Carnival of Cordite 16

Hello and welcome once again!  Thank you Countertop and Les Jones for filling in for me these last few weeks.  And thanks in advance to Eric for hosting next week.  I hope you all had a great Memorial Day; I know I did.  Since many of our regular contributors had weekend plans, this week's Carnival may seem a little brief.  But that's OK: what we lack in quantity, we make up for in quality!

*     *     *

This week, we approach the anniversary of the demonstrations at Tiananmen Square.

If that picture isn't a reminder of what the Second Amendment is really about, then you just don't get it.  Simon World has a great post about what happened that day.  In China, men like the unknown protester immortalized in that photograph end up murdered by the state for the crime of wanting to be free.  In America, we MADE ourselves free by taking up arms against an oppressive dictatorship.  Sadly, many enslaved people around the world are unable to win their own freedom.  An unarmed populace cannot defeat an army.

It is a sad irony that a week after Memorial Day and on the eve of the anniversary of Tiananmen Square, we have reports of genocide, or "democide," coming to Zimbabwe.  The Volokh Conspiracy tells us that the method of democide is starvation of an unarmed populace.

But if the people of Zimbabwe had not been disarmed under the pretext of "gun safety", they would be able to help themselves. A revolution would not be guaranteed to succeed, but fighting to live is much better than passively starving to death.

After the Holocaust, the international community said "Never again." Yet in Zimbabwe, as in so many other nations in the last 60 years, the combination of citizen disarmament and international indifference has made democide a reality again and again and again.

Some of my blog readers enjoy my other blog topics, like news, humor, and such, but tune out the gun stuff.  One thing they tend to think is that reports about gun control leading to genocide are just the rantings of the lunatic fringe.  Well, I'd like to remind such readers that Eugene Volokh, despite the name of his blog, is no lunatic conspiracy theorist.  He is one of the most highly respected law professors in the country, and is routinely touted as an ideal candidate for the United States Supreme Court.  So stick that in your lunatic fringe.

Coyote Killer also weighs in on this topic, reminding us of an essay of his, previously linked here before, worth reading again.

*     *     *

Our Second Amendment is, of course, meant to protect Americans from situations like those in China and Zimbabwe.  But, unfortunately, gun control is big political issue here.  Strangely enough, gun control advocates are often (not always, but often) the same people fighting for abortion rights.  But new contributor Lornkanaga makes an interesting point.

*     *     *

The Second Amendment also guarantees our right to protect ourselves against criminal violence.  The Civilian Gun Self-Defense Blog reports this week about a 64-year old widow who has done just that.  mASS BACKWARDS offers a compare and contrast.

*     *     *

We now move on to a lighter category, new guns:

More from mASS BACKWARDS, who is looking to buy his first auto-pistol, and has put the Ruger P345 at the top of his list.  Here are some photos:

He is looking for feedback from fellow gun enthusiasts, so if you have experience with this particular firearm, please leave a comment on his blog.

El Capitan from Baboon Pirates has new toy:

That's his S&W 2214.  And I have to say, if you need a tiny little backup gun, this one ain't bad.  Even though it is a "mere" .22 LR, you can get some good .22 LR loads that are superior to most .25 ACP and even comparable to .32 ACP for defense purposes.  Given the cost and availability of practice ammo, one of these is probably better than most .25 or .32 pistols as an emergency back-up gun, since you can actually afford to shoot it enough.  Practice is everything, and even a tricked out .45 1911 is next to useless if you practice so little that, come crisis time, you can't hit your target in a timely fashion.

Flame away.

The ever-enjoyable Kim du Toit is drooling over a new product from Taurus:

That's the new Taurus Thunderbolt .357 Pump-Action Rifle!  Kim points out it would be an excellent companion to his recently acquired Colt Python.  I'm looking forward to this one shipping, so we can read Kim's range report.  He sounds eager:

I have to tell you, this rifle looks like a hell of a lot of fun—it holds fourteen rounds of .357 Mag in the tube mag—and it’s going to be priced at around $450, I think, which makes it even more appealing. Now throw in a bucket of cheap .38 Special ammo (15 in the tube, then), and you’d have to pull me off the firing line with a boat hook.

Hopefully, no hooking will be required.

