Texas Gun Shows List - Updated for 2010

So after much delay (it ain't March, yet!), I finally updated the Texas Gun Shows page for 2010.




It's available here.

Some perspective

The iPod - a crucial part of your . . . . arsenal?

It looks like iPods have finally come to their own with the tactically-minded set - and I don't mean the ability to bring up "Welcome to the Jungle" every time you find yourself in the middle of a fray.

A company has designed an application for the ubiquitous device that would take the place of a ballistics computer or the standard sniper dope note card taped to the cheek side of your rifle stock.

And you can even download it from iTunes!

Sniper rifle software launched for iPod touch
New BulletFlight program could be a 'killer' app for Apple

A new application has been launched for the iPod touch to help gun users line up a clean shot at their target.

The BulletFlight app, which costs £6.99 to download from the iTunes store, has been developed by Runaway App to turn the iPod touch into a ballistics computer which the company says can provide “quick solutions in the field”.

Users can mount their iPod touch to their rifle, and then use the iPod’s touch-screen to tap in details about the wind conditions, ammunition type, distance to the intended target and even the wind speed.

It even includes data for several different weapons and calibers.

The application features built-in profiles for three weapons – the M110 semi-automatic precision rifle, the KAC PDW, and the 14.5in SR16 rifle – although users can add more weapons into the app.

“Environmental calculations are based on the Sierra Bullet model,” says the BulletFlight iTunes entry. “Up to five ballistic co-efficients with corresponding velocity thresholds may be used for each profile.”

More.

Just when you thought iTunes was only a place to download one-hit wonders and audio books.

2009 Texas Gunshow List - Now Updated!

The Texas Gunshow List on Orion Woods Brigade has just been updated for 2009.

Go check it out. And then go check them out.

$1000 is the new $500

I went to the SAXET gunshow this morning with some of the crew and was pretty put-off by the amount of price gouging going on with some of the more shady dealers. I expected a little bit of shenanigans due to the recent election, but a quick browse through Shotgun News will show that recent reports of the end of gun ownership in America are a bit premature.

I saw a $700 Golani going for $1100. An Armalite AR-180 selling for $2,599 (not a typo). Wall-to-wall crowds of sorry looking hopefuls trying to find their last chance to get a (gasp!) assault rifle before the laws get passed (no new laws have been suggested).

But the belle of the ball was a Mak-90 (yes - that Mak-90) selling for $1600. The best part was the "faux operator" behind the table (thigh rig, cropped hair cut, 80's aviator glasses) assuring all of the unwashes masses that these were the absolute last ones they could ever hope to get and the The Man was going to come to the show personally by the end of the weekend and collect up anything that hasn't sold.

Sort of a reverse Santa, I suppose.

For shame.

Banning Assault Weapons Because of . . . Mexico?

I've been struggling over the past few weeks, trying to figure out how exactly the Libs are going to take their next step in the war on firearms rights in America. You know it's big on their wish lists and with all four branches of the government now being Democrat (the House, the Senate, the President, and the Media), it seems high time for them to come in together for the Big Win.

Unfortunately, it's not exactly a great time to try to introduce gun control legislation. There's that whole economy thing that us working stiffs want the government is fix. Gun ownership is also on the rise. Crime isn't out of control. And because of the realities of the post-911 world and the really choice way the government handled Katrina and Rita, a lot of people who would have never considered gun ownership in the past have stocked up on arms and ammunition.

Despite getting the Big O elected into office, things were looking pretty good for gun rights in America, especially with the recent DC vs. Heller decision, so you can imagine one might be inclined to let his guard down.

In fact, just last week I was talking to one of my friends at a local gunshow about how Obama never really introduced any new gun control legislation, and since he told Field and Stream he was really interested in any new gun laws, I was feeling pretty good about how we'd do over the next four years.

Then . . . wham! I saw it in this morning's Express News.

