Saturday, January 19, 2013

Obama’s Gun Control Proposal - and why NOT?

What’s in Obama’s Gun Control Proposal -

The initiative to reduce gun violence announced by President Obama on Wednesday includes both legislative proposals that would need to be acted on by Congress and executive actions he can do on his own. Many of the executive actions involve the president directing agencies to do a better job of sharing information.
The New York Times has (as nearly as I can tell) done an exemplary job of reporting the substance of Obama's Gun Control Bill.  Well ... in truth, it wasn't much of a challenge.  They just took the information provided on the "fact-sheet" handout, and published it.   However, it does help us to look at it in 'some detail so we can evaluate the cause, the effect, and the justification OR rejection of the talking points.

In 2008,  President ial Candidate Obama said:"I have no intention of taking away folks' guns".   (A 2008 article from a notorious Liberal Democratic website, is the source for this and other quotes.  In the following discussion, that will be the source of unattributed Obama quotes.)

We should have paid closer attention to what he DID say, though;  at the time, he made it quite clear that the thought that the second amendment was talking about firearms appropriate to duck and deer hunting ... within certain limitations (yet to be defined ... until today).  But America took him at his word ... as they THOUGHT he meant it, not as he actually meant it.  Today, he has his revenge.  He will allow you to keep your guns, as long as they are not evil according to his own private interpretation.

(Is it tacky to say "I told you so"?  Perhaps .. but I did!)

Here's what the New York Times cited as the salient points of the President's proposed bill, along with various comments.  Note the prevalence of "cosmetic" and "already law" comments;  clearly, these reiterations of existing law serve no useful purpose but to enhance his own personal image as a "lawmaker".

Author's comments are [presented in red]

Proposed Congressional Actions

  • Requiring criminal background checks for all gun sales, including those by private sellers that currently are exempt.[Actually, the 'private sellers' provision has been an accepted "moot point" for the entire history of the country.  If this became law, my children could not legally inherit my firearms .. no matter what the characteristics of the firearm.]
  • Reinstating and strengthening the ban on assault weapons that was in place from 1994 to 2004.[The "Assault Weapons Ban" was sunsetted after ten years because both parties in the legislature agreed during debate on the original bill that if after that legitimate trial period crime statistics could NOT prove that the measures inherent would reduce crime, they would agree that it was an unjustifiable imposition on the Second Amendment Rights of legitimate American Citizens, and should (and eventually was) rendered moot and not lawful.  Ten years of experience proved conclusive that the components of that law was essentially useless, and the law was allowed to laps by mutual agreement of both political parties.  Future references to this FACT will be cited as "PROVEN NOT HELPFUL 1994 - 2004"]
  • Limiting ammunition magazines to 10 rounds.[PROVEN NOT HELPFUL 1994 - 2004]
  • Banning the possession of armor-piercing bullets by anyone other than members of the military and law enforcement.[Already law]
  • Increasing criminal penalties for "straw purchasers," people who pass the required background check to buy a gun on behalf of someone else.[It's already illegal, penalties already include imprisonment; how would increases in 'penalties' be more effective?]
  • Acting on a $4 billion administration proposal to help keep 15,000 police officers on the street.[Shouldn't be part of an 'assault weapons ban' .. and didn't Obama already promise this years ago?]
  • Confirming President Obama's nominee for director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.[The last guy he proposed for the post was a proven bungler; remember "Fast and Furious"?]
  • Eliminating a restriction that requires the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to allow the importation of weapons that are more than 50 years old.[... Which would NOT eliminate any weapons which fit into the current administrative definition of "Assault Weapons", except for full-automatic weapons which are .. you guessed it .. already fully regulated.]
  • Financing programs to train more police officers, first responders and school officials on how to respond to active armed attacks. ["Throw money at it" .. typical Liberal solutions which have worked so well in Education, Health & Welfare, The Housing Lending Crisis, TARP, and other "bail-out" programs]
  • Provide additional $20 million to help expand the a system that tracks violent deaths across the nation from 18 states to 50 states. ["Throw money at it" ]
  • Providing $30 million in grants to states to help schools develop emergency response plans. ["Throw money at it"]
  • Providing financing to expand mental health programs for young people. ["Throw money at it"   Even worse ....opens the door for allowing Liberal Psychologists and Health Care Workers  to define people as "mentally ill' based on purely subjective graunds.]

