Blog powered by Typepad

« Yet another Westminster 'snore-fest' | Main | So farewell then, 'Willow', and R.I.P. »

Tuesday, 17 April 2018


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Sorry, David, but compared to our House of Representatives you have a one ring, one horse circus. Did you know John Cleese turned down a seat in the House of Lords? Big mistake. You might actually have a Ministry of Silly Walks. I mean, it would be at least as good as a reality TV government. Maybe better. You people are far too serious.

Bob, it is fine to have Monty Python and silly walks however in real politics people do get killed and that is serious for our British armed services and extended families.

Cretins like Corbyn and nasty people like Hitler get to run a country not because they are sound of mind or competent or have the right policies. They do so because a major crises comes along that has serious economic and social consequences that set the populace to looking for someone to sort the mess out. Inevitably they choose the wrong candidate because his/her promises to be able to to do so is the most believed. Between now and the next election there is plenty of time for such a crises to develop and if it does then it certain we will get Corbyn as the next prime minister. God help us.

If we do get him, it will be YOU who is responsible for the unfettered destruction that results, because YOU removed the only restraint and damage limitation system we had.


jimmy glesga,

The sacrifices of the military are serious and should be treated as such always. The same is true of those who are injured or killed by means of defective products, homelessness, lack of medical and psychological care, unregulated sales of military-grade weapons, tainted food, contaminated municipal water systems, environmental poisons, bridge collapses and so on. Our government has dropped the ball on all of these to a shameful extent.

Gun control does not work, has never worked to reduce crime. Given that undeniable numerical fact, why is the Left so keen to pass it? What do they really have in mind? Why are they trying so very hard to push it through? Why all the lies about it?

E.G. violent crime in Britain increased enormously after the last spasm of gun control was passed. Now, London's murder rate is higher than New York City's. Granted that NYC does not have the highest rate. Those numbers belong to Baltimore, Atlanta, New Orleans and Chicago, IIRC. But London is getting there, little by little.

I saw an impassioned plea by an Italian woman a week or so ago, in which she pointed out the obvious. Britain and Germany disarmed the citizens, and now, just a few years later, they are arresting people for their texts and postings to Facebook. In America, we say that the Second Amendment protects the First. There may possibly be another explanation for the deterioration of free expression, but nobody one has offered one, so far.

A new level there Bob,

"The same is true of those who are injured or killed by means of unregulated sales of military-grade weapons."

You got a single example of a "military grade weapon" that I (as a fully licensed to carry any legal firearm) can go out and buy unregulated?

What I'm supposing you've in mind, maybe, are of the type the media (and a fair portion of Congress-Critters) refer to such as the AR-15?

JK and Michael F Adams,

Banning weapons used for personal safety is not a good idea. Yes, I mean AR-15s and the like, and even they shouldn't be banned. They should be more carefully controlled. Even that wouldn't reduce the crime rate, which is not directly related to guns. It would only reduce the number of mass shootings. Even if all firearms were banned, people would find other ways to kill each other:

The idea that only Liberals or leftists are concerned about the other things I mentioned is nonsense. Read this and make sure to watch the commercial Republicans are running against a Republican candidate:

Thanks Bob for this "Yes, I mean AR-15s."

Now then another couple simple question. Foundation first though - all the mass shootings I'm aware of in which an AR-15 featured (though the clear and vast majority of such victims were done in by handguns) anyway the caliber of the employed AR-15s were .223.

Now then Bob. As the US military is deployed in 7 publicly acknowledged countries (where US troops might expect to find themselves in "zesty situations") anyway, now Bob name a single country the US military is deployed to where any soldier, airman, marine, or sailor, is carrying an AR-15 as his/her primary weapon?


You're trying too hard to turn me into your own idea of a liberal. Note that I wrote "military-grade weapons" and threw in "and the like". The AR-15 is (or can be) a high-capacity, semi-auto that is not designed for either defense or hunting. Though it's only a .22 the bullets are designed to tumble upon entry. It's a weapon designed for mass killing. It's not used by the military, it's a civilian version of a military weapon. I'm not a gun expert, but I know someone who is and I can read.

Since you're chief archivist you can check my past statements on gun laws and find they're consistent. I have no problem with people owning anything up to a fully automatic weapon as long as they can qualify through a sensible set of laws. It is obviously not sensible that a 19 year old with a known history of mental illness and violent threats, a wife beater, a felon, or other bad eggs can legally buy weapons designed for mass shooting.


"It is obviously not sensible that a 19 year old with a known history of mental illness and violent threats, a wife beater, a felon, or other bad eggs can legally buy weapons designed for mass shooting."

You've an instance I suppose Bob, you can cite where any thus categorized individual legally bought an AR-15?

