“Orlando victims look to Sandy Hook lawsuit against gun maker” the story headline of an article written by Ana Radelant and published 27 June 2016. Ana’s story opens with this paragraph.
“Washington – Families of those massacred in an Orlando nightclub are weighing whether to follow the Sandy Hook families that have filed a lawsuit against makers of assault rifles like the one Adam Lanza used to kill 20 first graders and six adults…”
Before the Sandy Hook investigation was concluded, media, gun control activists, elected officials and aspiring politicians immediately called for background checks and the banning of modern sporting rifles, alleging that Adam Lanza was able to purchase the guns used in the commission of his crimes. It was only after the “Report of the State’s Attorney for the Judicial District of Danbury on the Shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School and 36 Yogananda Street,Newtown, Connecticut” was published that we discover that all firearms and ammunition used in the Sandy Hook killings were legally purchased by Adam Lanza’s mother. All federal and state laws were observed, but years later we still have gun control activists and elected officials using Sandy Hook to advance a cause that has reached an unprecedented level of falsehoods. Can anyone be that stupid, or twofaced, to use the lives of those small children to promote something that is so corrupt and self-serving? If anything the Sandy Hook families should get behind the NRA and NSSF to promote programs like Child Safe. Folks it was parental negligence that opened the door to the Sandy Hook killings not Remington or its distributors and retailers.
The Sandy Hook families are now suing Remington, the distributor and retailer using a “negligent entrustment” argument. The Plaintiffs and their attorneys claim that they are going after the AR-15; describing it as a firearm designed to inflict massive amounts of damage in a short amount of time. In addition to background checks maybe we should include I.Q. tests and a disclaimer, but anyone buying a firearm knows they’re purchasing an instrument that is potentially dangerous, and manufacturers go to extremes to communicate that point by publishing warnings on nearly every page in their owner’s manuals. Furthermore, every firearm shipped to retailers contains a steel cable lock which when used renders the firearm inoperable. As to the weapon of war concept, all of the rifles and operating systems below were weapons of war. The AR-15 is no more than a civilian version of a normal developmental progression, which is why we call it a modern semiautomatic rifle.
| Kentucky Long rifle | Flintlock | .36 ball | 1776-1816 | |
| Model 1795 Musket | Flintlock | .69 Ball | 1795-1842 | |
| Model 1803 Rifle | Flintlock | .54 Ball | 1803-? | |
| Model 1812 Musket | Flintlock | .69 Ball | 1812-1842 | |
| Model 1814 Rifle | Flintlock | .54 Ball | 1814-? | |
| Model 1816 Musket | Flintlock | .69 Ball | 1816-1842 | |
| Model 1817 Rifle | Flintlock | .54 Ball | 1817-1842 | |
| Model 1822 Musket | Flintlock | .69 Ball | 1822-1865 | |
| Springfield Model 1835 | Flintlock | .69 Ball | 1835-1842 | |
| Springfield Model 1842 | Percussion cap | .69 Ball | 1842-1854 | |
| Springfield Model 1855 | Percussion cap | .58 Minié | 1854-1861 | |
| Spencer Repeating Rifle | Lever Action | 56-56 Spencer | 1860-1873 | |
| Springfield Model 1861 | Percussion cap | .58 Minié | 1861-1867 | |
| Henry Repeating Rifle | Lever Action | .44 Henry | 1862-1873 | |
| Springfield Model 1863 | Percussion cap | .58 Minié | 1863-1867 | |
| Springfield Model 1865 | Breech-loading | .58 Musket Rimfire | 1865-1867 | |
| Springfield Model 1866 | Breech-loading | .50-70 Government | 1866-1873 | |
| Springfield Model 1868 | Breech-loading | .50-70 Government | 1869-1873 | |
| Springfield Model 1873 | Breech-loading | .45-70 | 1873-1884 | |
| Springfield Model 1884 | Breech-loading | .45-70 | 1884-1894 | |
| Springfield Model 1892-99 | Bolt action | .30-40 Krag | 1894-early 1900s | |
| M1895 Lee Navy(Navy/Marines) | Straight-pull | 6mm Lee Navy | 1895-early 1900s | |
| M1903 Springfield | Bolt-action | .30-06 Springfield | 1903-1957 | |
| M1916 Mosin–Nagant | Bolt-action | 7.62×54R | 1918-c.1921 | |
| M1917 Enfield | Bolt-action | .30-06 Springfield | 1917-1943 | |
| M1 Garand | Semi-automatic | .30-06 Springfield | 1936-1963 (some used into the 1970s) | |
| M1 Carbine | Semi-automatic | .30 Carbine | 1942-1960s | |
| M2 Carbine | Selective fire | .30 Carbine | 1945-1960s | |
| M14 | Selective fire | 7.62×51mm NATO | 1959–Present | Standard issue until 1970 Currently used as a marksman rifle |
| M16 | Selective fire | 5.56×45mm NATO | 1964–Present | Standard rifle of USMC |
| M4A1 | Selective fire | 5.56×45mm NATO | 1994–Present | Standard carbine of US Army |
| MK 17 Mod 0 (FN SCAR-H) | Selective fire | 7.62×51mm NATO | 2009–present | Used by all branches of USSOCOM |
Adding insult to injury, SIG Arms is now in the crosshairs because a terrorist took 49 lives at an Orlando nightclub using one of its rifles, and it looks like the families of the victims of the Pulse Nightclub killings may be looking to the negligent entrustment argument to pursue an action against SigArms.
