Wednesday, October 19, 2016

The Weapon Shops of Isher

 "The right to buy weapons is the right to be free"

That is the theme from a book by A.E. van Vogt, ca 1941.

A.E. van Vogt wrote a series of short stories (or almost novelettes) starting in 1941, and eventually all three were compiled into this single novel:

Here's a blurb from AMAZON website:

With the publication, in the July 1941 issue of Astounding Science Fiction magazine, of the story Seesaw, van Vogt began unfolding the complex tale of the oppressive Empire of Isher and the mysterious Weapon Shops. This volume, The Weapon Shops of Isher, includes the first three parts of the saga and introduces perhaps the most famous political slogan of science fiction: The Right to Buy Weapons is the Right to Be Free. 
Born at the height of Nazi conquest, the Isher stories suggested that an oppressive government could never completely subjugate its own citizens if they were well armed. The audience appeal was immediate and has endured long beyond other stories of alien invasion, global conflict and post war nuclear angst.
Bear that in mind, as you read this segment from President Abraham Lincoln's immortal 1863 Gettysburg Address:
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived, and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of it, as a final resting place for those who died here, that the nation might live. This we may, in all propriety do. But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow, this ground-- The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have hallowed it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here; while it can never forget what they did here.
Unfortunately, the world (and America) have forgotten "... what they did here ...".

And we have largely forgotten why those men dedicated their lives to either preserve the union, or to divide it.

The Gettysburg Address begins: "Four-score and Seven years ago ...", referring to the number of years (87) between the Declaration of Independence (1776) and his current date (1863).  

Van Vogt wrote his seminal novel starting in 1941 ... only days before the beginning of the Pearl Harbor Attack on December 07, which initiated America's entry in what became World War II.  In Lincoln's parlance, that would be "three score and 15 years ago"; not quite as impressive as Lincoln's reference to the gap between the Declaration of Independence (1776) and the Gettysburg (1863), but still it is a significant period between 'then' and 'now'.

If Americans had not thought about "Defense" since The Great War (WWI .... 1914-1918), they were certainly beginning to think about it after Pearl Harbor.   Perhaps Van Vogt's novel, which detailed the value of 'personal responsibility' and 'personal defense' found a more receptive audience than it might otherwise have received.

Now we find our country divided again.  Amazingly, the issue now is much the same; what vision for our country must we support?  The Constitution, or appeasement of those who would undermine our rights?

And if Americans cannot find the energy to consider whether their current political climate might be the precursor to Tyranny, they might pay more attention to the Party of Exclusiveness which is striving to infringe upon our Constitutional Rights ... now, more than ever.

"... Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta feared “blowback” from their own supporters if they pushed gun control in Arizona".

Regardless, the book has been hailed as a classic for decades,   Not just because of its timeliness, not just because it's well-crafted, but because it delves into the heart of the America Experience.

 "The right to buy weapons is the right to be free"

The next time someone asks you "Why would ANYONE want to buy a [name the currently least politically correct firearm]", you might consider using those eleven words.  
It's easier to remember, and much shorter than an extended dialogue with a gun-grabber.

(And ...yes, I DO have a paperback copy of this book, somewhere in a box in a shelf.  I'll have to dig it out and read it again.  As I recall, it's well worth the read.)


Tuesday, October 18, 2016

EDNDO and Gun Control

Support Gun Control You Child Hating Bigot
This has already been published, but if anyone who reads this doesn't read EDNDO (I know, silly)
... you probably will be informed, or at least entertained, by the simple Democratic Imperative:


Thursday, October 13, 2016

The Ugliest Gun In The World!

POTD: Pumpkin Glock 19 - The Firearm Blog:
While I was pulling up some information on the Glock 19 for the review we just posted, I stumbled across this monstrosity. The pumpkin pie Glock looks to be a rather well abused Gen 3 gun with one of the worst stipple jobs I have ever seen, or are those teeth marks?
The author apologizes for being "a bit harsh" in his criticism.

I say he didn't go far enough.

I've always contended that a Glock was the ugliest gun in the history of gun-making, but this goes FAR beyond!

And I live in a town where the College Colors are "Orange and Black"!

New Jersey: "You do what I say you do!"

NJ holding police depts hostage to push 'smart guns'... - Gunmart Blog

I'm not sure that the mayor of Newark has the power to dictate to Major Firearms Manufacturers.

If the police departments in New Jersey require firearms which are "Dependable", rather than "Politically Acceptable ... aren't the police the people who are putting their lives on the line?

Shouldn't the police, who live or die by the reliability of their firearms, be the people who are defining the specifications for "acceptable weapons"?

Perhaps not:

(Newark Mayor Ras J. Baraka demands:)

Surrounded by clergy and bi-partisan groups on the steps of Newark City Hall Thursday afternoon, Baraka called on all New Jersey mayors to convene before purchasing additional weapons for their law enforcement agencies and create a list of manufacturers who are listening to their concerns, chiefly: safer gun distribution practices and technologies.
"We put our money in places, with people who support what we think is right for our community," Baraka told NJ Advance Media following the press conference. "You're talking about over 560 municipalities in the State of New Jersey. If we can get a quarter of them to say, 'Look, we agree with this, and we're not going to purchase bullets, guns or whatever from these four or five manufactures until (they) do what we ask them to do.'"
Is this guy requiring smart guns?  Or has he made under-the-counter deals with a few manufacturers just for the badda-boom?

