Saturday, March 08, 2014

Rock? Meet "Hard Place"!

Editorial: Another round in fight over concealed guns - The Orange County Register:

San Diego County Sheriff Bill Gore recently said he would not pursue further appeals following a ruling by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that invalidated the county's requirements for issuing concealed weapon permits.
What's the problem here?

San Diego County is stuck between between the state of California, and the Ninth Circuit Court.

“We are not holding that the Second Amendment requires the states to permit concealed carry,” Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain wrote in the opinion for the majority. “But the Second Amendment does require that the states permit some form of carry for self-defense outside the home.”
The problem was that San Diego County's stringent rules, coupled with a recent statewide ban on the open carrying of firearms in public, effectively banned the right to bear arms. The discretion to issue permits is left to local authorities, who often require a “good cause” to issue them. Fear for personal safety was not considered adequate cause.

“In California, the only way that the typical responsible, law-abiding citizen can carry a weapon in public for the lawful purpose of self-defense is with a concealed-carry permit. And, in San Diego County, that option has been taken off the table,” Judge O'Scannlain wrote.
 Okay, so San Diego County wants to limit the 'guns on the street' quotient.

It scares them to death that people may be walking around under "concealed carry" rules, so their philosophy is that they will only grant "concealed carry" if the applicants for a license are able to present a reason which they ... they county sheriff's office .. considers a "good cause".

By state law, requirements for concealed-carry permits include demonstrating "good moral character," taking a training course and establishing "good cause." But it's up to county sheriffs to set policies for what constitutes "good cause", and different sheriffs have set a wide range of policies.

Unfortunately the Ninth Circuit Court has ruled that the 2nd Amendment intent is that the right of a citizen extends past their front door.  That is to say .. the People can use guns to defend themselves on their property, and on the street.

  1. The Ninth Circuit has ruled that citizens MUST be allowed some form of legal firearms carry.
  2. The state of California has ruled the "Open Carry" is entirely unacceptable.
  3. But San Diego doesn't want to deal with "Concealed Carry", for a variety of perfectly good reasons (not the least, one guesses, is that the overhead is going to beat the hell out of their budget, but also because .. well, just because.)
 Sorry, San Diego.  You have your problems, everyone else has theirs. 

Deal with it.

Friday, March 07, 2014


Malaysia Airlines loses contact with plane carrying 239 people | Fox News:
(March 07, 2014)
A Malaysia Airlines plane with 239 people aboard, including four Americans, is missing after losing contact with air traffic control on its way from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing early Saturday. The airline said in a statement it is working to locate the Boeing 777-200 after it lost contact with Subang Air Traffic Control at 2:40 a.m., two hours into the flight. It was scheduled to land in Beijing at 6:30 a.m. China's state-run news agency Xinhua reported the plane was lost in airspace controlled by Vietnam, and never made contact with Chinese air traffic controllers. There have been no reports of a plane crashing into Chinese waters, and China is assisting the airline in its search for the plane. The plane is carrying 227 passengers, including two infants, and 12 crew members. The airline said in a statement that the passengers are of 14 different nationalities and the airline is currently notifying next-of-kin about the situation.
Without ignoring a concern for the possibility of lives lost, nor the overall tragedy of an airship lost at sea with the possibility of multiple lives lost, and ALL of their lives:

Am I the only one who sees the parallel with the television series?

John Lott: NRA did NOT influence FED decision to minimize Firearms Research

Don't believe mainstream media mistruths about firearms research | Fox News:
 (February 27, 2014)
If we are to believe the mainstream media, the powerful NRA has used its political muscle to keep people ignorant of how guns impact our safety. They are supposedly to blame for the elimination of firearms research. This is all a result of a 1996 amendment to the federal budget stating “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”
Dr John Lott recently commented on a MSM trend to blame the NRA for a Federal decision to minimize grants for Researchers on the societal effects of firearms ownership.

According to Lott, the 1996 decision to cut funding for research on firearms-related injuries was made independently of any input from the NRA.

However, both ABC News and WAPO have published articles which specifically point the finger at the NRA:

He specifically cites the January 31, 2014, article from ABC NEWS "Unanswered Questions Gun Violence Researchers Would Tackle If They Had The Money" which focuses on "kids and guns"; and the January 17, 2014, Washington Post opinion article by Joe Davidson "Federal scientists can again research gun violence", which includes a graphic titled "How the NRA exerts influence over Congress".

[This graphic is especially telling, as it demonstrates that in 2012 NRA spent most (almost 90%) of its donative funds to Republicans, and very little of those funds to support Democratic members of congress.  Which should come as no surprise, except that nobody really expected that as many as 10% of congressmen supported the Second Amendment.]
Lott's article appeared on the same day in which the Crime Prevention Research Bureau posted an internet article stating that, although federal funding  for "gun violence" research has been increasingly difficult to find during the past 17 years,“Federal funding declined, but research either remained constant or even increased”.

