Ruger Mark IV Recalled

1 Comment

H/T Bearing Arms.

Please help spread the word about Ruger’s recall.


Ruger has announced a recall on their popular Mark IV pistols.

Ruger recently discovered that all Mark IV™ pistols (including 22/45™ models) manufactured prior to June 1, 2017 have the potential to discharge unintentionally if the safety is not utilized correctly. In particular, if the trigger is pulled while the safety lever is midway between the “safe” and “fire” positions (that is, the safety is not fully engaged or fully disengaged), then the pistol may not fire when the trigger is pulled. However, if the trigger is released and the safety lever is then moved from the mid position to the “fire” position, the pistol may fire at that time. View Safety Bulletin PDF


Although only a small percentage of pistols appear to be affected and we are not aware of any injuries, Ruger is firmly committed to safety and would like to retrofit all potentially affected pistols with an updated safety mechanism.

Until your Mark IV™ pistol has been retrofitted or you verify that it is not subject to the recall, we strongly recommend that you not use your pistol.

How To Determine If Your Pistol Needs The Retrofit

All Mark IV™ pistols produced prior to June 1, 2017 are potentially affected and therefore are being recalled. This includes Mark IV™ Target, Hunter, Competition, 22/45™, 22/45™ Lite and 22/45™ Tactical models. These models bear serial numbers beginning with “401” (2017 models) or “WBR” (2016 models).

Firearms NOT subject to the Recall

Newly manufactured Mark IV™ pistols will begin with serial number “500.” Thus, if you have a Mark IV™ or 22/45™ pistol with a serial number beginning with the number “5,” your pistol is not subject to the recall.

Firearms That Have Been Retrofitted Already

Mark IV™ and 22/45™ pistols retrofitted with the updated safety mechanism are easily identified by the letter “S” in the white safety dot that is visible when the safety is engaged.

In fairness to Ruger, this is hardly the worst design flaw we’ve seen. I, for one, don’t expect a safety to work if it’s not fully engaged.

However, that’s just me.

This is likely to be an expensive fix for something that I think Ruger could easily avoid messing with due to the nature of it, but for me, that’s a good thing. It means Ruger is standing up and doing what it thinks is right, not what it thinks it has to do to avoid getting into trouble. In this day and age, that’s kind of rare for a business, but it shouldn’t be.

If you have one of these weapons, I’m going to urge you to take advantage of this. Yes, I know, I may not see it as the worst flaw ever, it’s still something that the weapon wasn’t intended on doing, and that should always be fixed if at all possible. Besides, people get careless from time to time, and it would be nice to know that your safety doesn’t need precise attention.

Good on Ruger for taking care of this and working to fix it for their consumers.


Florida Candidate Promises To Ban ‘Assault Rifles’ By Decree

Leave a comment

H/T Bearing Arms.

The mask is off the Constitution and Bill Of Rights hating DemocRats and they are showing their true colors as full blown Communist.

While I really try not to focus on political parties here at Bearing Arms, sometimes, it’s difficult. The thing is, there are Democrats who support the Second Amendment, and as a writer covering the Second Amendment, I don’t want to alienate those readers. We all agree that candidates who oppose our right to keep and bear arms are a problem, and their party really doesn’t matter in the grand scheme of things. Their lack of respect for our civil rights, however, does.

However, I can’t help but think of how many Democrats are screaming about “fascism” ever since the election of President Donald Trump, but remain completely silent when a political candidate for governor announces that they’ve figured out a way to ban a certain type of gun by decree, completely circumventing anything resembling democratic process.

[Former U.S. Congresswoman Gwen] Graham pledged to ban assault weapons sales using a little-known state law.

“I have found a public safety statute that allows the governor, whoever she may be, to sign an executive order for public safety reasons banning that sale of military-style assault weapons,” Graham said.

In other words, she plans on banning the sale of scary-looking rifles by executive fiat, probably because she knows that despite the recent capitulation of the state’s legislature on a handful of gun control measures, a ban just isn’t going to get enough votes to pass.

Graham has basically said screw the legislative process and plans to govern with a phone and pen, kind of like President Obama did.

Yet Trump is the fascist dictator?

I’m sorry, but there are a few things Graham needs to consider. For one thing, even if she made such an order, I find it extremely unlikely that the legislature couldn’t overturn it. Further, there’s more than enough time to close that loophole up before she ever gets in office…assuming she can.