*     *     *

Speaking of range reports:

New contributor J.D. of Evolution writes in with his report from the range, shooting a variety of fine firearms.  I like the humorous editor's note:

Editor’s note: If the “editor” had remembered his damned camera, this post would have been much better.

Mental note: remind me to get my own digital camera to enhance my own blogging!  And all you carnival readers, fun photos from your range trips will enhance future Carnivals!

This is from someone who didn't forget the camera:

What we see here is a Beretta U22 Neos .22 LR, courtesy of new contributor Mr. Completely.  Read his post for a complete range report and quality review of this sharp-looking target pistol.  And that's not all:

Pictures from the range are always fun!

*     *     *

Kevin the Techno Gypsy writes to tell us about a product for the range: pocket aids.  Everybody needs them!

*     *     *

Moving on to the follow-up section:

Last week, the Carnival included the absurd news that folks across the pond were thinking about banning kitchen knives.  This week, Brian of Memento Moron (one of my very favorite blog titles!) follows up with his thoughts on how fatherhood puts Second Amendment rights into a new perspective.

Also on the topic of the knife ban, The Common Room offers analysis.

And for any who may have missed it, I had my own take.

*     *     *

SHAMELESS PLUG!

Frank J. of IMAO fame has his new IMAO GUN SAFETY SHIRT for sale!

Follow this link to buy Frank's shirt, and be sure to "zoom in" to read the fine print.  Hippies and commies beware!  Here are more of Frank's gun safety tips.

Frank better appreciate all the extra traffic his site is going to get from this!!!

There is no better source for high quality conservative clothing than Those Shirts.  Any of you readers think you have the skill to create a Carnival of Cordite shirt?

*     *     *

Taking a break from shameless capitalism, I wonder, "what would I do with all the money I would make selling a great t-shirt over the internet?"

To help me answer this question, Chris the AnarchAngel is here to talk about custom auto pistols.

A truly custom handgun is at the same time, a work of art, and a piece of engineering and craftsamanship perfection.

Let's take a look at some of that perfection:

But Chris isn't just another drooling 1911 cultist.  He has some great info on custom Brownings:

Chris, as usual, your posts leave me wanting things I can't afford!  Oh well, at least I have Google Ads (hint hint)...

*     *     *

Here's a gratuitous picture of Kit!

Kit demands that all you hot studly men send in some of your Second Amendment pictures for the ladies!

*     *     *

As we near the end of the week's Carnival of Cordite, the time has come to name the blog of the week.  This week's honors go to mASS BACKWARDS!  Let's celebrate with another of his fine posts: Life in Crime-Free D.C.

*     *     *

Finally, continuing with the tradition started by Les Jones, we are ending with a question for you to discuss in the comments section of this post.  This week's question:

Most Second Amendment supporters would agree that some people, like convicted violent criminals, should have their gun rights restricted or even taken away all together; how much gun control is enough, and how much is too much?  Where do you draw the line between "common sense" gun control for the safety of the public and an unconstitutional abridgment of the right to keep and bear arms?

Please discuss in the comments of this post.  Thank you all for participating!

*     *     *

That's the end of our post-Memorial Day Carnival of Cordite.  We'll see all you readers next week at Eric's Grumbles Before the Grave.  Let's all be sure to send him plenty of material for his Carnival debut.  You can send your entries by e-mail to:

c a r n i v a l o f c o r d i t e A T h o t m a i l D O T c o m

Or, you can use the Carnival Submit Form courtesy of Conservative Cat.  And in the meantime, keep your powder dry!

Comments

[j.d.]

Hate to nitpick, but the name of my site is just "evolution". Blame whoever registered "www.evolution.com" for my goofy domain name. :)

[ed note: FIXED! Sorry.]

Great job. And I WILL remember to bring the camera to the range next time.

[docjim505]

"How much gun control is enough, and how much is too much? Where do you draw the line between 'common sense' gun control for the safety of the public and an unconstitutional abridgment of the right to keep and bear arms?"

I've become increasingly libertarian in my advancing years, and my general feeling is that it is wrong for the government to arbitrarily take away a citizen's rights unless and until he's committed some crime. Further, the Founders plainly intended that the people be well armed to offset the power of a standing army. Therefore, I believe that citizens ought to have the right to own any and all weapons short of NBC weapons and explosives (which includes landmines, artillery pieces, explosive cannon shells, missiles and rockets). The only reason I exclude these categories is that an accident endangers too many people. Natch, those with a legitimate use for explosives can go through the proper licensing authorities and get what they need.

