http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GngOleHLS1U

The election of Jorge Mario Bergoglio as the new Pope Francis brought joy to Argentina, but has also cast a spotlight on the religious leader’s dark past, scarred by allegations of collaborating in the case of two Jesuits who were kidnapped by the country’s military dictatorship for five months in 1976. One of them accused Bergoglio — then his superior at the Society of Jesus — of being behind his abduction.

Now, while I am glad to see that the press actually has the capability to dig into a person’s past, where was all this curiosity and zeal was (and is) when Øbama, our “lord and savior” (according to that great pundit, Jamie Foxx, anyway), was being “vetted”?  If anything, the press was strangely (or typically, depending on your viewpoint) incurious and silent on president’s background, and remains so to this day.

Why is the background of the Pope, who is powerful in his own right, but really has little effect many of the U.S.’s citizens, subject to such intense scrutiny, but the background of the president, who directly affects every single one of us (including the church, as evidenced by new Øbamacare rules for Catholic institutions), not the subject of comparable levels of microexamination?   For that matter, one might ask why was the background of newcomer Sarah Palin the object of such passionate “journalism”?  Of course, these questions are rhetorical; the answer is clear.

As Mr. Spock would say, it is “fascinating”.

Don’t forget that prior to the pope’s election, there was much talk about how the new Pope, whoever he might be, will deal with the recent sex scandals that occurred in the church and how the church will deal with its policies on homosexuality.  It is beyond amazing to me that they could issue these observations when the pederasty problem in the church appears to originate with the homosexuals that have joined the clergy.  Obviously, it isn’t politically “correct” to note this Gordian Knot.

Similarly, the media has been running with stories incorporating the meme of the “Stained glass ceiling”, and pontificating (pun intended) about the church’s “inflexibility” on things like women priests potentially leading to it becoming “inconsequential” in the world.

Consider this: if the church is becoming so “inconsequential”, why would Biden, Pelosi and DeLauro attend the investiture of the new Pope?  If the church is so rigid and inflexible, why would they allow this trio of abortion enthusiasts to receive Holy Communion?  If the position of the church on the role of women in the clergy is so egregious, when can we expect the stories to commence on the role of women in Islam?  Given the parameters the press uses for the Roman Catholic church, shouldn’t Islam likewise be in danger of becoming inconsequential?  When will our crack reporters tackle this?

Clearly, the hypocrisy and liberal bias of the press with respect to the Church compared to that of Øbama is palpable.  Maybe it is time the press remembers that the Church, any church, is based on faith, is equally protected by the First Amendment, and if you don’t like the tenets of the church you are in, perhaps you should find another that fits your needs, rather than forcing the church to change to suit you.

The most recent article from the Associated Press on the southern California former cop turned murderer includes the following, with my emphasis in bold.

[Name redacted] was equipped with an arsenal of weapons, including assault rifles with flash suppressors that masked the sound of gunfire and the location it was coming from as he pelted the first two deputies to arrive at the cabin, killing Det. Jeremiah MacKay.

Tami Abdollah from the AP is getting her gun facts from one of the Die Hard movies again. She’s somehow combined two barrel elements – a flash hider and a supressor – into one piece that masks the rifle so quiet you can’t hear the firearm go off or see the muzzle flashes from a short distance away!

A flash hider or flash suppressor is designed almost exclusively to preserve the night vision of the shooter by redirecting the flash away from the shooters field of vision. At night and during the day, you can still see muzzle flashes from rifles with flash suppressors from a distance. Because some state lawmakers think flash suppressors “hide your position” they have been made illegal in many states. Politicians who voted for banning them are stupid people.

Suppressors – the word silencer has become commonplace – in no imaginable way make the firearm silent. Again, the benefit of a suppressor is for the shooter to help protect their hearing. To keep this simple, rifle rounds are VERY VERY VERY LOUD, but with a suppressor they are VERY VERY LOUD. Because some state lawmakers think suppressors “hide your position” they have been made illegal in many states. Again, politicians who voted for banning them are stupid people.