Thursday, March 06, 2014

San Diego and the "Good Cause" clause

Editorial: Another round in fight over concealed guns - The Orange County Register:

 March 05, 2014:

"Court overturns firearm restrictions, but pressure from Sacramento continues."

San Diego County Sheriff Bill Gore recently said he would not pursue further appeals following a ruling by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that invalidated the county's requirements for issuing concealed weapon permits.


The problem was that San Diego County's stringent rules, coupled with a recent statewide ban on the open carrying of firearms in public, effectively banned the right to bear arms. The discretion to issue permits is left to local authorities, who often require a “good cause” to issue them. Fear for personal safety was not considered adequate cause.

“In California, the only way that the typical responsible, law-abiding citizen can carry a weapon in public for the lawful purpose of self-defense is with a concealed-carry permit. And, in San Diego County, that option has been taken off the table,” Judge O'Scannlain wrote.
The "Good Cause" clause in California is one of the few remaining hold-outs against the "Shall Issue" clause which is currently effective in most American States.

When I got my first CCL ("Concealed Carry License" later retitled "Concealed Handgun License") Oregon had the same kind of rules.  You COULD get a license to carry, but you had to present a viable (believable?) reason why you should carry a concealed handgun.  My justification at the time was that although I was only a college student, I spent my summers working my way through college as a "Summer Replacement Route Salesman" for the  National Biscuit Company.  (NABISCO)  Essentially, I replaced route salesmen, who restocked the shelves with Oreos at grocery stores around the state, and I often received cash payments from the store managers.  My justification was that I was vulnerable to strong-arm robbery, because I carried large amounts of case from time to time.

I did NOT, but I felt no hesitance when I justified my need to carry a .22 Magnum pistol as I tooled around the state in my 1958 Volvo, restocking shelves in mom&pop stores in the Willamette Valley.

Hey, if they *(the state of Oregon)* were going to play games with me, I'll play games with them.  If they were not inclined to play fair with me, I wouldn't worry about playing fair with them!


Violence at Union Rally 2010

Shocking: Bigoted White Tea Party Woman Beats Petite Black Female Reporter
(originally posted October 09, 2010)

In case you missed it (and I’m sure you did) this past weekend it appears that liberal F-bomb droppin’ black women at “Unity” gatherings can beat the crap out of Caucasian girls without it making the evening news or hitting the blogosphere. One Emily Miller, a senior editor for HumanEvents who previously served as the deputy press secretary at the State Department and also served as an associate producer at ABC News, got pummeled like a rebel stepchild on October 2nd by a black liberal chick at the “One Nation Working Together” (cough) rally in D.C.
The intro and the headline are deliberately misleading in this sardonic article.  The point being made is that white-on-black violence receives much more attention from the MSM than the opposite.   "Much More" .. in the sense of ALWAYS, as opposed to NEVER.

I'm not sure that the Racial element is important, as much as is the Liberal element.

Looking at the embedded video, I saw a lot of people wandering around with Union t-shirts, with the purple of the SEIU (Service Employees International union) ... whose members have also been videotaped assaulting 'other attendees' at rallies.

When I took employment at the local state university in 1998, I declined union membership.  I had been employed as a contract employee at the state capital the previous year for about six months, and I witnessed an SEIU march and protest there.  I did not like the ugliness I saw during that month.  The anger, and the rage was something I didn't need.

I had been a union member once, temporarily.

It was, back in the sixties, a necessary action for employment at a closed shop at the lumber mill where I took summer employment to work my way through college.  It was without strife, and I was glad to get $2.38/hour instead of the $1.25 I had previously been earning at summer jobs under the then minimum wage rules.  But although my father had been a union member (same "Union Shop" rule, in the timber industry) for much of his working life, it rankled me to give up so much of my pay for a summer job.  Still, I took the offer, and gladly.  I was younger then; naive, and much better looking.

But in the  latest-1990's it was a different story.  I saw, during that one-week strike, people who were prepared to do violence for pay and benefits.  I was much more disturbed than I had been during my military service.

So as a regular full-time employee in 1998 I chose to pay "fair share" rather than to affiliate myself with SEIU.  And I opted out of the frey. And I never had to wear the ugly purple t-shirt!

It's my considered opinion that labor unions are shooting themselves in the foot.   The UAW has shot themselves in their collective feet.  Detroit is a ghost town.  Constant strikes for increased pay, benefits and supplementary income are the reasons why the federal government had to bail out the auto industry during the Bush administration ... and why Fiat now runs Chrysler, instead of the other way around.

What I see in this video, and in my work experience, is a sense of entitlement which beggars belief!  There is the frequent display of arrogance, and that has resulted in violence at these rallies.

