Commentary (71)

A surprising number of people (mostly non-gun owners) have been rallying around the term "assault weapon." I have seen numerous articles and social media posts/memes saying "Nobody needs an assault weapon! That's not for hunting! Ban assault weapons now!" etc. They seem to have missed the big problem that they can't even define what an "assault weapon" is! Ah, but they do know, at least some of on.

The anti-gun crowd like to describe "assault weapons" with broad vague strokes saying that they are "designed for killing," they have "mass capacity feeding devices," "they use too powerful bullets" etc.

However, try to write legislation based on that! Well, the U.S. Congress did in 1994 and passed a 10 year "assault weapons ban" (AWB). How did that go?

Well, manufacturers and people looked at the definitions and modified the firearms so that they met the requirements. Even after 2004, when the AWB expired 10 years later, CA continued with its own restrictions. People cried afoul that the firearms were still available with a few cosmetic changes - which is because that is the way that the bill's authors wrote it- based on cosmetic features that had little to do with a firearm's lethality. They said that it violated the "spirit of the law." Ah, but what is that? (keep reading)

And as for CA, people are crying afoul because the firearms recently used were ILLEGALLY modified. These changes didn't violate the spirit of the law. They outright violated the law.

So, with so many articles, editorials and comments about "assault weapons," what are they exactly again?

I don't know, but will know when I see one.

Yep, that's the comment that I am seeing more and more. What the hell does that mean???? And less importantly we have seen the rise of a new term: "assault-style" as in "assault-style clothes." I see a pocket capacity limitation coming for cargo pants, but I digress.

It is not very hard to boil down the what anti-gunners view as the "spirit of the law" and the firearm features that they object to:

  1. semi-automatic
  2. magazine fed (not even necessarily a detachable magazine, as I believe that they object to clips, tubes, etc. as "mass feeding")

Yes, I seriously believe when they say "assault weapons" they mean semi-auto. Sounds more menacing doesn't it? Especially when you consider that the most prevalent rifle in the U.S. for ownership and new purchases is the AR-15 and that the majority of hand gun purchases are semi-auto (I would be surprised if it wasn't 90%).

Basically, almost every gun owner in the United States owns what could be considered an "assault weapon."
Think about that the next time you read an article or meme calling for the ban and/or confiscation of "assault weapons."  Instant criminalization of gun owners.

And the anti-gun crowd is at least being honest about it now.

What a change it has been though. Just in Oct. prevalent thinking was like this article in the Washington Post ( that said:

Few gun control advocates promote the idea of ending individual gun ownership. All of the major gun control organizations have come out in favor of individual gun ownership. All of them are fighting for more effective laws to prevent criminals or the mentally ill from getting their hands on guns.

Remember, it was only a couple of weeks ago that anti-gun people were calling gun owners "paranoid" and saying that "nobody wants to take your guns away?"

While today (Dec 4, 2015) we have this from the New York Times (

It is a moral outrage and a national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed specifically to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency...

and more directly to the point:

Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership. It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.

And despite the fact that the author admits that it will not stop the mass killings:

They point out that determined killers obtained weapons illegally in places like France, England and Norway that have strict gun laws. Yes, they did.

He justifies it because at least they (other countries) did something:

But at least those countries are trying. The United States is not.

There you have it!! In black and white for the entire Nation to read. This is something that I believe that the NYT has ALWAYS believed as I believe the ultimate goal of many (if not all) anti-gun control supporters. This is not the only editorial that has this sentiment. After the recent shooting there was an editorial from UK Guardian calling for the assassination (!) of NRA Members (which I unsurprisingly can't find now) or this article from Vox (which has been out a while) saying that gun owners should be shot as a requirement of owning a gun:

"Reasonable regulation" or "common sense"? Hardly.


Random Facts:
# of gun confiscated in Australia? There are conflicting reports but estimates are between 700K and 1 milliion.
# of guns in gun restrictive California? Over 10 million.

CA incidentally has a program to confiscate firearms from felons. Read about its high cost here:



Wednesday, 11 November 2015 03:08


Written by


Monday, 09 November 2015 12:48

Hillary Duff buys a Glock

Written by

I haven't done a surprising celebrity  with firearms post in a long time. Mainly because it is a forbidden subject in Hollywood but this one surprised me...Lizzie McGuire? The girl who sang the Laguna Beach theme song? 

From TMZ (I know lol):


Saturday, 31 October 2015 17:24

SHOT Show 2016 bound

Written by

Someone asked if I would be returning to SHOT next year (Jan). I am pleased to announce that I am! 

