Minx Dynamic Pages for Movable Type

Confederate Yankee

April 25, 2007

Run for Your Lives! The High Caps Are Loose!

Memphis police were looking Monday night for the thieves who stole seven weapons from a North Carolina SWAT team van parked in South Memphis.
Members of the SWAT team based in Raleigh, N.C., were eating at Interstate Bar-B-Que, 2265 S. Third, about 3:30 p.m. Monday when they realized their van had been broken into, said Lt. Jerry Gwyn of Memphis felony response.

The weapons stolen from my local SWAT team were:

3- Sig Sauer Model 551, .223 caliber, Fully Automatic Assault Rifles, in black
nylon cases (with several hundred rounds of ammunition)
2 - Remington Model 870, pump action 12 gauge shotguns
1 - Sig Sauer Model 229, .357 caliber semi-auto handgun
1 - Sig Sauer Model 226, .357 caliber semi-auto handgun

One of the SIG assault rifles--a real one, not the semi-automatic rifles the media has falsely labeled as assault rifles-- has been recovered after apparently being purchased along with some ammunition by one of the fine, upstanding citizens of Memphis.

The media has really dropped the ball on the most alarming aspect of this case, the flow of 30-round magazines onto American streets. The SIG 551, like most .223/5.56x45mm duty rifles, uses 30-round magazines.

Where are the magazines? Why aren't they being reported on?

Clearly, the American public can't handle the thought of such magazines being released, and the media is participating in a willful cover-up to minimize the hysteria that would surely sweep the nation if it was found that such high capacity magazines were allowed to run free.

Sure, the police say they are looking for the criminals holding two outstanding machine guns, a pair of shotguns, and a pair of pistols, but we know that the magazines are the real threat.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:15 AM | Comments (15) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

April 24, 2007

White Flag Harry Reid: We're Losing This War, and the Troops are Liars

"Senator Lost" Harry Reid, has unilaterally declared that the Iraq War is lost. Uh, Senator... how would you know and other top Democrats know, when you continue to skip briefings?

What's curious is that congressional Democrats don't seem much interested in what's actually happening in Iraq. The commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, returns to Washington this week, but last week Pelosi's office said "scheduling conflicts" prevented him from briefing House members. Two days later, the members-only meeting was scheduled, but the episode brings to mind the fact that Pelosi and other top House Democrats skipped a Pentagon videoconference with Petraeus on March 8.

Reid even labeled General David Petraeus a liar:

BASH: You talked several times about General Petraeus. You know that he is here in town. He was at the White House today, sitting with the president in the Oval Office and the president said that he wants to make it clear that Washington should not be telling him, General Petraeus, a commander on the ground in Iraq, what to do, particularly, the president was talking about Democrats in Congress.
He also said that General Petraeus is going to come to the Hill and make it clear to you that there is progress going on in Iraq, that the so-called surge is working. Will you believe him when he says that?
REID: No, I don't believe him, because it's not happening. All you have to do is look at the facts.

Look at the facts, Harry? You refuse to address the facts.

Here are a few comments for "Senator Lost" from men on the ground.

From a letter to Op-for:

We are winning over here in Al Anbar province. I don't know about Baghdad, but Ramadi was considered THE hotspot in Al Anbar, the worse province, and it has been very quiet. The city is calm, the kids are playing in the streets, the local shops are open, the power is on at night, and daily commerce is the norm rather than the exception. There have been no complex attacks since March. That is HUGE progress. This quiet time is allowing the Iraqi Army and Iraqi Police to establish themselves in the eyes of the people. The Iraqi people also want IA's and IP's in their areas. The Sunni Sheiks are behind us and giving us full support. This means that almost all Sunnis in Al Anbar are now committed to supporting the US and Iraqi forces. It also means that almost all insurgents left out here are AQ. FYI, the surge is just beginning. Gen Petraeus' strategy is just getting started and we're seeing huge gains here.
However, you don't see Harry Reid talking about this. When I saw what he said, it really pissed me off. That guy does not know what is going on over here because he hasn't bothered to come and find out. The truth on the ground in Al Anbar is not politically convenient for him, so he completely ignored it.

I suppose Reid considers this soldier a liar as well.

What does he think about Sgt. Turkovich, from his own state of Nevada?

"We're not losing this war."
That's how a Las Vegas Army Reserve sergeant and Iraq war veteran who is heading out again for Operation Iraqi Freedom reacted Friday to Nevada Sen. Harry Reid's assessment that the war in Iraq is "lost."
"I don't believe the war is lost," Sgt. George Turkovich, 24, said as he stood with other soldiers near a shipping container that had been packed for their deployment to Kuwait.
The soldiers leave today for a six-week training stint at Camp Atterbury, Ind., before heading overseas to run a camp in support of the war effort. It is uncertain if their yearlong tour will take them to Iraq.
"Unfortunately, politics has taken a huge role in this war affecting our rules of engagement," said Turkovich, a 2001 Palo Verde High School graduate. "This is a guerrilla war that we're fighting, and they're going to tie our hands.
"So it does make it a lot harder for us to fight the enemy, but we're not losing this war," he said.

Turkovich's commander, Lt. Col. Steven Cox:

"I find it exceedingly difficult to believe that the American people would leave their military dangling in the wind the way the good senator is doing," Cox said.
"Defeatism ... from our elected officials does not serve us well in the field," he said. "They embolden the enemy, and they actually leave them with the feeling that they can defeat us and win this.
"All they have to do is wait us out because the American resolve is waning," he said.
Cox said he's "not sure the senator accurately echoes the people he represents. ... I believe his tactics are more of shock in trying to sway public opinion. He may have spoken out of turn."

Obviously, these brave soldiers are liars, right Senator Reid?

But we're not done just yet.

Marine Corporal Tyler Rock, currently in Ramadi, was a bit more direct in his criticism:

yeah and i got a qoute for that douche harry reid. these families need us here. obviously he has never been in iraq. or at least the area worth seeing. the parts where insurgency is rampant and the buildings are blown to pieces. we need to stay here and help rebuild. if iraq didnt want us here then why do we have IP's voluntering everyday to rebuild their cities. and working directly with us too. same with the IA's. it sucks that iraqi's have more patriotism for a country that has turned to complete shit more than the people in america who drink starbucks everyday. we could leave this place and say we are sorry to the terrorists. and then we could wait for 3,000 more american civilians to die before we say "hey thats not nice" again. and the sad thing is after we WIN this war. people like him will say he was there for us the whole time.

1st Lt, Matthew McGirr, another Ramadi Marine, agrees and offers a blistering response of his own:

We are reaching a tipping point in this fight. We have finally learned this culture. We have finally begun to commit the necessary forces. We have truly learned to fight a counter-insurgency. Very real gains are being made despite claims from our Congress that we have already lost. A counter-insurgency battle is not one of quickly attained and easily recognizeable benchmarks. It is not won in a year or four. It takes time, resolve, and a willingness to use what we have learned from past mistakes and expectations. From firsthand experience I can tell you, this "Surge" is working. We need to continue to support these people and give them a fighting chance at creating a nation on their own terms.
To echo the sentiments of my fellow Marine in 1/6, the reality of what is happening on the ground in places like Ramadi is not being reported to the American public. The pundits and politicians on both sides do not fully grasp the conditions on the ground here. They are arrogantly and irresponsibly using this war and the troops who fight in it for political gain and election currency. They manipulate the truth or do not care enough to seek it out. At least I know where I stand with the citizens of Ar Ramadi.

"At least I know where I stand with the citizens of Ar Ramadi."

Ouch. Do Democrat leaders support the troops?

The troops sure don't seem to think so, and they're more than likely right.