However, this really should worry the hell out of anyone who values our country’s republican values. By this, I don’t mean the Republican Party, but the values our Founding Fathers laid down very clearly via the Constitution. While I get that many may disagree with me on the Second Amendment, surely we can agree that the executive branch of government at any level shouldn’t be able to create law and ban items by decree.

Further, Graham’s proposal would only work until the opposition regained control of the governor’s office. At that point, another stroke of the pen could repeal her order.

So, not only is it a tyrannical effort by an anti-gun politician, but it’s not even a particularly effective one long term.

That said, it’s important to understand what our opponents are willing to stoop to in order to enact their radical agenda. In this case, they’re willing to give the middle finger to all that keeps this country from slipping into actual tyranny just so they can get their way. They really are like petulant little children, aren’t they?

To our pro-gun liberal allies, these are the people on your side on other issues. You might want to let them know how stupid they’re being because I suspect Graham isn’t willing to listen to me.

Judge Issues Injunction Against Deerfield, IL’s Assault Weapon Ban

Leave a comment

H/T Bearing Arms.

Illinois is a DemocRat controlled anti gun sewer with Chicago being the biggest turd collecting spot.

The tiny flea-speck of Deerfield, Ill. thought they could restrict what kind of guns people in their community could own. Being in Illinois, I can understand why they’d think that. It’s unlikely the state would do anything to defend the civil liberties of the town’s gun owners, after all.

However, it also immediately fired up the pro-gun rights crowd. A lawsuit was filed.

It now seems the first victory along that path has been won.

[The Second Amendment Foundation] along with the Illinois State Rifle Association sued the Chicago suburb on behalf of Deerfield resident Danieal Easterday on the grounds that it violated that preemption statute.  On Tuesday, Judge Luis Berrones Lake County circuit court judge agreed, granting the injunction thus preventing the village from rolling out its “assault weapons” ban.

“We moved swiftly to challenge this gun ban because it flew in the face of state law,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb in a press release obtained by GunsAmerica. “The village tried to disguise its extremism as an amendment to an existing ordinance. The ordinance bans possession of legally-owned semi-auto firearms, with no exception for guns previously owned, or any provision for self-defense.

“Worse, still,” he added, “the ordinance also provided for confiscation and destruction of such firearms and their original capacity magazines. It was outrageous that the ban would levy fines of up to $1,000 a day against anyone who refused to turn in their gun and magazines or move them out of the village. This certainly puts the lie to claims by anti-gunners that ‘nobody is coming to take your guns.’”

Following the Judge’s ruling, Deerfield issued a statement saying that it will consider an appeal.

“We are reviewing with our legal team the full written opinion that the judge entered. We will, of course, honor the order issued by the court and temporarily not enforce the ordinance,” Deerfield said. “But we are certainly going to review all of the options available to the village, including the right to appeal the decision to the Illinois appellate court.”

In other words, this is just one win in what is likely to be a long, long battle.

Still, the injunction provides some much-needed breathing room for those in the community who own modern sporting rifles and have no wish to get rid of them as the law requires.

It is also that requirement which may, ultimately, lead to the law being overturned. After all, no one is supposed to be deprived of property without due process, and a case could well be made that banning an item that would be legal one inch outside of town to such a degree that law-abiding citizens would be forced to get rid of their property is “depriving” people of property.

But I’m not a lawyer.

The judge, however, is. He apparently saw sufficient ground to at least issue an injunction, which means this case isn’t the clear slam-dunk Deerfield officials thought it would be.

Ultimately, that’s great news. It’s also important that legal challenges become part and parcel of passing gun control legislation. Communities need to understand that we’re not about to give up our rights easily and factor that cost into the discussion of curtailing the rights of law-abiding citizens.

Win or lose, it needs to be costly. Deerfield is learning that lesson.

Rock Island Severs Ties With Auction House Over Gun Policy

Leave a comment

H/T Bearing Arms.

Bravo Rock Island Auction Company for standing up for the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment is something it should never be, a hot-button issue. Many seem bound and determined to present so-called “assault rifles” as deadly instruments of mass destruction and to try and segregate them into a completely different part of American life.

Why else would Dick’s Sporting Goods, for example, completely stop selling the weapons even at their Field & Stream stores while still selling handguns, a firearm which is used in far more murders each year than modern sporting rifles by something like an order of magnitude.

