toy that excels in street fights (but not in combat street fights) and the other is great for hunting.  Neither is a military weapon worthy of consideration.  Personally, having lots of fire is not the same a knock-down.  The woosey military felt that the .308 was “too powerful” for the modern army – mostly because the women and girly-men could not handle the recoil.  So, today, that’s why we have toy guns in combat – so the women could have something to shoot.  It makes you want to go somewhere and just puke.

Personally, I would have put the M14 as #2 and the Kalashnikov AK-47 as #3.  The Enfield .303 calibre  (which was #6) should have been in there somewhere but it probably could have replaced the M16 as #3 or #4 behind the Mauser.  

FINALLY, how about this:  The StG44 7.92mm is # 7.  Talk about not having “time in service” !!  It was only in service for a VERY short period of time in WW II by the Germans.  True, it WAS a nice piece of machinery, but it was a unique calibre (7.92x33mm, not 7.62).  Personally, most Airborne GI’s in WW II preferred the Thompson .45 for rapid-fire delivery at short range with tremendous knockdown over most any other rifle, including the M1.  They liked the 1911 .45 for the same reason.

Well, that’s about it.  Write the “Used to be” American Rifleman and let them know your discontent.  I’m ready to give up that bunch of non-combatants.  

Yaakov Kohen

November 23, 2008 Posted by | Guns-n-Ammo | , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment