Thursday, October 08, 2015

Wish I had said this!

Alleged intent of gun control vs. actual observable goals - Oleg Volk:

Gun control is unacceptable because it actively degrades defensive capabilities of non-violent people. They view a peaceful person with a pistol as a bigger problem than a violent person with bare hands or a shank, while the opposite is true. Degrading or eliminating the ability to protect self and family from human or animal predators is an utterly evil purpose. By design – not as an accidental side effect – gun control makes people helpless, fearful and dependent on the authorities who promise safety but cannot deliver it. The only way a person could be kept mostly safe by authorities is with the level of protection afforded to the president. Strange that the politicians enjoy their armed bodyguards instead of dismissing them to “reduce gun violence”.


Obama: "It Shouldn't Be Routine" vs Bush: Stuff Happens"

Republicans Accept Mass Killings. Gun Control Advocates, Get Graphic. | The New Republic:
October 08, 2015

But even thinking in the most cynical terms, throwing “stuff happens” in Bush’s face to suggest he has no sympathy for victims of gun violence is a tactical error as well as an intellectual one. “Stuff happens,” Bush said. “There’s always a crisis. And the impulse is always to do something and it’s not always the right thing to do.” The trouble with this statement isn’t the phrase “stuff happens,” or even the (completely uncontroversial) observation that sometimes crises and tragedies have no obvious government remedies. The trouble is that Bush both ceded the point that some crises do merit government action, and also suggested that routine mass killings don’t fall into this category. “Stuff happens” wasn’t Bush’s response to the killings in Oregon last week—it’s the essence of his overall gun control policy, and the gun control policy of the entire Republican Party. Killing is senseless, but guns are great, and we must accept killings as a price of our freedom to own them.
Oh, Bullshit!

Concealed Carry allowed at Kansas Universities? I'll believe it when I see it!

Kansas regents prepare to open universities to guns under new law | The Kansas City Star:
- October 05, 2015
As the nation mourns those killed in last week’s mass shooting at an Oregon community college, Kansas universities are preparing to implement a law that will allow most people to carry concealed firearms without a permit on campus. Kansas public universities have authority to ban guns on campus. That will change on July 1, 2017, when they’ll be required to open their institutions to concealed weapons. The Kansas Board of Regents, which sets policy for the state university system, is studying where and how guns can be controlled without violating the law, said board chairman Shane Bangerter.
Wow, THIS one caught me by surprise!

Will the last American to leave San Francisco please turn out the lights?

Last Gun Store in San Francisco Set to Close After 63 Years in Business: ‘Enough Is Enough’ | Video | SAN FRANCISCO (AP)
October 05, 2015 — The only gun store in San Francisco is shuttering for good, saying it can no longer operate in the city’s political climate of increased gun control regulations and vocal opposition to its business. “It’s with tremendous sadness and regret that I have to announce we are closing our shop,” High Bridge Arms manager Steve Alcairo announced in a Facebook post on Sept. 11. “It has been a long and difficult ride, but a great pleasure to be your last San Francisco gun shop.”

This is no joke.  Increasingly inane civil regulations have finally driven ALL gun stores out of San Francisco.

Wednesday, October 07, 2015

In Chicago, The Poor Can’t Afford To Defend Themselves | The Gormogons

In Chicago, The Poor Can’t Afford To Defend Themselves | The Gormogons:
... ultimately, Supt. McCarthy is just a carny suckering voters in. And his record shows it: a 21% increase in murders when, nationally, violent crime rates are dropping like a stone. And McCarthy has denied the evidence that widening the spread of private firearm carrying will lower crime rates—not because he has counter-evidence that would surprise everybody, but because his Democrat overlords have told him what to say.
[H/T: Borepatch]

I've spent a lot of time denigrating the police-presence in Chicago, and their serial failures to address the "gun violence" there .. in this most gun-control active metropolis in the nation.

It's nice to see that I'm not the only one outraged by the municipal slaughterhouse.

Um .. no.  Bad choice of words.
There's nothing "NICE" about Chicago's inability to control Gun Violence.

Perhaps they might try letting honest citizens own and carry firearms.  At least, the bad guys might be a little more cautious about trying to shoot The Good Guys.