However, the firearm industry isn’t taking it lying down. It’s showing that it can cut ties too.

The most recent to do so is Rock Island Auction Company.

The Illinois-based auction house said they had ended their relationship moving forward with Invaluable and its sister company AuctionZip, citing a change in the promoter’s guidelines. Comparing Invaluable’s shift to that of gun retailer Dicks Sporting Goods, RIAC said they had pulled their upcoming 10,000-gun 2018 June Regional Auction from the site and will not use the service again.

The reason for the breakup, according to RIAC, was that Invaluable announced in May that it would no longer sell, “all Class III weapons,” “assault-style” semi-automatic rifles, and other items.

For those looking to still participate in their auctions online, Rock Island is directing potential bidders to their new in-house live bidding site which they point out adds just 1 percent fees to items, whereas Invaluable charged 3 percent.

I applaud RIAC for this.

It could have easily gone along with the new policy, using it for some guns and doing something else for those not approved by Invaluable, but it didn’t. RIAC gave them the proverbial middle finger and went on to set up its own thing. This will potentially be better for its bottom line as well.

However, let’s not overlook what Invaluable was doing.

Time and time again, we keep seeing people trying to divide firearms into categories, “These guns are fine, but those guns are dangerous.” It’s rarely a comment on the quality of the gun, either. It’s that somehow those “dangerous” guns might get misused by someone, despite the ones in the “fine” category are being misused at an exponentially higher rate.

But, by dividing guns, it’s trying to divide the gun community. There are a lot of gun owners who have no interest in “assault-style” rifles. They don’t fit their needs, and so they don’t own any. The anti-gunners desperately want to drive a wedge between those of us with AR-15s and other so-called “assault rifles” and those who have no such thing.

The idea here is to weaken the gun community as an entity so they can make it possible to pass more and more anti-gun legislation.

No one in their right mind thinks mass shooters are bidding for AR-15s through Invaluable. It’s not a remotely practical way for such a person to obtain a firearm. Anyone with half a brain can see that.

But what it is about is making sure to feed into the narrative, to try and push the AR-15 and similar weapons into a completely different category because that’s the proper, responsible thing to do. At least, that’s the narrative.

In the meantime, Invaluable has accomplished nothing, but RIAC may well have boosted its bottom line in the long run.

Nice job.

NJ Governor Set To Sign Six Bills To Restrict Law-Abiding Citizens’ Gun Rights

Leave a comment

H/T Bearing Arms.

It seems New Jersey’s Governor is Hell Bent on doing away with the Second Amendment In New Jersey.

It’s not enough for some states to be among the worst when it comes to their citizens’ civil liberties, particularly the right to keep and bear arms. No, for some they have to keep ramping up the restrictions every chance they get. In the process, they make it clear that they’re trying to turn the heat up slowly so the frog in the water won’t notice it as much.

The end game, however, seems more and more likely to be the complete disarmament of all private citizens.

In one of those states, New Jersey, it appears they’re about to crank up the temperature a fair bit more.

On Wednesday, the governor is expected to sign a package of bills approved by the Democrat-controlled Legislature — a few of which received wide support from Republicans.

The following bills are sitting on Murphy’s desk:

A1217, which will create restraining orders in the state allowing family members and others to ask a judge to have a person’s guns seized and ban them from buying weapons for up to a year.

A1181, which will mandate law enforcement in the state to seize a person’s guns if a mental health professional determines they pose a threat to themselves.

A2758, which will strictly define that state residents need to show a “justifiable need” to obtain a permit to carry a handgun — meaning they must show they face a specific threat to their own safety.

A2757, which will require all private gun sales in the state to go through a licensed dealer who can perform an additional background check at the point of sale.

A2759, which will create an outright ban in the state on possessing armor-piercing bullets.

A2761, which will ban magazines in the state that hold more than 10 rounds, with some exceptions.

A seventh gun control bill would ban “ghost guns” that are assembled with untraceable components. That measure (S2465) was passed 37-0 in the Senate but has not yet gotten a vote in the Assembly.

It’s not enough that people just traveling through New Jersey can be caught up in their draconian gun control laws and risk losing their liberty over it. No, they’ve got to push for more idiotic laws.

