I love Han Solo.  He is, by far, my favorite character from the Star Wars universe.

The force is useful and light sabers are cool, but the training, discipline, and self denial of a Jedi held no appeal.  Han Solo was a cowboy, a gunslinger, a survivor.  He was the original Malcolm Reynolds.  He IS chaotic neutral.

Bill Whittle does a great Afterburner on Han Solo.

So, I’m was watching TV and saw a Star Wars The Force Awakens TV ad.

It’s a commercial, whatever, I’ll see it after Christmas, and then 7 seconds in … the wisdom of Han Solo.

Han: *Handing a blaster to Rey* “Here, take this.”

Rey: “I think I can handle myself.”

*action sequence*

Han: “That’s why I’m giving it to you.”

YES, YES, YES, YES, YES!!!

Rey is self reliant, independent, and tough.  Of course she needs a gun blaster.  Of course it was Han Solo to give her one, they were cut from the same cloth.  Just as the lightsaber was the defining weapon of the Jedi, the blaster pistol was Han’s defining weapon.  It got him out of countless jams.  It was his peacemaker.  His defense against the universe.  Have blaster, will travel.

For all the emphasis Star Wars puts on the lightsaber, the only people (Creatures? Characters?) Luke kills with his are a hand full of Jabba’s goons out in the desert.  Han Blasters his way through quite a lot of Storm Troopers.  This is historically accurate.  The knight and the samurai were both relegated to the dustbin of history by the musket.  The lightsaber may be an elegant weapon for a more civilized age, but the blaster wins the day.

I don’t think J.J. Abrams or George Lucas realized just how much of a pro-gun message that three second, throw-a-way joke was.  But it’s accurate.  Arms are, and have always been, a key tool for independence and self reliance.  Guns are what have allowed the common man to throw off the shackles of oppression.  The ability to defend oneself is right made much easier when armed, be it at home, in a city like Detroit, or any in other wretched hive of scum and villainy.

Star Wars is an epic love song to good guys with guns, and Han with his blaster was the hero.  Forget the farm boy on a epic quest.  It’s a guy, with gun, who just doesn’t want to be bossed around.  That’s a character so many more of us can relate to.

Via Reddit:

Always Cheat, Always Win 😀

Mr. Marquez bought the rifles legally three years ago, then gave them to Farook. Officers say it was done deliberately to avoid putting Farook through a background check or be recorded as the purchaser of the firearm.

Source: San Bernardino shooting: Can a neighbor buy guns for you? (+video) – CSMonitor.com

So, under California Law, what they did was illegal. no issue there.

Marquez’s illegal gun transfer to the couple also highlights so-called straw purchases, when a gun is bought by someone who intends to give it to someone else. According to a PBS “Frontline” report, such gun sales are often easy to spot, with both individuals visiting a gun dealer together to make the purchase, and account for a significant percentage of guns used in crimes, versus only 10-15 percent that are stolen.

Still amazes me that a supposedly serious publication like the Christian Science Monitor is unable to find one single solitary lawyer that can explain the difference between an illegal sale under state law and a Straw Purchase. And I am sure that they must have at least a couple of barristers on retainer, so why aren’t they used. Stupidity or willful spread of misinformation to support the closure of alleged loopholes?

Not since the Clinton Administration have we seen such a coordinated attack. This is not status quo or the standard regurgitation by the media of the Gun Control Group’s press releases, they are active participants and creators of obfuscation and chicanery.

There is no other explanation, not even stupidity.

“Star Wars” fans intending to attend Thursday’s opening screenings of “Star Wars: The Force Awakens” may want to think twice about those light sabers.Two of the three theaters showing “The Force Awakens” are asking fans to leave any sort of weapons, including light sabers, at home.

Source: Waco theaters set “Star Wars” no open carry (light saber) rules – WacoTrib.com: Sound & Sight

Yes, because we need to put a stop to all those Drive-By-“Saberings” we keep seeing in the news.

And we need to stop the light saber loophole that allows the unregulated sale of such dangerous devices as they can be bought at any store  like they were toys.

H.R.4269 – To regulate assault weapons, to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, and for other purposes.

Yup, here we go again. The bill title is already posted at the Congress website, has 123 co-sponsors at the time of publishing this post, all with the (D) next to their names….and no text. Another case of “You need to approve the bill to see what’s in it?” Not gonna fly.

The bill was introduced by Representative David N. Cicilline (R.I.)

But you have to admit that the bit of “the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited” calls attention rather quick. And also is telling me something: They are royally pissed off. And it is not because they are worried about “Assault Weapons” since you have a better chance of being killed as a pedestrian by a car (4,743 deaths, 2012) than by any type of rifle (298 deaths, 2012), but because their message is not only not getting across, it is being plainly ignored even in the staunchest of Liberal fiefdoms like California where people are flocking to gun stores to buy whatever is in the shelves and goes “pew-pew.”

Even though I do not see a lot of future with this bill, we cannot take its dismissal for granted. According to The Hill, the idea is to block any new manufacturing of Evil Black Rifles, restrict the sale of those already in the hands of citizens and enhance the background checks. However, I saw something in the article that called my attention:

The bill would intensify background checks for people looking to buy any of the estimated 8 million to 9 million assault weapons that are already in circulation.

I am not a Constitutional Expert and I expect that if I am wrong, a kind reader would correct me but I seem to recall both in United States v. Miller and District of Columbia v. Heller something about weapons in common use not being subjected to bans and undue burdens on their ownership? Then 8 million to 9 million “assault weapons” are hardly a small unimportant amount that can be heavily controlled by the government.

Just a thought.

In the wake of San Bernardino and the high profile shootings that proceeded it, the propaganda arm of the Democrat party fourth estate conducted two polls to find out how Americans felt about a new assault weapons ban.  ABC found that  53% of people OPPOSING a new AWB and the New York Times got about the same numbers with some 50% of people OPPOSING a new AWB.  The rationale being that an AWB really won’t do much to stop a “lone wolf” attack.

Common sense and gun rights seem to be winning on this issue.

Month after month we have been seeing record gun sales. When New York and Connecticut managed to pass assault weapon bans and registrations, the compliance rate with these laws was about 4% and 10% respectively.

A small but loud an obnoxious group of people supported by a confederacy of felons clamors for a new gun ban.

The rest of the country is spending its hard earned money on handguns and black rifles, and when asked about their purchases, tell the government “piss off, that’s a golf club, I want a lawyer.”

How do the House Democrats react to all of these data points?  By drafting a new assault weapons ban.  Sure, it has no hope of passing with a GOP majority.  But I’m not so sure the 90 Democrats who co-signed it have any idea what they’ve done to themselves.

A few of them may be in such deep blue districts they they have no chance in losing reelection.  But the rest of them? We’ll have a change come November of next year to show them what the popular opinion on guns bans is.

I was reading the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Office report Assessing the Rise in Unintended Discharges Following the Sheriff’s Department’s Conversion to a New Handgun when I bumped into this table in page 9:

In case you don’t remember, the gun was made famous in the movie Die Hard 2.

After all these years of mocking and deriding Hollywood for their lack of knowledge about guns, we must eat crow because the Glock 7 does exists. It says so in the report!

I know, it is probably a typo, but I can see the conspiracy types going crazy and screaming I told you so!