Friday, January 25, 2013

A Hand Is Reaching To Steal Your Gun

Photo Courtesy Of The U.S. Army (Combatives training) [Public domain]
 Better defensive handgun and concealed carry courses teach and train people how to handle a situation when an assailant attempts to forcibly take your firearm from your holster (or hand). The US Army and US Marine Corps teach techniques to counter such attempts as well. It is something every responsible gun owner should know and practice.

No rational person wants to be disarmed by a violent threat. Worse, none wants to see their firearm used by those assailants against the very people we wish to defend and protect with them. Simple rules to follow include keeping a concealed pistol hidden until the assailant is beyond hand-to-hand distance (5 yards, minimum) and remove it from its holster quickly, preferably while concealed behind cover. Don't let an assailant get within 5 yards of you in the first place. If they get within that distance, use hand-to-hand techniques until you can gain separation. If an assailant grasps your weapon, grapple that hand against your body so they cannot take your weapon from its holster.

A text document cannot teach these techniques. A video can only familiarize you with them. Take a class taught by a qualified and credible instructor.

But you need to be alarmed. There is a hand reaching to snag your weapons from you, by force.

The union thug, Joey Biden, is on his campaign against the Second Amendment. He recently made a statement to the effect that the tyrants socialists liberals progressives gun-grabbers "don't want to take 'bad guns' away from good people but to take all guns away from bad people".

The sentiment and rhetoric brief well. However, in practice, they don't mean anything. The federal government already does not enforce the laws already in place in regards to criminals. They use them to infringe upon the rights of law-abiding individuals. If they really wanted to do what he claims, Fast and Furious would have been conducted much differently. The weapons would have been tagged, tracked, and rigged. Instead, the weapons were given to hardened criminal organizations to be used against our own US Border Patrol and Mexican civilians.

Criminals care about laws. They do. They like to know what possible penalties they face when they get caught. They like to know any loopholes they can use to avoid prosecution. They like to know how well those laws are enforced. They intend to break the laws. They just look for ways to do so with the least chance of doing jail time for their crimes. They do not care about obeying the laws.

The proposed laws do not stop the criminals from committing crimes and using violence (guns, hammers, knives, etc.) in doing so. They do not take any "guns from bad people". All they do is infringe upon the rights of good people, leaving them ill-equipped to defend themselves.

Biden also made a comment that "no sporting or hunting use of firearms requires a 50-round magazine". That may be true. However, your standard magazine for an AR-15 is 30-rounds, not 50. Also, the Second Amendment is not about hunting or sport shooting. So his comment is irrelevant.

The simple reason why a homeowner would require a 30-round magazine for his AR-15 is that the threats have that capability. Criminals will still acquire and use 30-round magazines. They will just get them the same places they get their illegal Tek-9 "machine pistols". The other potential threats (police, national guard, and active military forces being used for tyrannic purposes to violate the US Constitution) have them. The tyrants have forces at their disposal that are so armed. The free individuals have the right to proportionate defenses equal to the most common weapon employed by your average Soldier. If Biden bothered to actually read Federalist 46, he'd understand this fact.

While Joey is flapping his, incorrect as usual, gums to distract you, that hand is inching towards your holster.

Dianne Hitler Stalin Lenin, Marx Pol Pot Amin Milosevic Mussolini Feinstein presented her plan. Her plan includes a multitude of unconstitutional, irrational, and severe infringements on our Second Amendment rights. Political Correspondent Jamie Dupree has an exhaustive list of the most important details. The hearings and debates are scheduled to begin in the Senate next week.

Among those details are stipulations that classify a weapon as an assault weapon if it meets at least one of a long list of cosmetic features including heat shielding hand-guards. She also lists any weapon that takes a magazine capacity greater than 10 rounds as an "assault weapon".

Due to ex post facto, her proposal is to ban the manufacture, sale, transfer, importation, and purchase of weapons that meet her criteria for assault weapons. In addition, she lists, by name, manufacturers and models that will be outright prohibited. Basically, she proposes to render companies that are currently legal as illicit, putting them out of  business through hostile legislation. Then again, she's a devout socialist and opposes free enterprise.