The other side of this liberty is the responsibility to store, handle and use such weapons safely. If somebody commits a crime with a weapon, ESPECIALLY if they commit murder, rape, or some other type of mayhem, then they ought to be punished VERY severely. It's also incumbent upon the gun owner to take prudent precautions to keep his firearms out of reach of children, though I'd have to ponder what (if any) penalties should be applied if a child gets a gun and a tragedy follows.

Our current laws are bass-ackward from this. The rights of law abiding citizens are curtailed, but felons often commit multiple violent crimes between brief stints in our revolving door prison system.

My view is that there ought to be no second chance with violent crimes: for murder or forcible rape, the penalty should be either life in prison without parole or death. Criminals convicted of lesser violent crimes should also be punished harshly, with long prison terms without the possibility of parole until at least ten years of the sentence have been served.

Need I say that I think prisons should be tougher? Either the criminals should be locked up in places like "Super-max" where they don't have much chance to cause mischief, or bring back the chain gangs and let the hoodlums spend the rest of their lives doing swamp reclamation or pounding rocks.

Man, I've turned into a mean, bitter SOB!

BTW, I just started blogging, and my second post was about the virtues (or lack thereof) of a 9mm handgun for personal defense.

http://docjim505.typepad.com/second_opinion/2005/05/9mm_for_persona.html#trackback

[McClain]

Nuclear weapons count as "arms."
I'm not OK with private citizens owning nuclear weapons.
If that's the start of a slippery slope, then we'll just have to dig a big ol' ditch a little ways further down that slippery slope.

[big dirigible]

In the early days of the Republic it was routine for private citizens to own the most powerful weapons of the day. And a good thing too - consider the privateer fleets which caused Britain so much grief during the War of 1812. No licensing needed, either. (A license - a privateering commission or a Letter of Marque - was needed to legally seize British ships, or demand tribute from British towns, but no license was needed for the artillery itself). Note that a narrow interpretation of the 2nd Amendment's phrase "bear arms" would not cover ship-borne ordnance, implying that a narrow interpretation was not what the Framers had in mind.

Were those wild-'n-woolly colonial types really that much more trustworthy than us sensitive modern guys? They could safely handle weapons which could level a seaside town, but we can't? Somehow, I don't think so.

[DeputyHeadmistress]

I'm also here to sheepishly nitpick- Common Ground blog ought to be 'The Common Room.'

[mea culpa! perhaps I am subconsciously getting my revenge for all the times people link me as Gullyberg? FIXED!]

Thanks for the carnival!

[Gullyborg]

My take is that the right to bear arms is no weaker than--or stronger than--any other right under the Constitution. All your rights, even your right to live, can be taken from you by the state, but only with DUE PROCESS OF LAW. Criminals who, after conviction in a trial which meets all due process requirements (trial by jury, right to counsel, right to confront witnesses, etc), lose their right to bear arms are, from a Constitutional standpoint, in the same boat as criminals who lose liberty (jail), property (fines), or life (execution).

Contrast this to people who (off the top of my head) lose their right to bear arms because they plead nolo contendre to a misdemeanor domestic violence charge in order to receive probation, and subsequently never faced a jury, never had (adequate) legal representation, never confronted witnesses in court, etc. Is that due process of law? Should someone like this be barred from ever again legally owning a firearm? I'd say no.

And before the gun grabbers out there say I'm condoning guns for wife beaters: keep in mind that in my example the accused is accepting a plea deal to avoid trial, and not going to jail. If the DA thinks the accused is an actual threat to society, then why not prosecute? A real trial with a conviction and jail term will bar gun ownership. If the perp is a real threat to his wife, lock him up.

I also think that a bar on gun ownership should be part of a sentencing phase, not merely a result of the sentence. You can commit a crime and go to jail or pay a fine. Sometimes the judge has discretion to sentence one or the other or both. Jail is a loss of liberty. Fines are a loss of property. Both are your rights, taken away by the court as part of your sentence. But loss of one right doesn't necessarily mean loss of the other.

