Jacob Sullum: "Autonomous Terrorism Calls for Autonomous Defense"

Columnist Jacob Sullum had an excellent article at reason.com about how armed citizens are a logical defense against the type of diffused terrorist attacks we're seeing.  Writes Sullum:


"There is not much the government can do about the sort of terrorist threat that President Obama described in his speech on Sunday. It will always be difficult to stop self-radicalized jihadists, operating under no one's instructions, from carrying out attacks on soft targets too scattered and numerous to secure.


"The only viable alternative, self-help, is one that Obama seems ideologically incapable of considering. His proposals for new restrictions on firearms move in the opposite direction, based on the assumption that the problem is too many guns in too many hands.


"Gun control supporters generally dismiss the notion that armed citizens can help stop terrorists and other mass shooters. They argue that unbadged amateurs will be frozen by fear, that they will accidentally shoot innocent people, or that police will mistake them for bad guys.


"These possibilities do not negate the lifesaving potential of encouraging greater self-reliance in situations where waiting for police to arrive means waiting for coldblooded murderers to kill and kill again. We know from experience that intervention by people already at the scene can make a crucial difference."


Read the entire article HERE.

Pentagon Gun Ban Is Getting Brave Men Killed

Five military service members lay dead in Chattanooga after a gunman, Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez, opened fire on a recruiting center and a naval reserve center. They're dead from a lack of shooting back. They're dead because of longstanding policies that leave stateside military members (except MPs and the like) unarmed and leave our military facilities exposed to terrorist attack.


In 1992 the first Bush administration signed into effect Department of Defense (DoD) Directive 5210.56. This directive sought to “limit and control the carrying of firearms by DoD military and civilian personnel," and states that only “DoD personnel regularly engaged in law enforcement or security duties shall be armed.”  Army Regulation 190-14 was implemented in 1993 and further tightened the carrying of firearms on Army posts. According to the Washington Times this reg forbids "military personnel from carrying their personal firearms and [made] it almost impossible for commanders to issue firearms to soldiers in the U.S. for personal protection."


If these regs made sense when they were implemented, they sure don't now. Thirteen years into the "War on Terror" and after seeing the 2009 Fort Hood shootings, the 2009 Little Rock recruiting office shootings, the 2013 Washington Navy Yard shootings, and 2014 Fort Hood shootings it makes no sense that soldiers are better able to defend themselves off duty and off base than on (thanks to right-to-carry laws now in nearly every state) and that many military facilities remain soft targets for terrorists.


Two years ago Marine Corps commandant Gen. Jim Amos proposed arming certain duty and staff NCOs for this very reason. Unfortunately, the DoD didn't act on the proposal and now there's four dead Marines in Chattanooga. Perhaps the Chattanooga shootings will be the final straw that will change DoD policy.


Gun Owners of America (GOA) has announced that it is working with several congressmen to introduce legislation to repeal the military gun ban. Rep. Scott DesJarlais (R-TN) plans to introduce a bill early next week. Former Marine Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) plans on introducing a bill to allow military recruiters to carry firearms. Senator Steve Daines (R-MT) is working on similar legislation in the Senate.


GOA has set up an action center where you can send a pre-written message to your Representative urging them to cosponsor the DesJarlais and Hunter bills.


Let's get this ban lifted before more brave service members die in the name of bureaucratic apathy.


Update 7-25-15: Fox News reports that one Navy officer and a Marine at the Chattanooga naval facility may have armed themselves against regulations and in violation of federal law and may have actually  killed the Islamic shooter. While these brave men may have cut the shooting spree short, probably saving additional lives, our service members shouldn't have to jeopardize their careers and law-abiding backgrounds in order to defend themselves and their comrades.

Introducing: Iowa Gun Grabber Hall of Shame

I'm rolling out a new separate page on the blog, "The Iowa Gun Grabber Hall of Shame." The purpose is to "honor" leaders in Iowa who use their positions to promote infringement upon the Second Amendment rights of their fellow citizens. If you know someone you'd like to nominate to the Hall of Shame, read the guidelines on the page and email them to me.                

Cedar Rapids Police Chief Pushes More Ineffective Gun Control

In mid-August "Organizing for Action," a nonprofit group which mobilizes support for President Obama's legislative and political agenda, organized the "Gun Violence Prevention Rally" in Cedar Rapids Iowa. According to a Gazette story only about 30 people wandered into the event.

The most prominent of the several community leaders to speak was Cedar Rapids Police Chief Wayne Jerman. Chief Jerman has been trying to organize a gun "buyback" program since early this summer yet has only received $1,000 in donations from the community for that program.

At the gun control rally, Jerman said he supports background checks for all gun sales, restricting gun magazines to 10 rounds and banning so-called "assault weapons." His support for these measures not only puts him out of touch with what has proven effective but also out of step with the vast majority of rank and file police officers who care more about catching bad guys than giving speeches.

Jerman's support for "universal background checks," while setting the framework for registration of lawful guns and law-abiding owners, would do little to reduce crime. A 2001 Bureau of Justice Statistics survey of prison inmates convicted of gun crimes found that 79 percent acquired their firearms from off the books sources. Simply put, crack dealers buying guns on the black market will NOT be undergoing "universal background checks."

Perhaps that's why in a recent comprehensive survey of police officers, fully 79.7% of responding cops said that "a federal law prohibiting private, non-dealer transfers of firearms between individuals" would NOT reduce violent crime.

Restricting gun magazines to 10 rounds would be ineffective also. A 2004 Department of Justice report found "that assailants fire less than four shots on average, a number well within the 10-round magazine limit" making it irrelevant in most street crimes. Even in the more newsworthy yet rare mass shootings the arbitrary 10 round limit is mostly irrelevant. The Virginia Tech shooter and one of the Columbine shooters used 10 round magazines and were able to rack up massive body counts against their unarmed victims anyway.

An overwhelming 95.7 % of police officers said that a ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds would NOT reduce violent crime.

Jerman's support for banning "assault weapons" is equally unwarranted. Firstly, such a ban cuts to the heart of the Second Amendment giving a legislature a blank check to ban any and all firearms since "assault weapon" is a meaningless political term that can only be defined by the ban itself. Assault weapons affected by the previous federal ban were not fully-automatic "machine-guns" nor were they more powerful than traditional weapons.

So-called "assault weapons" were only used in a tiny percentage of crimes to begin with. Crime continued to fall after the federal assault weapons ban expired in 2004 and has continued to fall as previously banned weapons have sold by the million. Even the radical anti-gun group, Violence Policy Center, said “You can’t argue with a straight face that the [assault weapon] ban has been effective.”

71% of cops said that an ban on so-called "assault weapons" would have no effect on violent crime. Another 20.5% of police officers said that such a ban would actually INCREASE violent crime!

Oh, as for Jerman's gun "buyback" program that the community has not embraced, a recent CDC report stated simply that "gun turn-in programs are ineffective." 81.5% of police officers agree with that assessment.

Jerman's home state of Maryland ("There's yer problem!") has magazine capacity restrictions, bans on "assault pistols," and prohibitions on private sales of "regulated firearms," similar to the laws he is stumping for. Maryland also has a murder rate of 6.8 per 100,000 (in 2011) compared to Iowa's rate of 1.5 per 100,000. Sounds like those gun laws are really helping out there and we need to import them so we too can become a crime free Utopia like Maryland. (Yes, that was sarcasm.)

The taxpayers of Cedar Rapids need to decide if they are paying their police chief to serve and protect their community and ensure that beat cops have the resources they need to do their jobs or if they're paying him to be a political shill for the anti-freedom agenda of the Obama administration.

Gold, Guns and Drones

The bills continue to flow through the legislative sausage press in Des Moines. They range from atrocious to pretty good. Here are a few more that caught my eye.

Bad Bills:

Two of the bad bills, SF233 & HF 164, are "universal background check" bills. Remember: "Universal Background Checks= Gun Registration= Gun Confiscation."

Senate File 233: Iowa Gun Owners calls this Iowa's "Most Dangerous Anti-Gun Bill of 2013." Hidden among innocuous provisions of an "education" bill, this bill would mandate that virtually every firearm transfer in the state go through a licensed gun dealer so that a NICS check may be conducted. If you think the gun dealer will do that for you for free when you want to sell your old shotgun to your neighbor, I've got some beachfront property in Arizona to sell you.

Even more ominous, this bill would also require social workers, guidance counselors, physician's assistants and even nurses to report you to authorities if they think you're acting a little too weird to have Second Amendment rights. Obviously no one wants dangerous lunatics to have guns, but I don't want some busybody nurse or social worker being able to strip people of their rights.

House File 164: According to Iowa Firearms Coalition: "It would require background checks be conducted by an FFL on ALL private firearm transfers with no exceptions, and allows the dealer to collect fees in the process. HF 164 would also provide for limitless fees (taxes) for transfers in order to fuel this enormous bureaucratic process, and allow the Department of Public Safety (DPS) to create 'rules' as necessary on how to implement the system, which is just another form of universal registration."

House File 163: This would ban the sale and transfer of any ammunition feeding device that holds more than 10 rounds of ammo. This was introduced by Representative Bruce Hunter (D-34), the same guy who introduced HF164 above. What a douche!

Senate Study Bill 1165/ House Study Bill 91: These twin bills would circumvent Iowa's normal search warrant process and replace it with a phony-baloney rubberstamp process for allowing officials to plant GPS trackers on Iowans' vehicles. That is inconsistent with the constitutional requirements under the U.S. and Iowa constitutions governing searches. Click HERE to learn more and to contact the appropriate subcommittee members on this bill.

Good Bills:

House File 346: This bill would recognize gold and silver coin as legal tender in the state of Iowa. You may recognize that this is an authorized state power under the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 10. There are lot of good economic reasons for this as well as ones dealing with federalism. Caffeinated Thoughts had a great writeup on the bill you should check out for more details.

Senate File 276: This would place a moratorium on the use of surveillance drones by all state agencies in Iowa and strictly prohibit weaponized drone systems. It would allow the use of drones under several limited circumstances such as search and rescue operations or AMBER Alert searches. Anything that can slow the growth of the surveillance state that we more and more find ourselves living in is a good thing.

SF276 is currently stalled because the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Robert Hogg (D- Cedar Rapids), is sitting on it. Please contact Hogg and ask him to give SF276 the consideration it deserves and schedule a hearing ASAP. (rob.hogg@legis.iowa.gov , 319-247-0223)

With all these bills please contact your state legislator and voice your support or opposition.

Say No To Universal Background Checks

10 Questions with Corey D. Roberts (Part 2)

Continued from Part 1.

Corey D. Roberts is the founder of Tactical Insights L.L.C. in Monticello, Iowa, which provides "Christ-Centered Emergency Response Training" for churches and faith based organizations as well as tactical training for law enforcement and private citizens.

Roberts is currently a full-time patrol police officer with the Monticello P.D. and also serves on the multi-jurisdictional Jones County Emergency Response Team as Tactical Commander. He also serves in the Iowa Army National Guard (having served as an enlisted man, NCO and officer) and has been deployed several times.

Officer Roberts agreed to answer a few questions for me about guns, crime and freedom. The views expressed are those of Roberts and not necessarily those of any organization he may be affiliated with.

6. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., introduced a bill that would ban "assault weapons" and “high capacity” ammunition magazines. Says Feinstein, “Military-style assault weapons have but one purpose, and in my view that’s a military purpose, to hold at the hip, possibly, to spray fire to be able to kill large numbers.” You are intimately familiar with weapons like the AR-15 (which would be affected by the ban). What exactly is an "assault weapon?" Do you agree with Feinstein's analysis of the purpose and proper employment (such as being designed to be "spray fired" from the hip) of weapons like the AR-15?