Executive actions

  • Issuing a presidential memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.  .[Already law]
  • Addressing unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.[It's his administration.  If his administration isn't encouraging measures which are ALREADY LAW ... why not?]
  • Improving incentives for states to share information with the background check system. .[Already law.  See above.]
  • Directing the attorney general to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks. .[Already law.   See: "Fast and Furious"]
  • Proposing a rule making to give law enforcement authorities the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun. .[Already law]
  • Publishing a letter from the A.T.F. to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers. .[Already law for dealers: again, see "grandfather laws" currently effect; my guns inherited by my children, etc.]
  • Starting a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.["Publicity" .. like that's anything new]
  • Reviewing safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).[Cosmetic:  this has NEVER been shown to be an issue in gun crime]
  • Issuing a presidential memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.[Already law]
  • Releasing a report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and making it widely available to law enforcement authorities.[Already usual practice]
  • Nominating an A.T.F. director.[Asked and answered .. again, see "Fast and Furious".  Isn't this already the job of the president?  And hasn't he already mucked it up once?]
  • Providing law enforcement authorities, first responders and school officials with proper training for armed attacks situations.  [This isn't already in effect?  I thought that was part of the FEMA job!]
  • Maximizing enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.[Obviously, the cops are to blame!]
  • Issuing a presidential memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to research gun violence.[They have been doing that for 50 years ... and they have been proven wrong about their conclusions for 50 years.]
  • Directing the attorney general to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenging the private sector to develop innovative technologies.[Cosmetic; the attorney general is an ineffective idiot OR a criminal, and he was Obama's choice; and the private sector (gun manufacturers and dealers) are already abiding by a near-overwhelming set of federal regulations]
  • Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.[Great.  The doctors are now REQUIRED BY FEDERAL LAW to violate patient confidentiality?]
  • Releasing a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.[See above]
  • Providing incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.[No problem; Education is already .. what, 70% of the national budget?]
  • Developing model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.[Cosmetic]
  • Releasing a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.[Cosmetic; anything that isn't, should already be there.  And hey, how about Medicare?]
  • Finalizing regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within insurance exchanges. [Over-reaching;  or at least to vague to be helpful]
  • Committing to finalizing mental health parity regulations.[What?  You've been president for four years and you still haven't made it clear to mental health professionals what their "REAL JOB" is?]
  • Starting a national dialogue on mental health led by Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, and Arne Duncan, the secretary of education.[Any measure which includes the name "Kathleen Sebelius" is automatically suspect.  As far as a "National Dialogue" .. that sounds both cosmetic and 'bogus' to me]
I recognize, acknowledge and accept that my responses seem to be both facetious and not terribly helpful.  And no, I don't care to cite specific counter-suggestions to address this terribly important National question.

Here's why:

  • Anything that I ... or Obama .. can dream up is obviously going to be something in the nature of a band-aid.  I can't think of ANY Federal Legislation which is going to stop lunatics from shooting little girls.  And obviously, neither can Barry.   The difference is, I don't have to find a solution; I'm an old white guy, it's not my job.  It is, however, Barry's job.  He wanted it, he got it, and now he can't do his job.  Last time I couldn't do my job, my boss fired my ass.  So .. any suggestion I could make would probably be somewhere along those lines.
  • Another thing:  What IS my job is to help Our Beloved Leader to do his job.  Even though I can't give him suggestions which are acceptable to him, the least I can do is to alert him when he is reverting to Political Bullshit.
  • Barry, it is obvious to all of us that you are dancing as fast as you can; but .. it's just not going to cut it!  Why don't you get rid of the sycophants in your office and find some people who actually can  THINK!  For example, Ronald Reagan actually was as incompetent as your party (wrongly) said George W. Bush was .. but he was still one of our country's  greatest presidents.  And in fact, "W" didn't do as bad .. for the same reasons; they both found and hired people who were smarter than them, and they listened to their advisers.  Unfortunately, you have advisers who are smarter than you, and maybe you actually listen to them ... but just being 'smarter than you' doesn't mean 'smart enough'. [Knock Knock!]  Are you listening to me, Barry?
  • The time for Political Bullshit is past.  Admit it; you can't find the people who are TRULY homicidally  deranged before they cap their mother and then drive-buy a schoolhouse.  There's got to be another way .. but nobody you're talking to has ever suggested .....
  • LET YOUR PEOPLE GO!  It's going to cost somebody (eventually .. me) a TON of money to hire armed school guards  We can't afford it.  Why don't you just let your teachers carry concealed weapons?  It worked for the Israeli's?  (Of course, their enemies resorted to bombs, but no plan is perfect.)
All I am saying is, give a piece a chance.  We've already seen that gun-free zones are considered (by maniacal would-be mass murders) to be nothing more than a target-rich environment.

Maybe .. just maybe, if you follow the Israeli Protocol (which combines armed  citizens with intelligent profiling) you could cut down on the number of nut-jobs who are allowed .. by YOU! ... to walk into a structure and blast away without fear of consequence.

Talk about your 'common sense gun control law'!

Remember: Gun Control means "Hitting what you're shooting at".

Why should the Bad Guys be the only ones who understand this?

Dumb and Dumber: "Gun Control" and ... "The Sandy Hook Shooting Conspiracy Theory"

The Sandy Hook Shooting - Fully Exposed - YouTube

 You may not need to SEE this video, but you do need to be aware of its existence.

The following is a 30-minute video on YouTube which purports to point out inconsistencies in the media presentations of stories which describe the circumstances of the massacre of children in the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newton, Ct  on December 14, 2012.

All the pertinent points depicted in this video have been 'debunked' by .... an online "HOAX" research resource which I have depended upon for years,

Frankly, I'm more inclinded to rely upon information compiled by Snopes than I am to accept the interpretations of an unknown YouTube contributor.

(And yes, I am also a contributor to YouTube.  I hope that my videos may be considered more objective, however, since they almost invariably depict IPSC/USPSA competitors as they participate in various legitimate and registered shooting matches.)

On the same YouTube page upon which this video is presented, there are links to other postings which seem to imply a governmental conspiracy.  I haven't bothered to view them.

The crux  of the issue may be that this tragedy seems to have triggered (pardon the expression) a nation-wide drive to impose increasingly onerous restrictions on the private ownership of firearms.

You may be aware that I am a strong .. if not vehement .. supporter of the Second Amendment.

In recent days, as I watch our government (not only federal, but stage governmental agencies as well) seriously describe "gun control" measures which I personally consider to be "not helpful", I have been  critical [okay,: "vociferously contemptuous"] of the political reactions which have been reported.  I'll probably soon be discussing the bill recently signed by New York State Governor Cuomo,  (which I have already discussed) is frighteningly similar to proposals presented by President Obama.

Most of the proposals include measures which already exist; or have already been proven not to be effective in curbing crime; or are patently cosmetic only, or otherwise nonsensical.  NONE of the proposals have anything 'new' to offer.
I'm strongly opposed to the misguided, draconian, knee-jerk liberal attempts to enact laws for the sole purpose (as i see it)  of appealing to a certain frightened segment of our population.  I don't really believe that even the people who proposed the bills, let alone legislators who will (or have) voted for them, really believe that they will make a difference in the crime rate.

However, in reference to the video, I think that the people who present this sort of facile crap under the guise of .. we can only hope it's "private investigative journalism" rather than 'self-aggrandizement" ... are serving NO useful purpose.

My only reason for presenting it here is to demonstrate that people can be sufficiently self-delusional as to present ANY 'argument' in support of their own private and/or political agenda. (Which applies not only to youtube contributors, but to legislators on any level of government.)

As William Shakespeare (in "Romeo and Juliet") may have said ... although the quote is variously interpreted:

"A plague on both their houses!"

Wednesday, January 16, 2013

NRA shooting game no longer for preschoolers

NRA shooting game no longer for preschoolers | Political Headlines | Comcast:

WASHINGTON — A new shooting game for mobile devices by the National Rifle Association is no longer being labeled suitable for preschoolers. "NRA: Practice Range" changed its age recommendation on Tuesday from 4 years and up to at least 12 years of age with an added warning that the game depicts "intense" and "realistic" violence. The move came amid pushback from liberal organizations that called the game tasteless and its timing politically motivated. It was released Sunday. This week is the one-month anniversary of the shooting at a Newtown, Conn., elementary school that left 20 children and six adults dead, and the same week President Barack Obama is expected to announce his plan for curbing gun violence.
What's this all about?
A progressive advocacy organization, Courage Campaign, on Tuesday circulated an online petition asking Apple to drop the free mobile application from its store.

"This is a classic example of everything that is wrong with the NRA. Instead of coming to the table with constructive ideas to reduce gun violence, the NRA is instead developing a video game that glorifies guns and gun violence," said Adam Bink, director of the group's online programs.
Isn't that special?  Here's a "Progressive Advocacy Orginization" chiding the NRA about being constructive.  Apparently, all they can do is to be critical.

Being knee-jerk reactive to any effort which reflects negativity on the Second Amendment, I went to the Courage Campaign website to see who and what they are all about.  I had the impression that their goal was to encourage abused children to speak out about their abuse.

What I found was ... not much about child abuse.   I guess they have been distracted. They are very Pro-Obama, and the "Assault Weapon Ban" seems to be Number One With A Bullet.

Eh, but I found some other issues which they espouse, and I admit (if grudgingly) that they have found a few subjects (not many, but a few) which probably need to be addressed. I'm not going to be sending them a check; and I'm not going to be terribly harsh in criticizing them, either.

I'm upset ... well, lets say "concerned ... about their espousal for the "Assault Weapons Ban", mostly because I think the whole thing is overplayed politically and ineffective practically.  A few of their other issues, I just don't find that interesting (there's a dead horse somewhere whose beaters are allowing themselves to be distracted from their REAL job!).  A few other causes just seem silly, to me.  But I'm an Old White Guy, and not expected to politically aware.

Frankly, when I look at the original article, I don't see a problem. Kids get to knock down some targets online?  It would probably be overlooked if they were using darts ... or stones ... but in the scenarion they are (presumably) knocking down targets using The Evil Gun! 

Can yoiu say:

(Good for you, I knew you could)

You know, a lot of people seem to be determined to milk the "GUN CONTROL" issue because it's high visibility and low-risk subject.   Politically speaking, that is, and "Advocacy Organizations" seem to have a choice between supporting their community, and making political hay while the sun shines on their ..... issues.

It's not so much that I mind that they provide jobs for people who need the work;  it's more that they seem all-too willing to interfere with the lives of other people because of goals which I don't feel particularly inclined to support.

Yes, it's a political thing.

We didn't make it so; they did.  And frankly, it just pisses me off that folks whose job it is to support people seem to find it entirely justifiable that they can undermine MY rights in order to achieve THEIR goals.  These folks are trying to help people?  They think they can do it by walking on MY lawn?

Get outta town!

Every year I take a week driving to San Diego to visit my kids and my grand kids.  I can't really afford it, but it's the only way I can keep at least a minimal personal contact with my family.

They wonder why I choose to stay in rainy ol' Oregon, instead of moving closer to them.

Well, I still live in the state where I was born, and where my children were born.  I lived for a few years in California, and I was so glad to leave there and move back to where the grass is green and the Budweiser Border Guards keep their retirees from moving up here to enjoy their Golden Ages.

This is the kind of thing which reinforces my determination to be my own man.  I really, really don't want to be preached to by a bunch of "Progressive" idiots about how I should think and how I should feel.

My own daughter is a "Community Advocate", and she's a darned good one.

She would never fall for the political self-serving demonstrated here.

Assault Weapons Ban .. .my ass!

NY gun bill would toughen already strict law

NY gun bill would toughen already strict law | General Headlines | Comcast: ALBANY, N.Y. —

The New York gun control provisions passed by the Senate late Monday and being considered by the Assembly on Tuesday cover several fronts. Gov. Andrew Cuomo said the proposals would:
 (Okay, I'm going to list the proposed "restrictions" and talk about them individually.  This severely pisses me off ... and I live clear across the country from this Martinet!)

_Further restrict assault weapons to define them by a single feature, such as a pistol grip. Current law requires two features.
 Typically, the term "Assault Weapon" is a bogus means of identifying "offending" firearms by features which are entirely cosmetic.  This measure is a proliferation of meaningless identifiers, which include: pistol grip, flash suppressors (which "suppress" NOTHING) barrel shrouds, and the color "Black".   None of these
"features" have anything to do with the efficacy of the firearm; they're just  talking points which Liberal scare-mongers use to justify their unconstitutional tactics.  BTW .. if these ARE features which have nothing to do with shooting geese and instead increase the efficiency of Military Weapons?  Military weapons are the MOST protected versions under the provisions of the Second Amendment.
Reducing the 'number of features" which allows gun-grabbers to impose more regulation is not more effective;  it's merely more egregious.

_Make the unsafe storage of assault weapons a misdemeanor.
This refers back to the definition of "assault weapons".  Cosmetic differences do NOT define an "assault weapon", which is properly defined as "a rifle-caliber shoulder-fired firearm capable of full-auto functionality".  It does NOT define, for example, an A$-15 or its antecedents or derivations.  Further references to "Assault Weapons" will fall under the same logical rebuttal by the statement: "See Above".. 

_Mandate a police registry of assault weapons.
See Above.

_Establish a state registry for all private sales, with a background check done through a licensed dealer for a fee, excluding sales to immediate relatives.
Registration IS the first stage toward confiscation.  California established a "registration" program in 1999; this quickly resulted in 'registered' firearms being confiscated without compensation to the owners.  This was a wake-up call for every legal firearms owner.  They didn't take guns owned by criminals, they took ALL guns.  And New York is using the same play-book now.

_Require a therapist who believes a mental health patient made a credible threat to use a gun illegally to report the threat to a mental health director who would then have to report serious threats to the state Department of Criminal Justice Services. A patient's gun could be taken from him or her.
This sounds reasonable, even laudable.  But it opens the door to subjective interpretation.  We don't know who's "crazy", and who demands their rights under the constitution.  This kind of legislation is subject to interpretation by health-care providers ... who are not regulated to the same extent as are firearms owners today.

_Ban the Internet sale of assault weapons.
Already illegal .. only black-powder firearms are legally available for sale by ANY means other than in-person visits to a registered firearms dealer, who MUST perform a background check under federal law which has been in effect since 1995.  This "feature" is cosmetic only!

_Restrict ammunition magazines to seven bullets, from the current national standard of 10. Current owners of higher-capacity magazines would have a year to sell them out of state. Someone caught with eight or more bullets in a magazine could face a misdemeanor charge.
This has absolutely no effect on the effectiveness of a firearm in a 'mass murder' situation.  Even a .45 caliber 1911 "army pistol" can accept magazines capable of holding eight or ten rounds. "Requiring" a murderer to conform to this kind of law presumes that the fine would dissuade his evil intent.  In truth, he is already contemplating the murder of innocents; if it is intended to assuage the effects of murderous intent, it is shamefully ineffective.

_Require that stolen guns be reported within 24 hours. Otherwise, the owner would face a possible misdemeanor.
What if the owner is not aware that he has been burgled?  This makes the victim appear to be either irresponsible, or commiserate with the person who has stolen his property.

_Increase sentences for gun crimes including for taking a gun on school property.
Actually, there are justifications for 'taking a gun on school property' .. including (for example) a teacher who is aware that schools are often "Gun Free Zones", which is a euphemism for "Kill Me Her Zones".  Murderers love areas where they can be assured that nobody is armed, because it is illegal!  Only law-abiding persons are likely to obey such ridiculous laws.  Murders glory in the fact that they are the only people who recognize that these laws are unenforceable, if their intent is to kill innocents.

_Increase penalties for shooting first responders, called the "Webster provision." Two firefighters were killed when shot by a person who set a fire in the western New York town of Webster last month. The crime would be punishable by life in prison without parole.
Oh?  And if 'shooting first responders' constitutes MURDER, then how much more punitive can this law be?   Redundancy serves no purpose other than the  glorification of the grandstanding politician.

_Limit the state records law to protect handgun owners from being identified publicly. The provision would allow a handgun permit holder a means to maintain privacy under the Freedom of Information law.
This is 'almost' the single legitimate proposition.  Concealed Carry License holders have infamously been 'outed', to their detriment, for years. Forgive me if I suggest that this provision serves no purpose except to imprint the patina of legitimacy on a series of otherwise useless proposals.

_Require pistol permit holders or those who will be registered as owners of assault rifles to be recertified at least every five years to make sure they are still legally able to own the guns.
I don't know how it is in YOUR state, but in MY state (Oregon), this is already a feature of Concealed Carry legislation.  I don't have to go through the entire process of finding three non-felons to certify that I am a 'good citizen', and I don't have to give them another sample of my fingerprints, but I do have to pay a fee and they already do a State Database Search to find out whether or not I have committed a felony in the recent years.
As a Concealed Firearms Permit holder, I accept and  approve of these laws; I do not want to be grouped with people who may have committed a felony.
And please note, in Oregon the process is restricted to people with Concealed Firearems Permits.  We don't heed no stinkin' bahdges!
It is my understanding that New York is one of the most restrictive states in the country, when it comes to firearms ownership.

Monday, January 14, 2013

"Outing" the names of Registered Gun Owners

Judge Jeanine Pirro Calls Out “Cowards” at The Journal News for Hiding After Publishing Names of Gun Owners | Fox News Insider:
The Journal News continues to face serious backlash after publishing the names of legal gun permit owners in New York. 

Publisher of the paper, Janet Hasson, cited the reason for doing so in a statement. She said, “We felt … sharing has much information as we could about gun ownership in our area was important in the aftermath of the Newtown shootings.” 

Judge Jeanine Pirro has reached out for a comment from the newspaper to no avail. She slammed those at the paper for going into hiding, and even hiring bodyguards to protect themselves. [emphasis added]  She reacted on her show, saying, “In the aftermath of the shooting of innocent children, you, The Journal News think it’s important to what — to out us? […] How dare you connect law-abiding citizens who’ve gone through rigorous background checks, who’ve been fingerprinted, investigated and received judicial approval to exercise their Second Amendment right.”

IS this a legitimate complaint?

The people involved (gun owners whose names have been published) seem to feel that they have been ranked with "Pedophilias", as if their decision to own guns .. which have been registered in accordance with state laws .....make them appear to their friends and neighbors as some kind of socially perverse sub-culture,

Their concerns may not be entirely unfounded.  They are concerned that their homes may be targeted by  burglars, and other sorts of home-invaders, if only because they are KNOWN to keep firearms in their homes.

That may be a legitimate complaint; and so may their concern be that they will not only be burglarized, but assaulted only because they have been identified as gun owners.

For many of the iconoclized few, however, the unspoken concern may be ...  they worry that their neighbors may come to fear them because they are known "gun owners".

That denomination alone  (or should it be demonization?)  is less important.  Essentially, by identifying them selves as owners of defensive weapons, they become (in their eyes) more of a target then are their neighbors.