Gunrunners' land of plenty

A giant, front page headline. Even more relevant than the recent terrorist attacks in India, more alarming than our nation's financial crisis. All other stories bested by the news that over 1000 guns that were sourced in Texas have been used in crimes in Mexico.

I can see it now . . . since the primary "reason" assault rifles were banned in the 90s - the super crime wave hyped by the media that never came to fruition - is no longer a viable excuse, we are supposed to give up our gun rights because there are criminals doing horrible things in other countries.

Wow. I am just glad Texas doesn't export machetes to Africa!

Wait, I have an idea. Maybe since there are so many problems in central and south America due to America's drug habits, we should ban drugs here. Yes - more laws! That should stop the problem. Criminals will suddenly stop being criminals when they realize there are more laws against their crimes.

Oh wait. That didn't work so well, either.

Here's the crux of the article:

Last year, Texas sellers were the source of 1,131 guns found discarded at shootings in Mexico or confiscated from the cartel gangsters, according to the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. That’s more than twice the number of runner-up California and more than the combined total of 13 top other states.

I am not sure that's altogether too amazing considering the fact that you can't really buy guns in California and there are MILLIONS of gun owners in Texas.

It goes on to describe the nature of the weapons that these thugs in Mexico are so eager to get their hands on:

[Assault Rifles] are so prevalent these days that Mexico authorities have seized 13,000 of them in the last two years, along with thousands of other guns and 3 million rounds of smuggled ammunition, much of it also bought from U.S. retailers.

But wait a minute, I thought they said this was all coming through Texas and the US? I added up all of the numbers on their pretty chart and it totals 4,180 weapons for all of the United States (and BTW - remember that California - land of some of the strictest gun laws in Amercia was in 2nd place with 1006) - this means that the other 8,820 weapons are coming from somewhere other than the US.

In fact, the article also mentions:

Some of the hardware is military grade — rocket launchers and grenades coming into Mexico through Guatemala.

So maybe we need to have Guatemala get on board and get some of these gun laws going there, too?

Here's the deal, folks.

1) Despite what Hollyweird would have you believe (and I am not going to even bother listing all of the movies where this has happened), you can't just wander into a gun store or army-navy store and pick up machine guns and grenades and related military-grade ordinance.

2) Mexico is a corrupt, corrupt country where the almight peso (dollar) can make any of your dreams come true - regardless of what the laws say.

The problems that Mexico is having with gun smuggling isn't because gun laws are so lax in US, but because we have a completely porous border between us and Mexico. I know it isn't popular or hip to say that, but its a choice we're going to have to make as a society - open border (crime, illegal imigration, gun and human smuggling, TB, polio, etc) or closed border (social/political quagmire).

The article even states:

Someone would only have had to drive the guns over the international bridge and then 12 hours to Aguascalientes.

No mention or a search, scan or any type of countermeasures. Just driving over a bridge.

Guns that criminals use are almost always either stolen or purchased for the criminal by a family member. Or bought from some cash-strapped brothel owner at a shooting range. Seriously? That sounds like a judgement call to me and laws don't really do a lot of good to make folks have better judgement.

I think one of the respondents to the article said it best:

We had the assault weapons ban for 10 years. It didn't result in any reductions in crime. I have been in LE for over 30 years. Most of the guns we find in criminal situations are stolen! NOT BOUGHT ACROSS THE COUNTER OR AT GUN SHOWS! Criminals don't usually spend much money on their guns. They prefer buying stolen ones from druggies who need to support their drug habits. A Glock sells across the counter for $500 or more most places. The last one I came across was sold for $50 on the street. It was stolen from an apartment here in SA.

Lastly until Mexico decides it wants to be more then a Third World country they have to deal with their own problems. The article even points out that military armament is coming from Guatemala. I guess we're going to stop that too? With the money being generated from the sale of illegal drugs I would bet that they can buy any guns they want, any time they want. Who's going to stop them? Also please note that they aren't mentioning the AK47 that is coming from China and all parts of the far East by the hundreds of thousands. And sells for pennies compared to the American made AR15s. But then again we wouldn't expect the truth from the media. Just look at the last election for evidence of that.