            Sen. Feinstein watches too much television.  I will begin by answering the basic question of “What is an Assault Weapon?”  To be perfectly honest, as a firearms expert, I don’t know.  The term “Assault Weapon” is not a gun term, it is a political term that is used to scare people.  The term “AR” does not stand for assault rifle.  It stands for Armalite, which is the company that produced the modern civilian model of the gas operated, magazine fed, semi-automatic sporting rifle.  Armalite developed the AR-15.  Having been in the military for 20 years I can say without question that no one is taught to “hold at the hip and spray,” certainly not with the black rifle that she is comparing to the civilian semi-automatic rifle.  Currently our military is issuing an M4 which is similar in design to the civilian model, but functions differently.  Even our military does not issue “spray and pray” weapons.  The current issued M4 is not fully automatic and instead uses a 3 round burst mode.

This argument has nothing at all to do with banning a specific firearm.  These terms such as “high capacity magazines” and “Military style assault weapons” are being used to divide the gun enthusiasts in this country.  The liberals who wish to confiscate our firearms understand that they cannot simply say that they are going to ban firearms, they have to start slowly.  If they can convince the hunters and collectors in the country that the only “bad guns” are the “assault weapons” it sounds reasonable, and people want to be reasonable.  They are working to convince the guy with the shotgun that he has nothing to fear and that no one “needs” 30 rounds.

As an aside, I mentioned that we have begun to define all of our needs as rights, so why are we surprised when the government begins to infringe on our rights based on need?  I disagree with the premise that our rights are defined by need.  The argument that I have used is that if our rights are based on need, then please explain to me the need for Rosa Parks to sit in the front of the bus.  It was her right, not her need.

Our government has developed a pattern that is easy to follow if we pay attention.

 Step 1. Create a term that everyone can agree is bad.

Step 2. Refuse to define said term but continue to use it and enlist the media to join you in using it.

Step 3.  Wait for a critical incident in which said term can be applied and the “people” cry out for government intervention.

Step 4:  Create your own definition for the term.

For example, our government uses the term “assault weapon” and even uses the term “reasonable” when attempting to convince the American people that no one needs them.  The media then splashes the term “assault weapon” only when describing a weapon used by a crazed gunman and never when used by anyone else.  A great example of this was the Dorner case in California in which one media outlet used the term “assault weapon” when speaking of Dorner, but used the term “personal defense weapon” when talking about the exact same weapon used by law enforcement in the same article.  When confronted about the definition of “assault weapon” the government uses another non-definable term to define it, “military style”.  So, we have the media and the citizens agreeing that “assault weapons” are bad, but when the ban list comes out from Sen. Feinstein, we see that she is actually referring to any weapon with a detachable magazine and any weapon with a pistol grip.  But by now the media frenzy has convinced the people that the government is only after “assault weapons”.

Some other examples of this government pattern is the use of the term “universal background check”.  Again this term has been championed as “reasonable” but has yet to be defined.  “Mental health assessment” has been spoken of as a “reasonable step” to curb gun crime, but has not been defined.  Questions for those who support the Universal background check and Mental health assessments are as follows: Will the government maintain a record of every citizen who had a background check to pass family heirloom rifle to their children?  What parts of the “background” is involved?  Will this background check be compared to any “watch lists”?  (The DOJ stated that combat veterans should be on a watch list.)  Who will receive a “mental health assessment”?  At what age will we begin to “classify” our citizens based on this assessment?  (People are very different at 16, 22, and 35.)  Who will be deciding what is mentally “fit”?  Does marital counseling bring into question whether a person is mentally “fit?  What about “sexual deviancy” (remember homosexuality was a diagnosable mental condition)? What is to be done with those “classified mentally unfit” persons? 

Can you see where these questions are going?  I follow the rule that anytime the government uses the term “reasonable”, I begin to question it right away, governments are anything but reasonable.

When we allow our government to infringe on our rights based on terms that sound scary such as “domestic terrorist,” we all agree that “terrorists are bad and should be killed.”  The problem is that the government’s definition of “terrorist” can be re-defined to mean anyone who the government sees as a threat. 

The 2^nd Amendment was specifically put in place to ensure that the people had the power and the government did not.  Those who believe that only the military and police should control the guns, or that only they should have the most recent technology in firearms must also agree that only the government should have control of the media and internet.  Our government is very aware of the power of an armed populace and shows it by arming citizens all around the world to overthrow their own governments, such as Egypt, Lybia, Syria, Afghanistan, etc.  I do not trust a government that wishes to disarm its own population.

Make no mistake, this gun legislation has never been about guns, it’s been about control and many in our government have been waiting for just the right catalyst to push the agenda.  

Limiting “high capacity magazines” is another example of this erosion of rights.  My first question to anyone advocating this is “Please tell about all the firefights that you have been in that led you to the conclusion that people only need 7 rounds?”  Who does this “limit” hurt?  An active shooter by statistics will bring multiple weapons, multiple magazines and lots of extra ammo.  The free citizen who is carrying a firearm is the only one allowed a limited number of rounds.

This free citizen has not planned to be in a fight for his life today, the crazed gunman has a plan.  The citizen is required to respond to a well-planned, prepared for attack with whatever he has on his person.  Will the limit on magazines affect the preparedness of the crazed shooter?  Of course not, it will simply make it harder for the citizen to defend him or herself.

7. Your website includes a statement of faith and says that you "felt a strong call of God to minister to the local church in matters of Emergency Preparation, Response and Training." It's obvious that your Christian faith is central to your life. Some Christians, however, wouldn't touch a gun with a ten foot pole. They would cite Christ's instruction to "turn the other cheek" or the Sixth Commandment. According to the National Council of Churches ofChrist, U.S.A., "Christian tradition insists that it is idolatry to trust in guns to make us secure, since that usually leads to mutual escalation while distracting us from the One whose love alone gives us security." How do you square your Christian faith with the potential deadly force of firearms?