As a side note, the Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) notes hearing loss can happen after prolonged exposure to more than 90 dBA (a heavy truck 15 yards away), and allows less than a minute exposure to 120 dBA (jet taking off from 100 yards) a day. Isn’t it interesting states outright ban suppressors that – at their best – can reduce the sound of a shot to about 115 dBA? So much for politicians caring about our hearing and health.

By the way, what’s the definition of an “arsenal?” Why does a news journalist feel the need to use the word pelted?

To clarify, there are protests, just none here in the United States. Personally, I have no problem with drones killing terrorists, but when the administration elects to target US citizens outside the country when they prove to to be an “imminent” threat that does not fit the standard definition of imminent?

The 16-page memo leaked the other day includes the phrase “imminent threat of violent attack against the United States” – or a paraphrase of the same - multiple times. In part, it reads…

Certain aspects of this legal framework requires additional explication. First, the condition that an operational leader present an “imminent” threat of violent attack agains the Unites States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S persons and interests will take place in the immediate future.

Got that?

The issue of drone strikes on Americans abroad is one that we’ll all have to think long and hard about. If someone presents a clear and present danger – for an example bringing a few RPGs to a battle during an embassy attack – I would not expect anyone to be checking passports. But if an American is driving from one city to another for a meeting?

The big problem I have here is the obvious hypocrisy of the left and the media. The Obama administration freaks out at the thought of using enhanced interrogation techniques on foreign jihadists, but has no problem using drones to take out Americans if they fit their own definition of an imminent threat. One Slate article I read this morning ended with the following paragraph.

Obama and Bush administration lawyers have stretched the Constitution and traditional rules of international law to accommodate the threat posed by terrorism. Some people will say they violated the law. But given the political consensus supporting these moves within the U.S., it is more accurate to say that the law has evolved. It gives the president the discretion he needs, or at least wants, to address an amorphous threat. Let’s hope he uses that discretion wisely.

I had to laugh. When the Bush administration was fighting the war on terrorism, the media left was practically calling for Bush and Cheney to be brought up on war crimes at the International Criminal Court. But now Obama gets a pass? Instead of the law evolving, I’d suggest the media evolved.

I also have to wonder why the Obama administration thinks it’s OK to use military drones with rockets to preemptively stop a threat that – in my opinion – does not meet the definition of imminent, while demanding I can not use a semi-automatic rifle to stop a threat who might be breaking into my home. Why can’t they just shoot them in the leg or something?

Read the original NBC Michael Isikoff article here, and read more here,  here, here and here.

I’m Sheriff David Clarke, and I want to talk to you about something personal…your safety. It’s no longer a spectator sport; I need you in the game, but are you ready? With officers laid-off and furloughed, simply calling 9-1-1 and waiting is no longer your best option. You can beg for mercy from a violent criminal, hide under the bed, or you can fight back; but are you prepared? Consider taking a certified safety course in handling a firearm so you can defend yourself until we get there. You have a duty to protect yourself and your family. We’re partners now. Can I count on you?

The problem I have with Clarke’s statement is that a firearm should never be the only part of your defense plan. Clarke did not mention exterior motion lights, locking doors and windows, an alarm system or a dog that barks as the four most important things you can do to protect your home and family. A firearm can certainly be part of that plan because locked doors don’t stop people, alarms can be ignored and some people are not able to have a dog. Clarke probably had a 15 second spot that could only provide so much information. Still, the NBC crowd thought the ad was irresponsible, dangerous and they even used the term vigilantism!

Their opinion is totally off the wall. They really think it’s illegal for him to let people know law enforcement numbers are being diminished and it will therefore take them much longer to get to you and provide help? These NBC fools must also think it’s irresponsible for the sheriff to let people know response times are getting slower?

From Newsbusters.org.