Read the article folks! And if it troubles you as much as it does us, contact your elected officials and ask them to protect the rights of firearm manufacturers with legislation that strengthens the PLCAA .
“Negligent Entrustment” you’ve got to be kidding me readers. I guess if some genetic defect picks up a Ginsu knife and kills 7 people with the damned thing the knife maker will have to defend a “Negligent Entrustment” suit. Take this seriously readers because it could destroy an industry and even your business. It’s unbelievable!
Have a great weekend, be safe over the 4th of July but do take in the fireworks and for God’s sake vote this election cycle there’s a lot at stake!
Nampa, Idaho (June 2016) –



In addition to the Chameleon, Morphix produces the 
This week’s shoot-the-shit topic comes from one of our readers. We encourage reader suggestions because it means we don’t have to burn up a massive amount of brain cells to come up with a our own topic. We’re also traveling so we thank Tom for the suggested topic. As with all shoot-the-shit topics, readers are free to make unsupported comments, use uncensored profanity, insult anyone you wish or change the subject altogether. We provide this service free of charge because we recognize that behavioral science practitioners are living proof that free market economies produce sufficient surpluses to support them.
This morning’s Le Monde asks who is Omar Mateen, I’d like to answer that question. Omar Mateen was a disenfranchised Muslim U.S. Citizen, who felt the way to self actualize was to live out the warrior fantasy through association with or himself becoming that great mujahidin. He is the perfect ISIL / AQ candidate for radicalization. This is not a new approach and for years AQ has had as part of their business plan the recruitment, read radicalization, of individuals with no prior contact with law enforcement. This makes the task of detection and preemption extraordinarily difficult, and further complicated by the faux privacy issues created through the Edward Snowden fiasco. The very same individuals that were lambasting the National Security Agency are now asking how something like this could happen.
The 2016 election cycle has been an eye-opening experience for me and I’ve been participating in the political process since I could legally vote. In 2016 something has become very evident, the relentless and insidious defining of a Presidency by a media who sadly has a lower confidence rating than Congress. Rather than focusing on candidate positions, the who, what and why, we find ourselves listening to their microscopic analysis of tweets and tainted literal interpretations of things said. Instead of analyzing actions they analyze words as if words are all defining. There is an expectation on the media’s part of political aristocracy where every word is measured, every word is targeted and non of which become actionable commitments by their orator. This expectation of sophistication is inconsistent with the Constitution where the only burden placed on a candidate is that they be a native son or daughter, that they be elected as prescribed and that once in office they uphold the Constitution and defend it against foreign and domestic threats. By that standard a mailman, plumber or clerk can occupy the office if duly elected. No where in our Constitution is a candidate required to be an attorney or even know a word of what the Magna Carta says, or posses a commanding knowledge of world affairs. The media seems to be obsessed by historical firsts rather than vetting candidates. Through their insouciance, they promote a political aristocracy which is both dangerous and inconsistent with the Founder’s vision for America. In closing, we call your attention to the fact that historical firsts do not define courage, wisdom, integrity and leadership – the Holocaust was too a historical first.
Bradenton, Fla. (May 2016) – 