For example, A2759. Armor-piercing bullets? Depending on the armor, regular ammunition can pierce it. I’ve got ammo that will pierce body armor because it’s more powerful ammo than certain body armors are rated for. Hell, most gun owners have ammo that can defeat some grades of body armor. For example, most centerfire rifle ammo will defeat anything short of Level III armors.

At what point does that constitute “armor-piercing?”

To be fair, the law specifies the rounds as having “a full metal jacket and an ogive with a steel penetrator tip followed by an aluminum core and is therefore capable of breaching or penetrating body armor,” and not just ammo that can defeat a given type of armor. However, there’s not a lot of armor-piercing ammo floating around either. I find it extremely unlikely there’s a problem with this type of round ending up in criminal hands.

Instead, it’s far more likely to start this way and then be used to justify banning other kinds of ammo–or at least heavily restricting it–when the law changes absolutely nothing.

However, a look at this bill makes it also very clear that they’re looking at all the different ways they can chisel away people’s rights without crossing the line that the Supreme Court has already laid out. They want a total gun ban, but they can’t do it, so they’re doing everything else they can do to make life difficult for law-abiding gun owners.

For Governor Phil Murphy, that’s a feature, not a bug.

It’s Guns We Need To Fear, Not Maniacs With Machetes

Leave a comment

H/T Bearing Arms.

The anti gun crowd is trying to brainwash us into believing that only guns can be evil.

According to the anti gun crowd only guns can be used in a mass murder.


We’re constantly told that we need gun control in order to prevent mass killings. However, we’ve seen far too many murders that qualify as mass killings where no firearm was used at all. There’s a reason some of us, such as myself, have been calling for examination into why people commit these atrocities. However, I’ve not seen a single gun control advocate share these sentiments.

There’s a reason for that.

It’s because they have it ingrained in their minds via the constant media barrage of anti-gun propaganda that gun control will halt mass killings in this country.

So, if that’s true, maybe we need to ban machetes too?

A Florida man has been sentenced to life in prison for using a machete to kill his aunt, her pregnant daughter and the daughter’s boyfriend.

Court records show that 22-year-old Brian Hyde was sentenced Monday. He was convicted in April of four counts of second-degree murder.

Prosecutors say Hyde used a machete to kill 37-year-old Dorla Pitts, 17-year-old Starlette Pitts and 19-year-old Michael Deon Kelly Jr. at their Lehigh Acres home in 2015. Prosecutors added the additional murder charge for Starlette Pitts’ unborn child.

The victims were found dead after a family friend went to check on them. Hyde was arrested after he was pulled over by law enforcement for driving erratically in his aunt’s car.

That’s four counts of murder. That makes it mass murder.

Where was national media? Where was the wall-to-wall coverage with a host of experts talking about the lethality of machetes? Where were the politicians standing up and talking about how no one needs an implement with such a long blade?

Where was any of it?

Of course, we already know the answer. Stories like this never advance the agenda that the biased media shares. They look at this, think of how horrific the event is, then go on with their lives. They might report it briefly on the air at the national level, but then they forget. They leave it behind because while it’s tragic, it’s not something they can latch onto to build their brand.

But if Hyde had used a gun? Oh, mama! That would have been a whole new ball of wax.

At that point, there would have been stories about how he got the gun, how dangerous that weapon was, and politicians calling for bans on whatever they figure they can get away with banning.

The reality is that there are no national calls to look for the pathology that leads to people doing this. There are no calls for study as to why people turn to violence in the first place. Nothing but a desire by some to ban the tool being used rather than do anything about the tools using them.

That’s because banning guns is easy. It’s easy and flashy. It gets your name on the news and increases your national profile. It solidifies your credentials with your political base or helps advance your narrative, and at the end of the day, that’s all that matters to these people.

Anti-Gunners Want Hollywood To Push Gun Control Agenda

Leave a comment

H/T Bearing Arms.

I do not need some Hollywood moron with an armed guard telling me my guns are bad.

You know what’s amusing? Having spoiled, pretentious jackwagons with armed security, who often make a lot of money using firearms on the big and small screen alike tell me all about how awesome gun control is. Nothing on Earth is likely to send me into an eye roll-induced migraine nearly as fast as that particular brand of hypocrisy.

Yet, anti-gun politicians are trying to get Hollywood to join in the anti-gun push by advancing the narrative through our entertainment.

The Democratic National Committee and members of Congress are turning to Hollywood for help with voter turnout and messaging ahead of the midterm elections and 2020 presidential campaign, quietly consulting with a group of actors, writers and producers here.

DNC Chairman Tom Perez, several House members and other top elected officials have already met with the group, formed by members of the entertainment industry in the wake of the 2016 election, that participants liken to a TV writers’ room, complete with producers of such programs as “Veep.” The existence of the group and details of the meetings have not been previously reported.

The group has discussed targeted voter-registration programs with visiting Democrats, as well as the party’s framing of issues ranging from abortion rights to gun control. In one recent meeting, a Midwestern senator sought advice about how to discuss gun control with conservative-leaning voters in his or her state, multiple participants said.

Yes, because this will work.

Anti-gun celebrities and the people who tell them what to say on television are always the best choices to tell ordinary Americans–people they tend to know absolutely nothing about–why gun control is a good idea.

The fact is, however, Hollywood has been pushing this for years. Well, they’ve been trying to.

America simply wasn’t buying. Take, for example, the Jessica Chastain film “Miss Sloane.” The film stars Chastain as a lobbyist working to push a gun control bill. It portrays pro-gun politicians as on the take and pro-gun lobbyists as morally disgusting individuals. Though, in fairness, it doesn’t exactly paint lobbyists of any stripe as being decent human beings.

However, despite positive reviews, the movie bombed. Why? It’s probably because people don’t want to be lectured by Hollywood on guns when it also routinely makes hundreds of billions of dollars on films featuring rugged men with guns shooting bad people in the face. It’s hypocritical and we all know it.

For anyone to look to Hollywood for help with messaging on guns is rich beyond belief. These are the same people who were shocked that Roseanne was a hit despite (or because of) having a cast of characters who weren’t knee-deep in leftist ideology. They failed to grasp that the country wanted a show like that after the cancelation of Tim Allen’s Last Man Standing (which is coming back, thankfully).

In other words, these are people who rarely seem to understand what America wants within their industry. What makes anyone think they can help them sell gun control to people in the midwest?

But hey, far be it from me to stop them from doing more stupid stuff in an effort to push gun control.

Why You Should Never Trust An Anti-Gunner’s Take On The Second Amendment

Leave a comment

H/T Bearing Arms.

I have wondered are anti gunner’s ignorant or pathological liars or both.

When it comes to the Second Amendment, you’d think the text would be plain enough. For all the legalese we see in laws today, the Bill of Rights amendments are pretty straight-forward.

If I could go back in time and help influence the writing of it, about the only thing I’d change is the phrase “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,” only because I could tell them that future generations would use that as justification to ignore the rest. I understand the meaning well enough, but others don’t.

And when it comes to the meaning of the Second Amendment, you can never trust an anti-gunner’s take what is and isn’t an assault on the Second Amendment.

For example, this past week, the Chicago Sun-Times ran an opinion piece where I came across a claim from the paper about the Second Amendment. The context is within something called 31 bullets, which are a bunch of bullet point of items they want to see enacted in some way.

That’s when I came across this particular tidbit:

With “31 bullets” we have tried to arm young people, and all our readers, with hard facts and a practical agenda. And we have done so, we want to stress, firmly within the strictures of the Second Amendment, always seeking common ground in the moderate middle.

There is no threat to the rights of a gun owners, that is to say, in calling for the inclusion of a trigger lock whenever a gun is sold, as we do in Bullet 2. It is not an assault on the Second Amendment to call for an age restriction of 21 for anybody who wants to buy a military-style weapon of mass death, such as an AR-15 rifle, as we do in Bullet 21.

Let’s break some of this down a bit.

There is no threat to the rights of a gun owners, that is to say, in calling for the inclusion of a trigger lock whenever a gun is sold, as we do in Bullet 2.

Except that every new gun I’ve ever purchased has already come with a gun lock as it stands. All of those run through the action of the weapon, making it impossible to use until it’s unlocked.

I’m sure the folks in Chicago would agree that such a lock should be just as good as a trigger lock, right?

But the problem, and why this is a threat to the rights of gun owners, is that it such a thing would necessitate an end to private sales of firearms. I’d have to go through an FFL holder so that someone licensed could make sure that a lock was provided on a used firearm. It would also drive up the costs for used firearms, many of which no longer have locking devices. Dealers would have to provide those devices at their expense, which would then be passed on to consumers.

