Saturday, November 07, 2015

It was just a matter of time until "open carry" demonstrators became indistinguishable from mass murderers

Colorado Springs mayor has no 'appetite for' changing city's open-carry law:
November 06, 2015

Officers didn't respond until after the first shots rang out at 8:55 a.m.

At 8:55 a.m., Harpham gunned down a passing bicyclist, Andrew Alan Myers, 35. Officers were then told to stop what they were doing and respond.
Armed with an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle, a .357 revolver and a 9mm pistol, Harpham continued the rampage. He killed Jennifer Vasquez, 42 and Christy Galella, 35, before dying in a shootout with Colorado Springs police.

How does a LEO know when an "open carry" fanatic is discovered to be a potential "mass murder"?
Answer, He doesn't.
"You legalize it to be OK to carry a gun - and the hard part of that is it only takes moments to level the barrel of a gun and shoot someone," Jackson said. "So these weapons are there legally. Many people can legally carry them. And sometimes really bad things happen."

This is just one of the reasons why I don't appreciate people abusing the "open carry" law, which they seem to do for the sole purpose of performing "in your face" demonstrations.

Or, in other words:  "I do this, because I can, and you can't stop me."

It's impossible for a LEO to know the difference between a protester, and a murderer, until the blood runs in the gutters.

That's not acceptable.

Guys, I understand that the new laws make it permissible to "open carry" but you have a responsibility to your community.  "Making a legal point" is no excuse for creating a disturbance.

 Legitimate  "Open Carry" was not evolved so you could prance around with a rifle on your shoulder; it was created so that you could just do normal "stuff".  Deliberately flaunting firearms is not the way to convince "other people" that you are a responsible gun-owner

And so, when a certifiable maniac shows up looking exactly like a "right to carry protester", there is no way for police to tell the difference between a capering protester (like you) and a legitimate threat to public safety.

"Right To Carry" demonstrators are no longer just making the rest of the law-abiding firearms owners look bad.

They (YOU!) have muddied the waters so thoroughly that innocents are being killed without the police protection they deserve, because YOU  (Yes, YOU!) have generated an environment where a murderer looks just like you.

So, I'm asking you to down-grade your rhetoric; because you're not making things better, you're making things worse.

If you were the kind of people that I enjoy sharing range-time with, I would not have to spell it out to you like this.

But you're not.  You don't even realize how your political activities make it easier for a mass murderer to hid himself among the smoke-screen you create, so he can do the things which you would never do; which is to say, he can murder people because folks think he's just another over-toe-top protester:

"You legalize it to be OK to carry a gun - and the hard part of that is it only takes moments to level the barrel of a gun and shoot someone," Jackson said. "So these weapons are there legally. Many people can legally carry them. And sometimes really bad things happen."

You're a bunch of idiots with guns, and even *_I_* don't want to be associated with you!

The Supreme Court: What Will They Do? (Firearms capacity Limitations)

If  the supreme court decides that the states have the right to limit firearms capacity limitations, then what limits ARE acceptable?

Some states/communities are saying that they will not allow magazines which allow more than  rounds; some say "more than 10 rounds".

So which is right, and why?  Can (should!) states have the right to limit the magazine capacity of ANY firearm in their sphere of influence.  And if so, why?
And if SO ... how many rounds is "okay", and if one more round is in the magazine, what is the appropriate punishment for flaunting the Law of the Land?

Or is that crap any more reasonable than any other arbitrary law which will have no effect on Crime in the City!


Several issues are on the SCOTUS venue for the coming judicial year (which always starts in October), and those with the highest profiles often consider Firearm Rights.

*(Also sometimes referred to as "impositions on the Second Amendment" cases.)

One of the most common applications of the Second Amendment is whether the various states have the RIGHT to impose restrictions on magazine capacity.

I am not certain how the Supreme Court of the United States can rule on this issue, given  the confusing matrix of state and local laws in reference to magazine capacity.

It's not so much the number of rounds which may be contained in a "legal" magazine, but the secondary laws which include unrealistic limitations.

One of my personal favorites is the genre of laws which render fire-arms "illegal" if they violate any law which looks something like this:

  • Accepts a magazine which may contain more than 8 (eight) rounds of ammunition ..


  • Accepts a magazine which may contain more than 10 (ten) rounds of ammunition .
Do you see the issue?  In their rush to forbid any firearm by introducing secondary and inconsequential characteristics, Gun-Control Moonbats completely ignore the physical characteristics of firearms, and assume that (for example) a pistol which will accept a 7-round magazine will not accept an 8-round magazine.  

(The example, of course, holds true for a 10-round magazine, for any firearms in which the magazine is not fully-enclosed when the firearm is in a 'firing' configuration.)

