My Blacklist of Anti-Gun Companies and Organizations

eBay
Why?: Has banned the sale of "assault weapon" parts, bayonets that fit modern-military-style rifles, and 11+ magazines.
When?: Approximately 1/31/13, but not confirmed.
Proof?: Firearms, weapons, and knives policy on eBay's website (see assault weapon).
Extent of Treachery?: eBay still allows the sale of gun components, BUT it is acting like the Feinstein Modern Rifle & Standard-Capacity Magazine Ban for False-Security Bill has already passed. And they don't allow gun sales, anyway.
Rating?: Blacklisted.

Mayors Against Illegal Guns
Why?: Has threatened to punish firearms-industry companies with procurement restrictions, if gun companies oppose more gun control.
When?: Approximately 2/1/13.
Proof?: Minneapolis mayor's statements to Minneapolis City Council's Public Safety and Civil Rights Committee.
Rating?: Blacklisted. Brown listed? Handgun listed?
 
MORE TO COME
Banks
Etc. 

Growing Pro-Gun Blacklist Bumper Stickers and Buttons @ CafePress.com.

eBay Bans Modern Rifle Component Sales

Big corporations are inventing new anti-gun policies - or are discovering old anti-gun policies - to enFORCE in the wake of the official federal assault on modern rifles and magazines. eBay has followed suit.

eBay's Firearms, weapons, and knives policy. See the assault weapons section.

Big corps are running scared. It is time for some real entrepreneurs to step up their marketing efforts and takeover the business generated by eBay customers that want to sell their property. Here are a few that should benefit from eBay's cowardice.

http://www.slickguns.com/
http://www.gunsamerica.com/
http://www.gunbroker.com/

Thanks to The Truth About Guns for the heads up on this one. I am expanding my blacklist of anti-gun companies.

So, to put a fine point on it. Screw eBay.

Growing Pro-Gun Blacklist Bumper Stickers and Buttons @ CafePress.com.

What agencies have adopted the P95?

return to FAQs: Ruger P95
What agencies have adopted the P95?: There was a lot of excitement in 2004, when Ruger P95 fanatics read that the U.S. Army Tank-automotive and Armaments Command had purchased 5000 KP95Ds (decocker only). The Ruger that was built like a tank would be carried by tank drivers.

Glock G19 later supplanted the P95

But there was something wrong with that story. It was not too long after the USA had defeated Sadam Hussein, and the USA had decided to arm the new Iraqi Police Service with civilized handguns. The move was so quick that the USA needed to procure guns from several different manufacturers to fill the need. So it ended up that one of the biggest issuers of the P95 was not some patriotic law enforcement org, but our vanquished enemy that we were helping to haphazardly renation build.

So were there any other agencies that adopted the pistol? The Federal Bureau of Prisons bought 1750 DAO P95s, per a Ruger press release in March 2008, under a five-year contract (note: the Google date of Tactical Life's copy of the press release is incorrect.).

But you hear about cops carrying the P95? Well, a lot of police departments require the officers to supply their own weapons, and the officers have to complete training at a POST academy before they can apply for a job, and a lot of police academies require the cadets to bring a gun, and the Ruger P95 is a quality, inexpensive service-size and service-capacity gun for a job seeker on a budget.
return to FAQs: Ruger P95

Tyranny or Liberty: Representative Democracy's Failed Promise

Queen and Prince Charles given at least 39 chances to veto government policies before becoming new law

"Secret papers released by Downing Street show the most senior royals have had numerous chances to torpedo bills that could change their powers, including one relating to the Iraq war."
- The Daily Mail
 
1st thought: That's outrageous! 2nd thought: Well, Obama just makes up any old law he wants (legislature and executive in one - tyrant). 3rd thought: I guess that justifies their public-funds stipend, and all that land. 