We believe that a Christ-Centered Security Team is a group of Christians who desire to apply a Tactical Mindset to serve God and their local church through preparedness and willingness to respond in event of an emergency.  I have a lot of respect for the National Council of Churches of Christ but I tend to disagree with many of their stances on several issues. 

Their stance based on “Christian tradition” is well meaning but does not address the realities of the Bible. Our security for our ministries should be based in faith and managed in action.

While we embrace the biblical teaching that God will provide our needs and we believe the Bible when it says in Matthew 6:25 “Take no thought for your life, what you shall eat, or what you should drink; nor yet for your body, what you should wear,” this faith and confidence does not remove us from participating in our own preservation.  Christ was not telling us to stand around waiting for food to fall into our mouths, or water to just appear.  We do not stand in our bedrooms in the morning and wait for clothes to float out of the sky and land on us.  These require action on our part.

Nehemiah 4:9  “We prayed to our God and posted a guard…” 

Isaiah 62:6- I have set Watchmen on your walls, O Jerusalem; They shall never hold their peace day or night.

Nehemiah 4:9-…because of them we set a watch against them day and night.

John 15:13  “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.”

Luke 10:19- Behold, I give you the authority to trample on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy.

Luke 22:36-…and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one.

1 Peter 5:8- Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour.

Romans 13:4- For he is God’s minister to you for good.  But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.

In 2012 alone, there were 135 total deadly force incidents in churches and ministries alone and this number is increasing every year.  We have taught Response to Active Shooters both armed and unarmed.  This choice is as personal for a Christian as it is for any other citizen.   

While I may disagree with many things that the National Council of Churches of Christ, U.S.A. believes I firmly stand with Philippians 1:15 “But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice.”

8. If talking to someone who was new to guns and was looking to purchase, what weapons would be your top picks for concealed carry and for home defense and any other category you think relevant?

Rule 1: ignore the hype. Every "gun guy" out there will be more than willing to give you advice on the perfect weapon/caliber/cool guy gear out there. I would stick with a reputable manufacturer. Think simple, especially for a defensive weapon. If it requires buttons and switches and voodoo spells to fire...it's too complicated.

Also don't buy the hype of "knock down power" and buy a huge caliber. For one, it will be more expensive to shoot and two if it's not easy to shoot, you won't shoot. I use the analogy that if someone were to give me a 20,000 dollar set of golf clubs, I would chase that stupid little ball through the trees all day the same I would with a 60 dollar youth set from Wal-Mart.

Proficiency requires practice. A well placed set of rounds from a 9mm or .40 caliber will do the same as a .45...good guy wins, bad guy loses. With the current advancements in AMMO, the old argument of Big Caliber=One shot stop is gone. This isn't TV, it's not high noon and people don't fly across the room when shot...even with a .45. I personally would not go smaller than 9mm but I really prefer the 9mm.  Higher ammo count, less recoil, less weight, awesome power with good ammo.

On the other side of that argument, a .22LR that one is willing to carry is more effective than a hand cannon at home or in the glove box.

I would suggest getting an idea of what you are looking for:
Am I going to carry it every day?
Is it easy to operate?
Can I conceal it?
Is ammo easy to acquire for it?
How much do I want to spend?
Will I enjoy shooting it?- Only practice makes proficient
Will it work under the worst possible conditions?- Murphy's Law.

I would suggest looking at the Glocks, Smith and Wesson M and P's or Sig Saur. For small carry guns Khar makes some very nice pistols.  One way is to hit up a local gun club and talk to people. 74% of law enforcement carry Glock and the majority carry one of the other two. The reason is simple...they are proven, no gimmicks, no "latest greatest", just a solid combat pistol that will operate when needed.

There really isn't a trick to it, which is why I offer people to shoot different stuff (anything I have) at my classes. Unfortunately there aren't a lot of people that will allow that. I carry a Glock 22 .40 caliber on duty, a Sig 229 .40 caliber on the SWAT team and a Glock 26 9mm off duty. My wife Jeannine carries a Glock 19 9mm. We have been very happy with them. I also occasionally carry a .357 revolver and have no problem with it other than low round count.

Cost is going to be an issue because of the buying that is going on ahead of Congress making some possible moves. You should look to spend $350-$600 on a good quality handgun. For a convenient carry pistol, I would also suggest looking at the Beretta Nano (it's a 9mm). I have just started carrying it so I can give other ideas for people who "don't want a Glock" and I have been very happy with it. It runs about $360.00.

I have nothing personally against the big 1911.  45's other than the ones manufactured today have a VERY strong emphasis on accuracy, which is why you see the competition shooters using them. The way they get this is by making the guns tolerances VERY tight. This leads to problems with functioning in a defensive "combat" pistol role. I have NEVER had a 1911 shooter make it through one of my classes without having malfunctions. When they get dirty, they begin to have issues. Not a problem on the range...BIG problem for defense. Of course, you also run into issues with concealability with the big 45s.

Choosing a handgun is as close to purse shopping as we can get. It has to work for you. Just because some "expert" says that some brand is the "best" or some caliber is the "must-have" does not make it true.  You need to pick it up and hold it.  If it feels wrong in your hand, you probably should keep looking.  Ideally, you should shoot that make and model before buying it.

For home defense, I prefer the 12 Gauge shotgun with a “pirate grip” and a side saddle with extra rounds.  Very little will discourage an intruder more than the sound of a pump action shotgun.  If that is not enough to discourage them, the first round will certainly help convince them.  Another reason I prefer it is that I can choose the round that I wish to have in it.  I use target load as the first several rounds in order to eliminate over penetration in my own home.  I have double 00 buck and slugs in the side saddle if needed.  The home defense weapon should be part of a total home defense plan that includes physical security, phones in appropriate rooms and practiced drills. 