Is it all about the money?

Is that what it's all about?  Where the mayor of Newark wants to put his money, determines what quality of firearms are distributed to the police, who need to defend their lives every day?

"You do what I say you do!

Wednesday, October 12, 2016

Not "carry friendly"? Texas has an AP for that!

Personally, I don't know if this is necessary.  But Texas is a big state and it would be a disappointment to travel a way to get what looks like a good deal only to find the business doesn't support your 2nd Amendment  rights.

Texas Phone App Shows 'Second Amendment Unfriendly' Businesses Near You:
(October 11, 2016)
Gun advocates and licensed to carry holders can search for and add businesses to the interactive website or use the iPhone and Android apps for free. The founder of the website, Russell Jones told Breitbart Texas, “This is not a for-profit venture. We are in it to help the community because it’s important to know both who supports the Second Amendment and who allows us to protect ourselves and our families.” The website has almost 11,000 registered users and 9,200 updated entries.

I am fortunate that I live within walking distance of a Kroger store (Fred Meyers).   They don't post rude signs on the door, and they have a corporate philosophy that CHL folks are their friends and neighbors ... and darned good customers.   (Now they have a gas station in town, so they even get my business there,)   I purchase most of my 'consumables' there, but they don't have much of a sporting goods department.    So I just go to Bi-Mart for those items, (including ammo in calibers I don't reload) which is another business without rude signs on their door.

Why give your money to a business that doesn't trust you?

Tuesday, October 11, 2016

Debate doesn't talk about gun control? Good choice!

Personally, I don't believe either Presidential Candidate understands either the Constitution or the "common man".   So when they are asked to address the Second Amendment, both are thinking about their bodyguards ... they're not worried about you and me.

Gun-control groups fume over debate omission | TheHill: The bipartisan Open Debate Coalition posed a series of questions Americans voted to ask the candidates.

The most popular question: “Would you support requiring criminal background checks for all gun sales?” The second-most popular question: “How will you ensure the Second Amendment is protected?” 
Clinton, the Democratic presidential nominee, briefly spoke about guns without being prompted by the moderators.
"I respect the Second Amendment, but I believe there should be comprehensive background checks and we should close the gun show loophole and close the online loophole and we should try to save as many lives as we possibly can,” Clinton said toward the end of the debate, according to the Brady Campaign.

It's not reported here whether Ms. Hillary addressed the second-most popular question".  As far as anyone can tell (and we're just guessing), she has absolutely no intention at all of protecting the Constitutional rights of Americans.

PS:   There are no loopholes.  There are merely constitutional rights which Hillary doesn't like.

Mexico moves to arm private citizens..... legally!

A Mexican senator has moved to allow citizens of his country the legal right to "keep and bear arms", using the U.S. Constitution as an example.
(NOTE: Quotes in this article represent automatic translation from the original Spanish.  The sometimes labored translation is a computer feature, not an attempt to make the language sound less comprehensible.  It's my fault, I can't speak Spanish!)
Preciado is by law to arm citizens, evokes amendment 'flag' Trump | Excelsior:

Rodriguez ruled that this initiative demarcation of their obligations to the authorities responsible for providing security to citizens; in this regard, he considered that this measure will help to assist the state in this issue. He asserted that the Mexican State has failed in its duty to protect citizens from crime, since in the United States, where it is allowed to carry firearms since 1789, the homicide rate is 4.7 per hundred thousand inhabitants, while that in our country the average is 21 homicides per hundred thousand inhabitants; and he pointed out that in states like his native Colima, or Guerrero, the figure is 56 homicides. He explained that this initiative seeks to prevent crime, since a criminal will think twice before attacking a house or a business.
Preciado is generous in recognizing that the rate of homicides in Mexico exceeds that in the United States by a factor of over 4 times as many murders per 100,000 citizens.

Personal opinion:  As is the case in America, the high "gun-violence" rate in Mexico is driven by gangs and drugs  (ie: cartels).

Unlike America, the average citizen in Mexico is unable to legally possess a firearm.  Which makes them victims of the criminals (back to the drug cartels) who do not fear the legal consequences of having been found to possess a firearm.

(The Cartel members just shoot the Federales and impose their own laws on what they consider their own private turf.   Oh, and they own the judges ... except for the few who are used to 'set an example' by killing the honest judges and their families, in horrible ways.)

I think it's about time that Mexico chose to allow private citizens to keep arms in defense of the criminals, which are the underground government by virtue of the fact that they are armed, and most law-abiding citizens are not.

Since the police and the army are also owned by the cartels, that puts the honest, private citizen in the position of facing hundreds of potential attackers with nobody watching his back.

As unpopular as it will probably turn out to be, Rodriguez is trying to keep his fellow citizens from being nothing more than targets that can't shoot back.