The Underside of the Umpqua School Shooter

Oregon shooter: New details emerge about Chris Harper-Mercer |

This article isn't particularly informative, but one of the comments was!

I'm going to include the entire comment (from someone who knew the freak as a child) because I think it serves a purpose:  it gives us an insight to the warped personality from his earliest years.

This is an article, authored by "BENJI", a self-identified name in the comments section.  I don't know if it's true, or made up.  But it's chilling.

And it may be applicable to this incident.

Note that the author doesn't claim that the child described here is the Oregon School Shooter.

Monday, October 05, 2015

There is nothing new under the sun

Obama Preparing More Executive Actions on Gun Control:
October 05, 2015
 The White House confirmed that President Obama was preparing a series of executive actions on gun control to match his recent passion on the issue after the latest mass shooting in Oregon.
... “I can tell you that they’re not stumped, they’re continuing to review the law that’s on the books and continuing to consult with legal authorities but also others who may have ideas about what steps that can be taken to keep guns out of the hands of criminals,” Earnest said.
Oh.  Wow.  I'm REALLY impressed!

But in my implacable powers, I have the ability to predict EXACTLY the measures that The White House will implement to insure that firearms deaths are never again a threat in this Great Nation!

See here.

The five extra words that can fix the Second Amendment

The five extra words that can fix the Second Amendment - The Washington Post:
John Paul Stevens served as an associate justice of the Supreme Court from 1975 to 2010. This essay is excerpted from his new book, “Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution.”
Stevens Biography:
Nominated by President Nixon to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, succeeding Elmer J. Schnackenberg, confirmed by the United States Senate on October 14, 1970; and took oath of office on November 2, 1970.
Nominated by President Ford as Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court on December 1, 1975; confirmed by the United States Senate on December 17, 1975; and took oath of office on December 19, 1975.

Stevens on The Second Amendment:

(I'm not convinced that I agree with Justice Stevens in regards to the meaning of the Second Amendment.  He seems to believe that .. no, let me quote what he SAYS he believes):
 The Second Amendment expressly endorsed the substantive common-law rule that protected the citizen’s right (and duty) to keep and bear arms when serving in a state militia. In its decision in Heller, however, the majority interpreted the amendment as though its draftsmen were primarily motivated by an interest in protecting the common-law right of self-defense. But that common-law right is a procedural right that has always been available to the defendant in criminal proceedings in every state. The notion that the states were concerned about possible infringement of that right by the federal government is really quite absurd.
[emphasis added]

I did not get a sense, in the original document, of how "... that common-law right is a procedural right that has always been available to the defendant in criminal proceedings in every state".

I do wish he had been more forthcoming with his reasoning.

My understanding is that American Citizens have had to deal with governmental infringements on the 2nd Amendment for .. always?  Elsewhere in the article, he cites Miller as an example, and I have to say that I am not persuaded by his casual reference as MILLER was NEVER defended in appeals court, so the decision went to the Government by default.  But still, it stands as a precedent, and must be heeded by stare decisis.

My interpretation (you are invited to debate) is that Justice Stevens does NOT believe that the Second Amendment acknowledges the right of citizens to arm themselves for the protection of their lives, their family and their property ... but only in defense of the nation and only while serving as a "member of the militia".

Here are other remarks which Justice Stevens included last year to clarify his position vis-a-vis the "anomalous " arming of civilians,  Essentially, he proposed to amend the second amendment to limit the rights of citizens to "keep and bear arms".

 As a result of the rulings in Heller and McDonald, the Second Amendment, which was adopted to protect the states from federal interference with their power to ensure that their militias were “well regulated,” has given federal judges the ultimate power to determine the validity of state regulations of both civilian and militia-related uses of arms. That anomalous result can be avoided by adding five words to the text of the Second Amendment to make it unambiguously conform to the original intent of its draftsmen. As so amended, it would read:
 “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.”
 Emotional claims that the right to possess deadly weapons is so important that it is protected by the federal Constitution distort intelligent debate about the wisdom of particular aspects of proposed legislation designed to minimize the slaughter caused by the prevalence of guns in private hands. Those emotional arguments would be nullified by the adoption of my proposed amendment. The amendment certainly would not silence the powerful voice of the gun lobby; it would merely eliminate its ability to advance one mistaken argument.
[emphasis in the original]
[highlights added]

No, I'm not making a statement or an argument.  Merely providing some information about the retires Justice of SCOUSA who was nominated and confirmed by Republican President(s).