Here. (San Antonio Express news - 11/30)

And here. (Houston Chronicle - 11/29)

Rest assured this is only the beginning of the "anti-gun" sentiments in the media and the first salvo in the latest war against our gun rights.

Obama's Question #59

A few stories have covered the ridiculously invasive list of questions posted by the New York Times as the official questionnaire being used to qualify folks for a top-level position in the Obama Administration.

After wading through question after question involving potential conflicts of interest, involvement with AIG and Freddie May/Fanny Mac, illegal immigrant nannies and/or servants, potentially damaging past associations, online habits, and controversial and/or candid diary entries, one would think that this would not only disqualify most folks currently living and/or working in Washington DC, but also most everyone living in America over the age of 10. I know we are all looking for the Big Change, but these questions could even disqualify The Man himself.

Of particular interest to our demographic, was one asking specifically about gun ownership of the would-be applicant:

(59) Do you or any members of your immediate family own a gun? If so, provide complete ownership and registration information. Has the registration ever lapsed? Please also describe how and by whom it is used and whether it has been the cause of any personal injuries or property damage.

Some interesting conjecture can arise from this question, most notably the inclusion of gun registration (which differs significantly in meaning and severity depending on geographic locale) and use of firearms in accidents that caused injury to people and/or property. Asking how it is used can also be used to differentiate from "approved" firearms usage - i.e. sporting clays, antique collections, etc. - from "unapproved" uses - like to protect one's family from violent criminals and misguided civilian national security forces gone wild.

Don't be surprised if this is a potential foreshadowing of the aforementioned change to our national gun registration policies, as well as opening up firearms manufacturers to more of the ridiculous litigation that Obama and his ilk are so fond of.

Here's the full list of questions.

More Obama Gun Fun

No sooner had I pulled the trigger on my last post then I realized that there was a veritable full magazine of online articles discussing everyone's fears about gun rights under an Obama presidency.

Gun sales surge after Obama's election

"I have been in business for 12 years, and I was here for Y2K, September 11, Katrina," Conatser said, as a steady stream of customers browsed what remained of his stock. "And all of those were big events, and we did notice a spike in business, but nothing on the order of what we are seeing right now."

Weapons dealers in much of the United States are reporting sharply higher sales since Barack Obama won the presidency a week ago.

Buyers and sellers attribute the surge to worries that Obama and a Democratic-controlled Congress will move to restrict firearm ownership, despite the insistence of campaign aides that the president-elect supports gun rights and considers the issue a low priority.

"I believe the Second Amendment means something. I do think it speaks to an individual right," Obama said in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, in February.

With the U.S. economy in a tailspin, however, the president-elect's advisers say gun legislation is not a high priority.

The October '08 issue of Field and Stream had extensive interviews with both Obama and McCain detailing their opinions on hunting and fishing, gun rights, and conservation. The message from Obama was pretty clear,

"I'm more interested in enforcing the laws that we do have - for example tracing guns that are used in crimes back to people who have been using them. I don't anticipate that there's going to be a whole slew of efforts at the federal level when it comes to gun control. "

However this still hasn't dissuaded anyone from considering him an anti-gun politician, and his record of past votes lies in stark contrast to his election promises.

Apparently, no one is convinced that "common-sense measures" aren't a thinly-disguised metaphor for yet another round of new legislation on "ugly guns."

The good news is that none of this legislation ever happens quickly - and the national economy is a far more pressing issue at this time - but one thing that is apparent is shooters generally aren't getting the warm and fuzzy from Obama on gun rights - despite everything he has said to the contrary.