In other words, these highly-trained, college-educated Lawyers who constitute our State and National lawmakers are so ignorant that they do not realize that the laws they propose are impossible to obey.


If such "Magazine-Capacity Limits" laws are accepted and enacted, the various states (or the whole nation, if the verbiage is accepted in Federal Court), then any firearm which accepts ANY magazine length will immediately become regulated by a standard which does not necessarily apply to them.

So if you 1911 was originally constructed with the magazine designs of 1911, and only 'expects' a 7-round magazine, that does not protect it from the Gun Grabbers.

In fact, recent magazine follower designs have made the 8-round version equally acceptable to the 1911 Single-Stack pistol as the original 7-round magazine.

Extended magazines (such as the popular Chip McCormick design) would as easily alloy 10-magazines to feed quite as easily into almost any 1911 Single-stack frame.  And they magazines and the frame would both be illegal under proposed Gun Control Rules.


It's hard to tell about Lawyers:

Are they ignorant, ill-informed, crafty, disingenuous, misinformed, confused, or merely the lying bags o'shit which they seem to be.  These four things are clear:
  1. laws are often directed by congressmen
  2. congressmen are lawyers who couldn't make it in the legal field
  3. If you assume that Lawyers who draft laws  do not understand the nuances of the subject, they will hand you your ass and smile smugly all the while
  4. There is no Number 4


Do not, ever, accept a law which include "magazine limitations" as any part .. even a minor part .. of the law.  The number is arbitrary, it doesn't mean a DAMN thing to anybody but the lawyers, and as soon as you accept a number (ANY number!) then you can be quite certain that someone will come up with a "new number" ...  which doesn't seem significantly different from the "old number" ... and they whittle your gun rights down to "ONE ROUND" sooner or later.

Probably sooner.


HOW do you deal with a seemingly reasonable proposal from your local legislators .. City, County, State .. whatever)?

FIRST:  they are lying about their agenda.

The people who want to take your guns away (don't believe that isn't what they want to do; they just realize that it's a steep hill and they will take one step at a time to undermine YOUR constitutional rights) will say anything to meet your goal.

They have an advantage over you.  They can say anything; you are restricted by the truth.

There are many truths.  For example, when they bring up the issue of 
"we license cars, why shouldn't we license guns"
.... cars are not protected in the constitution; guns are.

SECOND:  They will undermine your agenda

Politicians seem to be genetically obliged to make laws.  It's how they justify their existance.  Every time they make a law which restricts your 2nd Amendment Rights, you should look very carefully at the law.

Does it make sense?  What is the purpose?  Does it seem designed to make people "feel Safe"?  (NOT a constitutional requirement!)

Look at the records of the legislators who have made a LOT of laws.  Note that the laws they make are usually designed to prevent you or others from doing ... "something".  If that "something" isn't already prevented, or if it's a Constitutional right, then assume it's a Stalking Horse and kill it!

THIRD:   They will chide you for being so reluctant to accept "reasonable, common-sense" rules

There are no "common-sense" rules, or laws, when it comes to the Second Amendment.  
"Shall Not Be Infringed" means that if you are a legal citizen of the country and someone proposes a law which will affect (adversely) your ownership of a firearm ... AND THE AMMUNITION NEEDED TO FUEL IT ... then it's not constitutional and you have no obligation to obey it.

The Supreme Court will rule on these laws, if they are called upon to accept the onus and if they choose to address the issue.  Under extreme pressure from state or local government, you may be obliged to determine whether your constitutional right will be locally recognized.  Yes, there are police and sheriff departments which are unclear about what their duties to the public entail.

PLEASE NOTE: there is a movement in this country involving people who understand their constitutional rights, and they have already decided that they WILL NOT COMPLY to "local (unconstitutional) laws which limit their rights.  See Colorado

If you decide to exercise your Constitutional Rights even though they conflict with local laws, then you may be subject to local prosecution.  You may fight that prosecution; you may lose.

WILL NOT COMPLY:  Firearm owners have already stated the the "Will Not Comply" with local firearms laws in the following states:

The thing about INSURRECTION is that law enforcement officers are reluctant to do house-intrusions on people with whom the often have philosophical agreement, and who are not REALLY being a threat to peace and law in their community.

They just don't want to abide to unconstitutional and arbitrary laws.

And in some cases, are willing to respond to aggression with aggression.  Which NOBODY WANTS!

Obama: “I bet when I die you’ll be happy to pee on my grave”

Obama: “I bet when I die you’ll be happy to pee on my grave”:
This is a true story.
General Stanley McChrystal was the Commander of US Forces in Afghanistan and he had frequent disagreements on the conduct of the war with his Commander-in-Chief. At one point McChrystal was called into the Oval Office and he knew his Army career was about to be over.

This is not a true story.  I only include it here to demonstrate the kind of made-up trash we need to wade through before we find news-worthy content.

This article does not meet the smell-test.

Friday, November 06, 2015

Hello! You don't have a right to "feel safe". You have a right to "protect yourself"!

The Equality Argument For Gun Control Jacob Schuman:

The fact is, the widespread availability of guns is a significant, but often overlooked, cause of persistent inequality in the United States. Focusing on the relationship between guns and inequality will allow gun control advocates to argue that restricting firearm access is an essential step towards achieving social justice and economic empowerment.
Jacob, where in the Constitution of the United States do you find "the right to feel safe"?

That seems to be what you are arguing for.

The Second Amendment acknowledges your God given right to protect yourself, your family, your home, your property.   What else are you asking for?

The first way that guns drive inequality is by making life more violent and less stable for people living in economically disadvantaged communities. Crime rates, especially violent crime rates, are higher in poorer neighborhoods. While this is true across the world, and is likely to remain so, open access to firearms in the United States makes these crimes easier to commit, more lethal, and more destructive of community life.
"Economically disadvantaged communities" are poor neighborhoods.  Single-parent households, no "father figure" present, mothers raising children and trying to earn a living (or dependent on "aid to dependent children" income, which financially awards unwed mothers).

These aren't indicators of inequality; these are indicators of a societal factor which accepts governmental dependency.   It has NOTHING to do with the presence of firearms, except that young men in these dependent conditions are faced with no job alternatives other than crime; they see the people driving big cars, and they are the people with guns.

Because poor people cannot afford guns; they need to eat.

'Smart guns' may not work fast enough for some, expert says. Michigan reports!

'Smart guns' may not work fast enough for some, expert says - WNEM TV 5:
(November 02, 2015)
 The Gun Store owner Bob Irwin said some police officers have holsters available to them with fingerprint technology, but many don’t use them because they can be unreliable. Irwin said the technology may not work fast enough in a life or death situation if the hand is sweaty, bloody or covered while using a glove. “There’s all sorts of things that technology doesn’t allow for in the chaos of self-defense,” Irwin said.
This is terrific news!

No .. not the news that "smart guns" are about as smart as "smart phones" (we already knew that, and it's a canard on the word "smart"), but that a Saginaw Michigan news channel has picked up a FOX5 newsfeed from Reno and are running the story on their website.

Must be a slow newsday in Michigan.

Oh.  Michigan. Right.  Never mind.   They love ANY story that doesn't come out of Detroit!

Bad Judgement

Woman Who Bought Gun for Cop Killer Gets 1 Yr Probation:
(November 06,2015)
 On November 2 Obama-nominated U.S. District Judge Eleanor L. Ross gave one year probation to a woman who admitted buying a gun for her boyfriend, which he later used to shoot and kill Omaha Police Officer Kerrie Orozco.

One assumes that the charge was lying on the BATF form.

Why wasn't she charged with (a) being an accomplice to murder, or at least (b) negligent homicide by proxy.   (Okay, I made that last one up.)

Compare this to the usual Liberal pap which insists that firearms manufacturers should be legally responsible for murders caused by the RETAIL purchasers of firearms the manufacturer sold to a retail dealer.

Honestly, the Gun Control arena is becoming so complicated it's sometimes difficult to tell the right from the left.

Thursday, November 05, 2015

Zero Tolerance for T-shirts in Oregon: Rivrdog

My friend Rivrdog is protesting a Porland, Oregon school district decision which sent a studtnt home for wearing a shirt ".. with Battlefleld Cross .." on it.

Nom de plume: Rivrdog: Back to School:

Back to School ...back to the School Board, that is... The Gresham/Barlow School District, which sent a student home for wearing a t-shirt with the Battlefield Cross on it, is meeting tonight. Yours truly will put on a coat and tie, my Oregon Honorable Service Medal, and sortie out to remind said School Board what Citizenship means. 
The story is available on video here!   *(Sorry, direct link not immediately available)

See here\ for commentary.

An eighth-grader was sent home from school for wearing a t-shirt honoring fallen troops—because it had a gun on it.
The principal at Dexter McCarty Middle School in Gresham, Ore., gave Alan Holmes a choice: Remove the shirt, which bore the message "‘Standing for Those Who Stood for Us," or leave school.
His father came to pick him up.
"They won't let me wear a shirt that supports the people that keep us free, I'm not gonna support them," Alan said.
Alan's family stood by his decision and his father said he would have done the same thing.
Good for him.  I'm not sure I would have demonstrated such courage when I was his age.