Well .. Justice Stevens DOES seem a bit testy, in my mind.  But I'm sure that if he were to read what *_I_* have written, he would describe me as "testy" as well.  (And I would consider that a compliment!)

Fisking Hillary on Gun Control

I am SO tired of bloviating politicians.  Unfortunately, that's the only kind we've got.

Hillary Clinton's gun-control plan - Business Insider:
  "It's time to act on gun violence. We simply cannot accept as normal 33,000 gun deaths a year,"

[hat tip: David Hardy]

Hill The Pill is going to fix all our problems, with one simple gesture.

Actually, it's SEVEN "gestures" ... all of them flawed one way or another:

#1: Universal FEDERAL Background Checks

  • Without justification, will not stop "mass shootings".
  • Individuals cannot perform background checks; only licensed dealers can.  They charge anywhere from $30 to $60 to perform that service. 
  • Suggests that the serial number and the make/model etc. description of the gun be entered, which amounts to registration as there is currently NO laws restricting record-keeping of civilian background check information.
  • Not enforceable, as there is no way that Law Enforcement Officers can know when a private sale is being transacted.

Sunday, October 04, 2015

What are your guns worth, if the government declares all guns illegal and offers to buy them back?

So the Oregon shooter’s guns were legal. Now what? (October 03, 2015) Hot Air:

From the liberal, gun grabbing side of the discussion there is one remedy which would – eventually – cut down on mass shootings. It involves eliminating all of the guns on the planet. Owing to the fact that the majority of Americans still value gun rights and view private gun ownership as a positive force in protecting themselves from evil, Democrats are loathe to say the words out loud, but that doesn’t mean that they wouldn’t like to see it happen. Unfortunately, the gun genie is out of the bottle
What a fascinating question?  And nobody wants to touch this one!

What's the value of your grandfather's Winchester lever action .30-30?

Your STI Open Pistol, that you payed $3500 for?

Your 1911 .45acp built in 1918?

No, there's no way that a Gun Buy Back Scheme is going to work in America.

Australia managed a gun buy-back scheme.  It didn't satisfy a lot of people.
But THEY made it work, because ... essentially, a bunch of expatriate Brits.
You know ... "obey the law because it is the law" kind of people?


UCC Was Not A 'Gun Free Zone'

UCC Was Not A 'Gun Free Zone' Because Public Colleges In Oregon Can't Ban Guns | ThinkProgress:

Yes, it was.
They're liberals, they lie .. but they are so sly and we are so stupid that sometimes we even tempted to believe them!

They say that we CAN carry guns on campus to defend ourselves, but they carefully don't mention the fly in the ointment:   Oregon State Colleges (Universities) can keep you from carrying a weapon on any campus by simply refusing you permission to "carry" inside any building (or all buildings) by simply denying you permission.  And it's legal.

Roseburg, Oregon is in Douglas County, and even the county sheriff  has said that he will not enforce certain Oregon laws which are, in his words, "not enforceable",  But that doesn't mean that the laws are not still in force.


Think Progress made an effort to dispute the GUN FREE ZONE issue, which many pro-gun people have cited as the reason why the murderer chose that venue for his massacre,

On Thursday, a shooter reported killed at least 13 people and injured many others at a community college in Oregon. Just minutes after the incident, commentators sought to attribute the incident to the fact that Umpqua Community College was a “gun free zone.” “The gun free zones are the areas that tell licensed gun owners that you are not allowed to carry your weapon in this facility…If you’re going to perpetrate some act, you know that most people are not going to be armed,” CNN “military analyst” Rick Francona said a few minutes after the shooting. A retired Navy Seal, Jonathan Gilliam, also appearing on CNN, went even further. Blaming the “gun free zone” for the scope of the tragedy and adding “the only thing that’s going to stop a gun is another gun.”

Okay so far, but here's the unspoken hitch:  You NEED PERMISSION to carry a gun on campus, and you can get permission; but you have to ask for it.  Oh, like how long is THAT going to take?