The reality is that just because a gun is really cool and effective in Call of Duty does not make it a practical choice for self-defense. 

9. You and I are about the same age. In addition to having a lovely family, you’ve amassed significant civilian, military and law enforcement training. You’ve authored a book and numerous articles. You’ve racked up real world experience on the streets at home as well as serving in Kosovo and Afghanistan and even fighting wildfires in Montana. In contrast, aside from two wonderful sons, my only accomplishment has been to collect all five seasons of “Quantum Leap” on DVD. What is your secret for accumulating such a wide breadth of experience before you’re even forty?

 I distinctly remember a conversation with my Dad that night before I left for Army Basic Training at the age of 17.  During this conversation my Dad told me to ignore those who lived by the rule “Don’t volunteer for anything” and to take every opportunity for a new experience.  I have followed that advice in every area of my life.  While there were times that volunteering caused me to do tasks that I did not enjoy, more often it afforded me the chance to do something amazing. 

Colossians 3:23 says “Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for men…”  I don’t know the trick to being driven.  I do credit my upbringing and the example of my father.  Were I to give a young man advice, I would simply say, “Volunteer for everything.  In every task you have, work to be the best at it.  Learn from those who have gone before.  Accept responsibilities that are given to you and do them to the best of your ability.”

Years ago during Army Officer Candidate School, I was selected as the “Kai-Bo Commander”. For those that do not know what a Kai-Bo is, they are also called Port-a-Johns or any other inappropriate names that one can think of.  I was in charge of the plastic toilets just like the ones at construction sites. To say the least, I was not impressed with my assignment. My job was to ensure that the toilets were reserved, delivered and placed at the various training sites where we would be conducting field operations.  The position I felt I deserved was that of Class Commander, or at least a Platoon Leader, but no, I was Candidate Roberts, “Kai-Bo Commander”. This was obviously not my proudest moment.

I decided that if someone had to do it, then I would be the best Kai-Bo Commander the Army had ever seen. Don’t be fooled, this didn’t make my job any less demeaning, or any more glamorous. What it did do was show my superiors that I was willing to take the task and do it to the best of my abilities.  The happy ending to the story is that after a short time, I was taken off of Kai-Bo duty and given a position that I felt was much more in line with my desires.

When you are given a task, do it to the best of your ability every time. Even if it is not the duty you want, take the small steps.  The Bible has a parable of a rich man who was traveling and left his servants with some money.  To one servant he gave ten, to another five and to the final two.  When he returned, he asked the servants what they had done with the money and the one with ten said, I invested it and made ten more. The rich man gave him control of ten cities.  The servant with five said I invested and made five more. The rich man gave him control of five cities.  The final servant said, I kept the money and did nothing with it. The rich man called him a wicked and slothful servant and took the two away from him and gave it to the one with ten. ~Matthew 25:14-30

The simple point to his story is that when given more, more is expected. Prove that you can handle the little things and you will be given greater and greater responsibility.  When you are put in charge of small tasks, do them as though they are the most important task that can be had. Show your willingness and ability to accept those challenges and you will be given more responsibilities.  Fail in the small tasks, and it will be understood that you will fail at the big tasks.

10. Lastly, who do you think would win in a gunfight, the overzealous Sgt. Eugene Tackleberry from the movie “Police Academy” or survivalist gun nut Burt Gummer from “Tremors?”

 I would have to go with Burt.  While I love Tackleberry’s drive and his affinity for guns, Burt has spent his life preparing.  A fight is always won before the first punch is thrown, before the first shot is fired.  Those who have developed a strong Tactical Mindset have a marked advantage.  I believe that all of us can and should have a Tactical Mindset.  We begin to develop this the day we realize that we are being hunted.  When we can understand the threats around us we can begin to develop the “when this-then what” preparedness that life requires.  Burt was prepared for giant worms in the ground, which tells me, he is prepared for pretty much anything

An Open Letter to State Rep. Muhlbauer

To:Dan.Muhlbauer@legis.iowa.gov

Dear Representative Muhlbauer:

I was interested in reading your recent interview in the Daily Times Herald titled “Muhlbauer: Ban, seize semi-auto weapons.” In the article it was suggested that you would like Iowa to ban and confiscate “big guns,” “semi-automatics,” and those that are “not hunting weapons.”

Why do you believe that people may be able to own some plinking firearms for recreational purposes but not defensive arms which may serve a deadly-serious purpose? Probably your reasoning is that others, police and soldiers, bear arms for that purpose. Indeed they do and thank God for them.

But the existence of these valiant “others” doesn’t absolve the rest of us from our duties as Americans, as neighbors, as husbands and fathers, or as men. If a fire started in your home would you not try to extinguish it even though you’re not a professional firefighter? If your child or your neighbor was injured would you not try to aid him even though you’re not a certified paramedic?

Why then this attitude that being prepared to defend oneself or ones family against criminal attack is unthinkable? Why then this attitude that being prepared to stand in defense of liberty is superfluous? Unfortunately this attitude is not uncommon among many pampered modern Americans.

What an unbelievably inflated sense of self-worth you must have to believe that humbly-paid civil servants (with families of their own) have a duty to risk their lives to defend your life and liberty while you won’t shoulder any of the responsibility yourself!

I hope that, despite your best efforts, your fellow citizens of Iowa will remain able to keep and bear arms without any more infringements placed upon that right. Even if you don’t choose to personally exercise that right, you and your family will be safer because of it.

Sincerely,

Benjamin R. Cashner

www.ColdHardCashner.com

[Address & Phone Number Redacted]

Iowa Gun Stories

As the public debates gun control and Congress reconvenes, the Second Amendment stories are piling up faster than I can get to them. Although I don't want to be a Johnny One Note, you can expect this blog to be pretty guncentric until some of this gun control craze blows over (if ever).