NANCY SNYDERMAN: This is so irresponsible it’s dangerous.
STAR JONES: I think it’s so irresponsible.
LAUER: …is it bad advice? JONES: It’s irresponsible.
SNYDERMAN: It’s irresponsible and dangerous.
JONES: One hundred percent.
SNYDERMAN: He’s basically, you know, vigilantism, I don’t hear anything in there about safety. It’s, “Arm yourself, the cops won’t be there.” Terrible.
LAUER: He’s saying take a course and learn how to use a firearm.

Oh Matt, don’t bother telling Snyderman what she heard. She has an agenda to stick to.

DONNY DEUTSCH: I actually, I think politically I’m surprised legally they were able to run that ad.
JONES: I’m absolutely surprised that’s legal for him to even say. And it’s irresponsible for him to suggest to put more guns on the streets and to frighten people into thinking…

Yeah, that pesky 1st Amendment must be looked at again.

SNYDERMAN: Especially when there are buy-back programs everywhere.
DEUTSCH: Scary.
JONES: …that that’s the only way for them to protect themselves.

I agree Star, and I’m willing to bet the sheriff does not believe a firearm is the only way to protect yourself. He had a 15 second ad to get the message out.

DEUTSCH: It’s one of the scariest things I’ve ever seen.
SNYDERMAN: Yeah, and that’s not…
JONES: It really is irresponsible.
SNYDERMAN: …that’s not a role of leadership.

There would be nothing wrong with that. There are a bunch of things I’ve tried – including trap shooting – and I did not enjoy it, but this president is so skittish he has to go and embellish a story to fit a political narrative. From his interview with New Republic.

FF: Have you ever fired a gun?

Yes, in fact, up at Camp David, we do skeet shooting all the time.

FF: The whole family?

Not the girls, but oftentimes guests of mine go up there. And I have a profound respect for the traditions of hunting that trace back in this country for generations. And I think those who dismiss that out of hand make a big mistake.

Part of being able to move this forward is understanding the reality of guns in urban areas are very different from the realities of guns in rural areas. And if you grew up and your dad gave you a hunting rifle when you were ten, and you went out and spent the day with him and your uncles, and that became part of your family’s traditions, you can see why you’d be pretty protective of that.

So it’s trying to bridge those gaps that I think is going to be part of the biggest task over the next several months. And that means that advocates of gun control have to do a little more listening than they do sometimes.

He left the direct impression that when he visits Camp David, skeet shooting is part of the normal routine for himself and guests. And of course since skeet is associated with bird hunting, Obama’s connection to the firearms enthusiasts is exclusive to hunting.

Of course, the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. But did the president ever go skeet shooting at Camp David? Jana Winter at Fox News found a source.

This has only happened with the president at Camp David, at most, a couple of times, according to a source who says he has been to the retreat on a half-dozen visits with Obama.

“The only time he shot skeet was for President’s Cup,” said the source, referring to a shooting competition tradition involving the presidential Marine guards. “I was there. He stayed for about five minutes, and couldn’t leave fast enough.”

Skeet shooting “is very hard,” said the source. “Especially for someone not used to guns … He couldn’t have been more uncomfortable.”

It should be noted the president does not travel to Camp David as frequently as previous office holders.

HELENE COOPER, NEW YORK TIMES WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Alright, for something totally superficial, I have figured out why President Obama does not like Camp David.

CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: He doesn’t like it?

COOPER: He hates it. We were up there for the G-8 last weekend and I’ve never been able to understand why, you know, Obama, President Obama doesn’t like going there. It’s beautiful. I mean, the cabins are…

MATTHEWS: Did you get to see it?

COOPER: Yes, I finally got to see it. I got to see the presidential cabin.

MATTHEWS: Everybody loved it.

COOPER: It was fantastic. And so everybody’s going, “Why doesn’t he spend more time up there?” No golf.

MATTHEWS: No golf.

COOPER: It’s all about the golf.

There is some golf at Camp David, but this president is more of a city guy and that’s OK. Of course, he can’t be up-front about his preferences since he’s a politician, through and through.

Like former Gov. John Rowland (R-Conn.) does on a regular basis, Morgan elicits and gets the response he’s looking for. Shapiro reminds him the 2nd Amendment exists – and we should have access to semi-automatic rifles – to protect law-abiding United States citizens from government tyranny.

You could actually see Morgan roll his eyes on TV last night. I’ve reached out to the Breitbart editor to remind him there are many other very valid reasons for law-abiding citizens to have access to semi-automatic rifles and high-capacity magazines.

Notice how Morgan completely forgets about the single most deadly shooting by one gunman in our history? The Virginia Tech massacre was perpetrated by someone who illegally purchased two handguns while breaking federal law.

This is the full interview … I would not be surprised if it is soon pulled.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJdhAm_oUUs

Let’s use the liberal’s own logic to examine this: has disarming the population of GB made their citizens safer?  According to a Gallup poll taken in 2006 (the most recent they have on the subject), the overall crime rate is lower in the U.S. than GB (or Canada).  Of course, the public perception is that crime is on the increase has risen, despite sharp declines in U.S. violent crime rates.  It is my considered opinion that the overly sensational coverage of crime by the media is responsible for this.

Actually, in GB, since 1997, when the Labour Party took control and the Firearms Act of 1997 was enacted, effectively disarming the British public, there has been a 77 per cent increase in murders, robberies, assaults and sexual offenses.  As a historical note, this bill passed as a result of the “Snowdrop Petition” that was generated as a result of 16 children being shot in Dunblane.  Sound familiar?  As Rahm Emmanuel put it:

The figure that really counts in this discussion, and is rarely if ever used by the media, is the rate of violent crime per 100K people.  In GB, this important figure is over 2000/100K, while in the U.S., the rate is 466/100K.  That’s right, less than one quarter of the British number.  Now honestly, given the facts, where would you feel safer walking on a dark street at night, GB or the U.S.?  If an assailant is in front of you with a baseball bat, demanding your money, will you feel better that he doesn’t have a gun?  Want to bet that a major contributor to our significantly lower rate of violent crime compared to GB is because we still have the right to defend ourselves with a weapon?

Where do we turn to find a historically based, sound defense of the Second Amendment and the right to arm oneself in self defense?  Oddly enough, Pravda, which has become a more reliable news source than most of our self proclaimed “important” media.  In an article published shortly after the Newtown murders, one Stanislav Mushin commented as follows:

For those of us fighting for our traditional rights, the US 2nd Amendment is a rare light in an ever darkening room.  Governments will use the excuse of trying to protect the people from maniacs and crime, but are in reality, it is the bureaucrats protecting their power and position. In all cases where guns are banned, gun crime continues and often increases.  As for maniacs, be it nuts with cars (NYC, Chapel Hill NC), swords (Japan), knives (China) or homemade bombs (everywhere), insane people strike.  They throw acid (Pakistan, UK), they throw fire bombs (France), they attack.  What is worse, is, that the best way to stop a maniac is not psychology or jail or “talking to them”, it is a bullet in the head, that is why they are a maniac, because they are incapable of living in reality or stopping themselves.

The excuse that people will start shooting each other is also plain and silly.  So it is our politicians saying that our society is full of incapable adolescents who can never be trusted?  Then, please explain how we can trust them or the police, who themselves grew up and came from the same culture?

From his lips to a politician’s deaf ear.  Deranged or fanatical people will always find a way to vent their violence on innocents; they just are less inclined to do so when the innocents can defend themselves.  Let’s not repeat Britain’s mistakes.

Last but not least, maybe the only people we need to fear with guns are the very people that publicly rail against gun ownership.  Case in point: on CNN Piers Morgan and his liberal peanut gallery “joked” about shooting talk show host Alex Jones, who cleaned Morgan’s clock on a gun ownership debate on a previous night.  Now why would they feel the need to “joke” in the very vernacular that would get a conservative roundly criticized (along with the requisite accusations of being crazy)?  To demonstrate that this is the common thought among liberals, just look at the Twitter comments that follow the video in that piece.  See any peaceniks, or do you see near sociopathic commentary by drooling, slack jawed, liberal anti gun nuts?  Why are the self appointed guardians of the public peace so violent?