Here is a partial list (from Jamie Dupree's article):

 All AK types, including the following: AK, AK47, AK47S, AK–74, AKM, AKS, ARM, MAK90, MISR, NHM90, NHM91, Rock River Arms LAR–47, SA85, SA93, Vector Arms AK–47, VEPR, WASR–10, and WUM, IZHMASH Saiga AK, MAADI AK47 and ARM, Norinco 56S, 56S2, 84S, and 86S, Poly Technologies AK47 and AKS;  

All AR types, including the following: AR–10, AR–15, Armalite M15 22LR Carbine, Armalite M15–T, Barrett REC7, Beretta AR–70, Bushmaster ACR, Bushmaster Carbon 15, Bushmaster MOE series, Bushmaster XM15, Colt Match Target Rifles, DoubleStar AR rifles, DPMS Tactical Rifles, Heckler & Koch MR556, Olympic Arms, Remington R–15 rifles, Rock River Arms LAR–15, Sig Sauer SIG516 rifles, Smith & Wesson M&P15 Rifles, Stag Arms AR rifles, Sturm, Ruger & Co. SR556 rifles; Barrett M107A1; Barrett M82A1; Beretta CX4 Storm; Calico Liberty Series; CETME Sporter; Daewoo K–1, K–2, Max 1, Max 2, AR 100, and AR 110C; Fabrique Nationale/FN Herstal FAL, LAR, 22 FNC, 308 Match, L1A1 Sporter, PS90, SCAR, and FS2000; Feather Industries AT–9; Galil Model AR and Model ARM; Hi-Point Carbine; HK–91, HK–93, HK–94, HK–PSG–1 and HK USC; Kel-Tec Sub–2000, SU–16, and RFB; SIG AMT, SIG PE–57, Sig Sauer SG 550, and Sig Sauer SG 551; Springfield Armory SAR–48; Steyr AUG; Sturm, Ruger Mini-14 Tactical Rife M–14/20CF;  

All Thompson rifles, including the following: Thompson M1SB, Thompson T1100D, Thompson T150D, Thompson T1B, Thompson T1B100D, Thompson T1B50D, Thompson T1BSB, Thompson T1–C, Thompson T1D, Thompson T1SB, Thompson T5, Thompson T5100D, Thompson TM1, Thompson TM1C; UMAREX UZI Rifle; UZI Mini Carbine, UZI Model A Carbine, and UZI Model B Carbine; Valmet M62S, M71S, and M78; Vector Arms UZI Type; Weaver Arms Nighthawk; Wilkinson Arms Linda Carbine.

If a citizen already owns one of these, he can continue to own it. However, he cannot use it. He cannot bring it to a range. And he cannot sell it, except to a government run buy-back program. He cannot will it to a decedent or spouse.

Then there is that whole "buy-back" idea. It doesn't work. In Iraq, the government there instituted a buy-back program and an amnesty program. The number of weapons these programs wasted money on removing from the population was less than 10% of what the population retained. The laws there restricted ownership to one firearm per adult male in each household. Even confiscations of the surplus did nothing to reduce the numbers in circulation. The buy-backs were propagated as "successful". Yet violence exponentially increased shortly afterward.

One independent study did a statistical analysis of gun buy-back programs. In order to save one human life, >65,000 firearms will have to be bought-back. No program has ever come close to that number. That means that no program has succeeded in saving a single human life. The only purpose for them is to get idiots to complicit in a voluntary illegal confiscation of personal property and violation of individual rights.

Next, let's do a little free-market supply and demand analysis of a buy-back program.

If you legally purchased and own one of the rifles in that list, the government will offer to purchase it from you.

So, you cannot buy a replacement. Nobody can. That makes decreases the supply, dramatically. It also drastically changes the slope of that curve. It increases the fair market value of one of those weapons.

To understand this, take the case of one of Walter Payton's rookie cards. In the 1970s, a pack of football cards cost about $0.25. That garnered a certain number of cards plus a piece of pink, bubblegum-flavored linoleum.  If there were 10 cards in a pack, each card would be worth $0.2 (with a $.05 piece of pink floor tile).

In 1985, the Chicago Bears won the Super Bowl. Payton's rookie card's value skyrocketed. Payton broke and set records during his career. That increased the value to collectors. Payton died. The value jumped more. The rookie cards are several decades old. Many did not survive the years, being mistreated or falling victim to fires, floods, and sibling battles. So, there are fewer available. No more are being made. That card, in mint condition, which could have been bought for $.02 in 1976, is worth $1819.00 today. That is an increase in value of 9095000%.

With Feinstein's proposed ban in place, the value of one of the enumerated rifles will increase in value similar to that rookie card. A conservative increase in relative market price is easily 10,000% (100 times the pre-ban value). So, an AR-15 that is purchased at MSRP today, around $1,000.00, is worth $100,000.00 the day after the ban is enacted. Next comes the lost capital gains, plus the risk and the surrender of your individual rights. Everything has a price, right? So, what is your multiplier for those? What value will you place on those?

Personally, I'd say a multiplier of at least 10x. So, the government would have to offer me a million dollars for each so-called assault weapon I may possible own and may be bargained with to relinquish in a buy-back program. Does anybody believe that our bankrupt federal government can afford to pay 65,000 citizens a million dollars each for their firearms in order to save one human life?

If you believe that, let me remind you that they are willing and lie to cover up the incident in Benghazi that stole the lives of 4 US Citizens. They could care less about that single life. They don't. They'll just find a way to get that corpse to vote for them in the next election.