Here are a few stories from around Iowa:

Iowa Lawmaker Dan Muhlbauer: Take Semi-Auto Guns from Owners

In an interview with the the Carroll Daily Times Herald, State Rep. Dan Muhlbauer, D-Manilla, says Iowa lawmakers should  ban "the big guns that are out here, the semi-automatics and all of them" and “start taking them” from owners who refuse to surrender any illegal firearms through a buy-back program.

You can read the article linked above then let this asinine baby-kisser know what you think of his plan. Email: Dan.Muhlbauer@legis.iowa.gov  Capitol Phone: 515.281.3221

Des Moines Register Column Incites Violence Against Gun Owners

Another plan coming from the brilliant minds on the pro-gun control side was posited in a supposedly tongue-in-cheek column in the Des Moines Register. In it, columnist Donald Kaul says his plan would:

• "Repeal the Second Amendment[.]"
• Tie GOP leaders Mitch McConnell and John Boehner "to the back of a Chevy pickup truck and drag them around a parking lot until they saw the light on gun control."
• "Declare the NRA a terrorist organization and make membership illegal."
• Raze the NRA's headquarters.
• "Make ownership of unlicensed assault rifles a felony. If some people refused to give up their guns, that 'prying the guns from their cold, dead hands' thing works for me."

Kaul can write whatever the hell he wants, but something tells me that if a pro-gun advocate wrote a column calling for political leaders to be dragged behind pickups, buildings to be destroyed and American citizens to potentially be killed, it would be the lead story on every news show in America.

Brownells Business Booming Before Ban

If nothing else, the threat of the various bans that are being floated in the U.S. Congress has been good for business for may local gun sellers as well the world's largest supplier of firearms accessories, which is located right here in the Hawkeye state.

The Huffington Post reports that Brownells, located in Montezuma Iowa, has been swamped with orders for standard (20-30 round) AR-15 ammunition magazines. In one recent three-day period the company sold the number of AR-15 mags that it normally sells in 3.5 years. Apparently customers are fearful that magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds may soon be banned, causing them to snap up the standard capacity mags while they are still available.

Let's all work to make sure that those concerns are unfounded.

Feinstein's Deliberate Collateral Damages

The unspeakable tragedy in Newton Connecticut has pushed the issue of gun control back into the national spotlight. Because of the sheer atrociousness of this crime, the issue seems to have some traction this time. There has always been a contingent of politicians and activists who have called for ever more gun control, but now it seems that some of the public is beginning to agree.

Since so-called "assault weapons" have been used in this and several other high-profile shootings, there is an increased call for regulation of this ill-defined class of weapons. Long time gun-hater Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), the author of the original 1994-2004 federal "Assault Weapons Ban," is more than happy to help. When Congress reconvenes in January she will introduce a new assault weapons ban even more stringent than the last.

I won't take time here to expound upon the ineffectiveness of the old assault weapons ban. Many others have already done so. (Fox News: Assault-weapons ban no guarantee mass shootings would decrease; LA Times: The Big Lie of the Assault Weapons Ban ) I won't spend time once again debating the old saw that "You don't need an assault weapon to hunt ducks." (Second Amendment- Purpose) In this post I'll focus on another why Feinstein's gun ban should be opposed.

Feinstein's new ban would ensnare many otherwise law-abiding gun owners. The new ban affects many weapons not affected by the original ban. According to the NRA-ILA this would include the trusty old M1 Carbine, a model of the Ruger Mini-14, and ALL models of the AR-15. These weapons (as well as many others) could no longer be manufactured, sold, transported, or imported. Ones already in private possession would have to be registered with the federal government under the National Firearms Act and their owners would have to be photographed and fingerprinted and pay a $200 tax. (Never mind that BATF doesn't have the staff to process the sudden influx of countless millions of these applications.)

Picture some old guy who's had an M1 Carbine in the back of his closet since 1955. If the bill passes, he may very well be unaware that his old carbine has magically transformed into a schoolyard-spraying death hose that has to be registered with the federal government and that he is now in violation of federal law.

When most people picture an "assault weapon" they picture a semi-automatic rifle like an AK-47 or AR-15. However the ban extends to shotguns and pistols as well, so many other gun owners may find themselves caught similarly unaware.

These don't appear to be the deranged killers that we want to put in jail, but will require the time and resources of our already overburdened police and courts all the same. Feinstein's new gun ban would potentially make criminals out of millions of peaceable American gun owners and still not prevent some future mass shooting. Maybe that's the plan.

Circular Illogic

Always Remember

Repeal Gun-Free School Zones

I was at work when I heard about the murder of the innocents in Newton, Connecticut. I remember hearing the President on the radio. "The majority of those who died today were children — beautiful, little kids between the ages of 5 and 10 years old," Obama said with great emotion. "They had their entire lives ahead of them — birthdays, graduations, weddings, kids of their own."

These were children the same age as my own. Like many Americans, like many parents, I felt saddened, outraged and violated by the actions of this madman who committed these despicable acts. Emotionally this felt like the most traumatic attack since 9/11.

Two days later President Obama spoke at the prayer vigil for the victims and hinted about efforts to prevent future tragedies. "We can’t tolerate this anymore. These tragedies must end," said Obama. "And to end them, we must change." But I wonder how much Obama and his allies are willing to change in response to tragedies like these.

It seems that the more of an abysmal failure a government measure is the more vehemently it will be defended by statists. In regard to school shootings the glaring failure is the federal Gun-Free School Zone Act (and its state and local clones). This law basically forbids the possession of a firearm in a school zone. Will Obama and his cohorts be willing to travel outside their own ideological comfort zone and listen to arguments that just maybe this measure does more harm than good? I'll give them two reasons why the GFSZA should be repealed.

First, it's unconstitutional. I realize that most politicians, like most of my countrymen, don't care a fig about whether or not a law complies with the U.S. Constitution. But, since I once swore an oath to kill or die in defense of that document, I'll include it here for nostalgia's sake if nothing else. In this case you don't have to just take the word of some blogger in his pajamas pounding a keyboard. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed with me and already stuck the law down once.