When given control of the political process by massed voting power, the 'dependents' and Organized Labor will always choose to vote themselves more governmental support .. more pay for less work.

Lenin was right.  .
  • "totalitarianism and political violence"
  • " ,,,  inequalities in the distribution of goods can be justified so long as they benefit the worst off"
  • but "Rawls's model works on one fateful condition: that there is no resentment . . . Rawls doesn't take into account the irrationality of envy. In capitalist relations today, envy is crucial. Never underestimate the power of envy."
 And ...

"This excess of radicality concretely art­iculates itself in some kind of general moralistic outrage. You get a kind of abstract, moralistic politics in which you ­focus on groups which are obviously underprivileged - other races, gays and so on - and then you explode in all your moralistic rage. This has to do with what you might call our cultural, post-political capitalism, in which the most passionate struggles are cultural ones. A large majority of the left doesn't question liberal democracy and capitalism as such....."

Workers DO rule the world ... and sometimes they are not only running it into the ground, but they have become the new Aristocracy.   That's not a bad thing, until they escalate their demands so drastically that they undermine the economy of the businesses which employ them.

*Again ... look at Detroit. *

This situation will not get better, soon.  By that I mean, businesses will be closing their doors even more often, throwing more workers into unemployability, and the resentment will continue was more workers leave the labor force.

Never mind that they see no reason why they should not employ street violence as a means to an end.

Ultimately, owners are either closing their business because they cannot afford the labor costs, or because they can live on their savings and no longer need to deal with the violence.

Eugene V. Debs notwithstanding.

▶ The Pillow Silencer - Gun Myths with Jerry Miculek in slow motion! - YouTube

▶ The Pillow Silencer - Gun Myths with Jerry Miculek in slow motion! - YouTube: Published on Mar 5, 2014
 Jerry uses a SW MP 9L to test the myth that you can use a pillow as a mock silencer. Ammunition used is Hornady 115gr Critical Defense flex tip.

(H/T: Bearing Arms)
(Video available on YOUTUBE )

I thought that was a surprising experiment, considering the results.

But there was one thing that surprised me even more.

Given the camera angles, it was difficult to tell for sure, but it appeared that Mr. Miculek may have swept himself a couple of times ... perhaps three times.

After the demonstration, he kept his pistol in his hand while he reached down to pick up a prop.  Perhaps twice.  And when he was talking about the results of the test, he kept his pistol in his hand.  At onepoint it appeared that he may have put his fingertip over the muzzle of the pistol.

Sure, the gun was empty .. magazine removed, slide locked back.  Clearly he was in no danger of a negligent discharge.  But still .....

Wednesday, March 05, 2014

Crimea River - Ann Coulter

Crimea River - Ann Coulter - Page full:
(March 05, 2014)
It's pointless to pay attention to foreign policy when a Democrat is president, unless you enjoy having your stomach in a knot. As long as a Democrat sits in the White House, America will be repeatedly humiliated, the world will become a much more dangerous place -- and there's absolutely nothing anybody can do about it. (Though this information might come in handy when voting for president, America!) 

The following stroll down memory lane is but the briefest of summaries. For a full accounting of Democratic national security disasters, please read my book, "Treason: Liberal Treachery From the Cold War to the War on Terrorism."

Ann Coulter, your piquant political perspective and lovable lambasting of Liberal louts should earn you a permanent place in the hearts and minds of conservative Americans forever.   I enjoyed THIS commentary so much that I'll even leave your book-plug in the teaser.

Readers. read the whole thing.  You'll spend more time thinking about it than you spent reading it.

Connecticut: The Coming Storm | Stately McDaniel Manor

Connecticut: The Coming Storm | Stately McDaniel Manor:

Friday, June 27th, 2014, 0-dark-thiry: The politicians have made their decision. By a twist of fate–your file simply happened to be on the top of the stack for no particular reason–you’ll be the first example. A state police SWAT team pull to the curb in front of your home, leap from their van and rush to your front door. Two black-clad men pull back a ram and swing it toward your front door, aiming just above the knob, while the rest of the team waits anxiously, their automatic weapons charged and off safe. Two hope they’ll get the opportunity to shoot. At least one wants to manufacture the opportunity. You’ve made two major mistakes; they will cost your life and destroy your family: you live in a blue state where the governor and legislature have no respect for the Constitution and the lives and liberty of citizens, and you were foolish enough to obey the law.
These people are serious about this.

Connecticut legislators passed a law last year requiring that all 'military style' firearms, and 'high capacity magazines' be registered by the beginning of 2014.

A few residents have complied; most have not ... estimates range to  around 150,000 unregistered firearms and approximately 300,000 to 3 MILLION unregistered "high capacity" magazines (in excess of 10 rounds capacity).

People are starting to wonder .... hey, this is unconstitutional so I'm going to ignore these buffoons,  but what happens when they send armed buffoons to take my guns?"

