Saturday, January 21, 2017

Concealed Carry When It's Not WELL Concealed

Firehand has a post up about the embarrassment (and consequent legal issues) when your Concealed Handgun isn't as well concealed as it ought to be:

Irons in the Fire: Central Texas College chief Mary Wheeler should live in the PROM,: “And let’s say it was accidental, that they had a handgun underneath a coat or something, they bent over and the handgun could be seen,” CTC Police Chief Mary Wheeler said. “It’s no longer concealed if someone can see it.” Chief Wheeler said a violation of this law could lead to disciplinary action up to and including termination of employment for employees or expulsion for students, including the first occurrence.
Whatever the reason, that's Not A Good Thing, especially when you're in an area which doesn't also recognize Constitutional Carry (Open Carry).

And even if you are legally "allowed" to Open Carry ... do you really want people to know you're carrying?

Generally speaking, that's not often a problem in the Winter; coats make it difficult to 'pattern' a handgun, but when it's on a belt (or even IWB) there is still the possibility of flashing it.

I've been using a small auto in a pocket holster, tucked in the inside/upper jacket pocket.   It absolutely doesn't pattern, and it's secure even if I stand on my head.  (Which I do a lot, any more.)

What it also doesn't do is allow for quick retrieval.  I would almost wish I had a left-handed pocket holster, so my right hand would grab the grip naturally.  As it is, if I turn it around ... the butt is pointed in the wrong direction and it's even more awkward.

I'll live with this over the winter, and perhaps try something else when it's no longer "coat weather".   The little auto has a belt clip which provides good retention and access, but again there are issues with concealment; that little 1/2" of the butt sticking over the waistband of my britches is impossible to conceal without the shirt-tail flapping in the breeze.

So far, I've just pocket-carried, and that's fine except I can't keep my money clip or credit cards in that pocket, and I've learned that I can't carry a hip-pocket wallet.   Every time reach to make a payment in a store, I grab my pistol; I haven't pulled it, yet, in the 10+ years I've been carrying.

But I have to admit, a Kel-tec 380 is still a lot easier to carry than a full-size Kimber in .45acp!

Friday, January 20, 2017

Buyers' Remorse In The Making

I can't think of a more useless firearm, but somebody will buy it.

Sales out to zoom up to two, maybe 3 purchase a month.  For the first month.

A six-barrel .25 ACP pistol that fires two rounds with one trigger pull:

The outside-the-box thinkers at Standard Manufacturing, the good folks who brought us the double-barrel 12-gauge pump the DP-12, are at it again. Meet the S-333, it’s a six-barrel .25 ACP that fires two rounds with each pull of the trigger. The barrels don’t rotate like a pepperbox. Instead, they “Volleyfire” — a term Standard Mfg. has trademarked. MSRP is around $300, and it comes in all the colors of the rainbow.
(H/T: The Gun Feed)



Wisconsin: We Don't Have Enough Redundant Gun Laws!

In Wisconsin, you can lose your Second Amendment rights if you're convicted of 3 misdemeanors according to a new bill proposed by "a group of Wisconsin legislators.


"They say the measure would make Milwaukee safer."


I don't know what that word ("misdemeanor") means in Wisconsin law, so I looked it up.

A misdemeanor is a crime which is punishable by less than a year in jail or prison.
So ... you can be treated as a felon if you have already been convicted of (for example):

  • Resisting or obstructing an officer
  • Hazing
  • Trespassing
  • Conducting a Lottery
  • Vagrancy
  • Deer hunting violations
  • Various food regulation violations
... plus other enumerated 'misdemeanors': any combination of three.   

Apparently,  any three misdemeanor convictions during your lifetime count; the accumulation of your criminal history is not bounded by any specific time line.  (I haven't read the proposed law or found a link)

CORRECTION: rereading the original article (always a good idea) I note the sentence reads:
The bill would make it a felony for people to possess a gun if they've had three misdemeanor convictions in five years.
I apologize for the mistake, The corrected reading makes more sense.
It still does not establish a legitimate precedence for undermining a citizen's Second Amendment rights for misdemeanors.

There are also reference to 'other felonies' included (straw buyers, etc.) which are already illegal under Federal law ... which makes the proposed Wisconsin law redundant in fact.

I don't know how boring it is in Wisconsin in the Winter, but these three bozos seem to have way too much free time on their hands.   I suggest they seek a second job, one which might be more inclined to keep them too busy to perform their legislative mischief.

I hear Burger King is hiring.

(see below for the original article)

Wednesday, January 18, 2017

Jerry The Geek on FaceBook .. not me!

https://www.facebook.com/JerryTheGeek/

sorry, I don't do facebook.  My son tells me that it's "The Devil".

can't speak for that specific facebook page, directly.

But I'm grateful to the facebook dude, because he's so ugly he makes me look good in comparison.