I do not have an Industry Day (range day) invite so I will not be able to test anything but it still promises to be a great Show! 

I will be selectively stopping at booths again this year. If you have a vendor that you would like me to stop at please let me know. 

I like to stop at lesser travelled spots or ask that oddball question.
If you are going too - let me know if you want to have a beer!

Sunday, 27 September 2015 14:53

M&P9c vs XDS vs Shield

Written by

Disclaimer: All trademarks are registered to their respective holders. I am not affiliated with any of these companies or products in any way. The pics are not stock photos and are my own - all items are privately owned.

I had the opportunity to hang out with a couple friends and the conversation came up of what we were all carrying. As it turned out we were all carrying some popular subcompact pistols: a S&W (tm) M&P (tm) 9c, a Springfield XDS, and an M&P Shield (tm)  - all in 9mm. Too bad I didn't have my new Glock 43, but unfortunately I haven't broke it in yet.

So, naturally, I took a few comparison pics for the curious (since we were).

A couple of notes first: the Shield (tm) had the longest grip. The 9c (tm) had the shortest, at least with extended mags. All of the pistols were almost identical in thickness - except of course for the 9c (tm) obviously double stack grip. The XDS had the best feeling trigger IMO and was the most streamlined, probably able to fit in any of the other two's holster. One person found the XDS' grip texture be a bit too aggressive firing. I thought it was fine, and although the XDS appears to have the highest bore axis, shooting it didn't reveal any noticeable difference.

Anyway, on to a few pics. Order is the same: 9c (tm),  XDS, Shield (tm)

Click on a pic to enlarge


LEGAL NOTICE: All trademarks are registered trademarks of the companies they are registered to, as are the companies. Any such references or trademarks are made only as a result of quoting the below referenced article. The references will be removed (again) at the formal request of the referenced company or trademark owner.

I (me or this blog) do not represent any of the companies, organizations or trademarks referenced by the quoted article. Nor am I affiliated in any way to anything. Please do not threaten to sue me again.

Article source:

Quote begins below:

Gun discounts for LAPD unit may have violated ethics rules
Los Angeles police officers in a unit that evaluated Smith & Wesson handguns for a new department contract used their relationship with the gun company to privately purchase discounted pistols for members of the unit, a possible violation of city ethics rules, according to a report made public Friday.
The officers bought about $27,000 worth of discounted guns and magazines last year shortly after Smith & Wesson pistols became the LAPD's standard-issued duty weapon, according to the investigation by Inspector General Alex Bustamante.
The Firearms and Tactics Section officers cut the deal with the gun company at a Las Vegas gun show even though Smith & Wesson had previously refused another request on behalf of the department for a similar discount for all LAPD officers who might want to privately purchase pistols, the report said.
The deal allowed the unit's officers to make a “one-time, bulk purchase” of guns and magazines at a discounted price. Forty-two officers ended up buying 67 guns, Bustamante found, pooling their money into a single cashier's check sent to Smith & Wesson.
Although the unit's officers were allowed to purchase various pistol models and calibers, the report found that the average discount for Smith & Wesson M&P 9-millimeter handguns was about $125 to $130 off the already reduced price of $455 usually offered to law enforcement officers.
City ethics rules prohibit city employees from trying “to create or attempt to create a private advantage or disadvantage, financial or otherwise, for any person,” Bustamante's report said.
In addition, employees who are required to file statements of economic interest are not allowed to solicit gifts or accept gifts of more than $100 from a “restricted source” —someone who has sought or signed a contract with the city employee's agency. City ethics rules also prohibit “restricted sources” from offering or giving those employees gifts of more than $100.
Bustamante's report said eight of the officers who privately purchased the weapons using the discount were required to file statements of economic interest. The report did not name any of the officers.
The Police Commission, the civilian board that oversees the LAPD, is scheduled to discuss the report at its meeting Tuesday and determine whether further action should be taken.
The Firearms and Tactics Section tested and evaluated different pistols for the LAPD before the Smith & Wesson M&P was approved as the department's standard-issue duty weapon, replacing pistols manufactured by Glock.
LAPD officials told the inspector general that the private purchase orders were necessary for the section's officers because the department's new Smith & Wesson pistols were issued to recruits but not firearms instructors, the report said. Among the section's responsibilities is providing firearms training to officers.
But Bustamante said recruits were issued only M&P 9-millimeter handguns, while the Firearms and Tactics Section officers were also allowed to purchase other pistol models and calibers using the discount.
Cmdr. Andrew Smith, an LAPD spokesman, declined to comment on the report.
“The department only recently received a copy of the report and we are in the process of reviewing it,” he said. “We will discuss it with the Police Commission.”
The commission's vice president, Steve Soboroff, said he wanted to know why the officers requested and obtained the discounted guns and whether ethical and department rules were broken. He said it is possible that the officers did not know what the rules were.
Soboroff said he hoped any problems could be “solved in a positive manner.”
A spokeswoman for Smith & Wesson could not be reached for comment.
The inspector general's findings were part of an investigation into the way the new pistols were tested and evaluated. Bustamante's report said the LAPD's Policy and Procedures Division should have coordinated and supervised the evaluation of the weapons the department could have chosen but was instead left out of the process.
Instead, the Firearms and Tactics Section officers tested three types of pistols in 2011: the Glock Gen 4, the Springfield Armory XD-M and the Smith & Wesson. The department initially recommended the Smith & Wesson, saying it “outperformed the competition in almost every single category,” according to Bustamante's report.
Officials told L.A.'s General Services Department — which makes purchases on behalf of city agencies — there was no need for a competitive bidding process because the Smith & Wesson pistol was a “sole source” exception, meaning it was the only product that met the LAPD's specifications.
Smith & Wesson signed a contract with the city, Bustamante wrote, but it was never executed. The General Services Department determined the Smith & Wesson pistol did not qualify as a “sole source” option because Glock was another viable choice.
In 2012, officers with the Firearms and Tactics Section met with Glock representatives, Bustamante found. Glock offered the LAPD some perks should the department continue its contract, including an enhanced maintenance package and warranty.
Officers then recommended that the Glock gun be used by the LAPD, according to the report. The LAPD told the General Services Department that it now considered Glock pistols the best option and again pitched the guns as a “sole source” option.
The city again rejected the idea of a “sole source” contract. The General Services Department ultimately decided the Glock warranty didn't meet the department's needs. The contract went to a Smith & Wesson dealer in October 2013.
Three months later, the Firearms and Tactics Section officers negotiated their discount deal with Smith & Wesson at the Las Vegas gun show.
The inspector general's report said the “deviations” that occurred during the process — in which department personnel did not follow appropriate channels for evaluating and selecting the guns — “were not unique to the procurement of the Smith & Wesson pistol and had similarly occurred with several other equipment items.”
Bustamante outlined a series of recommendations, including making sure employees who evaluate products for the LAPD understand the city's ethics rules and implementing better oversight of how equipment is evaluated before it is purchased.

Copyright © 2015, Los Angeles Times


Recently there was an insane editorial on the 2nd Amendment posted in the LA Times:

At least they call it an opinion piece. Here is the quote that is the most insane:

This page believes the Supreme Court erred in the initial Heller decision by upending an interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that had been embraced for half a century — that the amendment's reference to a "well-regulated militia" limits the right to keep and bear arms to organized military units, such as the National Guard.


I wrote this response:

(Well that is too small to be readable so here it is):

Say this out loud and you can (hopefully) see how ridiculous it is:
The 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution protects "the right to keep and bear arms to organized military units, such as the National Guard." Yes, because that needed to protected.

1. National Guard came into existence in 1933.
2. The 50 years of history alluded to mysteriously is a huge misrepresentation of U.S. vs Miller (SCOTUS)
3. Since when does the Bill of Rights protect the rights of the Standing Army? That's a bizarre twist. Consider the fact that after the Revolutionary War the Standing Army was DISBANDED!


I am posting this today because others have noticed the editorial and responded also. We should not such a ridiculous claim to stand on its own:

We need to educate people! The irony is that this author is accusing of rewriting history, when that is EXACTLY what they are trying to do! And what is worse is that the 50 years of "history" they are referring to is incorrectly interpreted.


Thursday, 27 August 2015 00:50

CZ 2015 instructor forms now online

Written by

And available in the discounts section!

Tuesday, 18 August 2015 15:23

LMT Wins Another Mil Contract

Written by

The New Zealand Ministry of Defense has selected LMT to supply their new rifles. Strangely, the article didn't say with what.

In 2011 they had adopted the LMT AR10 as their DMR. The British Army had adopted their AR10 as their DMR also the year prior. 

Friday, 03 July 2015 22:57

Happy 4th of July! 

Written by

Please remember those that have, and  are serving!

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Page 1 of 6