The link takes you to a fictional "what if?" scenario, which has not been enacted. 


That's right.   People in Connecticut are beginning to wonder how The State is going to enforce these laws.  They're thinking Jack-Booted Gestapo raids in the night.

Read the whole article, right down to the end, and especially click on the red link toward the end to hear the phone call from a concerned wife to a state policeman .... who clearly doesn't know how to answer her questions about "when will you come to take our guns, and what will you do to us?"

These people are serious about this.  Both the State, and the Citizens.

The Shout Heard 'Round The World

[Video] Fed Up Navy Vets Warns CT Lawmakers on Gun Registration: “I Will Not Comply”:

This video is from last year when Connecticut was still debating their gun control bill which included registration for certain weapons that were deemed to be “assault weapons” by the state. The video is just now starting to make the rounds on the web.

Sweet!   Here is a man who stands up for his constitutional rights in front of God and Everybody.

All 12 Members of Georgia Mayors Against Illegal Guns Oppose HB 875. What Else Do You Need to Know? | The Truth About Guns

All 12 Members of Georgia Mayors Against Illegal Guns Oppose HB 875. What Else Do You Need to Know? | The Truth About Guns:
ATLANTA, March 4, 2014 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ —
Twelve Georgia mayors came out in strong opposition to HB 875 today, one of the most aggressive rollbacks of public safety laws of its kind. HB 875 [link added] would expand the scope of Georgia’s existing dangerous Stand Your Ground law to protect criminals, virtually eliminate the crime of carrying guns on college and university campuses, and force cities and towns to allow guns into their government buildings . . .
 Okay, I admit it.  I'm insomniac, and I whittle away the hours by surfing the 'net.

So I bumped into the Bane Blog, and found this really interesting comment and a link to The Truth About Guns.

... and then I read this reproduction of a Press Release, and peppermint tea shot out of my nose all over my keyboard!

I swear, I thought it was a Parody.

Then I realized that maybe it was not.

Oh, go read the thing on TTAG.  Too good to miss, the comments are delicious, and the self-serving arrogance justifies every low opinion of politicians you have ever nurtured in your heart of hearts.

And just in case YOU think it's a parody ... check out the original press release here.

But please, before you go any further .. PUT DOWN YOUR COFFEE CUP!

I'm not kidding!

Americans embrace guns: Glenn Renolds

Americans embrace guns: Column:
(USA Today: March 2, 2014)
 At present, we've reached the point where the Second Amendment can be characterized as ordinary constitutional law. That is, it now protects a right that attaches to individuals, and that those individuals can enforce in federal court.
 Of course "ordinary constitutional law" doesn't mean that everything is settled — in fact, an area in which all the legal questions were settled once and for all would be more like extraordinary constitutional law. But it does mean that questions relating to gun ownership, gun carrying, and the like are now dealt with in the same way that federal courts deal with other questions of constitutional rights.
 Overall, the trend of the past couple of decades seems to be toward expanding gun rights, just as the trend in the 1950s and 1960s was toward expanding free speech rights. America has more guns in private hands than ever before, even as crime rates fall, and, after a half-century or so of anti-gun hysteria, the nation seems to be reverting to its generally gun-friendly traditions.

This is, admittedly, a quote from the middle of a slightly longer opinion article by the Estimable Glenn Reynolds.

Follow the link, RTWT (Read The Whole Thing) not only to follow his lovely history of Defense of the Second Amendment Today, but also to click on, and bookmark, the links to a half=dozen of the most meaningful court cases on Second Amendment Rights in America during the past 100 years.

Oh, he has only hit the top of the list  (Heller, Macdonald, Moore, Peruga) and one can't fault him for ignoring, for example, Miller)   but it's a great way to start your own computerized reference library of links to significant court cases pertaining to RKBA issues.

But we would be disrespecting Reynolds' contribution if we only focused on the links he provided.  That is background only, in this context.

Expansion to Gun Background Checks ... can He do this, legally?

Bypassing Congress, DOJ to Announce Expansion to Gun Background Checks:

The Department of Justice (DOJ) is preparing to announce an expansion of background checks based on executive orders president Obama issued in January 2013. According to The Hill, the expansion consists of "three changes to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS)." Two of the changes "will grant tribal access to NICS and authorize law enforcement agencies to use the system to run full background system checks before returning guns that have been seized or confiscated during the course of investigations." The third change "involves consolidated, electronic storage of information on gun purchases that have been denied via the NICS system." Obama's January 2013 executive orders were issued in response to Adam Lanza's heinous crime at Sandy Hook Elementary.
 My previous article referring to NICBS (NICS) efficacy notwithstanding, the Instant Check System seems destined to be "expanded" per Presidential fiat.