NRA enters debate on gun shows at fairgrounds

NRA enters debate on gun shows at fairgrounds:
(November 05, 2015)
NASHVILLE — The nation’s largest lobbying organization for gun rights has come to the aid of gun shows held at Nashville’s city-owned fairgrounds as the events draw greater scrutiny from the board that manages the property.
[Hat Tip: Say Uncle]

In Nashville ..... NASHVILLE!!???? ... the board of directors for the fairgrounds is contemplating the feasibility of eliminating gun shows on Country property.

There is no proposal to halt gun shows at the Nashville’s fairgrounds — however, fair board commissioner Kenny Byrd has suggested that a communitywide discussion take place to see whether the public wants to continue gun shows on property that belongs to Metro. That push comes amid proposed regulations floated by he and other fair commissioners they say are aimed at safety.
Well, they've been hosting gun shows for 3 decades and never had a problem.  But ....

On Tuesday Byrd criticized Bill Goodman’s Gun and Knife Shows for its policy of not allowing cameras and media at its events and demanded that it be overhauled.
He also grilled David Goodman, who manages the gun show, for what Byrd called objectionable paraphernalia he learned has been sold at Goodman's gun shows at the fairgrounds. They include stickers that read, “Keep America Free: Shoot a liberal,” and a T-shirt that features the Confederate flag alongside the words, “Defending freedom since 1861.”
“That’s not family-friendly events,” Byrd said. “I’m a liberal. I don’t want to be shot … and I don’t want you selling stuff with that message."
I was shocked .... SHOCKED! ... when I read that Byrd turned out to be a liberal.

Could it be that Commissioner Byrd was not as concerned with the safety of the general public, but more with the safety of Commissioner Byrd's precious self?   So much for representing The People.

“There’s things going on (at these gun shows) that this board would not appreciate,” Byrd said. “And we can’t come in and record a video or take pictures of what’s going on. That needs to change right there.”
Welcome to 1984, brought to you by your friendly neighborhood Big Brother.

Something like this occurred several years ago here in Benton County, Oregon.

Wednesday, November 04, 2015

Unarmed Defense against an Armed Attacker: a last-ditch solution

I've watched a lot of videos on YouTube where an "instructor" teaches "students" to disarm an attacker who is pointing a gun at them.

Do you believe that the techniques being taught there are going to save your live?

No, I don't either.  Perhaps they are better than 'doing nothing', but I'm not sure about that either.

What DOES concern me is that there are some gentle folks who watch these videos, and say to themselves: "Okay, got it.  I'm now prepared to defend myself against an armed attacker" ...

... and that's as far as they go.  They haven't done anything physically to prepare themselves, but they saw this guy slap the gun out of the hand of this other guy, and it looks easy to them.  So they don't have to do anything more constructive than watch a movie.

What the French Train Attack Doesn’t Prove | chrishernandezauthor:
(August 25, 2015)

 I’m a cop and I’ve always got a gun; if I’m minding my own business in a convenience store and a criminal with a pistol suddenly comes around the corner, and is within arm’s reach, the best thing to do is probably attempt to disarm him before he can shoot me. I’ll go for my gun eventually, but the first priority is to get control of the criminal’s gun. THAT DOESN’T MEAN IT’S ALWAYS BEST TO GO HAND-TO-HAND AGAINST A GUN. It just means that not every situation is the same, and sometimes you don’t have time to go for a weapon. In almost every incident where unarmed people took down an armed murderer, it was because they had no other options. It wasn’t because they were better off unarmed.

Okay, posit this:
I watched the move "Jeremiah Johnson" eight times, and now I'm fully prepared to live through Rocky Mountain Winters for decades by trapping beavers and carrying a percussion cap rifle.

 ("But by Gawd it were a Hawkins!")

Okay, posit this:

Election 2016: Dem Pols Vie for #1 Gun-Grabber Honors

Following Hillary Clinton's "Australian Solution" speech, not one but TWO Democrats have gone on record as being aggressively "Pro Gun Control".

Apparently, they are the first to firmly grasp the horns of the anti-gun Bull.  While Democrats have avoided Gun Control since what's-his-name (you do remember The Loser Al Gore?) lost his presidential bid when even his home state of Tennessee voted against him, apparently Hillary has made it popular again.

No more is Gun Control the Kiss of Death for politicians.   Maybe.

Fighting it out for the honor of being the leader in anti-gun legislation leading up to the 2016 election year are  Charles Schumer and Martin O'Mally.

These guys are nucking futs!  But their politics SOUND good, if you don't look too closely at what they actually say.