Update: Blackfive has an excellent post on how counter-insurgency works called COIN: The Gravity Well. It's a must-read.

Allah now has the Reid video up at HotAir, which turns one today.

Update: JD Johannes reports that indeed, "the war may be over and we just don't realize it" in parts of al Anbar.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:06 PM | Comments (49) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Not As It Appears

Redstate is currently running a post by "streiff" called AP is Popular with the Troops that claims to show an American soldier on patrol in Iraq "flipping off" the Associated Press photographer, Maya Alleruzzo.

Blackfive provides a link to the original caption that IDs the soldier as:

Staff Sgt Patrick Lockett 25, of Huntsville Alabama of Alpha Troop, 3rd Squadron, 1st Cavalry Regiment, 3rd Infantry Division patrols in Al Kargoulia, 25 miles (40 kilometers) east of Baghdad, Iraq, Fri., April 20, 2007. The 3rd Brigade of the 3rd Infantry Division is back in Iraq for the third time since rolling into Baghdad in 2003. (AP Photo/Maya Alleruzzo)

On first blush, it appears to be exactly what RedState and Blackfive describe. But sometimes, even pictures can tell less than the whole story.

I got an email from Michael Yon this morning that including the following:

Bob,
You are the man for this. Maya Alleruzzo, currently a photographer for AP, is getting flack. I know Maya and she is very pro troop�
I would email to Redstate directly but their email address is on my laptop (somewhere else). I think it's just a mistake because the people at Redstate have their hearts in the right place. Maya is out here in the worst parts of Iraq and she's a treasure -- though I know her association with AP puts her into harm's way.

I'm trying to run down Staff Sgt Lockett, who would be the ultimate authority on what was occurring in this picture. If I get a response, I'll be sure to post it. In the meantime, I trust Yon, who seems to know Alleruzzo, and the work of Alleruzzo herself. In addition to taking photos for the Associated Press, Alleruzzo occasionally writes.

Does this author of this article strike you as the kind of person our soldiers would flip off? How about this one, detailing the courage of a paralyzed Iraqi officer?

I don't think so. This sounds like the kind of photographer/journalist that soldiers would love to have around.

Of course, a closer look at the image may tell the story on its own.

I've cropped and enlarged the photo, and done some extremely high-tech phalanges modeling. Count the fingers, folks.

Unless Staff Sgt. Lockett is related to the Six-Fingered Man from The Princess Bride, the photo itself seems to provide the debunking. The bones extending from the wrist (crude gray lines) through the pinky finger define the outside shape of Lockett's glove and the hand it contains, and from there it is a simple matter to merely count the remaining knuckle impressions (shown with white dots) on the glove itself to account for the ring, middle, and index fingers.

It is the index finger you see alongside the M4 receiver, with the other three fingers (middle finger included) curled around the pistol grip of the carbine.

It seems a blogosphere retraction is in order.

Update: I'm very disappointed with Redstate at the moment. I sent them an email alerting them to the apparent fact that their claims were false, and to date, they've refused to issue a correction.

Apparently, they're either not monitoring their email, or are possessed by their own brand of "truthiness."

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:36 AM | Comments (21) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

April 23, 2007

Facing Wolves

This is perhaps one of the most disturbing aspects of the Virginia Tech massacre I've read thus far (my bold).

Police are still searching for a motive. Cho, the 23-year-old English major who was described as reclusive and extremely shy, left behind a package of videos and letters railing against privilege and wealth, but did not say how he chose his victims...
Those victims apparently did not fight back against Cho's ambush. Massello said he did not recall any injuries suggesting a struggle. Many victims had defensive wounds, indicating they tried to shield themselves from Cho's gunfire, he said.
Massello said Cho hit many of his victims several times.

The media's portrayal of the Virginia Tech massacre has been abysmal and highly inaccurate during the course of the past week. Because of their well-documented shortcomings, I've wanted to avoided commenting on certain aspects of the events of April 16 in Norris Hall at Virginia Tech, where Cho Seung-Hui shot to death 30 of his victims, and wounded 29 more.

During this time period, primarily local media accounts have started to create a patchwork of stories that are helping us piece together an image of how individual students reacted during this tragedy, one that has disturbed several people I've spoken with, both online and in person.

No one could have easily predicted that a student such as Cho would have gone on a murderous rampage, and no one knows how they would respond to an event such as this unless they're faced with a similar situation themselves.

It is because of this that I was concerned when I read John Derbyshire's NRO Blog entry The Spirit of Self Defense, posted just one day after the massacre, when so few facts were known.

He wrote:

As NRO's designated chickenhawk, let me be the one to ask: Where was the spirit of self-defense here? Setting aside the ludicrous campus ban on licensed conceals, why didn't anyone rush the guy? It's not like this was Rambo, hosing the place down with automatic weapons. He had two handguns for goodness' sake�one of them reportedly a .22.

At the very least, count the shots and jump him reloading or changing hands. Better yet, just jump him. Handguns aren't very accurate, even at close range. I shoot mine all the time at the range, and I still can't hit squat. I doubt this guy was any better than I am. And even if hit, a .22 needs to find something important to do real damage�your chances aren't bad.

Yes, yes, I know it's easy to say these things: but didn't the heroes of Flight 93 teach us anything? As the cliche goes�and like most cliches. It's true�none of us knows what he'd do in a dire situation like that. I hope, however, that if I thought I was going to die anyway, I'd at least take a run at the guy.

I think we can all agree that people react to high stress unexpected situations differently, and that how we response is influenced by our previous training and experiences. I don't think it is reasonable to expect that anyone in the situation at Norris Hall would have any previous training or experience to handle the situation of a heavily-armed student shooting up a classroom building, though oddly enough, there was a student, Regina Rohde, enrolled at Virgina Tech that was not at Norris Hall who survived the Columbine High School massacre. Even that experience would not have prepared anyone to "take a run at the guy" as Derbyshire suggested. Something else in a person's background or make-up would have to make them act in such a counterintuitive way as to attempt to attack someone with a firearm. I'll note that counterintuitive is not necessarily the same as wrong.

Arguably, it should make us re-examine the basic, emotional "fight or flight" response. Wikipedia describes the reaction to acute stress thusly:

The fight-or-flight response, also called the acute stress response, was first described by Walter Cannon in 1927. His theory states that animals react to threats with a general discharge of the sympathetic nervous system, priming the animal for fighting or fleeing. This response was later recognized as the first stage of a general adaptation syndrome that regulates stress responses among vertebrates and other organisms.

About.com provides a more useful definition:

This is the body�s response to perceived threat or danger. During this reaction, certain hormones like adrenalin and cortisol are released, speeding the heart rate, slowing digestion, shunting blood flow to major muscle groups, and changing various other autonomic nervous functions, giving the body a burst of energy and strength. Originally named for its ability to enable us to physically fight or run away when faced with danger, it�s now activated in situations where neither response is appropriate, like in traffic or during a stressful day at work.

While the massacre itself was shocking enough, the anecdotal evidence pieced together showing that many students (rightly) fled, and that at least some of those who couldn't escape simply let themselves be shot (including at least one student who curled into a ball and allowed Cho to shoot him). The corner's comments shows that he found no evidence suggesting wounds consistent with someone attempting to defend themselves when their lives were in mortal jeopardy. This is shocking in its own right.

Obviously, many of the 59 students, faculty and staff shot by Cho had a very limited chance to react, and there were students in those classrooms who were not shot at all only as a matter of chance. Why is it, though, that when the fight or flight response engaged as it undoubtedly was in Norris Hall, that it appears not a single soul did as Derbyshire asked, "take a run at the guy"?

This isn't a question of bravery by any measure, and I don't want anyone to misconstrue it as such. I am honestly curious as to why the "fight" part of the "fight or flight" response apparently never kicked in to any one of the students, faculty, and staff members who could not escape.

When a man is in the process of gunning down your classmates in a ruthless manner and obviously has the same intention of doing the same to you, you are presented with a very short list of options:

do nothing or attempt to hide (a passive response)
attempt to block the gunman from entering the classroom (an active response)
attempt to attack the gunman, if only to save your own life (an active response)

That is far from being any sort of a clinical response and may not be accurate. It is simply a layman's understanding of how someone may react in the very crudest terms to a horrible situation.

In this circumstance, the flight response is by far the best option, and for those who were able to escape before Cho started shooting in their classrooms, it paid off. But I'm not concerned with the actions of those who were able to escape, but with the actions of those who were unable to escape. What of those who were left?

While we do know that some students were successful in barricading doors and prevented Cho from entering (and that one professor and at least one student died attempting to barricade doors). Once Cho was able to enter classrooms, however, not a single person attempted to attack him according to the coroner, even though that might have been their best option for survival. I speak of this not to condemn, but only in an effort to understand why.

Mark Steyn made an admirable attempt to understand why in A Culture of Passivity. I'm not sure I agree with it, but the following bears reflecting upon:

it�s deeply damaging to portray fit fully formed adults as children who need to be protected. We should be raising them to understand that there will be moments in life when you need to protect yourself � and, in a �horrible� world, there may come moments when you have to choose between protecting yourself or others. It is a poor reflection on us that, in those first critical seconds where one has to make a decision, only an elderly Holocaust survivor, Professor Librescu, understood instinctively the obligation to act.

At the time Steyn wrote his article, not all of the facts were known. We now know that another student died trying to prevent Cho from entering his classroom and was gunned down, just as we know that several other students kept pressing against the door, even as Cho fired through. These brave men all saved lives attempting to preventing a wolf from entering among the sheep. These men are what you would recognize from Bill Whittle's seminal essay Tribes as sheepdogs. Whittle borrowed this description from Lt. Col. Dave Grossman's seminar The Bulletproof Mind as Whittle was writing about the survivors of Hurricane Katrina.

Whittle cited Grossman as stating:

One Vietnam veteran, an old retired colonel, once said this to me: "Most of the people in our society are sheep. They are kind, gentle, productive creatures who can only hurt one another by accident."
This is true. Remember, the murder rate is six per 100,000 per year, and the aggravated assault rate is four per 1,000 per year. What this means is that the vast majority of Americans are not inclined to hurt one another.
Some estimates say that two million Americans are victims of violent crimes every year, a tragic, staggering number, perhaps an all-time record rate of violent crime. But there are almost 300 million total Americans, which means that the odds of being a victim of violent crime is considerably less than one in a hundred on any given year. Furthermore, since many violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders, the actual number of violent citizens is considerably less than two million.
Thus there is a paradox, and we must grasp both ends of the situation: We may well be in the most violent times in history, but violence is still remarkably rare. This is because most citizens are kind, decent people who are not capable of hurting each other, except by accident or under extreme provocation. They are sheep.
I mean nothing negative by calling them sheep. To me it is like the pretty, blue robin's egg. Inside it is soft and gooey but someday it will grow into something wonderful. But the egg cannot survive without its hard blue shell. Police officers, soldiers and other warriors are like that shell, and someday the civilization they protect will grow into something wonderful. For now, though, they need warriors to protect them from the predators.
"Then there are the wolves," the old war veteran said, "and the wolves feed on the sheep without mercy." Do you believe there are wolves out there who will feed on the flock without mercy? You better believe it. There are evil men in this world and they are capable of evil deeds. The moment you forget that or pretend it is not so, you become a sheep. There is no safety in denial.
"Then there are sheepdogs," he went on, "and I'm a sheepdog. I live to protect the flock and confront the wolf." Or, as a sign in one California law enforcement agency put it, "We intimidate those who intimidate others."
If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen: a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath--a wolf. But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? Then you are a sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero's path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed.
He continues:
Let me expand on this old soldier's excellent model of the sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs. We know that the sheep live in denial; that is what makes them sheep. They do not want to believe that there is evil in the world. They can accept the fact that fires can happen, which is why they want fire extinguishers, fire sprinklers, fire alarms and fire exits throughout their kids' schools. But many of them are outraged at the idea of putting an armed police officer in their kid's school. Our children are dozens of times more likely to be killed, and thousands of times more likely to be seriously injured, by school violence than by school fires, but the sheep's only response to the possibility of violence is denial. The idea of someone coming to kill or harm their children is just too hard, so they choose the path of denial.
The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not, cannot and will not ever harm the sheep. Any sheepdog that intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed. The world cannot work any other way, at least not in a representative democracy or a republic such as ours.
Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that there are wolves in the land. They would prefer that he didn't tell them where to go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand at the ready in our airports in camouflage fatigues holding an M-16. The sheep would much rather have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go, "Baa." Until the wolf shows up. Then the entire flock tries desperately to hide behind one lonely sheepdog. As Kipling said in his poem about "Tommy" the British soldier:
While it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that,
an' "Tommy, fall be'ind,"
But it's "Please to walk in front, sir,"
when there's trouble in the wind,
There's trouble in the wind, my boys,
there's trouble in the wind,
O it's "Please to walk in front, sir,"
when there's trouble in the wind.
Understand that there is nothing morally superior about being a sheepdog; it is just what you choose to be. Also understand that a sheepdog is a funny critter: He is always sniffing around out on the perimeter, checking the breeze, barking at things that go bump in the night, and yearning for a righteous battle. That is, the young sheepdogs yearn for a righteous battle. The old sheepdogs are a little older and wiser, but they move to the sound of the guns when needed right along with the young ones.

Whittle continues on his own:

Here is the Grey philosophy I try to live by:
Sometimes, Bad Things Happen. Some things are beyond my control, beyond the control of the smartest and best people we have, even beyond the awesome, subtle and unlimited control of the simpering, sub-human village idiot from Texas.
Hurricanes come. They have come for all of human history, and more are coming. Barbarians also come to steal or destroy what they cannot make themselves, and they, like human tempests, have swept a path of destruction through civilization since before history was written on clay tablets on the banks of the Euphrates.
I am not a wolf. I have never harmed a person in my life. But I am not a sheep, either. I know these forces are out there, and wishing it were not so will not only not make them go away � it will rob me of my chance to kick their ass when they show up.

And further:

It takes courage to fight oncoming storms. Courage.
Courage isn�t free. It is taught, taught by certain tribes who have been around enough and seen enough incoming storms to know what one looks like.

Tribes is an excellent essay, though perhaps imperfect to apply to the students, faculty and staff trapped inside Norris Hall last Monday. That said, I am forced to wonder why not one of those 59 people shot, nor those who were not shot, did not make an attempt to defend at least themselves, if not others. The "extreme provocation" that Grossman noted can make even sheep attack was certainly present in Norris Hall a week ago today, and yet, not one apparently acted upon it.

Have we become as a culture so adverse to the idea of conflict that we will willing surrender our lives and the lives of others to avoid fighting back?

I am trapped, and think perhaps, that we all are.

Have we become so enamored with the idea of conflict avoidance and conflict resolution at all costs, that we have forgotten that at some points, conflict is the only correct response? Do we not need to teach courage, or at least self-preservation, as well?

I can offer no answers. I don't even know if I'm asking the right questions.

I do think, however, that as a society, somebody should find the right questions to ask, and do all we can to get those answers.

If not, we give our futures to the wolves to decide.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:53 PM | Comments (29) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

RIP: Congresswoman Juanita Millender-McDonald

Our thoughts and prayers go out this morning to the family, friends, and collegues of California Congresswoman Juanita Millender-McDonald, who lost her battle with cancer yesterday.

WaPo has the story.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:01 AM | Comments (16) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Is a Mandatory Waiting Period a Good Idea?

From falsely reporting (ansd still refusing to correct) a claim that the expiration of the 1994 Crime Bill permitted the sale of high capacity and extended magazines, to claims that he purchased a pistol and ammunition online to citing incompetent experts, the "professional" media has consistantly made inaccurate, unsupported, and erroneous claims about the firearms, magazines, ammunition and firearms laws surrounding the Virginia Tech massacre committed one week ago today.

Should we perhaps consider a mandatory waiting period on the media's reporting of gun crimes... or would we best be served by making them pass a basic background and competence check before allowing them to write?

The pen is mightier than the sword, after all, so it is reasonable to make sure that those who use them are capable of using them responsibly.

Update: How about this for a new bumper sticker: "Michael Isikoff's keyboard has killed more people than Ted Kennedy's car, or my guns."

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:51 AM | Comments (15) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

April 20, 2007

An Axis of Embarrassment: Saddam's WMD Bunkers Found?

Via Lucianne, just another crazed conspiracy theorist:

Mr Gaubatz verbally told the Iraq Study Group (ISG) of his findings, and asked them to come with heavy equipment to breach the concrete of the bunkers and uncover their sealed contents. But to his consternation, the ISG told him they didn�t have the manpower or equipment to do it and that it would be 'unsafe' to try.
'The problem was that the ISG were concentrating their efforts in looking for WMD in northern Iraq and this was in the south,' says Mr Gaubatz. 'They were just swept up by reports of WMD in so many different locations. But we told them that if they didn't excavate these sites, others would.'
That, he says, is precisely what happened. He subsequently learnt from Iraqi, CIA and British intelligence that the WMD buried in the four sites were excavated by Iraqis and Syrians, with help from the Russians, and moved to Syria. The location in Syria of this material, he says, is also known to these intelligence agencies. The worst-case scenario has now come about. Saddam�s nuclear, biological and chemical material is in the hands of a rogue terrorist state � and one with close links to Iran.
When Mr Gaubatz returned to the US, he tried to bring all this to light. Two congressmen, Peter Hoekstra, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and Curt Weldon, were keen to follow up his account. To his horror, however, when they tried to access his classified intelligence reports, they were told that all 60 of them � which, in the routine way, he had sent in 2003 to the computer clearing-house at a US airbase in Saudi Arabia � had mysteriously gone missing. These written reports had never even been seen by the ISG.
One theory is that they were inadvertently destroyed when the computer's database was accidentally erased in the subsequent US evacuation of the airbase. Mr Gaubatz, however, suspects dirty work at the crossroads. It is unlikely, he says, that no copies were made of his intelligence. And he says that all attempts by Messrs Hoekstra and Weldon to extract information from the Defence Department and CIA have been relentlessly stonewalled.
In 2005, the CIA held a belated inquiry into the disappearance of this intelligence. Only then did its agents visit the sites � to report that they had indeed been looted.

Hoekstra, the CIA, and now this nut Gaubatz... who is he, anyway?

The problem the US authorities have is that they can't dismiss Mr Gaubatz as a rogue agent � because they have repeatedly decorated him for his work in the field. In 2003, he received awards for his 'courage and resolve in saving lives and being critical for information flow'. In 2001, he was decorated for being the 'lead agent in a classified investigation, arguably the most sensitive counter-intelligence investigation currently in the entire Department of Defence' and because his 'reports were such high quality, many were published in the Air Force's daily threat product for senior USAF leaders or re-transmitted at the national level to all security agencies in US government'.

What a loon. No credibility at all.

And he poses an interesting delimma, if correct:

The Republicans won't touch this because it would reveal the incompetence of the Bush administration in failing to neutralise the danger of Iraqi WMD. The Democrats won't touch it because it would show President Bush was right to invade Iraq in the first place. It is an axis of embarrassment.

Quite true.

Should this Gaubatz guy, ISG and DIA supervisor Ray Robinson and other decorated "nutters" be correct, then Dubya is shown to be even more incompetent than both Democrats and Republicans have ever dared fear, and yet, Democrats couldn't call him on it, because they would have to admit he was right to topple Saddam in the first place, and they might have to back up that fact by confronting Syria... probably with "important action alerts."

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:54 PM | Comments (79) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Temporary Safety

It never ceases to amaze me how little self-avowed liberals are so purposefully ignorant about their own Constitution:

Our famous Constitution, about which many of us are generally so proud, enshrines -- along with the right to freedom of speech, press, religion and assembly -- the right to own guns. That's an apples and oranges list if there ever was one.
Not all of us are so proud and triumphant about the gun-guarantee clause. The right to free speech, press, religion and assembly and so on seem to be working well, but the gun part, not so much.

The dolt who wrote this, Tom Plate, is not surprisingly the former editor of the Los Angeles Times.

He is hardly alone.

Another journalist, Walter Shapiro of Salon stated the following earlier this week:

Fifteen unambiguous words are all that would be required to quell the American-as-apple-pie cycle of gun violence that has now tearfully enshrined Virginia Tech in the record book of mass murder. Here are the 15 words that would deliver a mortal wound to our bang-bang culture of death: "The second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed."
[snip]
Looking at the Bill of Rights with more than two centuries' hindsight, it is simply irrational that firearms have a protected position on par with freedom of speech and religion. Were Americans -- liberal or conservative -- writing a Constitution completely from scratch today, they probably would agree that something akin to "freedom to drive" was more far important than the "right to bear arms." The rights of state militias (which many liberal legal theorists argue is the essence of the Second Amendment) are as much a throwback to an 18th century mind-set as restrictions on quartering soldiers in private homes during peacetime (the little-remembered Third Amendment).

Alexander Hamilton, were he still alive today, may have chosen to respond to these craven abdications of responsibility by reiterating the following:

To model our political system upon speculations of lasting tranquility, is to calculate on the weaker springs of the human character.

What Hamilton means, and both to Plate and Shaprio are too dim, too pampered, and yes, too cowardly to let cross their minds, is the fact that no system of government is perfect, including our own Republic. It is the very nature of government to attempt to consolidate power, usurping for itself the rights and powers afforded to other branches and levels of governments on some occasions, and always, always from the people themselves.

It is because of the creeping pervasiveness and the promised tyranny of government (the same tyranny liberals constantly accuse the Executive of trying to implement on every other issue facing this nation, but noticeably fall silent on here) that arms must always be held by the people, for the people, as Noah Webster observed in "An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution."

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.

The Second Amendment was never about hunting, or sportsmanship. The Second Amendment was, and still is, the singular Amendment guaranteeing all others. To dismantle the Second, as John Adams noted in "A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States,":

...is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government.

As goes the Second Amendment, so does the United States of America itself. Without a "well regulated militia"--"regulated" meaning practiced and competent with arms, the "militia" recognized as all people of military age and capability--the United States falls.

Noted Patrick Henry:

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.

The Second Amendment of the Constitution was never about self defense from criminals. To the Founders, that right was inherent, provided by the Creator above. The purpose of the Second Amendment was to enshrine in this nation the capability to take this nation back by force from a corrupt government, overthrowing it if necessary.

So wrote Supreme Court Associate Justice Joseph Story in "Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States":

The next amendment is: '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.'
"The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers...
The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.(1) And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burdens, to be rid.

It is no accident that Justice Story chose to use the word "palladium" to describe the critical importance of the Second Amendment, which is defined as:

A safeguard, especially one viewed as a guarantee of the integrity of social institutions: the Bill of Rights, palladium of American civil liberties.
A sacred object that was believed to have the power to preserve a city or state possessing it.

The Second Amendment is our palladium, that sacred object that preserves our Republic as a nation of men instead of a nation of laws slaved to tyrants.

Story accurately pegs Plate, Shapiro, and others that do not wish to be yoked with the responsibility of protecting themselves, or their nation. It is a burden too heavy for them to carry, a responsibility they wish to be rid of. To a man, their ilk ignores the lessons history would teach, and call for the power and responsibility to be handed to the very state that would ensnare them.

They are sheep: fearful, bleating, unwilling to deal with the weighted cost of freedom. They would trade all their freedoms for the temporary illusion of safety.

I think we know how the Founder might have responded to that sentiment.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:49 PM | Comments (29) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Joe Biden: The Virginia Tech Massacre is the GOP's Fault

I kid you not:

Speaking at Al Sharpton's National Action Network event in New York, Biden said President Bush, Newt Gingrich and Karl Rove are responsible for what he called "the politics of polarization."
Biden said Republicans have created an environment that brings bad things to the United States.
"I would argue, since 1994 with the Gingrich revolution, just take a look at Iraq, Venezuela, Katrina, what's gone down at Virginia Tech, Darfur, Imus. Take a look. This didn't happen accidentally, all these things," he said.

I'm surprised Biden didn't find time to work in bird flu, the Sumatra-Andaman earthquake and tsunami, some 9/11 "truth," and John Edward's $400 haircut in there as well. Perhaps he's saving those for a rainy day.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:36 AM | Comments (20) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Va Tech Massacre Updates: An Incompetent Retired ATF Agent; and a Dishonest Lede from CBS

Allahpundit has been burning the midnight oil at Hot Air, and has some shocking updates on the Virginia Tech massacre perpetrated by a deranged student, Cho Seung-Hui.

First, NBC is now claiming that Cho had a staggering number of magazines, including extended 33-round magazines:

Virginia State Police say they're nearly done with their on-scene investigation at Virginia Tech. But inside the classroom building, investigators say they found a surprising number of handgun magazines, or clips � 17. Some, officials say, were high-capacity magazines that hold 33 rounds. That means, investigators say, that Cho may have fired at least 200 times during his killing spree on Monday.

As AP notes, this contradicts a WaPo story I cited yesterday, which said:

Cho reloaded several times, using 15-round magazines for the Glock and 10-round magazines for the Walther, investigators said...

I wouldn't be surprised to see that Cho had multiple magazines, but 17 is a huge number of full magazines to carry. If 15 of those were standard 15 round Glock 19 magazines, that would give him 225 rounds, plus 20 in the 2 10-round P22 factory magazines for a total of 245 rounds. If some of those Glock magazines were the extended 31 and 33-round magazines as NBC now claims, he could easily have been carrying in excess of 300 rounds, and that doesn't include any loose or boxed ammunition he may have had.

I'll try to run this down, and see which investigators are getting this story right.

Before I go on, however, I'm going to take issue with retired ATF agent Joseph Vince, who NBC quotes in their article:

In the photos Cho sent to NBC, he showed some of his ammunition � hollow-point rounds, purchased, officials say, in the weeks before the shootings. Law enforcement officials say hollow-points are generally considered more lethal.
Joseph Vince, a retired ATF agent, agrees.
"It's not something that you would need for home protection, because what you are trying to do is eliminate an immediate threat," Vince says. "The idea of killing is what this ammunition portrays to me."

Vince is unequivocally wrong in this instance, and I don't see how he could be misquoted.

Hollowpoint and frangible ammunition is precisely the kind of ammunition you would want for home defense and personal protection.

Vince seems to be implying that FMJ ball, soft-nosed, wadcutter, semi-wadcutter or round-nosed lead bullets would be a more favorable choice for home defense than hollowpoints or frangible ammunition, and that is not only wrong, but ignorant and I'd go as far as to say it is stupid.

FMJ ball, soft-nosed (jacketed bullets with an exposed lead tip), wadcutter, semi-wadcutter or round-nosed lead bullets are solid bullets that do not typically change shape much when encountering human-sized targets or most building materials. As a result, if someone has to fire one of these bullets at a person, only one of two things can happen:

The shooter hits his target and the bullet over-penetrates, goes through his target, and runs the risk of going through building materials and other people with enough velocity to kill or wound someone else. Depending on the caliber, these bullets can hit a human and retain enough energy to completely pass through with enough force to go through several more sheetrock walls and still retain enough energy to kill someone else. Because these bullets typically go through a target while still retaining a great amount of energy, they are by definition not translating that energy into stopping power, and cause less damage to the primary target than would hollowpoint or frangible ammunition, which tend to expend more or all of their energy into the target, translating to more stopping power on directly comparable shots.
The shooter misses his target, and the bullet goes through multiple layers of building materials. FMJ ball, soft-nosed (jacketed bullets with an exposed lead tip), wadcutter, semi-wadcutter or round-nosed lead bullets will typically retain their shape and energy far better than hollowpoint or frangible ammunition, and will therefore penetrate far more layers of building materials. Many solid centerfire pistol bullets will penetrate more than a dozen layers of sheetrock if they don't encounter something with more mass (a 2x stud, other materials, or a human body).

I recall at least one instance where a home owner in a home invasion scenario fired a FMJ bullet (.45 ACP 230-grain FMJ, I think) that missed his target, exited his home, completely went through another home entirely, and finally lodged in the far bedroom wall of a third home, above a sleeping girl's head. Had she been sitting up, she could have been seriously injured or killed.

Hollowpoints that function as designed open into a mushroom shape, and offer far more surface area for friction to affect once they start encountering other objects. They will not penetrate as far as the various solid bullet designs in identical circumstances as a result. If they hit their human target, the hollowpoint bullet transfers mote energy into a target, and stands greater likelihood of incapacitating the assailant when compared to identical shot placement from any of the solid bullet designs. Likewise, those hollowpoints that completely penetrate the human target will be more likely to stop faster than solid designed when encountering building materials, also because of the wider surface area.

In most (not all) home defense scenarios, frangible ammunition, while far more expensive than either the hollowpoint or solid ammunition designs, is the best option. When a homeowner confronts an assailant and is forced to fire directly at his target with no intervening material separating them, the frangible bullet fragments inside the target, transferring most or all of it's ammunition to its target on a hit. Tests on French alpine goats in the Strasbourg (sp?) tests confirmed that frangible bullet designs are superior to all other bullets designs in incapacitating a human-sized target, with various hollowpoint designs coming in behind, and solid designs behind hollowpoints in terms of effectiveness.

Joseph Vince, retired AFT agent or not, is horribly, horribly wrong here.

Allahpundit goes on to note that if Virginia had forwarded Choo's mental health evaluation to the federal government, Cho should have never been able to buy the Glock:

The magistrate ruled in 2005 that Cho presented �an imminent danger to self or others as a result of mental illness, or is so seriously mentally ill as to be substantially unable to care for self and is incapable of volunteering or unwilling to volunteer for treatment.� He should have been in the FBI�s NICS system, but apparently states don�t always provide mental-health records as fully as they might or should.

If this CBS News story is correct, then Cho bought his Walther P22 online. Horrors!

Oh wait. He didn't. Media ignorance and misrepresentation once again rears its ugly head:

On this same day, the gun was shipped to JND Pawnbrokers in Blacksburg, Va., where Cho picked up the gun two days later. The federally licensed store then did a background check.

First, the sequence of events in paragraph is backwards. Cho could only pick up the gun after the NICS check, and that is what occurred. CBS News ignorance, or purposeful design? You make the call.