The "expansion" measures (based solely upon this article, so far), seem limited to three areas:

  1. allow "tribal" access to NICS to use the system to run full background system checks before returning guns that have been seized or confiscated during the course of investions.
  2. allow other 'law enforcement agencies' the same access to fun full background system checks
  3. "consolidate electronic storage of information n gun purchases which have been denied via the NICS system"
On the surface, this seems relatively innocuous.

However, the original law which established the NICS system required that all records of transactions be deleted from the system within (a short time .. 24 hours?  One week?  I disremember ...) after the check is completed and found to be permissible.

If the check reveals felonious activities in the history of the purchaser, the transaction is not allowed to transpire ... and data then may be retained.  But if the purchaser's background check shows no sign of criminal activity, the purchase is presumably allowed and .. even if the purchaser changes his/her mind and does not complete the transaction, the information must be deleted.

Either way, the purchaser does not buy the gun; or the purchaser buys the gun, and the federal records are expunged.

So .. what information remains available for "tribal" or "other law enforcement agencies"  to access?

This makes NO sense at all!

The ONLY data which might be available to any LEO agency (tribal or otherwise) would be about a failed transaction which was never consummated.  Therefore, if a subsequent transaction transpired successfully, the records of THAT transaction would be deleted within hours or days.

The only thing that makes sense is if Obama ... again, by presidential fiat ... declared that the restrictions on records retention of the NICS shall be abrogated, and therefore that sales history would remain permanently on NICS databases.

  • this edict is entirely without resources to be enforced, and is without the means to function, or
  • the president is deliberately breaking the law, and obviated the clear mandate of the Congress which passed the law.
Checks and balances.  Are they fair game for The Chosen One?

Brady Law Has Done Little To Keep Guns Out Of Criminals' Hands

Brady Law Has Done Little To Keep Guns Out Of Criminals' Hands -
(Article by Dr. John Lott Jr.: March 03, 2014)
Last Friday marked the 20th anniversary of the so-called Brady Law, a federal gun control in honor of James Brady, Ronald Reagan's former press secretary who was wounded in John Hinckley's assassination attempt. Since it requires background checks on all guns purchased from federally licensed firearms dealers, gun control advocates celebrated the law's purported effectiveness. 
The description by the Capitol newspaper The Hill was typical: "The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, which took effect 20 years ago Friday, has blocked more than 2 million firearm sales, preventing 'countless' killings and other crimes, gun control advocates said at an event to mark the anniversary ... ." 
 On Friday, the Brady Campaign claimed that half those blocked from purchasing a gun — over 1 million — were felons. Impressive numbers. But, alas, both are gross exaggerations.
I'm a great fan of Dr. Lott's moral philosophy.  I have purchased (and read) his book "More Guns, Less Crime" and even if I had not already reached similar conclusions based on personal experience and anecdotal evidence, I would have been swayed by his statistical analysis based on numerous research studies on the subject of civilian firearms ownership.

However, in this article, he brought up two points which I consider ... troubling.

The first point is this statement:

In reality, the "Brady Checks" are quite ineffective in stopping criminals from getting guns. There are actually very few hard-core criminals that are stupid enough to even try to buy a gun from a dealer that does a background check.

 The second point is this statement:

The media don't understand what they are reporting. Getting denied by a Brady check is not the same thing as saying that the person is a prohibited person. The correct terminology here is that there have been more than 2 million "initial denials."
Take the numbers from 2010, the last year the full National Instant Criminal Background Check System [NICBCS*] report  was produced (the Obama administration has stopped releasing this detailed report).
So let us look at these numbers, a relatively typical year. Out of the 76,142 initial denials in the federal system only 44 individuals were prosecuted and only 13 were convicted of illegally trying to purchase a gun when they were prohibited from doing so.
Here are the issues which I find unsettling:
  1. The Obama Administration has discontinued reporting results of the Instant Check System;
  2. Only a pitifully small number of the thousands of "initial denials' resulted in convictions.
The first issue is unsettling only in that it reflects the failure of the Obama regime to present "the most transparent" administration ... as had been promised by the Liar In Chief.   It has nothing to do with the Brady Bill, but with the Obama Administration.

The second issue makes me wonder whether this administration is 'rigorously' prosecuting felons whose actions (attempting to purchase a firearm) make them liable under current law.    OMG, millions of transactions a year, only 44 were deemed worthy of follow-up, and of those only a paultry 13 were convicted.

But, if the numbers are correct and the procedures of Due Diligence were actually, rigorously followed ....

Does this mean the the Brady Bill actually .. works?  If only to force felons to take less convenient steps to (illegally) purchase firearms?

Damn, I hate it when the Feds do something right!  It gives me no talking points at all.

In the meantime ,, where Do criminals get their guns?

Monday, March 03, 2014


I've recently been reading, which not only has a remarkably dynamic proliferation of links to CURRENT firearms-related articles, but also demonstrates a fine appreciation of the quality of authorship.. by which means they sometimes link to articles originating from Cogito Ergo Geek.