That was certainly not their goal, when they (a) decided that they need to take an active role in defending themselves, their family and their home; and (b) determined that the 'best way' to do so was to abide entirely with state law.

That is: they registered themselves as "firearms owners".

One might presume that when one has taken 'extraordinary measures" (in this case, at least, to actually abide by the law), one might legitimately be recognized as people who are law-abiding according to all definitions of the term.

Do their neighbors feel that way?

Let's get back to that;

But, does their local newspaper feel that way?

No, "The Journal" obviously does not.
"The paper defended itself by arguing that the names of people who hold handgun licenses is public and freely available."

In other words: if the information is available to the general public, the newspaper feels justified in publishing the information of "WHO" owns a gun, and "WHERE" they live.

(We don't yet know if the newspaper has delved into the reasons WHY they felt obliged to own a gun, WHAT kind of gun they owned ... although they might also includedthe information about about WHAT KIND of gun they owned

.  Not having the information about  WHERE the article resides online, we can't give you that information

However, recent news articles suggest that the information provided by The Journal may have been instrumental it at least one recent robbery which appeared to have been targeting the gun which was supposedly owned (and stored safely) by at least one person mentioned in the article.

I can't tell you whether the burglary was planned upon the information provided by The Journal, nor can I confirm that the gun was safely stored (although it appears that it was.)

(Isn't it interesting, that while the newspaper published the details of the private citizens in their community, that same newspaper can't provide the information which might make sense of the story?  Who is the responsible party here?)

I can only tell you that the publication of this information put the owners at risk.

It was as if the publishers acquired a list of 'snitches' for the local police department, and published their names.  Whether or not it should have been a matter of Public Information; whether or not any other citizen would have researched the information;  whether or not that information, once discovered, should have been published in a public (and widely distributed) document ... we don't know that, either.

All we know is that the people "outed" had suggested a variety of ways in which they may be put at risk due to the actions of "The Journal", and at least one of those scenarios have been proven to be true:  one person WAS targeted, and the goal of the scum-bags clearly seems to have been to acquire a weapon.

Who are we to blame, for the introduction of another illegally acquired gun upon the  streets?

The owner?  The scum-bag who stole the gun?  Or the newspaper who made the four-way connection between the owner, the address, the gun and the robber?
I know in which direction my finger is pointing.

Oh? You think it couldn't happen to YOU?

What Does the Georgia Mom’s Shooting of a Home Intruder Mean for the Gun Control Debate? | Fox News Insider:

The NRA is now pointing to the case of the Georgia mom who shot a home intruder to make the point that private gun ownership is necessary for protection.

Yep, it's true.  The anecdotally evident "Home Intrusion" scenario can happen to anybody.... even to you.

Two points:
  1. it's okay to hide in the closet when the man breaks down your door.  It won't help .. he WILL find you .. but it's still "okay"
  2. when the man breaks down your door ...  shoot him. Shoot him a lot.  Shoot him again!
NOTE: this was the advice the lady-in-the-closet received from her husband when she was "sheltering"  there with her child, her cell phone .. and a gun.  She shot the dude several times .. sometimes in the face .. and now the home invader is dead and she and her child are NOT!

She called her husband, and while he was talking to 911 on another line he was actively and vehemently encouraging her to shoot that son-of-a-bitch "again"!

Oh man, I love it when a plan comes together.   And I feel this soft part in my heart go all pitty-patty when a man tells his wife "SHOOT HIM!  SHOOT HIM AGAIN!"

I'm thinking: bad guy = zero; wife and child 1,000.  They're alive, he's dead, and hey!  He's the guy who decided to break into their home while they were THERE!

What kind of guy breaks into an occupied home, and then tracks down the (female and child) occupants and starts banging on the doorof the closet they're hiding in .. from him?

Did he just want to keys to their car?

I don't THINK so!

Nota Bene:  "Real People" see this is as A Good Thing: Liberals see this as another opportunity to turn the dialogue from "defending your home" to "there is no justification for allowing people to own assault  weapons".     (Not a direct quote: a paraphrase)  No, I don't follow the logic path all that well, either.

This is exactly the kind of heart-warming story which (once again) convinces me that the RIGHT to have a firearm available at all times not only (a) protects your family and (b) ensures the continuity of a "everybody is still alive" life-style that we all know and love, but (c) provides a Darwinian Solution to the question of "should we allow a predator to live .. I Don't Think So!".

EVERY time I read another touchy-feely news story about how we shouldn't allow ANYBODY to have a gun, I don't have to search very long to find a contradictory story . .... like this one ....   which demonstrates that gun-rights advocates are right and gun-control advocates are assholes.

(Sorry.  I know, I must get over the knee-jerk reactionary thing that causes me to refer to to "gun-control advocates" as ASSHOLES!  But it's hard to be humble, when you're right.)