I understand the reason why everyone is running out and arming up - there are more cool innovations in modern weapons technology available now then ever before:

• Civilian legal FN P90s
• Mad amounts of AR upgrades (Go LaRue!)
• USCM-inspired HK G36-clones
• 37mm flare launchers - oh, my!
  

But it is important to also realize that the focus must remain on preserving our rights - not just so we can go to gun shows and exercise the right our Constitution guarantees, but to fight to preserve these rights so that those who haven't yet gone to gunshows or been to a shooting range - will get the same opportunities that we did.

Get involved!
Gun Owners of America
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
The National Rifle Association

Couldn't see this one coming . . .

Ok - so I am trying to not get a whole mess (literally) of politics into this blog, but this one is notable for the gun show culture. We've all been taking about the inevitability of Obama and what that has to do with 2nd Amendment rights - and apparently this is a sentiment shared fairly generally with gun enthusiasts.

Run on Guns After Obama Wins



Full article.

And another from before the election.

Ban Guns and the Loonies Will Find Something Else

I saw this little tidbit on Drudge today and it again drives home the proven fact that banning guns doesn't make people safer, it makes law-abiding citizens less able to defend themselves:

Six dead in South Korea fish knife frenzy

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) -- A financially strapped South Korean man went on an arson and stabbing rampage in Seoul on Monday, leaving six people dead and seven others wounded, police said.

The 31-year-old suspect, identified only by his surname, Jeong, first set fire to his room in a low-cost lodging facility in southern Seoul and then stabbed other residents with a sashimi knife while fleeing the fire, police said.

Five people were stabbed to death and another died after jumping out of a window to escape the blaze, police said.

Seven others were wounded, including four seriously, and the death toll could rise, according to police.

The suspect, arrested at the scene, told police he did not want to live because "everybody looks down on me," Kim Kap-shik, chief detective at Seoul's Gangnam Police Station, told reporters.

Yonhap news agency and other media reported that Jeong has been convicted of crimes eight times in the past. Police were not immediately available to confirm Jeong's criminal record.

More.

Once again a career criminal with a history of mental illness goes off and engages in violence against the citizenry. That is so bizarre. And unpredictable.

If they'd had a way to defend themselves, then someone wouldn't have had to jump out of a window to get away from the attacker. On second thought, anyone who jumps out of a multiple-story window to avoid a knife attack may not be the most tactically minded person in an emergency situation.

Britain has a law now banning "assault knives" as the number of people using knives and swords in crimes has exploded. Taking away guns didn't make England safer (ask the Home Guard veterans about this, if anyone over there is still alive that remembers) , but instead forced criminals to find a new way to conduct their nefarious deeds. The citizens - now unarmed - are left to their own devices and must rely on random chance to not become the victims of crime.

Banning guns does nothing to reduce crime. Reduction in crime comes from taking a long look at what causes the problem (unemployment, ridiculous drug laws, disenfranchisement with society, a lack of opportunity or hugs/love from parents) - versus trying to stop it by taking away people's rights.

We have enough laws, statutes, provisions, and acts to restrict us in every aspect of our lives from now until The Judgment. What we need is to punish the hell out of folks who use guns in a crime - mandatory sentences - and get these violent ne'er-do-wells off of the streets and away from giving gun haters the ammunition they need for their ultimate goal of banning private firearms ownership.

The Death of the Omega Man


"Political correctness is tyranny with a happy face."

- Charlton Heston, 1923-2008

Get your hands off my guns, you damn dirty Apes!

Everyone has their day in court, or so the saying goes. For those of you who have been living in a cave, on Mars - with your eyes closed and your fingers in your ears - The Supreme Court began to hear arguments today in a Washington DC case that challenges the classic question of the Second Amendment - whether the right to own a weapon is a individual or state right.

Overall the news I have heard so far is fairly positive on the pro-gun side, but knowing how screwy things are right now, I am sure that can change fairly quickly.