More important, they regularly link to sources (both original and 'secondary') which explore new anti-gun regulations at the state level.

For your consideration, here are a couple of the links featured on the current (March 03, 2014) webpage.  Don't bother trying to find these links by going directly to GUNFEED; as I said, they are DYNAMIC so you have to visit the site every day .. the links do not linger long.

Washington Times:    (an interesting source for a 2nd Amendment blog)
Miller: "New Jersey Bill is outright gun ban on .22 rifles and leads to confiscation"
The New Jersey Assembly’s Law and Public Safety Committee was scheduled to hold a public hearing on Monday (postponed for snow) about a bill that reduces the maximum magazine capacity from 15 to 10.
Since the legislation covers both detachable and fixed magazines, it has the effect of to banning popular, low-caliber rifles.
The Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs gave the draft legislation to top firearms experts in the country to determine what guns would fall under the expanded ban.
They discovered that the bill would affect tube-fed, semi-automatic rifles because the magazine cannot be separated from the gun.
Thus, the experts found that at least 43 common rifles would suddenly be considered a prohibited “assault firearm,” such as the .22 caliber Marlin Model 60, Remington Nylon 66 and Winchester 190.
Just having one such gun would turn a law-abiding owner into a felon overnight.
 Gun Free Zone: Idaho University Professor Butthurt About Campus Carry

So Professor Hampikian pen (sic) an opinion piece picked up by the NYT full of “See How Cool I Write And Make Fun If (sic) Rednecks” expressing his passive-agressive (sic) opposition to an Idaho bill that would allow Campus Carry.Let’s check it out
My comments in bold.
When May I Shoot a Student?
TO the chief counsel of the Idaho State Legislature:
In light of the bill permitting guns on our state’s college and university campuses, which is likely to be approved by the state House of Representatives (It was approved yesterday) in the coming days, I have a matter of practical concern that I hope you can help with: When may I shoot a student?
I know you are just being an intellectual asshole but the answer can be found in that marvel of technology called The Internet. If you are uncomfortable with such advanced technology, pick up the frigging phone and call somebody from the Department of Criminal Justice which you are member of and find out.
The examples I've posted here are just a random sample, although that expression shouldn't be interpreted as an attempt to belittle the sources.

I love the smell of napalm in the morning. And I admire and will promote writers who staunchly defend the Second Amendment.

Please consider frequent visits to the gun feed.   It's prominent on my bookmark toolbar, and I visit it every day that I go online. 

Oh, by the way?  I'm intrinsically invested in the issue of "concealed carry on campus".  It makes my aging heart go all pitta-patter to see that this sociopolitical issue is still being debated.

ATF: "PSST! Hey, Kid, wanna sell me your gun?"

ATF under investigation for undercover storefront stings | Fox News:
(March 03, 2014)
Just as America's premier gun-policing agency began to crawl out from under the embarrassment of Operation Fast and Furious, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is again under fire -- this time for tactical mistakes tied to a separate program designed to get crime guns off the street.


Operation Fearless, as it was called, was a multi-city program through which ATF opened roughly 37 pawn shops and storefronts around the country, often in or near gang areas, with the purpose of attracting felons and criminals to unknowingly sell their crime guns to the government. Agents would then trace the weapons to determine their source and use forensics to tie the guns to homicides.
The thing is, they set up 'stores' near schools, including one 'store' located across the street from a Middle School in Portland, Oregon.

Critics of the program say that in the siting of the sting operations, the bureau showed bad judgement.

ATF judgement calls were also criticized in the way the agents used "incentives" to encourage customers.   For example, on at least a few occassions they paid for teens to have tattoos to advertise the 'stores' .. and then later had to pay to have the tattoos removed.

Proponents of the program respond by pointing out that the program did produce the expected hoped-for results.  Several of the purchased firearms were found to link directly to crimes.

But ... not all of the transactions led to their goal.  Sometimes, the agents were unable to purchase the guns they so desperately wanted, as in the case of Bobby Ball, as described by the Milwaukee (Wisconson) Journal Sentinel  (May 16, 2013):

The "gun-walking" incident is the latest failure to be revealed in the flawed "Operation Fearless" sting, run out of a fake storefront in Milwaukee's Riverwest neighborhood. The sting, aimed at catching criminals selling guns and drugs, was run by the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives with help from Milwaukee police.
A congressional letter obtained Thursday by the Journal Sentinel shows the FBI was initially part of the operation but backed out after seeing problems with the way it was being run.
The FBI withdrew from the case in March 2012, after about two months, "due to concerns about the operation's proposed uses of intelligence, operational security and staffing," according to the May 10 letter to ATF acting director B. Todd Jones criticizing the Milwaukee operation.
A spokesman at the FBI's Milwaukee office declined to comment Thursday.
While the FBI apparently did not tell the ATF why it was leaving, "the problems the FBI identified underscore ATF's inadequate policies and procedures for undercover storefront operations," the letter says.
It was written after a congressional staff briefing with ATF officials last month and signed by U.S. Reps. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.); Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee; Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee; and U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
The letter declares Operation Fearless "a spectacular failure."
(See the August 20, 2013 follow-up by the Journal Sentinel here.)