A 'gun rights' person is one who has ever been threatened, and has resorted to a firearm to protect his/her life, family or continued state of good health.

On the other hand, those to whom the whole "protect your life, family, continued state of good health and property" is (trough sheer Good Luck) is merely an intellectual exercise?  Most folks refer to those people as 'gun-control advocates'.  Notice how the word "rights" never appears in their lexicon?  That's because, according to the ASSHOLES .... you have no rights.

Okay, I don't have any problem with referring to them as ASSHOLES, when their subsequent political viewpoint will result in taking the guns away from "Real People".

You have my permission to refer to them as "Gun Control Advocates", if you please.

That charming  (if naive) attitude will disappear as soon as someone  breaks into your home and threatens your spouse, and/or your child.


Works for me!

Obama Elected? Guns are Selected!

Americans Are Voting With Their Wallets On Guns, Ammo, and Concealed Carry:

No matter where you look, the news is the same--guns are flying off the shelves, bulk ammo can't be found, and applications for concealed permits are going up, up, up. In short, Americans have weighed in on the gun debate and the winners are the right to keep and bear arms and the duty of self-defense.

The news is the same all over:

Every time Obama is elected to his current Presidential Stature, Americans ... well, how can I say i t?

They freak out!

During the 2004 election, Obama was oh-so-careful to emphasize that he didn't want to take our guns away.  And for four full years, he kept that promise.

Do you know the difference between a first-term president and a Lam Duck president?

The former wants to get re-elected, so he tends to keep his promises.

The latter ... the "Lame Duck" ...  doesn't expect anything from his constituency, so he can do anything he wants.

Guess what we have to deal with for the next four years?

That's right: we have a man in the Oval Office who can do anything he pleases .. and he doesn't have to face the consequences because he KNOWS he can't get elected to the Presidency again.

If he so wishes .. he can impose (by presidential order, if nothing else) any restriction on our constitutional rights which please him.  It may not stand up to judicial or even legislative pressure, but it IS his Presidential Prerogative to open the ball.  If the Legislature and the Supreme Court don't want to dance to his music, then they have to take specific actions to abrogate his fiat;  they can't just sit back and let "the other guy: do it.  And we don't know just how difficult it is for the Supreme Court to countermand a Presidential Order.  (I'm not sure if the Legislature can stop it;  sure enough, it wouldn't be easy.)

Obama has watched as Americans vote with their wallets at gun stores, ammo dealers, and gun shows. He knows that every passing day without new gun control legislation is a day in which other news gets the chance to drown out the gun control mantra Obama sycophants in the media have pushed since Sandy Hook.

Isn't it funny?  Isn't it strange?

Americans have not often recognized that they live in a Republic, rather than a Democracy.  Somehow, they have got the impression that if their President enacts a rule/law/Order against the values (for example) which they hold most dear, then all they have to do is to Write Your Congressman!!!!

Sorry, Charley; it ain't that easy.

Way back in September of 2012, I encouraged folks to vote against the Liberal candidate by voting for the "conservative" candidate. Unfortunately, the "Conservative candidate" didn't look all that Conservative, so a huge number of Conservative Voters just ... didn't vote.

See where that got you? Are you happy with your 'opt out' decision?

You think I'm kidding you, don't you.  There are people who think that Obama is not only able, but willing, to use his Presidential Orders powers to circumvent the 2nd Amendment:

In a gun-grabbing scheme as desperate as it is wrong, President Obama is threatening to bypass Congress and go it alone via Executive Orders if legislators don’t move fast.
The sudden rush to Executive Orders comes as Obama sees the writing on the wall: the American people do not want more gun control, and the Republican Congress is listening to the people.
 If you are a person who genuinely cares about your Second Amendment Rights; if you an American who thinks it's your RIGHT to protect your family even if it means doiing something whic would otherwise be odious to you ... you need to take a close second look at your President and decide if that's the kind of person who you think should be making decisions about how you should live your life .. and protect your home and family.

Jerry The (next time I tell you to oppose "this guy" .. listen!)  Geek

8-year-old British girl visiting family in Jamaica killed when gunman opens fire, 3 injured

8-year-old British girl visiting family in Jamaica killed when gunman opens fire, 3 injured | Fox News:

A British schoolgirl visiting relatives in a tiny rural village in northern Jamaica was fatally shot when a lone gunman opened fire on a group of family members as they gathered at a roadside shop, officials said Sunday. Imani Green, 8, of Balham in south London, was standing inside a clapboard grocery store and bar with relatives on Friday evening when a gunman wearing a hoodie shot the child in the head and shoulder before also shooting three adult members of her family.

Individual (civilian) ownership of firearms are, of course, forbidden by law in both Great Britain and Jamaica.

That worked out will, didn't it?