Monday, January 16, 2017

Oregon, and the Right to Keep and Bear Knobkerries

Oregon bans weapons in state workplaces:

Oregon officials have banned state employees from carrying weapons in the workplace unless they're needed for their jobs. The move caused consternation Thursday among Republican leaders in the Legislature. The Oregon Department of Administrative Services said it imposed the ban, which became effective on Jan. 6, in hopes of "providing a safe and secure environment for employees and visitors." Banned are firearms, daggers, slingshots, and a host of other specified weapons. Oddly, even knobkerries were mentioned. Knobkerries are clubs used by indigenous people like the Zulus in southern Africa, and are probably unknown to most Oregonians.
You realize that this would not make for a "safe and secure environment", right?

But if I was still working for The State, I would be a criminal.   Because what I did legally last month, would be illegal today.

For almost 20 years I carried a concealed Knobkerry at work, in a State Office, every day.  Nobody knew because it was ... well ... concealed.  
And I certainly wasn't going to mention it.

It was legal, because of state laws in effect in Oregon at the time, and I had a "CKL" (Concealed Knobkerry License".  But the place where I worked had an administrative rule disallowing the possession of knobkerries ... either open or concealed carry.    They could have fired me for wanting to exercise my God Given Right to Keep and Bear Knobkerries  (RKBK).  

But I would not have been subject to legal action;   I was not breaking any laws.

My thinking was that Knobkerry Free Zones (such as schools) were a prime target of 'mischief makers', and if  'mischief' were to occur at my work place,  I wanted to have options.  

I always felt much more "safe and secure" knowing that I could pull out my trusty knobkerry and pound the living crap out of anyone who decided to use an illegal knobkerry to attack my workplace.

Well, that has all changed now.   Because we are defenseless ... by legal fiat.

I am disgusted ... California Politics are creeping into Oregon.


Saturday, January 14, 2017

Lest We Forget: The Obama Girl

Crush On Obama - YouTube




But wait!


Hillary Boyz?


"I got a crush on Hillary!




(I'm so ... GAG ME!)

Is it possible that the "Grown-Ups" actually decided that Hillary Tits were not the best criteria for a presidential election?

["My Mom Is A Republican!"]

Friday, January 13, 2017

Finally, it sinks in

The Virality Of Gun Violence | The Huffington Post:
Incidentally, for all the hullabaloo about the lack of government funding for gun research, I note that part of the funding for this substantial project came from the National Science Foundation, which also happens to be a government agency.
Obviously, the lack of CDC support for gun research has created real gaps in the evidence about gun violence; perhaps there are other ways to skin the proverbial research cat.
Yes, there are 'other ways'.  The CDC was busted *(lost its Federal funding for "Gun Violence" research) because it pursued an obvious bias in reporting on firearms injuries.  It focused on the availability of guns with little or no information about how some societies suffered more (gun) violence than other societies. Its reporting was generally not balanced by providing information on how firearms ownership provided a benefit to private citizens in violent demographics. It may be that NSF has found a way to provide a more 'balanced' reportage.

The JAMA report focused on the societal causes of violence, focusing on gun violence, and concluded that demographic signifiers were one method of predicting victims of violence.

If the CDC had made the effort, perhaps they would still receive federal funding for firearms research.  I note, however, that the CDC can still report anything they wish to about firearms injuries; they just don't get to use your federal tax dollars to tout their political bias.

Tuesday, January 10, 2017

Leave it to the Limeys ...


... to adore The HillaryBeast:


Hillary Clinton: The Guardian person of the year 2016 — News — The Guardian Nigeria:
Cerebral, hardworking and hugely versed in the workings of government, not many people were as prepared to lead America as she was. Dignified in carriage, humble in spite of her great guts, thoughtful and very wise, she was the inevitable philosopher-queen. Her tenacity in public and in private lives is the stuff of legends. She withstood haranguing by the leading lights of the opposition party who did their best to cast her as corrupt and dishonest. She endured the humiliation of a troubled marriage and steeled her heart to save it. In the campaigns, she was held to standards sometimes humanly, but certainly manly impossible to meet. She not only discharged herself creditably, she captured the imagination of the world. That she lost to a man who is as comprehensive in his ignorance as he is relentless in his arrogance to put it on display underlines a certain rot in the heart of their society.

Funny, that's not the Hillary that I voted against.

Donald Trump owes her a great debt, however, for she's the only American who would have won him the Presidency by simply being the most despicable America candidate.

Money for Nothin'; Chicks For Free!

Universal Basic Income Is Our Best Weapon Against The Rising Far Right | The Huffington Post:

LONDON ― A groundbreaking pilot project launched this week in Finland. The government is going to give a randomly selected group of 2,000 unemployed citizens a monthly income of $587 with no strings attached and no need to report how they spend it. The project aims to test the feasibility of a program ― called basic income ― that’s worked in earlier pilot projects elsewhere in the world.

Um ... unemployed?  And there is no "Societal Safety Net" already in place in Socialist Finland?

Well, that's really going to encourage the beneficiaries to go out and find a job.

Interesting, the comment that it has "... worked ... elsewhere...".
More interesting, there is no definition of the term "worked".