Since used firearms are the primary source of quality guns for low-income individuals, this will negatively impact the poor who often find themselves forced to live in bad neighborhoods.

So yeah, it’s a threat.

Now the next bit:

It is not an assault on the Second Amendment to call for an age restriction of 21 for anybody who wants to buy a military-style weapon of mass death, such as an AR-15 rifle, as we do in Bullet 21.

Of course it’s an assault on the Second Amendment. Only a brain-dead wad of chewing gum could really believe it’s not.

Age restrictions mean lawful and law-abiding adults are barred from purchasing a firearm that is available to anyone else. This is discriminatory, and the inflammatory language betrayed the bias about these guns in the first place.

Look, we’re talking about legal adults. They can vote, sign contracts, enlist in the military, and a whole host of other things. They can do these things because we have decided they’re adults. That’s the age we’ve set in stone as the limit. This is when their rights essentially kick in.

Yet now, we have people trying to say that they don’t really get all their rights upon reaching adulthood. While we limit the drinking age–something that’s a topic for another day and another place–we don’t limit their right to vote, to travel freely, or much of anything else. What they’re calling for is the limiting of a constitutionally protected right simply because of someone’s age.

How is that not an assault on the Second Amendment? Pushing someone’s Second Amendment rights away because of their age is beyond ridiculous.

But at the end of the day, that’s what anti-gunners do. They take the idea of your rights, assault them at every turn, then pretend that no such assault actually occurred. It’s why you can never trust their interpretation of the Second Amendment.


Arizona Case Highlights Pitfalls Of Self-Defense

Leave a comment

H/T Bearing Arms.

It is traumatic to have to pull a trigger and take a life then have an overzealous prosecutor ruin your life and send you to prison.  

Defending yourself with your firearm can be traumatic enough. Even pulling out a gun is a terrifying moment, but pulling the trigger? That’s something else entirely. The moment you pull that trigger and take a human life, even if completely justified, your life changes forever.

Now, imagine you’re dealing with that trauma, then have to deal with a prosecutor who wants to see you in prison because you defended your own life.

For an Arizona man, that’s been the reality since 2015.

Almost three years ago, Steven Jones, an 18-year-old freshman at the Northern Arizona University at Flagstaff, and his two friends, were attacked by a drunken mob of fraternity members. One fraternity member ran up to Jones and sucker punched him. Jones friends were down on the ground defending themselves. The fraternity members chased him. Jones ran to his car and retrieved a legally owned and transported Glock pistol. One drunk fraternity member came at him and he fired, killing that member and wounding two others.

According to evidence presented at the first trial, there is little dispute about those facts. The main contention is whether Steven Jones was justified in shooting.

The incident happened on 18 October, 2015. It was characterized as a school shooting by the media and the University. Jones was charged with first degree murder.

Steven Jones cooperated with authorities from the beginning.  Police video from the scene shows that. The video was initially withheld from the jury because it was “prejudicial.” All of Jones’ attackers were legally intoxicated with alcohol. Most of them had traces of marijuana in their blood. Jones had neither. After the jury was allowed to see a partial transcript of the police video, the trial ended in a hung jury and mistrial.

The rest of the original post is a fairly concise detailing of what happened to Jones and is still happening to him, and it illustrates the potential pitfalls of defending yourself with a firearm.

The moment you do, you potentially open yourself up to this kind of thing.

I’m not saying you shouldn’t defend yourself. I’m an adherent of the idea that it’s better to be tried by twelve than carried by six. However, this is the side of the coin that not many of us devote much attention to. People like Masaad Ayoob spend a good bit of time talking about the aftermath of a shooting, but I know plenty who blow it off.

Hell, I used to. I expected Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground laws to cover me. I don’t anymore.

Steven Jones apparently, based on the facts as I understand them, defended himself from a potentially life-threatening attack. It certainly sounds like he had every reason to be in fear of his life, and almost three years later, he’s facing a second trial on murder charges despite that.

I don’t blame the police, though. I blame the prosecutor. While they may introduce a case as “The People versus” in court, far too often it’s really about them and their careers. Jones is dealing with this because a prosecutor wants to make him deal with it.

At the risk of sounding like a commercial, you need to get yourself some self-defense insurance. Either the NRA’s Carry Guard (which I have) or someone else’s. Any legal proceeding is expensive as hell, so you need all the protection you can get.