The actual sequence of events run in direct opposition to what the article claims in the lede:

On Feb. 2, Cho Seung-Hui bought a Walther .22 caliber pistol from the online retail store www.thegunsource.com. It was the first and only time he ever used this particular Web site.

Without a Federal Firearms License (FFL), Cho could not directly by a gun through mail order or online, as the lede improperly states. It isn't until the final paragraph that we learn Cho did not buy the gun from the online site.

Instead, he chose the model he wanted and had it shipped to a business with a FFL, where he then went through the normal purchase process, as you would in any retail firearms purchase.

This tragedy at Virginia Tech is horrible, but the reporting of it thus far is showing us either the professional media is a bunch of bumbling incompetents, or are agenda-driven deceivers.

I'm not sure which possibility frightens me the most.

Update: Ace calls foul. Actually, he calls a word I won't use on a family-friendly blog, but you get the picture. Go read it.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:21 AM | Comments (37) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

April 19, 2007

Hammering Ross

I'm not the only one noting the anti-gun dishonesty of Brian Ross and ABC News.

The Washington Times rips into them in "Inside Politics," calling the deceptive Ross and Dana Hughes blog entry a Media Misfire.

I'd add that they quote impeccable sources.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:36 PM | Comments (16) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

The Lyrical McCain

Ah, how interesting...

Another man � wondering if an attack on Iran is in the works � wanted to know when America is going to "send an air mail message to Tehran."
McCain began his answer by changing the words to a popular Beach Boys song.
"Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran," he sang to the tune of Barbara Ann. "Iran is dedicated to the destruction of Israel. That alone should concern us but now they are trying for nuclear capabilities. I totally support the President when he says we will not allow Iran to destroy Israel."
He stopped short of answering the actual question and did not say if he supports an invasion of Iran.

I haven't been this amused by a sung answer to a political question since I spoofed Phil Collins in 2005 in a story about a famous Cuban boy with the headline, It's No Fun, Being an Illegal Elian.

Now if would just launch into a redition of "Another one bites the dust" in reference to McCain-Feingold, I might just forgive him.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:38 AM | Comments (19) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

A Proposal for Collegiate Concealed Carry

One of my liberal regulars made the following observation in this post, which got me thinking if there was a "right way" to implement the carrying of concealed weapons at colleges and universities:

The thing that surprises me about the news coverage is the idea that this can be blamed on the fact that this campus was a "no firearm" zone. I didn't know that there was a "fully armed" option when it came to college campuses.
Let's all cast our minds back to college, shall we? I'm willing to bet that every one of us was, to some degree or another, a horse's ass back then. Do we want fully-armed horse's asses on our college campuses? It seems like a bad idea to me.
The idea that more weapons on campus would solve this problem is counterintuitive. This guy was on campus, and he had a weapon, and he killed 33 people.

"Fully armed" college campuses are of course a horrible idea for the very reasons implied above, which are primarily a lack of maturity and the abundant flow of alcohol and other recreational drugs. It would be a recipe for further increasing recipients of the Darwin Awards, and that is something we are certainly against.

What is reasonable, however, is giving students, faculty, and staff who meet certain rigorous standards the ability to bring handguns on campus for the defense of themselves and others in extraordinary life-threatening circumstances.

Here is my proposal.

The minimum age to purchase a handgun is 21 years old in most states. By definition, this would limit concealed carry to mostly juniors, seniors and graduate students, non-traditional (older) underclassmen, faculty, and staff.

Limit concealed carry to students housed off-campus, and to faculty and staff members. Firearms would not be allowed in the dormitories. This is both a practical and legal consideration. In-dorm firearms could not be secured properly and uniformly, and should not be allowed.

Those students, faculty and staff must prove that they have secure storage for their firearms in their off-campus dwellings.

They must register the firearm they wish to carry on campus with the university police, and qualify with that firearm to show proficiency and safety at least once per calendar year. These requirements are already served by the current CCW licensing process in some states, and actually exceed the CCW licensing of others, who may only require a one-time qualifying performance. It is also comparable to the qualifying guidelines of most police departments.

In addition to these state guidelines, those faculty, staff and off-campus students who qualify under state CCW guidelines should also take a university-prescribed course detailing any additional campus restrictions, and then require them to pass a written test showing these understand both state CCW laws and campus restrictions.

Universities should adopt guidelines for acceptable firearms and ammunition for those who wish to carry on campus, using the following as a general outline:

All university-approved CCW firearms shall be of modern design and sound mechanical shape, as shall holsters and spare magazine carriers;
All firearms shall be of standard self-defense calibers, and these calibers are designated as follows: .380 ACP, .38 Special, 9mm Parabellum, .357 SIG, 40 S&W, .44 Special, and .45 ACP or comparable cartridges;
All firearms using lower-powered cartridges (below .380 ACP) shall not be allowed;
All firearms using higher-power cartridges (.357, .41, 44 Magnums, and above) shall not be allowed;
All firearms using bottlenecked ammunition ( exception: .357 SIG) shall not be allowed;
Only commercially-loaded frangible ammunition shall be allowed.
Pistol magazines shall be of "standard length" (not exceeding the butt of the firearm but more than 1 inch, including any "bump" pads). The number of magazines would be restricted to one in the firearm and one spare magazine in an approved spare magazine carrier.

The guidelines above are very practical in nature. Certain calibers are simply better than others for CCW purposes, and the calibers cited above encompass the overwhelming majority of those in which defensive handguns are chambered. The frangible ammunition mandate may be new to some that are more familiar with full metal-jacketed (FMJ) and hollowpoint ammunition, and so may need to be explained.

Frangible ammunition is designed to fragment or disintegrate upon or shortly after contact. This significantly reduces the dangers associated with overpenetration, by transferring most or all of the projectile's energy into the target as the bullet fragments. While typically being more lethal to the target, frangible ammunition is not as likely to penetrate structural components (walls, floors, doors). Glaser and MagSafe are two of the most common examples.

As for carrying and storage guidelines, all students would be required to carry their firearms and magazines on their persons at all times while on campus (not in a desk, satchel, purse, or bookbag), and all faculty and staff would be expected to follow these same guidelines, with the additional provision that firearms can be kept in individual locked offices in university-approved, bolted-down gun storage safes for faculty and staff.

The requirements and restrictions outlines above are only a rough roadmap of reasonable outlines for a campus concealed carry program.

A similarly-implemented plan would create an atmosphere where the faculty, staff, and students can be confident that those who are allowed to carry concealed weapons on campus are perhaps better trained than their CCW-licensed counterparts in the rest of society, and are arguably as well trained as some municipal police officers.

Your thoughts?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:46 AM | Comments (84) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

April 18, 2007

Return Address: Ishmael

On MSNBC:

NBC News President Steve Capus said the network received the package in Wednesday morning's mail delivery and immediately turned the material over to FBI agents in New York. The FBI is assisting Virginia State Police in the investigation.
The package included a long, "rambling, manifesto-like statement embedded with a series of photographs," Capus said. The material is "hard-to-follow ... disturbing, very disturbing � very angry, profanity-laced," he said.
It does not include any images of the shootings Monday, but it does include "vague references," including �things like 'This didn�t have to happen,'" Capus said in an interview late Wednesday afternoon.

One of the photos.

It shows Cho with the murder weapons, the Glock 19 in his right hand, the Walther P22 in his left.

And in a related article:

Among the materials are 23 QuickTime video files showing Cho talking directly to the camera, Capus said. He does not name anyone specifically, but he talks at length about religion and his hatred of the wealthy.

I'm watching the coverage on NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams as they discuss the case. The return address was "Ishmael," as written on Cho's arm. Cho's comments spoke of himself in the past tense.

I'm not sure what to say about this at this point.