Perhaps an ATF guideline permitting such a sale? It'd be helpful Bob, were you to include the statutory Title, Subtitle, Chapter, and Subchapter, so I can more easily locate where the Authority Having Jurisdiction made the change in order for me, next time I attempt to renew the FFL testing, I don't screw that question up necessitating me having to re-do.

Oh too Bob I see you've pointed out, "a civilian version of a military weapon" ... you ever see the Swiss Guard that provides security for the Pope, those pike (axe) looking thingies they're always toting around?

Londonistan has recently been in the news too Bob, seems its homicide rate's exceeded New York City's - cutlery the weapon of choice/convenience if I've read the reports correctly. Using your "military grade" as being particularly galling I'm supposing you'd bar me from keeping my Victorinox too?

Oh and another thing Bob, you include as particularly terrible I take it "the bullets are designed to tumble upon entry" - some years ago I was out in Alaska using a Weatherby chambered for 30.06 which bullet upon hitting my aimed at elk hit bone upon entry and "tumbled" - so you do see do you not Bob that, just about any caliber round is subject to that.

You've heard of the Cocoanut Grove fire I suppose Bob - would you have US law ban matches too?

Tenerife. Airliners too?

Oh and Bob?

Bothered myself to get into the details of the *first well publicized US mass shooting. The killer had a total of 7 weapons with him on that Texas Tower. Only 3 of which were semi-automatic - 2 of which, the shotgun and the handgun could not have been of any use given the ranges. And while the one carbine "might've" been useful the autopsies indicate the weapon actually used was chambered 6mm and was bolt-action.

The arsenal was two rifles, one shotgun (sawed-off/useless) and four handguns only one of which was a semi-automatic.

Of possible further interest, four armed civilians assisted the two cops bringing the massacre to its end.


You're following the predictable script. I'm sure you know that under current law anyone can buy a military-style (maybe you'll like that description better) assault rifle at a gun show or via the internet from an unlicenced dealer without a background check. That other guns fire bullets that can tumble has nothing to do with the fact that the AR-15 and similar small bore assault weapons are designed for mass killing.

Apparently you didn't read my comment carefully, because I linked the knife attack story. I also repeated that a blanket ban of guns is over-reaching and impractical.

Well Bob,

Last time I ordered a firearm over the internet the seller was required to mail/ship the thing to a third-party FFL (federal firearm licensed) gunstore at which point I was then able, after showing that third-party gunstore my license (which license cannot have been issued without my having previous to issue, passed both an Arkansas State Police records check and an FBI background check) "easily" pay the seller his asking price plus, "a nominal fee" the FFL gunstore added per my state's internet gunsales statutes and then take the firearm home.

My experience dealing with what other states require where internet sales are concerned can be ascertained and compared here:

It has been my experience when I've perused the non-gun-proponent's "information/opinion/news" sources, those sources, much like yourself (excepting as you've repeatedly said, you do not "oppose private ownership by the law-abiding") make internet gunsales out to be The Wild West.

Too, it has been my personal experience credentialed (mainstream advertised and held) gun shows, very frequently pre-9/11 and always post, "entertain" customers whom, assiduously avoid the side-entertainments - which, to the trained-eye, lends the appearance that "those customers" just might be (and very probably are) UC folks posing.

Far as that "tumbling" you're always on about:

(I do object to the above link's use of the "assault" nomenclature. Like the Texas plumber I too own an AR-15 which, to my way of thinking/intent anyway, might just as appropriately be described as having been "designed for longer range self defense" ... my shotgun I'm of the opinion ought do nicely "assaulting" should any ill-willed-intruder enter my home uninvited.) Potato/Potahto.

If "small bore weapons are designed for mass killing" why is it you think Bob, cops seem to prefer .380s and up? Indeed, most I am in regular contact with carry .45s definitely not, "small bore."

But yes I do Bob prefer that "military style" - I'd be uncomfortable should the wait-staff where I go when I'm down near Stuttgart tell me I and my friends look like "a bunch of military grade goose assaulters."


You probably bought from a licensed dealer on the internet, and you're right that the loopholes vary by state, but how hard is it to drive to a gun show in another state?

Federally licensed gun sellers run background checks. Sellers at gun shows and on the internet aren't all required to have a license. They can sell to anyone.

I'm not going to follow you into the weeds of all the technical details. However, the AR-15 and similar weapons originated as civilian versions of military weapons:

They are designed for mass killing. You've probably read about the latest mass shooting with an AR-15 in a Waffle House in TN where 4 were killed and at least 4 more injured. The shooter, Travis Reinking, is another with a history of mental problems. He had his guns confiscated, but they were given to his father who gave them back to him. You might agree the cops should have kept the weapons.

Larger caliber guns are favored by law enforcement because they have greater stopping power when used by someone highly trained. Assault rifles let anyone spray bullets at high speed. I don't have a problem with you or my ex-cop friend having AR-15s, but easy access by criminals or the mentally unstable is indefensible.

"They can sell to anyone."

True enough Bob.

They can win the lottery too.

"civilian versions of military weapons"

Looks like we're making progress Bob.

"his father who gave them back"

Dad (hopefully) will serve Federal time, Portsmouth or Leavenworth would be my recommendation.


I never thought the AR-15 was a military weapon and am not sure how you got that impression. Possibly at one point my writing was vague, so you assumed the worst.

Let's be clear on another point: You see no problem with the cops giving a mentally ill owner's confiscated guns to a family member who hadn't bought them. You think that would be illegal but you well might be wrong:

"... a review of Illinois and Tennessee state law shows it's likely Travis Reinking and his father did not violate any state firearms laws before Travis Reinking opened fire early Sunday.

"Given the information provided at this stage in the investigation about the weapons Reinking may have had in his possession, there is nothing in the record that would have given law enforcement officers an indication that possession of those weapons would be in violation of Tennessee law," said the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation in a statement late Monday morning.

During a Sunday news conference, Nashville Police Chief Steve Anderson said it was "concerning" but potentially not illegal for Reinking to have guns in Tennessee before the shooting."

"I never thought the AR-15 was a military weapon and am not sure how you got that impression."

Use of the term "assault weapon" ring a bell Bob?

I find the Nashville Chief's expositing somewhat curious Bob, and not in a good way. Last autumn I found myself in conversation with a "from childhood chum" who, as it happens happens to be my residing county's elected Sheriff during which conversation he mentioned "The Memphis PD aren't allowing Arkansas LE to carry within their jurisdiction."

Of course Memphis is a whole 'nother scenario comparing to Nashville.

I did reply to my Sheriff buddy with my own, individual experience (hopefully the current ladyfriend won't notice this comment) anyway, I related how some time back I'd had a relationship with a Memphis-based Tennessee state trooperlady who'd advised me "When we plan outings be sure to advance me whether you'll be carrying." She later got her ticket punched to Detective and was transferred to the general area of Knoxville which result was that our "quality time" suffered owing to increased travel time and so we allowed the relationship to peter out.

At any rate I never experienced a problem carrying in Tennessee (but I suppose my never having been stopped on a TN highway probably had something to do with that).

I haven't been following the story though Bob so you'll allow me to ask a question of the father? As I understand it, Illinois removed the murderer's weapons so I would presume the dad had to've petitioned an Illinois court to regain the weapon[s] so my question would be, what is the dad's state of residence? If Illinois I would think that state would have controlling jurisdiction - then there's the issue of interstate transportation "by certain persons."

At any rate I imagine the murderer's Dad's life has suddenly got complicated.

One last thing Bob, what say neither of us type the murderous bastard's name?

Oh. The thought occurs Bob, you reckon the TBI may be making an effort to pass the buck?

I hit an item Bob that may be sufficient for my question:

"Marcus Watson, an agent with the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, said [the killer's] father could face federal charges if he knowingly transferred weapons to a person who was prohibited from owning them." (msn)

Mere speculation on my part Bob but, I'd be willing to wager there's a couple of state's "authorities having jurisdiction" desirous of passing that buck I mentioned above owing to all the chum the legal-eagle sharks will surely be baited to.


I'll have to plead ignorance if "assault weapons" can only be used by military personnel. What do law enforcement agencies call them? Apparently some issue AR-15s:

Likewise, I'm not a lawyer but will continue to follow the Waffle House story as long as it's in the news. The shooter shouldn't have had guns, and is a case that shows current laws are inadequate:

Sorry you lost a girlfriend, glad another came along. My dad used to say women are like streetcars ...


All I can say about LEAs "issuing and what they call 'em" pertains to a mere five states. (Interestingly I noticed your provided link just calls 'em "ARs".) But anyway, in three cases its "tactical team[s] weapon" (sometimes in conversation, "special response team gear)." In no case of all the five states I've read the manuals of has the term "assault weapon" been used.

I would note that in four of the five states the sniper teams are "issued" .50 cals. If there's not been any changes since 2010 those're also what the FBI's HRT employ - though the "door-buster and clearing folks" tend to "more compact than ARs" of various types and variants. In the sole state where the use of the word "assault" occurs in its literature, the use is confined to the team as a unit but not any weapon specifically.

I'm no lawyer either but I think at least on the federal level existing law is about right. From what I constantly hear from fellow carriers, "Stay the hell outta Illinois!" I'm guessing that state's law[s] should have been adequate assuming, on my part of the father's action[s] there was/is some sorta language resembling my own state's "such as any reasonable person should" guiding any person considering putting any potential lethal weapon into the hands of another.

No need to be sorry Bob, notice I only said "petered out" rather than "irrevocably ended." It's possible circumstance might require me being in the greater metropolitan Knoxville area unattended.

I can always say, "Well I did get an invitation to fish."

The comments to this entry are closed.