Liberal, heal thyself.

Update: Plenty of traffic for this post, but I ask readers to step out of their comfort zone and share this post via Faceboook, social media and email not just with those who agree, but include the gun control crowd and ask for their response. Get the information out there!

During the last week or so, John Rowland’s afternoon radio show on WTIC 1080 has been filled with callers and discussion about high-capacity magazines and the Connecticut law that holds private, the names and addresses of those with Connecticut’s State Permit to Carry Pistols and Revolvers. I’ll admit I have listened to only a few minutes here and there, but it’s clear Rowland thinks permit holder information should remain private, and gun owners who want access to high-capacity magazines are wrong, stubborn, and have been doing such a bad job explaining their point of view, listeners may think it’s a good idea to have the permit information made public.

Rowland’s approach when taking callers who do not want high-capacity limits is pretty straight forward.

1. Listen to the caller explain his or her point of view. Many callers do not support a ban on high-capacity magazines and provide a well though out, average or stumbling explanation as to why they should be available to the law-abiding citizen.
2. Ask the caller if they think the public should have access to – as an example – automatic rifles, rocket propelled grenades (RPGs) or surface to air missiles (SAMs).

This simple turn in conversation is a diversion and a straw-man argument. Few people – if anyone – advocate citizens should have access to RPGs, SAMs, armed fighter planes, or nuclear weapons. The question throws callers off-message, and some claim they should have access to military weapons to protect themselves against government-sponsored tyranny. Rowland waits for this response, laughing-off the possibility the United States government would attack the people, and concludes the caller has lost the argument in the realm of public opinion because of the “we should have access to [fill in your favorite weapon system]” stance. The caller is doing harm to their own cause.

I too think it unlikely the government will turn arms against it’s citizens, but I also understand the concept of peace through strength. James Madison wrote…

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.

One may argue history has the nasty habit of repeating itself, as we recall dictators and governments who successfully restricted access to firearms and wreaked havoc on their subjects in modern time, but I suggest the American people have become more comfortable with our representative democracy, and as such, we have compromised on gun control for the last 75 years. The National Firearms Act of 1934, the Federal Firearms Act of 1938, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the creation of the ATF in 1972, the Law Enforcement Act Protection Act of 1986, the Gun-Free Schools Act of 1990, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1994, the Assault Weapon Ban of 1994, and the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005 were all federal laws designed to restrict the ownership of specific firearm categories, restrict ownership in general, or make us “more safe.” Of course, state laws have also been implemented as a compromise. The permit process in many states includes high fees, required training, multi-page applications, interviews with officers, interviews with law enforcement administrators, officers visiting your neighbors, yearly reviews, and finger printing in booking rooms among other requirements.

The Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986 and the expiration of the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban came about thanks to the federal government’s infringement on existing rights, and legislation that did not solve anything or protect anyone. In short, I’m pretty certain the 2nd Amendment crowd is done compromising and additional legislation will not make us any more “safe” than we already are. Rowland agrees legislation including a ban on high-capacity magazines would not stop mass shootings but it would make people feel more comfortable.

Why would you want an assault rifle?

First of all, what is an assault rifle? New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg thinks they are fully-automatic rifles, defined as pulling the trigger back and multiple rounds are shot. Many politicians and talking heads suggest the definition revolves around a strange list of evil features and the number of rounds the rifle can shoot prior to reloading. In reality, there is no clear definition of an assault rifle, the gun control crowd likes to use the word “assault” since it sounds bad. I prefer to use the popular term sport rifle, self-defense rifle, or maybe even evil black rifle (EBR) in reference to the popular color and it’s purported evilness. It is strange the media and politicians refer to the same EXACT firearm as a “patrol rifle” when in the hands of  law enforcement, and assault weapons while in the hands of civilians.

So back to why you may want one… (in no particular order)…

1. The .223/5.56 caliber versions are very good for varmint hunting.
2. The .308 versions are very good for all-purpose hunting. And yes, AR-15 type rifles certainly are available in in different calibers including .223/5.56, .308, 6.8mm, .458 SOCOM and 9mm.
3. They look cool.
4. Ammunition is (normally) readily available and (normally) priced within reason. Present time excluded.
5. Since they can be configured and adjusted for different missions, they are appropriate for short-distance shooting (less than 5 yards) as well as long-distance (200+ yards). The platform – by design – is appropriate for everything from personal home defense to military patrols in Afghanistan.
6. They are very accurate.
7. When properly maintained – just like most firearms – they are very dependable.
8. You can purchase and mix/match five round, 10 round, 20 round and 30 round magazines depending on the mission. You may only want a couple of five round mags for hunting, or 20/30 round magazines for target shooting and self defense. The choice is up to you. Yup, you can purchase 60 round magazines and 100 round drums in some states, but from what I understand they are not all that dependable and make the weapon pretty heavy, defeating a primary purpose of the platform (light weight).
9. They feature a reasonable recoil, making the gun much more comfortable to shoot as compared to many traditional hunting rifles and shotguns. With less recoil, you can also get back on target faster. A 112 pound female can be comfortable shooting a sport rifle thanks to the adjustable design and buffer tube that helps to reduce recoil.
10. They can be customized to “fit” a variety of body types and shooting styles. A wide variety of accessories are available to make the firearm more comfortable to shoot.

I think that’s a pretty reasonable list, but what about using the rifle for home defense? Many of the reasons listed above help to make the sport rifle platform appropriate for home defense, but I’ll add a few.

Sidebar: During a home defense situation or if you think someone is in the house, it’s best to stay put and call for help. Depending on your home’s configuration, you may need to move or re-position family members to a safe location, but you definitely do not want to walk around with your pistol or rifle to “clear” your home. Even trained law enforcement officers will not clear their own home. They want at least two, preferably three or four trained professionals to clear small to moderate size homes or businesses. To continue, again in no particular order…

1. You can mount a light and/or a red dot sight to the rifle to make it easy to used and aim during the day or night.
2. It is easy to load and reload a magazine as needed.
3. The most popular self-defense round in .223/5.56 is very appropriate for self defense situations within the home, even in an urban environment. Ballistic experts have found the rounds from these calibers “dump energy” quickly and break apart or begin to tumble after penetrating the first barrier. Will rifle rounds go through walls? You bet. Will pistol calibers like 9mm, .40 and .45 go through walls? You bet. That said, there is significant evidence the .223/5.56 self-defense rounds penetrate no more than, and often less than traditional handgun calibers and many shotgun rounds. (The type of round you select is important. Don’t use a full metal jacket target round for self-defense.)
4. A rifle is much more capable of stopping a threat as compared to a pistol. Emergency response teams and law enforcement have been replacing shotguns and MP-5 (9mm carbine variants) with the patrol rifle (AR-15) for many years. If LEOs enter an active shooting scene they bring patrol rifles as their primary weapon because they are more accurate, are less likely to penetrate through multiple walls, and more likely to stop a threat with fewer rounds.
5. Those rifles with pronounced magazines are a pretty good deterrent during an out-of-control riot. You may recall pictures of shop owners on the roofs of their businesses during the LA Riots in 1992.

Why in the world would you need a 30-round magazine?

I’m not sure I ever would – and I hope I never do – need a 30-round rifle magazine or a high-capacity pistol magazine in a self-defense situation. God, I shiver at the thought. That said, I’m certain that if you speak with anyone in law enforcement or the military who has been part of a two-way shooting gallery and asked them if they would have brought extra ammunition and magazines with them if they could, the answer would be a resounding YES … even if they only fired half of one magazine. I recently read…

Nobody has ever survived a gunfight and then said afterwards, “Darn, I wish I hadn’t brought all that extra ammo.”