Iranian Grad Student at Georgia Tech’s Homemade Bombs

Wanted: Answers On Iranian Grad Student at Georgia Tech’s Homemade Bombs:
 ("The College Fix", March 3, 2014)

Conservative news watchers want more answers on why an Iranian grad student at Georgia Tech nearly burned himself to death making homemade bombs inside his apartment. The incident happened in early February, but gained new steam over the weekend after Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit and Jim Treacher at The Daily Caller posted items on the explosion, which sent Saamer Akhshabi to the hospital with third-degree burns over 90 percent of his body.
 Further information from the article at "The College Fix":
 According to First Coast News, “Atlanta police (say) … lighter fluid and a charred pillow and mattress were found inside the apartment, along with the Molotov cocktail and several plastic bottles filled with gasoline and kerosene.
“Akhshabi was transported to Grady Memorial Hospital,” the report states. “His biography on Georgia Tech’s website says he’s a PhD student in the school’s College of Computing and attended the University of Tehran in his native Iran before coming to Georgia.”
 Akhshabi must have attended the same bomb-making school, in Iraq, where the instructor blew up his entire class on February 10, 2014.  (Reported at "Jihad Watch"; which article itself is worth a read.)

"War That's Not Ours!"

Karzai slams US government, military in interview ahead of elections | Fox News:
 (March 03, 2014)

Outgoing Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai angrily criticized the U.S. government for its conduct of the war in that country, which he described as being "for the U.S. security and for the Western interests." 

In an interview with The Washington Post published late Sunday, Karzai said that President Barack Obama told him last week that the U.S. would accept having the winner of Afghanistan's April 5 presidential election sign a long-term security pact that would keep some American troops in Afghanistan past the end of this year. Karzai negotiated the agreement with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry this past fall and the deal was ratified by an assembly of Afghan elders known as the loya jirga. Nevertheless, Karzai has refused to sign the deal and made new demands in exchange for putting pen to paper.

Karzai told The Post that he feels "betrayed" by what he says are insufficient efforts by the U.S. to target Taliban strongholds in Pakistan. He also criticized the U.S. for inflicting civilian casualties in various military operation, saying "Afghans died in a war that’s not ours."
(emphasis added)

" ...  war that's not ours."

humm ... let us think about this.

American troops fought *and died* in Afghanistan in a determined effort to oust the Taliban .. and were ultimately successful, but as a cost which came close to ousting an American president.

This, after months of accusations that President Bush was paying too much attention to Iraq, which (according to the Liberal Press) constituted little or no threat to American Sovereignty. And Osama wasn't in Iraq! As a consequence, President Bush directed American forces to emphasize operations in Afghanistan, rather than in Iran.

After  ... literally .... YEARS of effort, American forces succeeded in their Mission Goal, and ousted the Taliban from Afghanistan and helped to install a National Government in Afghanistan, headed by a popular politician named ... oh, WHAT was his name?

Oh, yeah.   Hamid Karzai .

Then Barack Obama was elected to the office of President of the United States of America, under the platform that ... since Stupid Old Bush was waging war where he wasn't wanted, Obama would stop the war.

After being elected President of the United Stated of America, president Obama directed American forces to continue operations in Afghanistan under, basically, the exact same standards a the preceding president.

Meanwhile, American troops continued to die in a war that "wasn't their war" .. but Obama had conveniently forgotten that relatively minor detail.

And President Karza was perfectly happy to watch American troop die in their effort to free Afghanistan from the  political gridlock of the Taliban, and those who would preferentially continue their scorched-earth policies.


Today, for reasons which are poignantly political, rather than being driven by the continuing need to provide security to the people of his country, (outgoing) President Hamid Karzai has decided that (forgive me if I have lost track of the original theme ... it's not really all that obvious) America's continuing military presence in Afghanistan is, somehow, inimical to the leadership and sovereignty of Afghanistan.

He has conveniently forgotten that, sans the American troops in his country, he would be either a political prisoner or a corpse, at the hands of the Taliban.


Babes 'N Arms

Controversy over Facebook photo of baby holding rifle | WTNH: WOODBRIDGE, Conn. (WTNH)–
 (February 25, 2014)
A report it (sic) photo from a viewer is sending shock waves across social media and the state Tuesday. The photo was snapped at a local gun store and it shows a Bolt Action Rifle, resting on a baby’s lap.