Anti-Gun Veteran Spreads Rhetoric But Facts, Don’t Add Up

Leave a comment

H/T Bearing Arms.

I can not understand these anti gun veterans attitude.

As a veteran, I’m annoyed by those who use their veteran status to try and attack our sacred and constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. Many of these claiming that their military experience gives them perspective because they carried guns every day turn out to be people who were in the rear with the gear much of the time and are far from the operators they like to portray themselves as.

What they often do is skew their military service, not to claim anything that’s not true, but to imply they are far more intimate with warfare than they are.

That’s what it sure looks like in this anti-gun post by a woman named Becky Margiotta, who penned an anti-gun screed at a site called The Lily, which is owned by the Washington Post. Some of the things she said just don’t add up.

After high school, I set off for West Point, where shooting was no longer a hobby – it was a professional skill. While at West Point, I logged countless days on the range, learning to operate weapons that were new to me – like the M-16 rifle – and honing my skills. I remember learning that the 5.56 mm ammunition used in assault rifles is intentionally designed to slow down upon impact so that it can tumble through the victim’s organs and inflict maximum casualties.

Now, I’m going to cut her some slack on this, because I seem to recall being told this when I was in the military as well.

However, it’s also all bull. The ammunition wasn’t designed to do any such thing. It’s designed to kill the enemy. End of discussion. There are criticisms of the round that because of the spitzer bullet design, it will yaw in soft tissue, but that’s not mitigated by the bullet being larger necessarily. So, on point one, we have someone who swallowed what they were given wholesale with no desire to research it on their own.

Then they go on the internet to spout off about it.

But Margiotta continues.

Following graduation from West Point, I commanded two Special Operations companies – small forces structured to complete the most physically and politically challenging missions. Multiple times a year, year after year, we underwent recertification on the weapons that were most central to our mission. Going to the range was treated with the utmost of gravity and military discipline. There was no joking around on the range. Every single round of ammunition was accounted for every single time.

I left the Army after completing nine years of service. Right around that time, the shooting at Columbine High School happened. I was heartbroken and horrified to hear how the weapons I had trained to use so carefully – including weapons that don’t belong in civilian hands – had been used in a school to end the lives of 13 innocent children and educators.

Now, let’s keep in mind that Columbine was in 1999 and she was out of the Army by then. Also, women weren’t allowed in ground combat roles officially until after 2013. So what kind of “Special Operations companies” was she in charge of? What “physically and politically challenging missions” was she dealing with?

What we know is that she damn sure wasn’t with the Ranger Regiment or Special Forces by any stretch of the imagination. That wasn’t remotely possible during the time frame she describes.

Most likely possibility? She was in charge of Civil Affairs companies. Wikipedia describes the civil affairs mission as, “Civil Affairs soldiers are responsible for executing five core CA tasks, Civil Information Management, Foreign Humanitarian Assistance, Nation Assistance, Population and Resource Control, and Support to Civil Administration. Some subtasks to these core tasks include identifying non-governmental and international organizations operating in the battlespace, handling refugees, civilians on the battlefield, and determining protected targets such as schools, churches/temples/mosques, hospitals, etc.”

Now, this is an important mission. Also, civil affairs troops in a war zone can find themselves in some hairy situations.

But let’s not forget that Margiotta doesn’t say she was in civil affairs. She leaves it vague. Why?

Well, my guess is that she figures people will blow off “civil affairs,” but not “special operations.” To be fair, civil affairs are, to my understanding, a special operations unit. They’re just not what most people think of when they think of special operations, and I think Margiotta is banking on that to give herself some status to try and lend extra weight to her arguments.

Let’s not even get into the blatant bovine excrement she spreads when she talks about Columbine. She said, “I was heartbroken and horrified to hear how the weapons I had trained to use so carefully – including weapons that don’t belong in civilian hands – had been used in a school to end the lives of 13 innocent children and educators.”

After all, there wasn’t a single weapon used in Columbine that’s a typical part of the United States military’s arsenal. In other words, she’s either lying or she doesn’t know what she’s talking about.

Either way, between this and the other inconsistencies, there’s plenty of reason to ignore her opinions out of hand. After all, if she can’t be trusted to admit to her service being what it was, what else can’t she be trusted with?

Older Entries Newer Entries

%d bloggers like this: