Saturday, December 16, 2017

"Shot At And Missed"

Good intentions notwithstanding; if you have reason to shoot, it's better to hit your target than to miss.

Having been 'shot at and missed' is not a felon's deterrent to future crime escapades.

Robber killed by citizen shooter was shot at weeks earlier - San Antonio Express-News:
When local real estate broker Stephen Manion saw the news that a young father, carrying a concealed weapon and having dinner with his two children at a Popeyes restaurant on the South Side, had shot and killed a masked robber last week at about 8:30 p.m. Wednesday, it struck him as weirdly familiar.
 Around 8:30 p.m. on a Tuesday two weeks prior, Manion said, he was at a Dollar General on W.W. White Road “and stopped a robbery by firing at the very same guy.”
Manion missed. A San Antonio Police Department spokesman, Officer Doug Greene, confirmed that detectives believe the suspect who fled the Dollar General that night was Andres Herrera, 19, who was killed a week later at Popeyes.

Friday, December 15, 2017

Has America Gone Crazy?

Sandy Hook Anniversary: These Are the Gun Control Laws That Have Failed Since the Newtown Shooting:
What seemed at the time like the horrifying turning point in the American gun debate—a gunman in Newtown, Connecticut, slaughtering 20 children and six adult employees during the school day after killing his mother—now instead seems like the moment the United States decided no tragedy was too great to change federal gun laws. More than 200 state-level gun laws have passed since Sandy Hook, but every major attempt at federal legislation has failed, even as shootings with ever-higher body counts keep coming. 

Madmen arise in any society; they don't obey laws, but here ... in America ... they take advantage of the freedoms which our country holds most dear.

There is little we can do about that, without infringing on our own constitutional rights.

The problem isn't with the constitution; the problem is with our society.   Will we give up the rights which our progenitors fought for, because we now realize that we have created a "sick" society?

Our system of government is deliberately "skewed" to protect our rights.  That some people abuse those rights is not the fault of the laws, nor the Constitution; it's something in our national character which promoted aberration.

It may have begun when President Reagan undermined the Mental Health System.

Reagan observed a system which regularly locked up people with mild psychotic symptoms, and determined that it undermined the civil rights of people who were "just different".  He acted to correct this social injustice, and people who were committed for no greater offense than being 'different" were set free and thus protected from the distrust of their society.

Was Reagan wrong?  Is he the cause of the slaughter we have recently experienced?

As is the case in many decisions to protect individuals at the expense of the general population, this single act may have served to ignore delusional people, who have become a larger portion of our population than was earlier allowed to remain free. 

Whatever the cause or the effect, America today seems to have its fair share of crazies who feel no compunction against acting out their rage.

And the few sane people left ,,,
 ("I fear all are mad except me and thee, and I worry betimes about thee!")
... now suffer the consequences of a society which is so "free" that the madmen are ruling the institution.

Well ... the politicians, of course. 

But I was speaking about normal people.

Christmas and Adolescent Angst

There is nothing like trying to hang long (snarled) strings of wire and bulbs from the eves of the house ... and then trying to find the one bulb that is burned out ... to suck the Christmas Spirit from the heart of a teenage boy.

About the time I moved on to College I realized it was a lot warmer in the house, so I unsnarled the wires and tested all the bulbs in the living room.  (I recall my father's paternal pride when he remarked:  I was wondering how old you would be when you figured that out.)

The next year, we built a new set of light strings ... wired in parallel.   My father was disappointed when I did that; I think he enjoyed my annual outrage.   If nothing else, he kept track of what new curse words I had learned since the previous year; because I kept coming home for Christmas, and the box 'o bulbs was always waiting in the attic.  (Pop claimed his rheumatism made it too hard for him to climb the ladder ... it always seemed to kick in toward the END of Elk Season.)

Now I live in an apartment, and if anyone is going to climb a ladder to decorate the place it won't be me.  My landlord went out of town to visit his kids for the rest of the month, so even HE won't be bugging me to "lend him a hand".

My afternoon has been spent watching my neighbors hang out their lights.  It went so fast, I almost missed it.  They didn't seem to have any problems.

Probably just "new technology".

Thursday, December 14, 2017

A Credit to American Ingenuity?

[Video] Head-shot on a Whitetail Doe with .50 BMG [He missed but the deer still dies] - The Gun Feed: [Video] Head-shot on a Whitetail Doe with .50 BMG

  [He missed but the deer still dies]

"Who knows?  The next time I may actually hit the animal!"

Well, that's something to look forward to.

Sunday, December 10, 2017

Lies, but without even the courtesy of statistics or a "thank You Ma'am"!

NRA hijacks bipartisan gun bill. Now it's too dangerous to pass.:
Talk about robbing Peter to pay Paul. As a package, “Fix NICS” would keep guns from domestic abusers — while “Concealed Carry Reciprocity” would force states to allow people to carry concealed guns in public even if they are domestic abusers, have other dangerous histories, or lack even the most basic safety training to carry concealed guns in public.
USA Today is among the many public forums which have deliberately lied about current  (and proposed)  firearms legislation, and their agenda is to completely disallow the free exercise of the Second Amendment.

There are no state or federal laws, currently active or proposed, which would:
"force states to allow people to carry concealed guns in public even if they are domestic abusers, have other dangerous histories, or lack even the most basic safety training to carry concealed guns in public. "

There are NO states which have enacted gun-control laws which "force states" to allow convicted felons or domestic abusers to be allowed to carry concealed firearms.    That's just stupid!

How many times must this point be emphasized, to deny the false hoods engendered by public forums?

Intelligent people would probably read the statement, and dismiss it without needing to cite other resources.

Stupid people will read the USA TODAY article, and take it at face value; after all, it's USA TODAY And they wouldn't lie to us!

The Big Lie

There was a propaganda technique (often utilized by the Russians in the 20th century) which proposed that if you tell a lie which is so obviously WRONG ... many people will believe it because "who would tell such a horrible lie, if it was not true???"

Well, many people use The Big Lie to argue against facts which are obviously true, and unfortunately it is all-to-often accepted as "TRUE" because who would lie about that so disingenuously?

Answer: people who think you are stupid enough to believe obvious lies.

There are no states which allow convicted domestic abusers to possess firearms, let along "force" them to do so. 

Second Amendment Supporters recognize that there are a sub-genre of people who are not responsible to carry firearms, and domestic abusers have proven their poor judgement.

USA TODAY is just one of the public forums which abuse their privilege to report the news, in order to publish their bias on social issues ... about which they are insufficiently informed.

Saturday, December 09, 2017

"Throw 'em In Prison!"

Welcome to the Garden State ... bring a gun, we'll have you cultivating a prison garden in no time!

This is the essential message that NJ Dem Sen. Bob Menendez prefers to send to travelers who enter New Jersey with a firearm ... and who are ignorant of the state's draconian firearm laws.

Sen: Jail CCW Holders If They Enter Jersey | The Daily Caller: WASHINGTON —
“Throw’em into prison for five years” is what New Jersey Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez wants for any out-of-state concealed carry permit holder who enter his state with a firearm.
 “People violate our law — we are a state that has decided that we are against concealed carry weapons. We have stronger gun laws. We believe we have made the states safer as that,” Menendez told The Daily Caller Thursday. “They violate our laws, then whatever is the law, and they are found guilty of it, they should pay the consequence.”
 When pressed about travelers with concealed carry permits who may be detoured into his state by accident, he replied: “They know what our state’s law is. They should know what our state law is if they want to carry a concealed weapon. I don’t think that they just simply get detoured and they should think in advance when they are traveling.”

 He continued, “I find it amazing that Republicans who believe in state rights all of a sudden have a problem observing the state rights of those states that think that stronger gun laws is the way to protect citizens and that’s what I have to say about it.”

 New Jersey has some of the most stringent gun laws in the country. Its state troopers are known to pull over drivers and question them on whether they are carrying concealed firearms.  Unfortunately, some out-of-state travelers are not aware that the Concealed Handgun Licences issued in their home state are not recognized in New Jersey .. so when the drivers answer truthfully, they are arrested.  Their firearms confiscated.  And they may find themselves in jail.

In the New England States, the borders seem to be amorphous; drivers from one state assume that they are still "home", even though they may have unwittingly crossed a state line.  It is possible there to drive for one hour and find yourself having entered three states.

And they assume that the freedoms they enjoy "locally" are recognized in adjacent states.

Unfortunately, when they cross into The Twilight Zone which is (for firearms owners) New Jersey,  they are often not only surprised to learn that their Concealed Handgun License is not recognized, but their civil rights are similarly not recognized.

New Jersey is not alone in their determination to deny firearms owners their Second Amendment Rights:  Florida also has made it illegal to carry a firearm.

We need a federal law which recognizes the 2nd Amendment.  We need for all states to recognize this right.  We thought we had it, but we were wrong.

Universal backgrounds checks are just one side on the controversy. 

Universal carry rights are the other side of the issue, and as long as America is willing to impose upon the Second Amendment, we should (all states) pay as much attention to our universal rights.  as we do to our local limitations.

Wednesday, December 06, 2017

More Wapo Lies

The Washington Post is up in arms (so to speak) about new legislation which acknowledges the Second Amendment Rights of Americans.

The GOP's idea of gun control | Washington Post |
Incredibly, what the Republican-led House appears ready to do is make it easier for people — including those with dangerous histories — to carry hidden, loaded guns across the country. 
No, what the Republican-lead house appears ready to do is to acknowledge the right of law-abiding citizens to carry a weapon ... which is enumerated in the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

 The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 was the National Rifle Association’s “highest legislative priority,” so Republicans fell in line, brushing aside the reasonable objections of law enforcement officials about the dangerous consequences to public safety.
No, Republicans fell in line to acknowledge the right (already confirmed in most states) for law-abiding citizens to carry a weapon in all states if they have already been vetted in their home state to do so.

" ...— including those with dangerous histories — ..."

No state in the union will issue a Concealed Carry Permit to anyone with "dangerous history".

All states perform a thorough background on every candidate for a concealed carry permit'; nobody who has a criminal history will ever be issued a Concealed Carry Permit, in any state, if the candidate fails the background check.

There is no reason for the Washington Post to lie about this; they have a professional staff of researchers who can readily identify the process for allocating Concealed Carry Licences at both the state and (now) the national level.

The Washington Post lies about this because they choose to.

They are (apparently) politically against issuance of a firearms carry license to anyone, and they have obviously chosen to lie in order to ramp up public resistance to the new process.

Criminals ... those previously convicted of a crime ... are not likely to be missed in the vetting process.   EVERYONE who wishes to purchase a firearm from a legitimate dealer must be vetted by the current process to determine that purchases of firearms are not felons or otherwise forbidden to own firearms.

Of course, criminals who get their firearms from folks who steal guns and sell them on the black market will not go through this process; they never have.   When they do, they are committing another crime.    There's nothing new about this.

And when WaPo lies about the new effort to support America's First Freedom (the Second Amendment), they perform a disservice to the American people.

Most states have laws which permit individuals with no criminal background to carry a concealed weapon; this is what WaPo calls permission to  carry hidden, loaded guns across the country.

Their choice of verbiage is loaded to describe a legal process, but to express it in the most negative terminology possible.   Criminals already do this; under this new national law, honest people can protect themselves without the risk of running afoul of the widely varying laws of individual states;  all states will have the same standard, so if you are legally permitted to carry a concealed firearm in Florida, you may also do so in Washington.

This law merely standardizes laws so that honest people will not be harassed during interstate travel.
There is nothing dishonest, nefarious nor shameful in this law.

What is dishonest, nefarious and shameful is the way that the Washington Post has chosen to blacken its name before it is officially enacted.