Onward…

1. In a self-defense situation, you want to avoid manipulating the weapon at all except for pulling the trigger straight back. You’re concentrating on the target, the availability of the target, the space between you and the target, the space beyond the target, and your sights. By introducing additional firearm manipulation – clearing a jam or reloading – more things can go wrong and that’s not a good thing. Law enforcement and civilians do not favor high-capacity magazines so they can shoot more rounds, they favor them so they can manipulate their weapon less.
2. One, two, three, four or even more rounds may not stop the threat. One mother shot a home intruder five times earlier this month and the guy was able to walk away to his car. She did stop the threat, but she only had a revolver and luckily she did not have to reload. What if she was limited to a 10 round magazine and was unable to stop the threat with 10 rounds? What if there were multiple home invaders? Ask any experienced ER docs, EMTs or nurses who have worked on patients who have been shot. Have they seen people with multiple gunshot wounds continue to be alert and combative? The answer will be yes.
3. I’m not sure how my accuracy would be. I would hope that I would be on-target all of the time, but I really have no clue as to how I would preform in a situation like that. Neither do cops, and that’s where we find pretty good data indicating law enforcement hit rates are not as good as you would expect. Ten rounds may certainly not be enough. The numbers usually are less than 50 percent, with current law enforcement training referencing less than 20 percent.
4. In training sessions or just plinking for fun, it’s a pain-in-the-ass to keep reloading 10 round magazines every few minutes.

If you take the above information to heart, you’ll have to admit reasons 1, 2 and 3 provide a strong case for completely avoiding magazine capacity limits. It’s better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it. If you still think it does not make any sense, may I suggest you go ask law enforcement why they need 30-round magazines for their patrol rifles? It is extremely rare – here is one example – for law enforcement to be in a defensive situation where they have used a full magazine or more, and it would certainly be extremely rare for a civilian in a home-defense situation to need the same. Explain why law enforcement can have multiple 30-round magazines for self-defense while civilians would never need the same?

When four armed men rush you in your house – again extremely rare – I’d rather not be limited concerning the number of rounds in my handgun or rifle thank you.

Those 30-round magazines make it too easy for mass shooters to kill people.

What has been totally missed during the past three weeks is the fact mass shooters have used pistols with standard capacity magazines (nothing more than 15 rounds). The Virginia Tech shooter killed 32 people and wounded 17 while carrying a Glock 17, 9mm pistol with 10-round and 15-round magazines and a Walther P22 (.22 caliber) handgun. This was the deadliest shooting incident by a single gunman in American history. The shooter had access to and could have purchased 17-round, 19-round and 33-round magazines via the Internet without a background check. The shooter just had more magazines; it’s reported he had 19 of them. There are many more similar stories.

If the Newtown shooter used the Sig Sauer 9mm handgun he carried that day with 10 round magazines to kill 26, what would we be discussing right now?

I encourage you to share this post via social media, not just with the like-minded, but reach out to those who would like to see additional gun control restrictions. Rowland has mentioned 80 percent of the people out there don’t think high-capacity magazines should be available, but I firmly believe there is a significant education and information problem concerning the subject. It does not help that gun control activists are telling viewers fully automatic weapons are used in crimes or are even easily available. I’m certain a significant number of those 80 percent – if that is a valid figure – would have a different opinion after reading this post … so share it!

This is a man – from all that we know – plans to start running for president the week after the inauguration.

From Business Insider.

During the swearing-in ceremony, Biden joked with new Senators and their mothers, prepared a female Senator by telling her she would be “frisked,” and offered some workout advice.

Here is a CBS News video montage.

From Yahoo! News.

Vice President Joe Biden on Thursday turned himself into a one-man welcoming committee for the newly elected senators in the way only Biden could accomplish.

“Spread your legs, you’re gonna be frisked!” Biden quipped to the husband of freshman Sen. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota after photographers capturing the reenacted swearing in asked him to drop his hands for the photo. Heitkamp, a Democrat dressed in a red power suit, broke her pose to stare at Biden as she burst into laughter.

“You say that to somebody in North Dakota they think it’s a frisk. They think you’re in trouble right?” Biden asked.

When asked what the hell Biden was talking about, nobody could respond.