Maybe ALL rights should be adjudicated in this manner. People arrested for certain white collar crimes might appropriately by hit with a big fine, but never serve jail time. Maybe they shouldn't have their gun rights taken away. For that matter, maybe they shouldn't have their voting rights taken away. But under certain circumstances, maybe it should be in the judge's discretion. After all, a judge might have the discretion to sentence a convicted felon from between 1 and 20 years in prison, depending on the facts of the case; why not allow the same broad range of discretion when it comes to things like guns and voting?

So when a judge is getting ready to hand down a sentence, maybe he should have the power to say, for example, "5 years in prison followed by 5 years of probation, and subsequent forfeiture of gun ownership during such probabtion."

What about AFTER the probabtion? After all, if you are no longer such a threat to society that you are no longer required to be on probation, why shouldn't you have a gun? If the thought of you owning a gun at this point makes reasonable people afraid, maybe you should still be on probation!

What about the notion that, once your debt to society is paid, you should be free again? If you have a 1 year jail term, that is one year without your right to liberty. After the year, your right to liberty is restored. Should your other rights remain in check?

How about long probationary periods, during which, gun ownership is prohibited? And of course, breaking probabtion should require swift and severe punishment. So if you are on probation and you get caught with a gun, you go back to jail.

If, at the end of your long probation, you have a clean record, why not let you have ALL your rights back?

I'd like to know why the ACLU isn't out there fighting for our gun rights as much as they are fighting for things like the free speech "right" to receive federal funds to subsidize "art" that includes a Virgin Mary covered in feces?

[Gullyborg]

as for nukes: maybe the best argument is that no one should have them INCLUDING the military? when it comes to the law abiding citizens, I have no problem with them owning military hardware. But should the military (or, perhaps more appropriately, the police) have weaponry that we wouldn't trust a citizen to have?

Now don't get me wrong. I like the notion that our military can blow the crap out of threats to our security. And I like the notion that our police are well-armed to face off against drug cartels and gangs. But would I sleep better at night knowing that the military and police had better firepower than the mass of our law abiding citizens? Think about the picture above of the man staring down the tank. What if he himself had something more powerful than a tank?

besides, the nuke argument is silly. even if private ownership of nukes was allowed, who would be able to get them? It's not like you can buy them at Wal-Mart. And even if you could, the cost of a nuclear weapons program runs in the billions. Most nation-states, let alone people, lack the capacity to produce nukes. Saddam Hussein, a billionaire dictator with unlimited power in his own nation-state, spent decades trying in vain to obtain a nuke.

Go ahead and make a law allowing private law-abiding citizens to own nuclear weapons... I doubt it will be a problem.

[junyo]

The only real arms limitation that I believe in regards weapons where the individual using that weapon has no real control over all of the destructive pontential of that weapon. Therefore nukes would be out since you can't reasonably claim to control where the fallout would come down. Ditto other WMD type weapons that are more area effect than precision targeted. A country engaged in warfare has on ocasion reason to just blast the crap out of a town and chalk up the colatteral damages to the cost of war; private citizens don't and shouldn't have that luxury when defending themselves against other citizens, even if those citizens are representatives of a repressive government. Outside of that, I think a private citizen should be able to buy whatever they want. I also think that until the government adopts a sensible approach to law, one that doesn't actively seek to create new criminals, and only seeks to make felons of those that are demonstrated dangers to the community, then they (the government) should automatically restore the self defense rights of non-violent "criminals" after they've served their time. Seriously, does anyone think Martha Stewart is a menace to society; yet she's a convicted felon.

[proplr]

The 2nd Amendment is not about citizens having nukes. It is about the citizens having similar weapons and accessories as current, modern infantry soldiers so that they may muster as a milita. We can argue about the effectiveness of a milita in general, but there is no argument that a milita with shotguns and bolt-action single shot rifles will NOT be as effective as a milita bearing m16s or AKs, yes I mean military weapons. That is what is protected by the 2nd.
Oh, and has anybody noticed that, according to the leftists, you have a right to abortion. A right not found by reading the Constitution or Bill of Rights. But you do not have a right to a gun, a right clearly in the Bill or Rights, because according to them, the 2nd is about the states having the right to guns. Preposturous!
When the Leftists spout that crap they've lost any credibility they may have had. Like the ACLU. What a bunch of pin heads.
Right to abortion but no right to arms. WRONG!