The federal GFSZA was originally passed in 1990, but the Supreme Court ruled it to be an unconstitutional abuse of Congressional authority under the Constitution's commerce clause in U.S.v Lopez (1995). To uphold the law, the court concluded, "would require us to conclude that the Constitution's enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated, and that there never will be a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local. This we are unwilling to do." In other words toting a gun in a local school is none of the federal governments damned business.

Congress responded by adding a few words to the original GFSZA and passing it again. Bill Clinton signed it again and it's been the law ever since. Although it's been challenged in lower courts, it hasn't made it back to the Supreme Court to be re-reviewed. Perhaps someday it will and perhaps the court will have the right mixture of political appointees to uphold it. Regardless of what the Supreme Court has said or will say about it, it is anathema to the intent of the framers of the Constitution.

The second, and I think more practical, reason to repeal the GFSZA is that it doesn't work. In 2000 Professors John R. Lott Jr. and William M. Landes released an exhaustive study of "Multiple Victim Public Shootings." Some key findings from that study:

• "Right-to-carry laws reduce the number of people killed or wounded from multiple victim public shootings as many attackers are either deterred from attacking or when attacks do occur they are stopped before the police can arrive."
• "Given that half the attackers in these multiple victim public shootings have had formal diagnoses of mental illness, the fact that some results indicate concealed handgun laws reduce these attacks by almost 70 percent is remarkable."
• "Not only does the passage of a right-to-carry law have a significant impact on multiple shootings but it is the only gun law that appears to have a significant impact."
• "[S]tates with the fewest gun free zones have the greatest reductions [in] killings, injuries, and attacks."[Emphasis added.]

In a July 2012 New York Daily News op-ed piece, John R. Lott points out a salient fact from his continued research that should be required reading for everyone on both sides of this debate: "With a single exception, every multiple-victim public shooting in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed since at least 1950 has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry their own firearms." That fact alone is shocking and points out the failure of "gun-free zones" of any kind in this country.

So who in America will "change" to help reduce tragedies such as the Sandy Hook slayings? Will Obama and his friends be willing to change their worldview enough to accept anything other than more restrictions on private gun ownership as a potential aid to the problem? Will the only real change be more loss of freedom, as has happened after so many tragedies in our nations history? I hope not. 

Our nation is already a little darker with the 20 little beacons of hope extinguished prematurely at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Let's not make it darker still by making all the other children grow up in a land less free.

Gun Laws Don't Protect Children

Iowa DNR Proposes Ban on Lead Shot

From NRA-ILA:

Iowa’s Natural Resources Commission recently announced its intent to ban hunters’ use of lead shot on numerous state and federal wildlife areas across Iowa, except for use in turkey and deer hunting. The ban will also prohibit the use of lead shot in target shooting.

According to the Commission, the purpose of imposing this ban is to “begin limiting the use of lead for all hunting and fishing on all public areas”. The proposed ban would also designate three wildlife areas as completely “lead free,” including rifle ammunition and fishing tackle. The announcement does not mention any research showing that the use of lead shot is having a negative impact on the state’s wildlife populations. The DNR should base any proposals to restrict hunting on science, not politics and emotion. Unfortunately this is not the case in this instance.

This proposal should be treated as a statewide ban because of the size of the area it covers and because of the Commission’s intent to extend it to all public lands in the future. It is critical that the Commissioners hear strong opposition to its proposal from hunters, shooters, and anglers across the state. Written comments are being accepted until April 27 and can be sent to Dale Garner, Wildlife Bureau Chief, at Dale.Garner@dnr.iowa.gov

The Commission is not alone in advocating a ban on lead ammunition and fishing tackle. They are keeping company with anti-hunting extremists, anti-gunners, and radical environmentalists who are campaigning for a nationwide ban.

Emergency Powers Reform Bill Advances Too

From Des Moines Gun Rights Examiner (Iowa Firearms Coalition President Sean McClanahan):

HSB18 passed out of the [House Public Safety Committee] with a vote of 14-5, so it now goes to the floor of the full Iowa House of Representatives for debate. HSB18 is a reform to the Emergency Powers Act; if passed, HSB18 would make it illegal for a citizen to be removed of his or her ammunition or firearms during a state of emergency, and it would protect a citizen's right to transport and carry firearms during that time. Essentially, it prevents another "Katrina aftermath" from happening in Iowa.

The vote was almost completely along party lines. Representatives R. Olson and Swaim were not present. All of the Republicans voted for the passage of HSB18, while all of the Democrats – with one exception – voted against passage. The lone Democrat who voted to protect the rights of Iowa citizens who own firearms was Representative Wolfe.

The final tally:

Voting AYE – to protect the rights of citizens:

Baudler

Shaw

Alons

Brandenburg

Fry

Hagenow

Klein

S. Olson

Rayhons

Sands

Tjepkes

Windschitl

Wolfe

Voting NAY – to allow your rights to be removed:

Kressig

Abdul-Samad

Berry

Gaines

Muhlbauer

Absent:

R. Olson

Swaim

Anti-Second Amendment Bill Passes Iowa Senate

Thursday the anti-gun and anti-due process Senate File 2357 easily passed in the Iowa Senate with only 11 Senators voting against it. I'm a bit late writing about this and the boys at Between Two Rivers and Iowa Patriots have covered it more thoroughly than I.

According to Iowa Gun Owners, the bill would:

• Allow virtually anyone who knows you to apply to the court for a no-contact order – even if no physical contact has ever occurred between the two of you. As condition of this no-contact order you would be required to hand over all of your firearms and ammunition.
• Not require that you even be present at the court hearing. This bill does not even ensure that you have the right to even have legal counsel present or a chance to confront your accusers in a court of law.
• Allow an anti-gun court to decide who is qualified to take possession of your firearms should they decide to take them from you.
• Allow this same court to decide that no one is qualified to take your guns and order the sheriff’s department to seize them, and make you pay the sheriff for the right to lose your guns! Yeah, you get to pay the government $50 per gun that they seize from you!
• Declare you a felon, and unable to ever own guns again, if you fail to turn over so much as a single .22 cartridge.