In either case, and in honor of this momentous occasion, I have to give a plug for the controversial and wonderful Unintended Consequences by John Ross. It was recommended to me by one of my hunting buddies and its a great novel about how gun control got started in America and where it can lead if it goes out of control.

Here's an overview. I am sure some would consider it to be fairly alarmist, but it gives some background on how gun control started in this country (post-reconstruction to keep guns out of the hands of the recently freed slaves) and how ridiculous some of the gun control laws are vs. the amount of crime they are actually preventing.

I think it stands with Boston' s Gun Bible as two of the best books for the shooter who is interested in self-defense and wants to know more about

Also - while researching the web today to get the latest on the case I found this great deconstruction of the most common arguments against the Second Amendment.

The article breaks down 5 arguments against the individual right to own a firearm - even getting into the details of what it would actually mean if we limited private ownership of firearms to the actual weapons around at the time of the Constitution.

I won't spoil the fun, but let's just say we'd be limited to around 1820 or so, when the percussion cap replaced flintlock ignition as the new standard. High tech!

Here's an excerpt:

The Second Amendment’s basis lies in the natural right of self-defense. For the Founding Fathers, the Second Amendment was not a dispensable exercise in “what if?” They had confronted an oppressive government with personal armaments and succeeded in securing liberty. The Second Amendment is a provision ensuring that citizens would always have the necessary tools for physical resistance to future tyranny.

Whether or not you are a gun owner, hunter or recreational shooter, pay attention to the news and watch what happens with this case. The old Chinese proverb May You Live In Interesting Times will go double for the next few months as we'll not only be deciding which two shysters will be running for President in the fall, but also seeing how the Supreme Court does at deciding a real case - with ramifications that could shake our Republic down to its very core.

Ok - too dramatic?

Does this put it into perspective?



More information
Gun Owners of America
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
A Human Right

Surviving the End Times with only One Clip

Ok, so I never intended this to be a blog about how guns are used in movies. MadOgre does that on his site and does a great job. However, being a movie dude and also a lifelong student of the martial arts - I just have to notice these things from time to time.

I didn't intend this to be a movie review blog either, but movies - for better or worse - are a big part of the Orion culture. Although it's great to come up with good paintball combat scenarios from real-life military action (i.e. the now infamous Civil War game), it's a helluva lot more fun to base things on movies (i.e. the OK Corral scenario - someone is required to wink).



Besides, both of the people who probably actually reading this are most likely folks that were with me at the movie. So unfortunately, they're having to hear this twice.


I am a huge fan of Richard Matheson's I Am Legend. And yes, I read it before the movie came out and even read it before I realized that Heston's Omega Man was based on the same source material. In fact, I had a moment in reading the book where I realized that Heston's character and the protagonist of the book had the same name - Neville. This is a pretty big revelation coming from the guy who spent a most of Les Misérables thinking thinking that Father Madeleine and Jean Valjean were different characters . . . but I digress.


In either case, the moral of the story is that I Am Legend is something near and dear to my heart, but I am straying from the point.

I don't want to give the whole farm away, but to me the story of I Am Legend is first a psychological work about what someone goes through mentally being the sole survivor of a major disaster - in this instance a massive biological outbreak. It is secondly a story of someone "staying alive" by going out and hunting those who would attempt to stop him.

I knew that the Will Smith version of the story would be highly Hollywood-ized, but the whole idea that Hollywood as a general collective knows better how to reimagine literature is trying at times. I understand having to cut things down for time - no one wants to spend 5 hours in a theater - but this can't be at the expense of plot and character development.

Don't get me wrong - the movie wasn't all bad. I have come to appreciate movies per their parts - rather than the sum of those parts. Give it a shot, it'll make you feel better about spending $1-2 on good 30-minute chunks, instead of $9 on a crappy movie.