Viva Zapata!

Saturday, October 08, 2016

Diversity is more important than reliability: DOJ

DOJ: Criminal Background Checks, Citizenship Requirements Barriers to Police-Force Diversity:

The Department of Justice decided  that it's a bad idea to keep "undocumented aliens" (non-citizens) from working in Law Enforcement jobs because ... diversity.

These people know other languages, and legal Americans don't.   Good point!

That's important when you're interrogating people who cross the American borders illegally.  You know, like drug mules and rapists and murderers.   These people need to be interrogated in their native language, to determine whether their motives to immigrate illegally are societally valid.  

It's a shame that America only judges emigrants based on legal issues; isn't it enough that they want to join us because they can work for low wages?

Why SHOULDN'T we hire them to police our laws?  Should we hold it against them, that they have demonstrated their willingness to break the law in order to gain admittance?   Are we that petty?

Shouldn't we trust our Government?

Let us give Hillary our vote ... and all of our firearms

In the immortal words of Father Francis John Patrick Mulcahy (*M*A*S*H*) ....
Jocularity, Jocularity, Jocularity!

The Hillarity has spoken, and plans to decree gun control by ... well .. decree.

Wikileaks Release: Hillary Clinton Press Sec Says Gun Control to Be Implemented by Executive Order - Breitbart:
Breitbart News has previously reported that Clinton pledged gun control by executive order. She began pushing executive gun control right after the shooting in the Umpqua Community College gun free zone. That incident occurred on October 1, 2015, three days before Fallon’s email that Clinton “would support…closing the gun show loophole by executive order.” This is in line with a Washington Post report that Clinton wants to use executive orders “to go further than Obama” went  on gun control.
Incidentally, the "Gun Show Loophole" played no part in the Oregon massacre (UMPQUA Community College is two hours drive from my home).   The murderer passed all the bells and whistles of the Background Check which had been recently and universally imposed in Oregon.

Good to know that with new restrictions on firearms purchases, nobody in Oregon need fear a massacre.  Other than the one in Roseburg, of course.  But it's not the fault of Oregon Voters ... they already made that a crime!

But I digress.

Hillarity's proposal (we have this only by quotes from by the members of her personal staff) is to require back ground checks on all firearms transfers, both public (dealers) and personal (private citizens who don't sell firearms for a living .... like me giving my .30-30 to my son, etc).

That will surely stop all these nasty massacres which are upsetting the people.

Did I mention that the Umpqua shooter passed a background check?

Is it possible that politicians (Hillary) know that background checks don't constrain mass murderers, but they put us honest firearms owners through massive impositions on the 2nd Amendment just because it makes the politicians look really good on video?

Oh, and the background checks require that the firearms involved be identified by make, model and serial number.   Nobody knows how that affects the verification of the buyer and the seller, but it DOES provide data to a Universal Data Base on who own why firearm.

I suppose it would be petty for us to assume that this is part of the greater plan to populate a registration database.

And ... oh, apropos of absolutely nothing at all:

Friday, October 07, 2016

Cops won't use "Deadly Force" because of fear of "social media"

Some police today are so conscious of "Social Media" that they would rather take a beating with bruises than take a beating with social ostracism.

This is "Chi-town"?

Chicago police officer feared using gun while being attacked |
"She thought she was going to die. She knew that she should shoot this guy, but she chose not to, because she didn't want her family or the department to have to go through the scrutiny the next day on national news," Supt. Johnson said. 
I know I couldn't do the job.  
Being a police officer .. that's the toughest job in the world. And I'm not "up to it".

But to learn that some police would rather risk their own life, instead of just shooting the asshole who is pummeling them, is something that I've never considered.
 A nearby business captured surveillance video of the incident. The owner didn't see the incident firsthand, but saw how the incident unfolded on the surveillance video.
"It is terrible. It is total disregard for law enforcement. They put their lives forward every day for us and to see somebody do this, to pummel the police officer is terrible. It is a terrible thing," business owner Louie Rainone said.

I want to be proud of this officer, who is willing to give her life at the hands of a brute who thinks nothing of pummeling a sworn officer to the point of ... possible ... death.   But at the same time, I'm appalled that she would make that terrible choice and let this VIOLENT BRUTE go free.

How is it, that we are so conflicted with the duties of our police, that we cannot support them in the execution of their duties?

Why do we ask so much of them, that they are willing to risk death, and accept the certain infliction of pain and Public Mortification, for the sole purpose of protecting their fellow officers from social ostracism?

Can't we just let them do their job, and take into custody the obvious "Bad Guys" without concern for how their legal actions would look bad in the Press?

Since when has the Fifth Estate taken a greater importance than the reasonable imposition of Law and Order?Surely, there are opportunities for sworn officers to abuse the power of their office.

I'm know a number of Police Officers, and I've known them to be honorable, and compliant with the duties of their office.   I live in a small town, in a small state, and perhaps police in other jurisdictions are less ... attendant to the duties of their office.  

But I've never met a police officer who was other than polite, respectful, and competent.