[Brad]

Where to draw the line?

Types of weapons

Ah Nukes! It always seems to come up one way or another (dialogue from the 1994 cartoon TV show 'The Critic': situation-- slightly loony media giant 'Duke' is running for President. "Can we trust Duke with nuclear weapons?", in reply "Well, we trust him with the ones he has now.").

The point of 1812 privateers is well taken. Warships in the time of the Founding Fathers were the B-52 bombers of their day, and anyone with the money to afford it could own them.

Even so, I am not in favor of unregulated private ownership of nuclear weapons. I'm sure that a there is a reasonable compromise that would ensure public safety while still preserving the right to own nuclear weapons.

Nukes could fall into an NFA plus category! Only instead of the ATF and local law enforcement signing off for your permit you would need the AEC and the State Governor. Careful rules would have to be devised so the AEC and the Governor couldn't abuse their discretion (sort of like 'must issue' rules for CCW), but I think it could be worked out! Odds are the intersection between those who could afford nuclear weapons and those interested in owning them would be pretty small, making the regulatory scheme fairly easy to manage.

Who could own weapons?

I am in favor of laws prohibiting convicted felons from private ownership of firearms. However there must be a fair method for restoration of those rights! That is not currently the case.

And I am well aware of how the anti-gun zealots are trying to squeeze out legitimate ownership with schemes to ever-broaden the categories of prohibited persons. Boilerplate divorce decrees and TRO's, where the affected person may not even be present in court or even aware of the proceedings, which rip away the right to keep and bear arms are a flagrant violation of due process rights.

[Rivrdog]

For the Second Amendment to mean anything, the citizens not only have to keep and bear arms, they must be ready and capable of serving in a Militia.

The military part of Militia is never discussed, and that gravels me badly. How many of you paper-punchers out there with your finely-tuned Kimber .45s or your IPSA race-guns know the basics of infantry tactics? Even enough to be able to perform as a rifle squad element, not necessarily a squad leader or company-level officer?

How many keep a battle rifle and a sufficient amount of ammunition so as to be useful when a militia is mustered? How about some uniforms, or at least outdoor clothing that you could live in for a month outdoors in any weather your region serves up? Are you trained in providing battlefield first aid? Do you have the supplies for it? Do you have any comm gear that might interface with others' similar gear? Do you even have a pair of boots to slog in?

Are you in sufficiently decent physical condition to be of use in a militia? Or are you going to crap out after or during the first forced march?

There's a lot more to militia than having a pistol or two and being able to punch the holes in the targets when and where you want to, or rallying behind the boys as they chant for concealed carry rights.

At some point, if you are really part of the Militia the Founders envisioned when they wrote the Second Amendment, you have to be able to prove it.

Fine words about the Second and debate on whether we have the right to posess nuclear weapons doesn't cut it, lads. You can be a fighter or you can be a talker.

When the S.H.T.F., we won't need talkers, we'll need fighters. The time to prepare for THAT time is now.

[Lone Ranger]

The Second Amendment is moot if the populace does not have the WILL to return the government to what our Founding Fathers envisioned. Although our Declaration of Independence says people have not only the right but the duty to overthrow repressive governments, anyone who even expresses the opinion that our government has become repressive is regarded as a right-wing nut-job. If George Washington himself were to return to life, I have no doubt he would lead an armed march on Washington. And he'd be gunned down on Independence Avenue -- if he made it that far. Face it folks, we've been emasculated by a society that thinks we should be kinder and gentler and by politicians who believe their powers are unlimited. Protecting ourselves from our government is no longer a topic of discussion. Next in the sissification of America is condemnation of anyone who thinks we have a right to protect ourselves from criminals. I hope I'm reincarnated as a deer, because eventually, it will become a perverted act to hunt them.

[eric]

As far as gun ownership and felonies go, The punishment should be proportionate to the crime. If, say, you use a gun to commit a violent felony, then your right to carry should be revoked. You have shown you can't be trusted. For lesser crimes, there should be periods of disarmament, with your right to bear arms being restored contingent on fulfilling your sentence/parole satisfactorially. I'm a big believer in giving people a second chance, and I think that in this, and many other things, America has gone overboard and super-criminalized people who've done their time and should be able to pursue a normal life.

[UGUR]

hi

I'M turky