It's Not Guns ... It's Men!

It's not guns, it's men. 

(Do not say "WHEW!" yet)

The Greenfield (MA) Recorder has an opinion article by Rob Okun which announces that the problem with violence in America might not be guns; he posits that the problem is Men.

My Turn: Men, we can, and should, do better:
... there’s a common denominator among all of the shooters that we in the pro-feminist men’s movement are blue in the face from shouting from the rooftops for decades: They’re all men.
Well, he may have a point there.  I don't know anything about the "Pro-feminist men's movement", and I haven't seen a whole lot of blue-faced guys at pistol matches for the past .. oh, I don't know ... THIRTY YEARS! 

But he may still have a point.
After all, how many mass shootings are committed by women?

Zero?  (Ignoring that the person who provided guns for the Colorado school shootings was a woman.   Women as enablers?  Who knew?)

(Almost everyone!)

I suppose it's legitimate to posit that women are more likely to be "enablers" than killers in the Pro-feminist Men's Murder Class (Dylan, et al).  Which may not be the author's point, but it's what I get from his writing.  Still,  I'm a bit concerned about this one tiny point he makes:
 It’s time for Congress to fund the Centers for Disease Control to conduct a study of how boys are socialized, starting with preschoolers. I’ve proposed this to an aide to Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal. Please, senator, introduce the legislation. 

Given that the CDC has been partially defunded because of their biased political stance against firearms,  this is like throwing baby chicks to the alligators;  gobble gobble gobble.   Let us ignore that the CDC lost a TON of funding from the federal coffers a decade or two ago because of their obvious anti-2nd Amendment bias.  The Namby Boys still haven't forgiven the NRA for that.
 What else? The NRA considers most men tacit supporters, and unless they hear otherwise, they have us right where they want us — silent,

Tacit?   Us?

I'm not sure what men are "tacit supporters" of.   I had to look it up.  Most men I know aren't "tacit" supporters of anything;   They are either indifferent, against, or balls-to-the-wall for it.   Life's too short to be "tacit".   And as for the NRA, they either hate it or they pay their annual dues.

There's no crying in baseball, and there's no "tacit" in guns.

Tacit this, Robie.

Monday, December 04, 2017

You people are beginning to piss me off!

You know, there are a few opinionated articles which just cry out for someone to set them straight.

Unfortunately, these articles seem to be (increasingly) grounded in websites which require that the respondents adhere to strict rules of identification.

It's not enough that we have to identify ourselves, we also have to identify the blog website with which we  re associated.   These folks want not only to know who you are, but what Blog Site you support!  Why the HELL do they need this information .. to the point where you are forbidden to post  a comment without giving up your blog site?

Are they looking for personal blogs which oppose their political viewpoints?  And when they identify these people .. what will they do with that information?

*BTW .. as far as I can tell, if you don't  have a blog .. you can't enter a comment!*

Well, hell, every body who know me knows that I'm a easy-going kind of guy.  I don't mind giving out more information about my personal identity than would ordinarily seem to be reasonable just to justify the fact that I have an opinion.

(Sorry,  urping all over my keyboard here ... they need my WEBSITE to justify my comment?)

Personally, I think it's bizarre that some folks are so hoity-toity that they need to be assured their commenters have an actual WEBSITE (read: blog?) before they will accept a comment.

Why would my opinion be more legitimate if I have a website, than if I did not?

Oh, just TRY to enter a comment on these websites if you don't have a BLOG!
The curious thing is ... I only bump into this certification process when my comment is going to be  something like:  "Hey, wait a minute now, this is all bullshit!"

In other words, I encounter this strict requirement to identify my websites where I strongly disagree with their printed opinions; which is to say, "Liberal" websites.   "Conservative" websites don't seem to impose this "tracking" requirement nearly as frequently.

Conservative websites don't seem to give a shit who you are or where you are coming from.  They just take whomever you are at face value.   Are they less fearful

Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed this bizarre requirement from Liber websites?