All of this is done in the name of "combating domestic abuse." Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller gleefully approved the Senate's passage: "This law will help prevent women, men and children from being terrorized, maimed and killed by violent domestic abusers. It will only remove guns from domestic abusers. This is a big victory for public safety[.]"

I wouldn't count on it "only remov[ing] guns from domestic abusers." As I've written about the federal Lautenberg Amendment, feel-good legislation like this ensnares more innocuous parties than deranged stalkers.

I think that the blogger strandediniowa at Between Two Rivers summed it up best: "If the women's groups that lobbied in favor of SF2357, could possibly put some effort into making it easier for women to purchase and carry firearms for their protection, maybe a few less abusers would be stalking their victims."

Let's hope we can kill this bill in the House of Representatives.

The "Cop Killer" of Ft. Hood

As I was reading Wednesday’s Cedar Rapids Gazette I came across a letter to the editor calling for more gun control in the wake of the Ft. Hood tragedy. Although I occasionally respond to official editorials or columns, I try not use this forum to criticize letters to the editor from private individuals because I think citizens on ALL sides of a debate should feel empowered and encouraged to express their views in the local paper. That is the First Amendment and America at its best.

The letter that caught my eye, however, was written by John Johnson, the former director of the defunded, debunked and now defunct group Iowans for the Prevention of Gun Violence, and was signed as such. Since he is no mere civilian who wandered onto the ideological battlefield of gun control, but a former field-grade officer in the opposing army, I’ll make an exception in Mr. Johnson’s case.

Mr. Johnson writes that the Ft. Hood shootings took place because “(e)asy access to high-capacity, semi-automatic handguns that can be concealed on the person means that any angry individual with a grudge can commit mass murder wherever people gather — even military bases.”

Really? Wherever people gather? How come I never hear of some nut attempting a mass shooting at a gun show or a shooting range or an NRA convention? The fact is that just about any shooting massacre that you can name (Ft. Hood, Columbine, Virginia Tech, etc…) took place in a so-called “gun free zone.” In a sad bit of irony, even our army posts are now mostly “gun free zones.”

The habit of gun control advocates, like Mr. Johnson, of serving up disarmed victims in designated areas actually encourages sociopaths to go on shooting sprees, knowing that they can rack up a lot of kills before armed authorities can arrive. Since Texas has many civilians who carry firearms, if Major Hassan had tried his rampage anywhere besides a “gun free zone,” an armed Texan may well have “killed him back” (to borrow Ron White’s phrase) before he could do so much damage.

Attempting to put the blame for the Ft. Hood shooting on an inanimate object, rather than the nut (or perhaps jihadist) pulling the trigger, Mr. Johnson continues: “One of the weapons used in the Fort Hood shooting was an FN Five-seveN pistol […]. This gun was originally designed for military use, but is also sold on the U.S. civilian gun market. The manufacturer says this gun fires ammunition capable of piercing body armor. Who wears body armor? Law officers. So the FN Five-seveN pistol is for killing cops.” His comments appear to be part of a larger orchestrated effort, since all the major gun control groups recently sent a letter to President Obama asking him to ban the import of the Belgium-made Five-seveN.

The “armor piercing” version of ammunition for the Five-seveN (and for all handguns, for that matter) that Mr. Johnson refers to is already banned in the United States. Your side won that battle long ago, Mr. Johnson! If the laws that the gun control advocates fight so passionately to enact are so ineffectual once implemented that they are unnoticeable and forgotten even by themselves, why do they push for more of the same?

Perhaps Mr. Johnson gets his information from Josh Sugarmann of the Violence Policy Center, one of the nation’s leading peddlers of anti-gun propaganda. In a recent Huffington Post article, Sugarmann claims that in a quick Internet search he found two vendors selling “banned” ammunition for the Five-seveN. But the SS192 hollow point ammo that the vendors were selling is listed on the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives website as “not AP.” It wasn’t really “banned” either, the manufacturer merely stopped shipping that particular type to the U.S., replacing it with the newer SS196 ammo.

Far from being the death-spewing monster that Johnson and Sugarmann depict, the Five-seveN fires a rather diminutive 5.7 mm round. Bob Owens at Pajamas Media convincingly makes the case that if Major Hasan had armed himself with a man’s weapon, rather than the media-hyped Five-seveN, the ratio of killed to wounded would have been much worse.

“[A] high-velocity bullet that only weighs 40 grains (as does the legal SS197SR bullet Hasan used) is at a distinct disadvantage when compared to other pistol cartridges,” writes Owens. “Slower, heavier bullets such as those found in the .40 S&W and .45 ACP hollow point cartridges favored by American law enforcement dump most if not all of their energy in the human body. The difference between a wound from a 5.7 bullet and a .45 ACP is not dissimilar to the difference between the wound from an ice pick and the wound from a sledgehammer. The ice pick will penetrate far deeper, but the sledgehammer will cause far more traumatic injuries.” (None of this is to imply that the Five-seveN is less-than-lethal, just that it’s not super-lethal.)

Owens also pointed out one more salient fact. The FN Herstal Five-seveN, that much-vaunted “cop killer” of Johnson and Sugarmann’s imaginations, has never actually killed a cop in the United States. “So far there is just one known shooting of a police officer with this weapon, and that occurred at Fort Hood,” states Owens. “Kim Munley, one of two officers who engaged Hasan, was shot in each leg and her wrist, but was wonderfully alive and able to appear on Oprah a week later.”

I guess gun control activists can’t let little things like facts stand in the way of their agendas.