I'm sure that the family of this young girl felt entirely "safe", knowing that the tropical garden spot which is Jamaica was an islandic "Gun Free Zone:", where nothing could possibly go wrong.

If it's not too insensitive to mention, it's not just that they were in Jamaica, the home of the infamous machine-gunning incident on the Golf course.     The same thing could have happened  at her home in England.

Neither states allow private ownership of firearms.

The presumption is that .. if you just keep people from being able to own firearms, nobody will shoot anyone else.

Guns don't kill people: people kill people.

Sunday, January 13, 2013

The Big Picture

NRA says Congress will not pass weapons ban | Political Headlines | Comcast:

WASHINGTON — The powerful gun lobby is gauging enough support in Congress to block a law that would ban assault weapons, despite promises from the White House and senior lawmakers to make such a measure a reality. Senators plan to introduce a bill that would ban assault weapons and limit the size of ammunition magazines, like the one used in the December shooting massacre that killed 27 people, most of them children, in Newtown, Conn. Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California has promised to push for a renewal of expired legislation. The National Rifle Association has so far prevented passage of another assault weapons ban like the one that expired in 2004. But some lawmakers say the Newtown tragedy has transformed the country, and Americans are ready for stricter gun laws. President Barack Obama has made gun control a top priority. And on Tuesday Vice President Joe Biden is expected to give Obama a comprehensive package of recommendations for curbing gun violence. Still, the NRA has faith that Congress would prevent a new weapons ban.

This is not a simple issue.

Articles such as this make the NRA sound like Captain Queeg (Humphrey Bogard in movie version of "The Caine Mutiny Court Marshall", where Queeg sounded like an idiot because he claimed to be able to prove "conclusively" that the strawberry ice cream had been stolen by his officers.

No matter that Queeg's officers HAD stolen the ice cream;, he was still the nut-job.  The point was, that Queeg was so focused on the details that he was psychologically unable to see "The Big Picture".  (Something about "winning the war" .. I don't know.)

 Here, and now, we see that the MSM portrays the determination to protect civilian rights to " .. keep and bear arms ..." as a quixotic fascination which ignores the 'reality' of The War.  Here .. the War Against Gun Violence.

So to speak.

Apparantly, the NRA and it's supporters are a bunch of nut-jobs who seem to be unable to see The Big Picture; specifically, that people are shooting people, and we damn well need to stop it!  The National Rifle Association ("NRA") is  apparently the sole voice against pending (but not yet officially accepted) legislation to do so by providing even more restrictions on the ownership of firearms.

One has only to ask the question: "We already have tens of thousands of laws restricting the ownership of firearms .. what else can we do?"

The answer, of course, is that since the "common sense gun laws" haven't worked, we need to impose ever more "common sense gun laws".

Well, that's just common sense!

The problem is that the 'common sense gun laws' proposed don't keep insane people from buying guns (already illegal) or felons from buying guns (already illegal) or terrorists from buying guns (already illegal).

The existing laws don't keep anyone from stealing guns (already illegal).

So, what DO the proposed laws do?

They keep sane, non-felonious people from owning or buying guns.

Oh, like THAT is going to work!

So, the next time an idiot brings a gun into a mall (already illegal), 'normal people' can't defend themselves.
The next time someone breaks into your home, you can't defend yourself, or your family.
The next time someone steals your car, with your child in a safety chair in the back seat, you can't defend yourself, your property or your child.
The next time you're mugged on the street by a hood with a knife, you can't defend yourself.

Here's an alternative option:
Carry a fake wallet with expired credit cards and driver's license, and five dollars; when you're mugged, give that up to them.   I'm sure they aren't aware of that ploy, and they won't get mad and beat you up.

The next time someone carjacks you, be sure to mention that your child is in the back seat, and may you please remove your child before they steal your car?  Carjackers are famous for their human decency; I'm sure they will be willing to stand around for several minutes while you gently remove your child.

And the next time someone breaks into your home to hold you and your family hostage with guns while they beat you, rob you blind, and rape everyone in sight, all you have to do is bend over and grab your ankles.  I'm sure that everything will turn out all right.

Oh.  You're right, of course.  These sort of things NEVER happen to Honest, Law Abiding Citizens.  You're perfectly safe.  Your local police department will protect you.

Your Senators and Representatives, of course, will NOT protect you.  Their priority is getting re-elected, not protecting you and your family.  So they will make laws removing your ability to protect yourself.  They are confident that fewer of you will be raped than will protect their families, and if you DO protect yourself and your family and your home?  Well, you're just another nut-job who over-reacted to a situation which did not HAVE to devolve to violence.  

And the people who DO decide to protect themselves?

Well, they (we) have the NRA to look to for protection.

Everyone knows, the NRA is just a bunch of nut-jobs.

That IS.. The Big Picture.