Update: Ace glibly notes, "It really would have been a good idea to lock the campus down after the first shootings, eh?"

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 05:37 PM | Comments (20) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Despite Dishonest Media Hype, Va. Tech Shooter Used Standard Capacity Magazines In Shooting Spree

Thanks to Ace and Allah, I was led to a Washington Post article that explains that the shooter at Virginia Tech used standard capacity magazines during his rampage:

The Glock was used in two shootings, first in a dormitory and then in Norris Hall more than 2 1/2 hours later, officials said. A surveillance tape, which has now been watched by federal agents, shows Cho buying the Glock, sources said. Both guns are semiautomatic, which means that one round is fired for every finger pull.
Cho reloaded several times, using 15-round magazines for the Glock and 10-round magazines for the Walther, investigators said, adding that he had the cryptic words "Ismale Ax" tattooed on one arm. Although there are many theories, sources said, no one knows what it means.

As I stated yesterday, the magazines used in the Virginia Tech massacre were of standard capacity. Let me take this opportunity to do what the media has failed to do, and explain the difference between standard capacity magazines, magazines manufactured during the crime bill, and extended magazines as the terms relate to pistols.

Standard Capacity Magazines
Standard capacity magazines are those magazines designed by the manufacturer to fit within the magazine well in the butt (handgrip) of a pistol. The capacity varies from pistol to pistol, depending on how the firearm was designed. Most modern 9mm pistols are designed to house between 13-17 cartridges in each magazine without noticeably protruding from the bottom of the pistol.

This is a picture of a Glock 19 with a standard capacity magazine of 15 rounds, as designed by the manufacturer.

"Crime Bill" Magazines
A provision of the 1994 "Crime Bill" was the so-called "assault weapon" ban, and part of the ban placed a limit of ten cartridges on any magazine manufactured after the law took effect (it did not ban the ownership, sale, or purchase of then of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of standard capacity and extended capacity magazines manufactured prior to the law's implementation). Under this law, any magazine with more than ten rounds was declared a "high capacity" magazine, even though the overwhelming majority of these magazines were actually standard-sized magazines as designed by firearms designers. "High capacity" was and is purely a political designation, not a practical one.

Typically, the exact same magazine body were used in pre-ban, ban, and post-ban magazines, with internal block limiting the number of cartridges that could be loaded into magazines produced during the ban period (It was also relatively simple to remove the block from many magazines and return them to their standard capacity with a simple replacement of parts if one wanted to, but with so many pre-ban magazines for sale, few saw the need).

This is a picture of a Glock 19 with a AW-ban capacity magazine of 10 rounds.

Actually, it's the exact same picture, but as the ban and standard magazines still used the same magazine body, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference in the pistol's profile anyway.

Extended Magazines
As they relate to pistols, extended magazines are those magazines that extend perceptibly beyond the butt (handgrip) of the pistol. Extended magazines do not always mean high capacity magazines. Ten-round magazines for 1911-style .45ACP pistols were quite legal to manufacture between 1994-2004, but they still extended quite a bit beyond the pistol's natural butt.

This is a picture of a Glock 18 (the Glock 19's larger, machine pistol cousin) with an extended 33-round magazine that would fit the Glock 19.

Brian Ross of the "Blotter", ABC News, and Keith Olbercavemann were factually wrong is when they stated or implied that the 1994 law in any way restricted the sale, purchase, or ownership of any of the above magazines.

The law simply did not do what they claimed, and tens of thousands--perhaps hundreds thousands of such magazines--were bought and sold via retail purchase in stores, catalogs, and online during the 1994-2004 period. All the 1994 law did was ban the manufacture of magazines greater than ten rounds during that time period, which ultimately was a trivial matter. While the cost of some standard and extended magazines did rise considerably during the ban, they were never in short supply because so many magazines were already on the market.

Others and I have also noted that the size of the magazine also has very little to do with the carnage at Virginia Tech on Monday. It takes most shooters between 1-3 seconds to change an empty magazine for a full magazine, and there was no indication that Cho was rushed, especially as he had a second gun, presumably with a full magazine already loaded, at hand.

There are some forces in the media that are using this tragedy in Blacksburg to try to push a political agenda, and they are will to twist the truth or even lie to you in order to push it.

It's a sad, sick fact, but that is the media we have.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:52 PM | Comments (37) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Striking the Balance

SWAT teams wearing body armor and carrying machine guns stormed an administrative building at Virginia Tech this morning:

Virginia Tech students still on edge after the deadliest shooting in modern U.S. history got another scare Wednesday morning as police in SWAT gear with weapons drawn swarmed Burruss Hall, which houses the president's office.
The threat of suspicious activity turned out to be unfounded, said Virginia State Police spokeswoman Corinne Geller said, and the building was reopened. But students were rattled.
"They were just screaming, 'Get off the sidewalks,'" said Terryn Wingler-Petty, a junior from Wisconsin. "They seemed very confused about what was going on. They were just trying to get people organized."
One officer was seen escorting a crying young woman out of Burruss Hall, telling her, "It's OK. It's OK."

To the best of my knowledge, Cho Seung-Hui killed himself with a bullet to the head on Monday morning after killing 32 innocent people and wounding many more, and he is still dead. Based upon thousands of years of human experience with one notable exception some 2,000 years ago, he is forecast to remain deceased.

So why is Virginia Tech still blanketed with heavily-armed and understandably tense police officers, many of which are dealing themselves with the aftershocks of trauma from the largest mass shooting by an individual in U.S. history, just two days ago?

Part of the reason is to provide the public perception that something is being done and that the tragic massacre of two days ago will not be repeated on this ravaged, grief-stricken campus, a campus already awash in disbelief, shock, and fear. The officers are meant to provide psychological security as much as they are to provide physical security.

But as this morning's frightening false alarm showed, sometimes an overwhelming police presence in the wake of a traumatic event can instead lead to situation that increases or extends fears.

Today, Virginia Tech may very well be the safest college campus in the United States, but the massive display of force by police comes with its own costs.

Heavily-armed and no doubt highly-stressed first responders chasing ghosts and rumors are adding trauma to still fragile students like the young woman noted in the story above.

While a heightened police presence is still warranted to deal with the inevitable false alarms and to help provide a feeling of security, it is two days too late for the need of heavy body armor, and no current reason for police to walk around campus with tactical carbines. The time for such things has passed. On this day and in days forward, badges and "Smokie the Bear" covers should be enough. Enough, but not too much.

There is a balance, an equilibrium, an illusion of normalcy that must be regained for healing to begin.

Hopefully the officials at Virginia Tech will be able to find this equilibrium sooner, rather than later.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:01 AM | Comments (20) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Giving Dumb a Chance

On the off chance that the ABC News staff of "The Blotter" is just ignorant of their subject matter and not nakedly pursuing a political agenda, I sent the following comment to their latest blog entry on the Virginia Tech shooting, in efforts to clear up a previous post that was patently false.