Here's my major flaws with this film:

Hunting scene
Ok - if you are that hungry you either (a) run down the deer with the Mustang (I am sure Ford had something in their contract specifically against this) or (b) open fire like a mad fool at the herd of deer. I saw the scene with the "gun closet" - I think he has more than a few rounds of ammo. Though he never actually fired at any of the deer . . . or the lions for that matter. If that would have been a Raider, the next scene would have had Will Smith wearing a giant lion mane coat (ala James Earl Jones in Coming to America) and would have had both of those lion cubs made into a pair of very stylish and comfortable slippers.

NYC
Are there even any guns in NYC? I think this would have been a much more entertaining film if it took place in Texas, Arizona, or the Deep South.

Blowing up the place to save himself
Wasn't this dude in the Army? Surely he had access to some claymores . . .

Arms
So we all know that M4s are the rage, but . . . . well see above.

Ok, ok . . . it's Hollywood.

We know we can't have a scene with the protagonist out at some ex-Mil desert installation, sitting on the roof of the hooch with a Barrett M82, waiting about 10 minutes or so for the hoard to get into AP range.

That would just make too much sense.

A liberal's lament: The NRA might be right after all

By Jonathan Turley

This term, the Supreme Court may finally take up the Voldemort Amendment, the part of the Bill of Rights that shall not be named by liberals. For more than 200 years, progressives and polite people have avoided acknowledging that following the rights of free speech, free exercise of religion and free assembly, there is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." Of course, the very idea of finding a new individual right after more than two centuries is like discovering an eighth continent in constitutional law, but it is hardly the cause of celebration among civil liberties groups.

Like many academics, I was happy to blissfully ignore the Second Amendment. It did not fit neatly into my socially liberal agenda. Yet, two related cases could now force liberals into a crisis of conscience. The Supreme Court is expected to accept review of District of Columbia v. Heller and Parker v. District of Columbia, involving constitutional challenges to the gun-control laws in Washington.

The D.C. law effectively bars the ownership of handguns for most citizens and places restrictions on other firearms. The District's decision to file these appeals after losing in the D.C. appellate court was driven more by political than legal priorities. By taking the appeal, D.C. politicians have put gun-control laws across the country at risk with a court more likely to uphold the rulings than to reverse them. It has also put the rest of us in the uncomfortable position of giving the right to gun ownership the same fair reading as more favored rights of free press or free speech.

The Framers' intent

Principle is a terrible thing, because it demands not what is convenient but what is right. It is hard to read the Second Amendment and not honestly conclude that the Framers intended gun ownership to be an individual right. It is true that the amendment begins with a reference to militias: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Accordingly, it is argued, this amendment protects the right of the militia to bear arms, not the individual.

Yet, if true, the Second Amendment would be effectively declared a defunct provision. The National Guard is not a true militia in the sense of the Second Amendment and, since the District and others believe governments can ban guns entirely, the Second Amendment would be read out of existence.

Another individual right

More important, the mere reference to a purpose of the Second Amendment does not alter the fact that an individual right is created. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is stated in the same way as the right to free speech or free press. The statement of a purpose was intended to reaffirm the power of the states and the people against the central government. At the time, many feared the federal government and its national army. Gun ownership was viewed as a deterrent against abuse by the government, which would be less likely to mess with a well-armed populace.

Considering the Framers and their own traditions of hunting and self-defense, it is clear that they would have viewed such ownership as an individual right — consistent with the plain meaning of the amendment.

None of this is easy for someone raised to believe that the Second Amendment was the dividing line between the enlightenment and the dark ages of American culture. Yet, it is time to honestly reconsider this amendment and admit that ... here's the really hard part ... the NRA may have been right. This does not mean that Charlton Heston is the new Rosa Parks or that no restrictions can be placed on gun ownership. But it does appear that gun ownership was made a protected right by the Framers and, while we might not celebrate it, it is time that we recognize it.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors.



From -

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/10/a-liberals-lame.html



Check the original posting to see all of the comments.



It gives me hope yet for America.