That picture of the sixth-month-old baby girl with the rifle in front of her was taken by her father at Woodbridge Firearms Trading Post. He and the store owner say it’s just a picture, others say it’s just wrong.
The baby girl is becoming very popular on social media. The picture of the baby with a rifle resting on her lap was sent in to News 8 through our Report It feature and many are reacting.

“She can’t even speak yet and she has a gun in her hand and it’s bizarre,” said Alexa Grose, Seymour.

We posted comments about the furor over the paternal photo of a 12-year-old boy holding a .22 caliber rifle a few months ago, here.  We considered their outrage humorous, at best, then;  what's more natural than that a father would give his son a .22 rifle as he grows beyond his childhood and approaches adolescence? 

(My father gave me a .30-06 rifle on my 13th birthday, and I thought it was the best present I ever got!   That fall, I went hunting with him and my uncles, and killed my first deer.  It was delicious, and fed us through the winter.  I was never so proud as when my mother cooked a family dinner around the meat which I had literally put on the table.  It was my Protestant "Bar Mitzvah" ... on that day, I was a man!)

The ownership of a weapon is, or at least historically has been, a rite of passage in America.

Now, even touching a weapon is a shameful moment.

The Liberal press, and especially "social websites",  are appalled that a father would put a gun in the hands of an infant!

OMG ... they're right?  Who knows what emotional damage this poor innocent may have incurred.  She may have been infected by the poison of Cold Steel.  The odds that she will become a Serial Murderer have just gone WAY up in a single moment of poor judgement!

Never mind that it was demonstratively NOT LOADED.

Everyone knows that the very touch of The Evil Gun can alter the natural maturation process of a normal human being.  Anyone who has ever watched "The Day of the Evil Gun" (1968, Glenn Ford) knows how carrying a sawed-off shotgun changed Arthur Kennedy's  (40-year-old) character from a gun-loathing, law-abiding, peace-loving Liberal to an Insane Klown Killer Conservative!

And remember the movie "Blue Steel" (1969, Jamie Lee Curtis) when Ron Silver's (40-year-old) character found a .38 Special revolver after a police shoot-out, and the mere possession of it so infected his mind that he went around randomly shooting people?   "A pistol-wielding psychopath!" Thank goodness it was only a six-shot revolver!  He wore a suit, for God's sake!

Still, he was unable to resist the lure.  Which examples prove that just the mere touch of Blued Steel can turn a rational, productive, even Democratic member of Society into the worst murderous savage the world has ever known.

Is no one safe?

(Thank you, Hollywood, for telling it As It Really Is!)


Sunday, March 02, 2014

"Frozen" at the Oscars?

Oscars 2014: Kim Novak's appearance sets off Twitter war | Fox News: \
Actress Kim Novak set off a firestorm in social media following her presentation of an animation award at the 2014 Oscars. Joined by Matthew McConaughey on stage to present an Academy Award for Best Animated Feature, the 81-year-old screen legend struggled to speak, and her face seemed unnaturally stiff. Many went on Twitter to make jokes about the “Vertigo” star, while others rallied to her defense.

For 20 years I've avoided the industrial inanity of the Academy Awards presentations. (And for half that time I've avoided going to the cinema.)  But tonight, out of ennui, I checked out the Oscars news before going to bed.

Bedtime will be delayed a few minutes.

Apparently, the lovely Kim Novak was asked to be a presenter for an animated film award.  In the actual event, one learns, she "struggled" to express herself.

Novak is best known for her role in the 1958 film "Vertigo", playing opposite James Stewart.  Personally, I thought her best performance was in "Bell, Book and Candle", also filmed in 1958 and also playing opposite James Stewart.  But that's neither here nor there, since her career began so early in Cinematic history that she is best known for a movie which was filmed in black-and-white.

Perhaps I appear to be acting in the role of  'protector of her reputation' here, but it seems to me that it is petty to criticize an actor of her experience and maturity if she finds herself challenged to speak in public.

Wondering just what the HECK these people are talking about, I went to YouTube to see what the furor was all about.    If she was, indeed, so inarticulate, I was relieved to see that there are no videos of her presentation available.

But there were a couple of videos of private persons discussing her "performance":

The first was dismissive:

The second was perhaps intended to be "supportive", but ended up rambling and incoherent:

Give the public performances of these two idiots, and assuming that they are representative of her detractors ... I think it's safe to say that Miss Novak's reputation remains unscathed, regardless of the snide comments of the public press and the fools who do no better than the most mind-boggled 81-year-old lady who has earned the admiration of movie goers who actually have a past.

PS: for the dope who published the "dismissive" video --- and who refers to Novak as "he" and "him" ... "Was you there, Charlie?" I don't believe the jerk even was a witness to the moment.  (And you think SHE gave a bad performance!)

Dude ... Kim Novak is a woman.