So, you think you know everything there is to know about the 1911?

Quiz: How well do you know the M1911 Pistol? - Guns & Ammo:

I have been shooting the 1911 for the past 50+ years, and I thought I knew everything that was important about the iconic semi-automatic pistol frame.

As it happens, I was wrong.

VERY wrong; I got 3 out of ten questions wrong.

Go ahead, take the test.  You may discover that you're as ignorant as I am!

Tuesday, November 03, 2015

Yes, They Want to Take Your Guns Away!

Yes, They Want to Take Your Guns Away - The Daily Beast:

 Why don’t gun-control advocates like Hillary Clinton talk about the one gun control solution that could actually fix the firearms problem in America?
Sometimes I love The Daily Beast, sometimes I hate it.  But you got to admit, there's often content that makes you go .... "Hmmmmmm ...."

Contributor James Kirchick  (herein: "The Author") uses big words that I had to look up to examine why Total Confiscation Of All Guns would be the ideal "solution" to the "Gun Control Problem",

But it will probably never happen.

Why not?


(there, I've said it)

The perennial “national conversation” about guns is predictably stale because its contestants—those favoring a largely unfettered right to personal gun ownership and those opposing it—are talking past each other. Prevarication characterizes the debate, as each side adheres to a core principle that, for reasons of propriety and political calculation, it is unwilling to admit publicly. 
In other words, everybody lies.  Liberals say they don't want to take your guns away; Conservatives say YES YOU DO!
 Liberals say 'oh, no, of course not .. we couldn't, because you would shoot us!'

Liberals think they're making a talking point.  Conservatives think this is a Nuclear Option.

The core principles The Author talks about are this:
  • Gun Control People: if there were no guns, there would be no gun deaths
  • Gun Rights People: if there were no LEGAL guns, criminals would still have them and honest people would be defenseless victims
There are some truths to each side.

If in an imaginary "perfect world" (as the author describes):

.... the United States would never have had the Second Amendment. But such a country—one not forged in armed revolution against arbitrary rule from afar and founded upon the principle of individual liberty—would not be the United States, with all its virtues and vices.
Well, perhaps.

On the other hand: the handicapped, women and old people would be at the mercy of brawny men who are physically stronger than their victims.   Speaking for the "old people" contingent, I know that if somebody broke into my home (Liberals insist this rarely happens, regardless of dailynews reports to the contrary) I would be unable to physically resist them.

What was that quote?  Oh yes ..

“Abe Lincoln may have freed all men, but Sam Colt made them equal”. 

The author of the article holds an opinion which seems to be that the world would be much, much better if there were no guns.

There's a old saying, to the effect that "A Liberal is a man who has been arrested; a Conservative is a man who has been mugged."

I'm not saying anything about the author's legal past, of course.  It's just an adage, which is obviously not applicable to anyone specifically.

I'm sure the author doesn't REALLY believe that the world would be a more peaceful place without guns.

... (thinking, thinking, thinking ....)

Okay, I'm not at all sure about that:
I think the author is a total dork who has a completely unrealistic concept of what predators will do when the defensive instincts of nature are removed, and the lions are asked to lie down with the lambs ... and the lambs agree.   The author constructs his postulations so exquisitely that it is often difficult to understand exactly what he is saying.

Short interpretation: the author thinks that firearms owners are rabid chipmunks with machine guns and absolutely NO sense of Societal Responsibility .. because guys with guns only think about themselves, not about The Greater Good.

Sunday, November 01, 2015

How New California Gun Laws Are Calculated To Screw You, if you own a gun

California Lt. Gov. Takes Detour on Pot, Embraces More Gun Control -
(October 30, 2015)
 [California's Democratic Lt. Governor Gavin] Newsom and the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence have yet to release the language of the proposed statewide initiative, but the group has announced the basic parameters of the proposal. It would prohibit the possession of large-capacity magazines – thus forcing the owners to surrender something they had acquired legally.

Other factors of Newsom's initiative:

  • Requires licensing of ammo vendors
  • Point of sale background checks for ammo purchase
  • Confiscation of firearms owned by people under a restraining order or crime conviction
  • Requires immediate reporting of lost and/or stolen firearm
  • Provides "... a process for better sharing data with the feds"
Let's look at some of these 'provisions', starting with:

Define "large capacity".  I'm thinking ten rounds, which seems to be the Gold Standard. May be eight, probably not less than six-rounds.  (Revolvers set the standard, y'know, and if not ..what about 8-round revolvers?)

The problem is not that you have to reload more often, but that you have to carry more magazines in order to provide adequate firepower in a defensive situation.