I hear anarcho-capitalists say all the time that democracy is an illusion, and it sounds trite, but all the evidence is before us. Constitutions and representative democracy were suppose to be a break on the tyranny of the masses and absolute democracy, but instead we have allowed our representatives to become leaders (TINFOIL HAT WARNING: Obama seems ready to form a system of gauleiters). Our sheepdogs, our custodians of our natural rights, have become wolves. But that should not be surprising. In the USA, there are very early examples of even the founding fathers turning on the people (Whiskey Rebellion).

What was the P95 designed for?

return to FAQs: Ruger P95

Ruger P89

(UPDATE: 8/9/18)
What was the P95 designed for?: Well, the first gun in Ruger's P-series pistols was the P89 P85. The Ruger P89 P85 was designed for the service-pistol competition to replace the 1911. The Beretta 92 won that competition and became the M9 (beating out the Sig Sauer, which was debatably the better pistol, because Beretta offered lower overall cost including parts, etc. - but that's another story). The P95 descended from the P89 P85 and was Ruger's first polymer-framed pistol. It appeared to be an interim step, reducing production cost, weight, and using a proven fire-control system. But it also seemed to be a classic Ruger solution - time-tested functioning with advances in materials and production methods. Ruger had created classic firearms with the same methodology, for example the Mark I, Single Six, Blackhawk, No. 1, and Mini-14.

Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle

So to make a long story short and actually answer the question, the Ruger P95 was an evolution of Ruger's entry in the wondernine competition, which combined our military's move to NATO-standard 9mm and  America's law-enforcement organizations move from revolvers to semi-automatic pistols. And as part of the evolution of those handguns, not only was the P95 Ruger's polymer offering, but it also was shortened to a service-length barrel of approximately 4 inches from the tactical-length 5-inch barrel - before 5-inches meant tacticool.

Glock G19

And to frame the Ruger P95 among it peers: The Ruger P95 is a basic carry pistol of the approximate size, weight, and capacity of a striker-fired Glock 19, Springfield XD Service, and M&P9, but it's old-school hammer-fired like a CZ-75 P07, EAA Witness Polymer Carry, and Sig Sauer SP2022.

CZ P-07

And it is still the highest-quality offering for a budget-entry, service-caliber, service-size, semi-automatic, new-production handgun on the USED market. (The Ruger P95 was quietly discontinued sometime during September 2013.)

return to FAQs: Ruger P95

FAQs: Ruger P95

What was the P95 designed for?: Well, the first gun in Ruger's P-series pistols was the P89 P85. The Ruger P89 P85 was designed for the service-pistol competition to replace the 1911. continued

What agencies have adopted the P95?: There was a lot of excitement in 2004, when Ruger P95 fanatics read that the U.S. Army Tank-automotive and Armaments Command had purchased 5000 KP95Ds (decocker only). The Ruger that was built like a tank would be carried by tank drivers. continued

The Judge Distilled The Truth

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=323593157742678&set=a.323593137742680.59978.316880428413951&type=1&relevant_count=1&ref=nf
Well, The Libertarian, a UK libertarian blog, posted on its Facebook page that "Such sentiment sounds hyperbolic in stable countries in the west, but all citizens must be forever vigilant."

I was waiting for someone to object the the Judge's words, because I have seen this quote many times over the last few months. But  The Libertarian was not offering a condemnation. But neither were Judge Napolitano's words hyperbole. They are a distillation of the truth. Everyone, everywhere has the right to oppose their government, and if need be by force, if the government oversteps its written and natural bounds. Government does not have a monopoly of force; that is a myth.

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."

- Thomas Jefferson

I do think that Judge Napolitano's words are dangerous and are an affront to a government that disbelieves them, but then the government is dangerous.

Feinstein: Military-Style Weapons Are For the Police And Military - Not You, the 2nd Ammendent's Intended Bearer of Arms

If someone could sit through this whole video, then I commend you.