I'm still waiting for a retraction of the completely false story posted to the Blotter, "Lapse of Federal Law Allows Sale of Large Ammo Clips."
Ross and Hughes falsely stated that "High capacity ammo clips became widely available for sale when Congress failed to renew a law that banned assault weapons."
The AW Ban provision of the 1994 Crime Bill in no way restricted the sale, purchase, or ownership of magazines of more than ten rounds during the 1994-2004 period, and only restricted the sale of high-capacity magazines manufactured after this date. Tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of high-capacity magazines were bought and sold during the 1994-2004 time period in retail stores, via catalog sales, or online, and all sales and purchases were completely legal.
Nor were Ross and Hughes correct when they said, "Web sites now advertise overnight UPS delivery of the clips, which carry up to 40 rounds for both semi-automatic rifles, including 9mm pistols, and handguns."
These magazines were always available for legal purchase online (or anywhere else) since the World Wide Web was created. Their false implication that sales only began after 2004 is laughable, and completely false.
The blog entry was not only incorrect, it was deceptive, and showed a basic ignorance of the AW Ban and magazine provisions of the 1994 "Crime Bill."
ABC News and "The Blotter" owe their readership an apology and a retraction for this blatantly incorrect and perhaps purposefully fraudulent blog posting.
The media is allowed to occasionally make mistakes, but responsible journalists admit and correct their mistakes. It only remains to be seen if Brian Ross, The Blotter, and ABC News are responsible journalists.
NOTE: This comment has been cross-posted as part of a blog entry at http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/

I somewhat doubt that Brian Ross and ABC News has the integrity to issue a retraction of their inaccurate and agenda-driven post, but at least I'll be able to show that I made the attempt to have them correct the record.

Update: I fought the dumb, and the dumb won. My comment was deleted by ABC News employees moderating "The Blotter." Obviously, pursuing a political agenda is far more important to ABC News than is actually reporting facts.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:39 AM | Comments (27) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

So Simple, Even a Journalist Can Do It

I've roundly criticized ABC's Brian Ross for his blatant falsehoods regarding the "assault weapons" ban provision of the 1994 Crime Bill, but it appears that not only has ABC News refused to retract these false claims, it appears that the lie is spreading among other members of the ignorati.

Enter one of the least, shall we say, "mentally agile" disciples of this profession at MSNBC.

~~Allahpundit~~ Ian has the video of Olbermann parroting of Ross' falsehoods.

At least one of the weapons used by the shooter is believed, as we said, to be in nine millimeter semi-automatic pistol, which would be like this one, with a clip designed to hold more than 10 shots. Clips like those were banned under the Assault Weapons Law of 1994, but Congress and President Bush allowed that law to expire more than two years ago.

I'll try this once more, making it so easy that even journalists can understand it.

High-capacity magazines were never outlawed. They were never illegal to own, buy or sell, person-to-person, in retail stores, catalogs, or online.

Part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 was the so-called Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which was a ban on certain cosmetic features found on some firearms. It was, in fact, nothing more than "scary-looking gun" law.

Banned "assault rifles" were easily made legal again by manufacturers who merely had to remove the offensive accessories, such as flash hiders, pistol grip-style stocks, or bayonets lugs, none of which affected the rate of fire, accuracy or velocity of the firearms in question. Older firearms arbitrarily (and inaccurately) deemed assault weapons by the ban that were already in the market were grandfathered in, and the new "post-ban" assault weapons sold quite well during the length of the so-called ban.

Another provision of the ban was a ban on the manufacture of "large capacity ammunition feeding devices," which the law defined, again arbitrarily, as those rifle and pistol magazines that hold in excess of then rounds of ammunition.

Where Ross, ABC New, Olbermann and others are dead wrong is when they attempt to imply that the ban on the manufacture of new magazines of more than ten rounds was a ban on all high-capacity magazines. This is patently false.

There are literally hundreds of thousands, if not millions of firearms in America primarily designed to use magazines of more than ten rounds. Most of these firearms were sold by the manufacturer with at least two magazines, and there was and is a robust industry for magazines for these firearms. By the time the "large capacity ammunition feeding devices" stipulation of the 1994 AW Ban provision was implemented into law, there were literally millions of such magazines in America, and hundreds of thousands more available for retail and commercial sale.

The AW Ban did not make owning nor selling such magazines illegal. As a result, magazines of more than ten rounds were available for uninterrupted sale during the entire ten-year life of the AW ban. It was never illegal to own, sell, or buy such magazines. All the ban actually did was to spur interest in purchasing such magazines, and manufacturers literally had to work overtime to meet anticipated demand prior to the implementation of the law.

As a result of supply and demand, once the "ban" (which it never was in any meaningful way) went into effect, some magazines increased significantly in cost, and some were even in relatively short supply, but they were always available in retail stores, catalogs and online, and they were always legal to own, buy, or sell.

I'm growing increasingly tired of journalists such as Brain Ross, ABC News, and Keith Olbermann spouting falsehoods, when they have obviously been too lazy--or perhaps just to agenda-driven--to simply read the law itself, or even point a web browser in the direction of Google.

These so-called journalists have forfeited their credibility by refusing to address the truth, and instead, decided to foist upon an unsuspecting public, blatant falsehoods to further a political agenda.

We've come to expect our media to be biased. We shouldn't have to deal with them blatantly, recklessly, and repeatedly lying to further their private policy beliefs.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:22 AM | Comments (24) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

April 17, 2007

Iranian Weapons Intercepted On the Way To the Taliban

Well, it looks like the mullacracy is willing to supply just about any insurgency, doesn't it?

U.S. forces recently intercepted Iranian-made weapons intended for Taliban fighters in Afghanistan, the Pentagon's top general said Tuesday, suggesting wider Iranian war involvement in the region.
It appeared to be the first publicly disclosed instance of Iranian arms entering Afghanistan, although it was not immediately clear whether the weapons came directly from Iran or were shipped through a third party.
Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that unlike in Iraq, where U.S. officials say they are certain that arms are being supplied to insurgents by Iran's secretive Quds Force, the Iranian link in Afghanistan is murky.
"It is not as clear in Afghanistan which Iranian entity is responsible, but we have intercepted weapons in Afghanistan headed for the Taliban that were made in Iran," Pace told a group of reporters over breakfast.
He said the weapons, including mortars and C-4 plastic explosives, were intercepted in Kandahar province in southern Afghanistan within the past month. He did not describe the quantity of intercepted materials or say whether it was the first time American forces had found Iranian-made arms in that country.

If accurate, this seems to throw cold water on claims that Iran wouldn't support Sunni groups as willingly as they would Shiite militias.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:25 PM | Comments (24) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Damn Occam, Full Speed Ahead

It is becoming abundantly clear that Brian Ross isn't the only member of ABC News that has the intention of using the Virginia Tech massacre to push an anti-gun political agenda, with extended magazines being mentioned again, even though there has been no corroboration that they played any factor at all:

It is unknown at this time if his guns had standard or extended clips, which, depending on the weapon, can fire as many as 30 shots before the gun has to be reloaded.

Actually, we do know for a fact that one of the weapons used, a Walther P22 that was his most recent purchase is only available with a ten-round magazine. Extended magazines for this pistol do not exist.

Extended magazines for Glocks (designed with the selective-fire Glock 18 machine pistol in mind, a weapon practically unavailable to American shooters) are capable of being used in Glock 19s do exist, but they are rather rare to encounter, and are typically found only online or through catalog order. They are rarely carried in most gun stores.

The reason is quite simple; Glocks are typically purchased for sport (target) shooting and personal defense by both civilians and police departments. When a Glock is fed an extended 31-round or even less common 33-round magazine, the weight of the extra 16-18 rounds dramatically changes the balance and weight of the pistol to make it butt-heavy, making it a bit more difficult to shoot, and the extra length and weight make it all but impossible to carry in any practical manner.

There is also no indication at all that he purchased his weapons, ammunition and accessories from anywhere other than the Roanoke gun shop where he purchased both pistols roughly a month apart, but as first voiced in Brian Ross' patently false "Blotter" blog entry yesterday and carried forth in this news article, the "deciders" at ABC News seem to have decided that they are going to hammer the extended magazine angle of this story, whether or not such magazines were even used.

"Truthy" used to be the standard for satire-based news shows. God help us now that it is ABC's new apparent standard for news.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:13 PM | Comments (24) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

<< Page 158 >>

Processing 0.09, elapsed 0.6799 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.6424 seconds, 325 records returned.
Page size 367 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.