The bad thing about this kind of program is that it may constitute a "disincentive" to active job-seeking.  No word on how the recipients of this milk from the societal teat were selected, but one hopes that priority is given to those who are unable to find work because of age or infirmity or lack of training in marketable skills, rather than a disinclination to get up in the morning and earn their daily bread.

And if lack of marketable skills, wouldn't it be useful to use this funding to support unemployed persons while they are actively engaged in training which might lead to employment?   As in ... an incentive to learn to work?

That whole "no strings attached" thing stinks of Leftest Fantasies.

But then, this IS the Huffington Post, and that IS what they do best.

(Hat Tip: Codrea)

How Will We Survive (Another Liar) In The White House?

I don't know about you, but I grow tired of reading comments like this about President-Elect Trump:

How Will 'We' Survive A President Trump?:
“There’s a whole generation of dead queer men and dead poor women of color who didn’t survive Reagan. There’s over a million dead Iraqis who didn’t survive Bush. There’s millions upon millions whose lives were destroyed by the muscular policing policies of Bill Clinton, Margaret Thatcher and Obama. Stop saying ‘we’ survived them. Stop ignoring all those dead, incarcerated and disenfranchised people.” — Dr. Shant Paradigm Smalls
Frankly, I would be surprised to have elected a president who isn't a liar; we haven't elected one recently (with the possible exception of Eisenhower ... but I can't prove that) and we certainly managed to "survive" some proven liars.

 (*cough* Bill "I Did Not Have Sexual Relations With That Woman" Clinton *cough*)

Ronald Reagan (for example) may have been one of the most effective leaders of the Modern Era, but I was embarrassed for him when he repeatedly fell back on the "I must have mis-spoken" mantra when he was cross-examined under sworn testimony during congressional hearings on the Iran/Contra controversy.

Obama?

A Short History of Phenomenal Presidential "Mis-Speaking":



The question is not whether we will ever elect a president who is not willing to lie with a straight face, but rather whether we would WANT to elect a president who cannot lie convincingly.

They're all Politicians, and by definition they are all not only liars, but CONSUMMATE liars!


In future years, when I rant about the lies told by President Trump (and I'm sure that I will), you need not remind me that the alternative would have been to to place a second lying-Clinton in the White House.

He was elected President over the Hillary-Beast because he was a better liar.

He couldn't  have done it without her.   And he knows it.


Are public libraries obsolete?

John Lott asks the question, and my answer is a resounding NO!

I'm a voracious reader of books, and I have 30 Banker Boxes (plus five book-cases more) of books by my favorite authors that I own.   But I can't afford to buy as many books as I want to read, so I have formed the habit of requesting new books from my local (county) library which they do not have in stock.

They buy the books, notify me when they arrive, and I check them out to read.   I'm often the First reader of these books; and I'm careful to only request books by "popular authors", so the county is not stocking books which are unlikely to be checked out by other readers.

And their accounting system keeps track of these requests, so they are aware of books which are likely to be checked out by other readers.

It's a good system for me; the library is publically funded (by my taxes) and I like that I encourage them to continue stocking new books as they become available.

But if new books are not ordered, the library is likely to be defunded over the years.  It's important that libraries receive this kind of positive feedback, so they know they are actively serving an active readership.

I do not always read all of the books that I receive from my library.

For example, Vince Flynn died in 2013 and his series of books has been assumed by a new author.  I do not like this author's style, so I will not be borrowing new Vince Flynn books from my library.  Chances are that they will eventually discontinue the practice of automatically buying these books (and certainly I will not be requesting them), and that's A Good Thing.

When I stop checking out new Vince Flynn books, the library will eventually discover that the popularity has decreased, and they will stop buying these books because ... nobody wants to read them.

This has a positive feed-back effect, if on a small scale, and in my mind it's a good way for me to reflect the public opinion on which books my library should spend its funding on.

In the meantime, the article mentions that librarians are personally building the 'popularity' of Classic Books in order to provide statistics to keep them on the shelves.   I think that's A Good Thing.  I haven't yet read many recent classics but i will want to do so some day.

I've read some classic children's books on tape for my grandchildren, and even encourage family members to contribute to the project by asking them to read the parts of 'other characters' in the book.  my children, and their children, enjoyed this "Books On Tape" project, especially because they begin to associate the readers' voices with the characters.    (I recently read a short segment of an OZ book to my grandchildren, when my daughter brought them to visit me, and my daugher interrupted me to say that I "read the wrong characters' voice".  I had read Brer Rabbit with a different dialect/ she later informed me that she and her brother (living with my divorced wife) use to go to sleep listening to the tapes that I had made for them.)

When Libraries budgets are cut, when they stop stocking classic books because nobody checks them out any more ... children lose the encouragement to READ, and appreciate, books which are older than they are.

What will our nation  become when the libraries no longer stock Brer Rabbit books?

We'll soon find out, because my library has no copies of any "Uncle Remus" books by Joel Chandler Harris.

Is this anti-racist protest?  If so, it's a sad commentary on America, because if we no longer make Historic Black Culture to be stocked, it's a loss to American Culture.