Feinstein rails against military-style weapons in civilian hands, but that is what the founding fathers intended. Feinstein plans to gut the 2nd Amendment by pushing the "sporting purpose" definition, while ignoring the THREAT of gun-free zones. There is no evidence that the founding fathers intended that the 2nd Amendment should ONLY protect the sporting use of arms.

I've gotten 10:31 minutes into the news conference, and there is already a lot of fiction, exaggeration, and lies by omission. www.c-spanvideo.org/program/310581-1

The Founders Couldn't Envision ARs ("assault weapons") Fallacy

The fallacy goes something like this: There were no semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines when the founding fathers were alive, and they did not write the 2nd Amendment to allow them. Therefore, civilians should only be guaranteed the right to own flint-lock, muzzleloading rifles.

So the police, military, and federal-agency statute enforcers will also have muzzleloaders? Well, that would be nice, but there was no intent in the 2nd amendment to limit technology to the people, and they were aware of and benefited from a game-changing technology in their time. The American civilian militia members were using privately-owned rifled weapons to provide accurate fire against the British. The rifle did not entirely replace the smoothbore, because the rifle took much more time to reload, but it did allow small numbers of Rebels to effectively harass soldiers on the move and incapacitate commanders in pitched battles.

Another thing, the 2nd amendment addresses arms. It doesn't say sporting arms or self-defense arms. It means weapons of war, including cannons and tanks (which are still legal by statute to own, not just natural law).

If SWAT has fully-auto arms when they're kicking in doors, or the USA military is carrying them around in our neck of the woods, then so should we. Parity to prevent tyranny.

Firearms: Sporting and Self-Defense Purposes

I could claim a myriad of sporting and self-defense purposes for a semi-automatic, combat-like rifle. I could say something like:

I enjoy preparing for the coming economic collapse.

I like playing Rambo on the weekends.

The Mayan calendar was wrong, but I know it's coming.

I enjoy three gun.

I've decided such a weapon is my best form of self defense.

But I don't need any of those justifications for owning and possessing my property. The right to keep and bear arms is a natural right enumerated in the 2nd Amendment. The natural right is not for some arms; it is for all arms.

The founders also wanted to make sure of one additional thing: that the common person would be an integral part of the defense of ones state, of ones military, as a citizen, as a private individual, with ones privately owned arms. A citizen needs an effective weapon that brings parity* with common military arms.


Eastern Sports and Outdoor Show Shoots Self In Foot
I'm glad to see that the major sponsors and vendor after vendor are abandoning the Eastern Sports and Outdoor Show, because they fail to see that shunning the black rifle or "tactical" weapons abandons the 2nd Amendment for a watered-down, "legitimate"-sporting-purpose privilege.

In the promoter's defense, Reed Exhibitions's markets the show as a "unique celebration of authentic hunting and fishing traditions." But the "modern sporting rifle" - I really hate that term, by the way - the modern sporting rifle has made major inroads into hunting and self-defense uses. Almost every maker of ARs makes a varmint version. Manufacturers of ARs and ammunition have been working for several years to develop systems that are effective for larger game. Some are not as scary looking, because they ironically have fright-disrupting camouflage. For example, there is the Remington R-25 in military-developed 7.62x51mm NATO.

http://remington.com/en/products/firearms/centerfire/model-r-25/model-r-25-rifle.aspx

And not to put too fine a point on the legitimacy of using military-style arms for sporting stuff - because we don't need to care - but the deadly-for-humans Springfield 1903 in military-developed .30 '06 bagged plenty of game, whether it was "sporterized" or not.

And not to belabor the point, but hunters putting ARs in the field "normalizes" the use of ARs. And once again, we don't need to care, but "normalizing" is one part public relations and one part "a right not exercised is lost" foil.

Michael Bane, putting it pretty well:

WE ARE UNITED!
I've read today about how hunters and shooters have "different needs," and how the NRA membership is "separated" from the NRA executive. Let me use a simple, easily understood word here:
BULL! 

*A couple firearms Acts put us at a disadvantage, illegitimately.